Kadee Couplers

ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.


D. Soppy

Member
Other than the physical difference between the Kaydee #5 and #148 , is there much difference in their operation. The #148 is much easier to install and the coupler housing also snaps together nicely. I've installed both and cant seem to find any difference in their operation. Most places say the #5 is the most common.
 

dennis461

Well-Known Member
It's spelled Kadee.
From Kadee...
"Often referred to as the "Whisker® version of the No.5®", the #148 has dethroned the classic #5 with an even longer-lasting and more reliable design. We took everything you loved about the No.5® and improved upon it."
 

D. Soppy

Member
It's spelled Kadee.
From Kadee...
"Often referred to as the "Whisker® version of the No.5®", the #148 has dethroned the classic #5 with an even longer-lasting and more reliable design. We took everything you loved about the No.5® and improved upon it."
Well I spelled it right in the title. It was just a typo on my part and poor proof reading. I wish I would have known this before I ordered my 20 pack of #5 couplers. I picked up my Kadee starter pack from my hobby shop and it had quite the assortment of couplers in it and that's where I found the 148's.
 

J.Albert

Member
I have freight car kits I built in the mid-1970's with the Kadee #5's I installed back then... still working fine.
 

glenng6

Active Member
All of my rolling stock and locos had No. 5 couplers. Now half of them have been converted to #148 and the remainder will be converted, as well. If the No.5 was the only choice, I would still have them. However, the #148 installation, reliability and functionality, I believe, is much better than the No. 5. Since there is a choice, I chose not to continue with the fidgety No. 5. YMMV, but my future will no longer include the No. 5 coupler. Glenn
 

Iron Horseman

Well-Known Member
All of my rolling stock and locos had No. 5 couplers. Now half of them have been converted to #148 and the remainder will be converted, as well. If the No.5 was the only choice, I would still have them. However, the #148 installation, reliability and functionality, I believe, is much better than the No. 5. Since there is a choice, I chose not to continue with the fidgety No. 5. YMMV, but my future will no longer include the No. 5 coupler. Glenn
I agree. The number five carried the hobby for 50 years so of course they are more prevalent in the literature. The #148 and its line are easier to work with and will be my future with the Kadee line.
 

santafewillie

Same Ol' Buzzard
All of my rolling stock and locos had No. 5 couplers. Now half of them have been converted to #148 and the remainder will be converted, as well. If the No.5 was the only choice, I would still have them. However, the #148 installation, reliability and functionality, I believe, is much better than the No. 5. Since there is a choice, I chose not to continue with the fidgety No. 5. YMMV, but my future will no longer include the No. 5 coupler. Glenn
Why convert them if they are working well???
 

Smudge617

Well-Known Member
I use both, depending on what I'm fitting them to, they both work extremely well so far for me, even converted some of my OO scale wagons to Kadeee's. The #5's I just painted the copper strip that shows black, can't see the difference at all now.
 

glenng6

Active Member
There's working, and then there's working. I have such a feeling of confidence when I run rolling stock and locos with #148 couplers. Remember, I'm the one who installed both and the #148s are truly fabulous. There are two things I've done, in approx. 18 mos. prior to now, that have made a world of difference in coupler function. I began the conversion to 148s and I am also removing all trip pins. Our, actually my ultimate goal, is rolling stock that performs exceptionally and these two changes have been exceptional. Glenn
 

PNKFLOYD

Mikey
There's working, and then there's working. I have such a feeling of confidence when I run rolling stock and locos with #148 couplers. Remember, I'm the one who installed both and the #148s are truly fabulous. There are two things I've done, in approx. 18 mos. prior to now, that have made a world of difference in coupler function. I began the conversion to 148s and I am also removing all trip pins. Our, actually my ultimate goal, is rolling stock that performs exceptionally and these two changes have been exceptional. Glenn
If you are happy with the results, what does it matter what anyone thinks, me included?
 

glenng6

Active Member
Basically, it won't stop me from continuing. I was just explaining to santafewillie, and probably many others, why I am spending money and effort for what most RR modelers probably think is a waste of money and labor. However, the majority of #148s I convert require very little effort. The expense is a factor, but after experimenting with 3 cars, I was sold. If it makes my RR run better, I am going to do it. After all, isn't that what we are all striving for? Glenn
 

Smudge617

Well-Known Member
Basically, it won't stop me from continuing. I was just explaining to santafewillie, and probably many others, why I am spending money and effort for what most RR modelers probably think is a waste of money and labor. However, the majority of #148s I convert require very little effort. The expense is a factor, but after experimenting with 3 cars, I was sold. If it makes my RR run better, I am going to do it. After all, isn't that what we are all striving for? Glenn
It's each to their own, if you feel it makes for better running of your rolling stock then go for it, I'm still using tension lock couplings on at least 60% of my rolling stock, even then, they are not prototypical (most of my freight should really have 3 link couplings) but it works for me. And using 3 link couplings, is a real PIA to use, never mind having to fit them.
 

glenng6

Active Member
It's each to their own, if you feel it makes for better running of your rolling stock then go for it, I'm still using tension lock couplings on at least 60% of my rolling stock, even then, they are not prototypical (most of my freight should really have 3 link couplings) but it works for me. And using 3 link couplings, is a real PIA to use, never mind having to fit them.
Thanks Smudge. I love rule #1. My wife is always right. It doesn't have anything to do with MRR, but it's still true. I just asked her, to make sure. Glenn
 

PrairieKnight

Active Member
I like the #5 and #148 couplers also....but I ran into an issue that caused me to install extended shank Kadee #26 couplers on my Walthers Proto and Trainline locomotives. The issue I was having was the fact that my Atlas code 83 18 inch radius turnouts were not playing well with the couplers that came on the locomotives when they were coupled between the locomotive and rolling stock during switching operations in the yard and at the industries. I am not sure what couplers came on the locomotives. I tried #5 at first on the locomotives but that did not fix the problem. I then discovered the #26 couplers. Although the #26 do not look very prototypical, they sure do make my switching operations alot smoother. I never experienced the issue with the #5 and #148 couplers between rolling stock, just the locomotives and rolling stock. And yes... I have trimmed the trip pins back rather than remove them altogether.
 

Smudge617

Well-Known Member
I like the #5 and #148 couplers also....but I ran into an issue that caused me to install extended shank Kadee #26 couplers on my Walthers Proto and Trainline locomotives. The issue I was having was the fact that my Atlas code 83 18 inch radius turnouts were not playing well with the couplers that came on the locomotives when they were coupled between the locomotive and rolling stock during switching operations in the yard and at the industries. I am not sure what couplers came on the locomotives. I tried #5 at first on the locomotives but that did not fix the problem. I then discovered the #26 couplers. Although the #26 do not look very prototypical, they sure do make my switching operations alot smoother. I never experienced the issue with the #5 and #148 couplers between rolling stock, just the locomotives and rolling stock. And yes... I have trimmed the trip pins back rather than remove them altogether.
As I said in a previous post, you do what works for you, as long as your happy with the way it runs, after all, it is YOUR railroad, you can run what you like, how you like. If your having fun and enjoying what your doing, does it matter if it's not prototypical.
 

Greg@mnrr

Section Hand
I like both the Kadee #5's and the #148 couplers. When I pull a car off the layout to clean or adjust the couplers or adding it to my inventory spread sheet, if they aren't Kadee couplers I'll replace the couplers with Kadees. Depending on the type of car, box cars will get #5 couplers and usually #148's for everything else.

I have a multi-compartment storage box with couplers, wheel-sets, small fasteners and misc parts. I have many #5's left over from the earlier days and now a small collection of #148's.

Greg
 




Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)


ModelRailroadForums.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com

RailroadBookstore.com - An online railroad bookstore featuring a curated selection of new and used railroad books. Railroad pictorials, railroad history, steam locomotives, passenger trains, modern railroading. Hundreds of titles available, most at discount prices! We also have a video and children's book section.

ModelRailroadBookstore.com - An online model railroad bookstore featuring a curated selection of new and used books. Layout design, track plans, scenery and structure building, wiring, DCC, Tinplate, Toy Trains, Price Guides and more.

Top