Kadee NEM Couplers on Bachmann 4MT Tank

Has anyone else noticed that the NEM socket on the Bachmann 4MT is a different height on the front than the back, and that Bachmann's own tension lock couplings have the bar at different heights in relation to the plug pins to account for the socket being at different heights?
And if you have noticed, have you tried to fit NEM Kadees 17-20 to them on the 4MT tank? If so, how have you overcome the fact that the Kadee NEMs don't have different heights for the knuckle like pretty much the rest of the Kadee range and so on the back come out too high and on the front come out too low?
Ian J.

  Quoted Text Here  
Isn't it time Bachmann came out with their own Kadee look-alikes, with different cranked shafts to fit the NEM coupler pockets?

"John Sullivan" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
The Bachmann Kadee *look-alike* is generally regarded as inferior to genuine Kadee couplers and most of the US modellers I know (self included) tend to replace these on Spectrum items with real Kadees.
John.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:22:38 +0100, "John Turner"
  Quoted Text Here  
Seconded, the Bachmann Ezee-Mate couplers are a pale imitation of real Kadees. The same can be said for all the delrin based clones. (McHenry, Intermountain)
Andrew

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, John Sullivan wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Their US stuff has McHenry couplings which are Kadee lookalikes, but they're not regarded as being as stong or as lasting and some people replace them. Kadees are metal, the various clones are plastic.
Until recently they used the NMRA horn-hook coupler (like the one in the two-bob Airfix kits for those with long memories".
But I agree. If they can do it for the US market they can do it here.

"Christopher A. Lee" <
  Quoted Text Here  
There's no such thing as an "NMRA" coupler, of any kind. The NMRA have never sanctioned any coupler, the use of "NMRA" is a misnomer.
-- Cheers Roger T.
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra / Home of the Great Eastern Railway

"Roger T." wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
It's been (wrongly) known as the "NMRA coupler" for over 50 years - also "X2P" if memory serves me correctly. Don't worry though Roger, it's just about set to fade from human memory - just the occassional "What's this funny coupler" posting at ever extending intervals to give you nightmares in your old age. ;-)
Regards, Greg.P.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Roger T. wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I know. However the press called them that, as did some of the kit manufacturers. It's still used as shorthand.

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
Not all Kadees are metal. 21-29 are plastic equivalents of 41-49 (but No 48 is sold as No 5). 17-20, I believe are plastic with no metal equivalent.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 07:33:56 +0100, John Sullivan wrote:
=>Isn't it time Bachmann came out with their own Kadee look-alikes, with =>different cranked shafts to fit the NEM coupler pockets? =>-- =>John Sullivan =>OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html =>My next scenery project: model a coalmine's slag heap tip in 4mm scale.
Available now: EZ-Mate #78035, with underset shaft. Price about $3 Can/pair or less. If you want some, I'll mail some to you in exchange for equivalent value GWR stuff.

  Quoted Text Here  
It's important to understand that this coupling gives correct knuckle height from a correct height NEM box. It APPEARS to be underset but it does the necessary height conversion, so therefore it's really a "normal". One in a NEM box will correctly couple with a knuckle coupling in a correct height draught gear box.
The problem that Bachmann have is that NEM standards for coupling pockets are for HO not OO. As OO is one seveneth - 14% - bigger than HO, buffer lengths, floor heights etc are bigger and NEM standards can't be applied. Think about it. It's another part of the right horlicks that is OO.
I'm not impressed with either NEM box Kadees or Ezmates. My advice: do it properly and fit the Kadee box on the loco. That will give good results. It isn't a quick and easy job but may as well be done properly so it works properly.
John

  Quoted Text Here  
I think we're drifting further and further away from the context of the original post, here. Whether you personally believe that Kadee couplers should be at different height to that which others will accept as a standard is, of course, up to you. But I can see no way that it has any bearing whatsover on the fact that the 4MT has sockets at different heights at either end. Or is one end OO and the other HO? A kind of forced perspective effect? ;-)
The problem with Bachmann stock is that their implementation of the NEM socket is bungled *differently* across their product range - it doesn't matter what height any of us might personally believe is optimal, Bachmann have ensure that at least something in their range will frustrate you.
BTW, if anybody is going to try and convince me that there is a 'correct' 'OO' height for mounting US style knuckle couplers on a 4MT, then be advised that you're wasting your breath ;-)
-- Steve Jones, Shropshire, England

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:05:39 +0100, Steve Jones wrote:
=>BTW, if anybody is going to try and convince me that there is a 'correct' =>'OO' height for mounting US style knuckle couplers on a 4MT, then be advised =>that you're wasting your breath ;-) => =>-- =>Steve Jones, =>Shropshire, England
Well, Steve, as long as that kind of attitude prevails (and for some reason I can't fathom it seems to be the prevailing attitude among "serious": modelers in the UK), there is really no incentive for any mfr to adhere to an kind of standards - not even their own.
It's not a matter of a "correct" height, it's matter of a _standard_ height, so that products from different sources using the same coupler will couple reliably with each other. It should also be obvious that a common mounting method is essential, so that changing couplers doesn't entail modfications to the frame, etc. It doesn't matter squat what the standard is, so long as people agree to use it.
I have a part-English background, spent many of my childhood years in Stratford-on-Avon (when it was still LMS and GWR, and later when it was BR), and dabble in British outline modelling. But the lack of standards with regard to wheels, track, buffer beam height, etc etc etc is just too much. When you have to fiddle with just about every piece of rolling stock to make it match and work reliably with what you've already got, something is seriously wrong.

  Quoted Text Here  
reason I
  Quoted Text Here  
modelers
of
On the contrary, I only accept and use couplings at the height specified by Kadee and NEM sockets at the NEM specified height. My closing point was that I'm not interested in somebody trying to tell me I should be using something different based on some convoluted logic based their perception of where a 4MT should have one fitted. A standard only has one meaning to me....
-- Steve Jones, Shropshire, England

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:05:19 +0100, Steve Jones wrote:
=>On the contrary, I only accept and use couplings at the height specified by =>Kadee and NEM sockets at the NEM specified height. My closing point was =>that I'm not interested in somebody trying to tell me I should be using =>something different based on some convoluted logic based their perception of =>where a 4MT should have one fitted. A standard only has one meaning to =>me....
My apologies for misreading you -- I see we in fact agree.
But the existence of several sets of standards for 4mm/ft modelling (P4, EM, BMRS, and various proprietary efforts) indicates there are issues that the British modelleing community has been unwilling to address.

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Doesn't the fact that BR used knuckle couplings on some passenger stock create a "correct mounting height" for model knuckle couplings on British stock?
Regards, Greg.P.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:05:39 +0100, "Steve Jones"
  Quoted Text Here  
'Correct', of course, one correct for me, one correct for you and several correct for other people no doubt. There appear to be three heights in common use, The nmra H0 standard presumably on the basis that both couplers and track are meant for H0. The 'scale' height for Buckeyes on UK stock, if you are fussy about such things. The nmra 00 standard, which I personally find a good compromise, and is also obtained by fitting NEM mount Kedees on some of the Bachmann stock. Take your pick or invent your own. Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
advised
Looking at the 4MT, I can see why Bachmann have two different heights, as to me it appears the design of the bogie and pony truck don't allow a single set height to be used. This doesn't help me of course. I set my Kadees using the Kadee height tool, so they are in fact compatible with similarly set stock where. It puts the buckeye slightly below UK prototype height, but then the buckeye itself isn't exactly 4mm scale in size... ;)
I guess I will just have to do a bodge job on this locomotive to get the Kadees on to the usual standard.
Ian J.

  Quoted Text Here  
Glue the NEM Kadee on top of or underneath the NEM mount as appropriate or use a strip of plastic card in the mount to lift/drop the coupling when inserted. Mike Parkes
Kadee page www.mphgate.demon.co.uk/kadee.html