KADEE 705 couplers WAS_Any narrow gauge news from the NMRA National Convention

Dale Buxton
 

?I hate to burst Kadee's bubble. While the 705 will indeed go anywhere that a 714 will go. There are two problems. I just spent the last hour or so experimenting with this.

1. As I mentioned before, the little centering spring really needs to be in it's designed slot with about 1/32" of horizontal play. It is all but impossible to get that idy-biddy spring in the back of the coupler shank and behind the pivot post in a Kadee 714 coupler box or 714 clone coupler box ( like the one on a Blackstone car ) . If you by some chance of magic get in it in there. It will be completely compressed and the centering action is lost!

2.  The 705 coupler's shank thickness is only .041". A Kadee 714's shank thickness is .057". The 705's shank is way thinner!  The Kadee 714 coupler boxes inside height at the pivot post is .067". This gives the 705 coupler  .026" of vertical play and no spring torsion pushing against it to hold it on the vertical plane. It sticks out there, drooping down to a 15 to 20 degree angle and flops around unable to mate with any other coupler. This fix of coarse, is to add about .025" of shim washers to the pivot post to get the thing to sit level in the coupler box. More work and expense I didn't want.

And once again the Sergent Sharon type coupler was purpose designed to fit in  the Kadee 714 box and is clones with no vertical play. Yes I am a proponent of Sharon couplers. But, I am also will to try new things. This new coupler design of Kadee's is turning out to be more work that I want to deal with.

Why in the world did they make the 705's shank thickness so much thinner than the 714's??? Why did the make the pivot post such a unique and generally uncombatable design with what is already on the market?

It's both baffling and disappointing for this modeler. 

Dale B 

Join HOn3@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.