replacing "Ferro

Hi All. I have been advised on the problems that Metal axles cause when using Kadee magnets, fair enough. But if I manage to carry out this task? successfully then there is a question of "that dirty great lump of iron" that Bachmann and most? RTR manufactures fit between the body and the underframe? It may be a question of "Carts and Horses"And if I can replace "that dirty great lump of iron" with a Lead weight then maybe?? only maybe? it may prove unnecessary to change the axles,of course I maybe going off track? then there is a small screw that holds the body in position , lt may prove unnecessary to change the axles, It is obvious that the weight is required, and lead " flashing"? would fit the bill, without the need for casting. Any comments please. Kevin

I haven't had problems with Kadees & magnets & "lumps" of iron in locos  - not sure it is is really iron or an amalgam of metals.
Metal axles & wheels on wagons , yes a problem but weighted helps to overcome that - Bachmann Brass wheels still use metal axles - dunno why they didn't go fully brass or like Kadee with non-magnetic wheels & axles

Hi Ron. When I tried every part with a magnet, even the screw the magnet was attracted to everything .Whether or not that would slow the passage of a train over Kadees?    Kevin

Hi Kevin,

It's the axles that are the major issue, being closest to the magnet. This is where the inverse cube of the distance comes in, double the distance, the magnetic field goes down roughly by a factor of 8 (and the distance to the weight is roughly double the distance of the axles to the magnet). Which is why fitting small neodymium magnets needs a high degree of positioning given their focused magnetic field.

I just checked an old Mainline and a recent Bachmann wagon, the Mainline is steel, the Bachmann is a non-magnetic alloy. No idea re Hornby (I don't have any) or Dapol (in storage).

All of my NA stock has non-magnetic axles and wheels (and weights). And this is what Kaydee uncouplers are designed for (along with code 100 or code 83 track, not code 75, for that you should be using magnets under the track, and they definitely like steel axles as the magnets have magnifying plates).

I've said this before, Kadee couplers and uncouplers are an integrated system. Move outside the system and it's Caveat emptor. British manufacturers are paying lip-service to NEM standards, and designing their "modern" coupler hardware for tension locks, not Kadee-type couplers. Along with steel axles. The Kadee "NEM" couplers (#17-#20) are a compromise. Steel axles are unfortunately almost the same height as the trip pin, hence the "lurch". Ron is correct, you can overcome this with additional weight, which is OK for a few wagons, not so good if pulling a lot of them. Or you can forgo close coupling and put the trip pin as far away from the axle as possible by using a "long" Kaydee.

Now as Ron says, non-magnetic axles are the answer. These unfortunately are in the "hen's teeth" category in the UK.  My stock for the EM layout is around 15 wagons and vans, not an impossible task for retrofitting with brass axles (and I have to change the gauge anyway from 16.5mm to 18.2mm). So, the 2mm brass rod has been ordered and on it's way. The intent is to use some electromagnets for running around movements in bogie carriage stock, and I only have to change the outermost axles. 

As for lead weights, please use with caution. And wear gloves when handling.

Nigel

Hi Nigel.  Thank you for your reply.
Bearing in mind that most, if not all?, British Outline stock is made in China . And a lot of North American goods come from the same source ? for instance that famous camping and outdoor manufacture "Stanley" , whose products have 
IMHO have suffered with the change of production . Am I being too presumptuous ? Or are North American model railways  still made in the "jolly USA?" I wonder what Mr President is gonna do bout that?
The point being the origins not of the species, but the origin of model Locos and Cars.   Kevin

Hi Kevin,

You get what you specify re contract manufacturing. It's all down to cost - stainless steel and half-hardened brass (or nickel/silver) are about the same price, it's the cost of tooling. I use Walthers, Reboxx and Kadee wheels, the latter 2 are US made (not sure about Walthers). With tension lock couplers there never was any incentive to change from steel to non-magnetic axles.

This was pretty much the situation in NA with among others Baker tension locks (which I think predate the UK design) and then horn-hook couplers, an attempt to standardize the coupler. Old stock with Baker or horn-hook couplers can still be found with rusting steel axles and plastic wheels. The universal acceptance of Kadee type magnetic couplers (and copies since the patents expired) as a modeling standard meant a change from steel to non-magnetic axles to get magnetic uncoupling to work properly.

Anybody reading this who still uses tension lock couplers must be chuckling - shunting is of course dead easy with the uncoupler ramps (which can be motorized and controlled with DCC if desired). Or you can get a DCC controlled tension lock. If I was seriously modeling UK outline I think that's the way I would go.

Nigel

Hi Nigel.   
Thank you for more excellent advice. When I asked about Kadee 322 and code 75 track, I had just read an Hattons advert, and they recommend that combination as being workable . Therefore they must be giving bad advice.
Not necessary to mislead railway Modellers. As for tension lock couplers, you know their problems everything
"Three Yards Apart" , and Kadee gives you the option of uncoupling and loose shunting.
All the best. Kevin

Kadee have this regarding Uncoupler 322
https://kadee.com/htmbord/page322.htm
Ready to mount on top of ties with Code 83 rail.
Cut out ties if mounting Code 70, 55 or 40 rail

So Hattons  are not giving bad advice…

Hi Sol and Kevin of course,

Code 75 is not used in NA, I said Kadee between-the-rails uncouplers were designed for code 100 and code 83 (and Atlas track at that). They were not designed for code 75. Code 75 is probably just at the limit for safe operation, an under track magnet would be better, or take some height off the ties/sleepers or remove them (as Kadee suggest for code 70 if using a #322) and shim until uncoupling is optimal. There's an interesting thread on RMWeb about #322 and code 75 where folks have been having problems. I just checked my code 75 finescale EM track - too close to the pin, so sleepers will be removed for where I want uncoupling to take place. And definitely too close for hand-laid track with no chairs.

I was going to go into the details of this but you can read the specifications online as well as me. The point is that Kadee designed these to work optimally with a specific distance between the pin and the magnet. Given the probably ±5% variation in coupler height ("Dapol Droop" come to mind?) and pin length too close to the magnet is probably not optimal as the pins stick to the magnet due to the increased magnetic field, rather than swing open.

Nigel

Nigel, interesting in the NA doesn't use Code 75 but they did as that was the main reason Peco  went that way as told to us by the Peco Sales manager when he came here  being the Guest speaker at a  BRMA convention around 2006. And then as NA went to Code 83, that drove Peco down that path.
The Sales manager did say that Australia was the second largest user of Peco track outside of USA.

I fitted my Kadee magnets 321 ( before going down the path of 3mm cube  magnets ) into Code 75 by removing sleepers & then adding infill to get the magnet top at the correct height based on the Height gauges 205/206.

As we know Peco Streamline Code 100 & Code 75  is not UK orientated in looks but more Universal for H0.

Hi Ron.  and Nigel
Thank you for your reply. After seeing Kadee performing exceptionally well with 3 mm cube Neodymium magnets on YouTube .
I tried it for myself , not realising that the demonstrator was probably using a different track code.
I found that the "trip pin" became attached to the magnets, which meant that it was unsuccessful . I have had the "cheap Chinese junk " debate with Nigel, a subject Close to my heart, and now the likes of Bachmann et al find that they can get away with " fobbing off" Modellers for their cheaply made goods we are stuck up a gum tree?
I was looking into buying the "Rapido" gadget to do my uncoupling rather than the hand from the sky? As it would mean Retro fitting , which I want to avoid " at all costs if possible ". There is however one alternative? a step that I could take, but prefer to avoid. If I lift the sidings track, and then purchase another code, maybe "Code 100 set track" and some 75/100 adaptors or whatever(not having that much experience with other track). But I am always open to polite suggestions? I could try, if I live long enough? to design a manual wire in tube device, but it may be better to resort to cheap chinese junk?  All the best. Kevin

Kevin, do I assume you have read this from start to finish?
http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=8481&forum_id=6

Perry fitted his to Code 100 & I fitted my to Code 75 and they work perfectly having the magnets at sleeper level.

Hi Ron.  If I cut the sleepers?would that not effect the track gauge and make the rais look strange without sleepers. If I could perhaps drill from below.the baseboard in the correct spot without damaging the.sleepers or track and then position a magnet thar may or not work. The position of the poles isn't clear on Neodymium magnets.
And I don't know of a suitable electromagnet.    Kevin

Kevin, one does not cut the sleepers without the whole track anchored either by track pins or glued …
The position of the poles - well I have never seen magnets with N or S on them, attraction/repulsion is the method used to get them all in a line - as I said, read that Forum tread.

And for Electromagnets for Kadee…
https://kadee.com/htmbord/page309.htm
I have 6 of these on my main platform tracks in my main station.
http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=13783&forum_id=6

Hi Ron
Of course what was I thinking about?? And the Kadee electromagnet would mean "disrupting the service". Liftiting the track and cutting a hoe in the baseboard And again you are correct about the poles, Retro fitting is the problem!
Kevin

Hi Kevin (and Ron),

Good job you didn't start cutting sleepers, you actually may need to shim the magnet up. I forgot about the impact of the chairs with Peco code 75 track. Mea culpa. The Kadee recommendation is "The uncoupler should extend above the rails by exactly 1/64" (0.4mm)." Not as Ron says level with the track.

The #322 is 0.1" (2.54mm) thick. Code 75 rail is of course 0.075". Plus the chair/plate (I have no idea, no Peco code 75 track to hand, but from memory and pictures it's chunky and looks to be around 0.025"), which would take it up to track head level as Ron reports. You actually need to go a bit higher than rail head. The clearance between the trip pin and the rail head is supposed to be 1/32" (0.8mm), the designed clearance between the pin and the magnet is then 0.4mm. Having it level with the rail doubles this distance and will significantly decrease the magnetic field - inverse cube root). The bonus of course is that the effect on steel axles is also diminished. So it's a trade-off, increase the distance to reduce the effect on the axles with the possibility that the effect on the trip pins will be reduced sufficiently to affect uncoupling.

Just another issue in adapting Kadee couplers/uncouplers to UK practice and equipment.

Ron's comment about code 75 originating in NA was interesting, that could date back to when there was an OO scale (not gauge) in NA in the 1930's - mid-1950's. Midlin track from these dates looks like code 75 (and a dead ringer for Peco track). Everybody else had track that  looked around code 125 or greater (Lionel OO used code 125). Code 75 has not been used for at least the last 50 years in HO or N.

Nigel

Hi Kevin,

I just rechecked my fine-scale code 75 track (EM gauge). The #322 is 0.7mm higher than the railhead (should be 0.4mm). That only leaves 0.1mm clearance between the pin and the magnet. As I thought, it's either cut a space in the sleepers and shim to the correct height, or go underneath. I also checked on how crucial having the magnet dead-center in the track is - it's crucial (which is why Kadee have a jig for this). I suspect the height issue will apply to other fine-scale code 75 track (such as C+L OO track). It is definitely an issue with hand-laid code 75 track on copper-clad (0.05mm clearance twixt pin and magnet).

I suspect the statement that a #322 works with code 75 track should be "works with Peco code 75 track". Which is what other retailers in the UK are saying.

Nigel

Hi Nigel
I will phone Hattons on Friday and ask them about the Kadee322 and the "Jig", because one is no good without the other? But as Ron says, "the track has to be either pinned or glued before the sleepers are cut away". Kevin

[user=1632]BCDR[/user] wrote:

Hi Kevin (and Ron),

Good job you didn't start cutting sleepers, you actually may need to shim the magnet up. I forgot about the impact of the chairs with Peco code 75 track. Mea culpa. The Kadee recommendation is "The uncoupler should extend above the rails by exactly 1/64" (0.4mm)." Not as Ron says level with the track.



Nigel

Nigel, I hadn't said that the Kadee magnets are level with the track/ rail top but to use the height gauge which would set it at the 1/64" (0.4mm).  When I made reference to be level with sleepers, it was referring to the 3mm Cube magnets which replace sleepers. The 3 sets of 5 work well with Kadee on UK stock.

Gary, a previous member, uses a different method
http://www.platform1mrc.com/view_topic.php?id=1357&forum_id=15

Hi Ron,

Oops, apologies, sleepers, neodymium magnets.

Nigel