Scale Draft Gear: Standard Issue?

[Donnell Wells]

Does anyone else feel that it's time for scale draft gear to become standard on future locomotive releases? Railflyer uses it in their locomotive kits. Details West makes a great replacement part for current and past locomotive offerings.

As manufacturers continue to push the envelope of more accurate, and road-specific detail, we seem to always get stuck with the "fat" coupler box. In some cases, the extra width makes it difficult to install DW plows. But, after installing the DW buffer, plow installation is a breeze!

Here's an example of the DW scale coupler buffer on the pilot of an Athearn GP40X:






Here is a custom printed scale coupler buffer I had made a few years ago on the pilot of an Athearn RTR GP35 that is being converted to a BN GP39E:




How do you feel?

Donnell

[Donnell Wells]

I drew these a few year ago as well, around the same time I had the other ones printed:





Really simple to install. Fits a slightly modified Kadee #158

Donnell

[calzephyr]

Donnell The rework is amazing how it changes the look of the model. I have not been active in late model units but have purchased the Heritage units from Athearn since I take pictures of those units and other new power in general. I might just start to modify some of the later units to get the correct look. Thanks for sharing the post.
That change really enhances the look of the unit.

I want to thank you again for starting this forum. It is really interesting and many of our old friends have come on board!
Larry

[Deleted]

May 4, 2012 9:38:43 GMT -8 Donnell Wells said:

Does anyone else feel that it's time for scale draft gear to become standard on future locomotive releases? Railflyer uses it in their locomotive kits. Details West makes a great replacement part for current and past locomotive offerings.

As manufacturers continue to push the envelope of more accurate, and road-specific detail, we seem to always get stuck with the "fat" coupler box. In some cases, the extra width makes it difficult to install DW plows. But, after installing the DW buffer, plow installation is a breeze!


How do you feel?

Donnell

I'm for it...I asked about the GP38-2 draft gear for this exact reason. The Railflyer kits are nice...but the couplers (Sergent Railflyer Type E) that are needed aren't available.

The Details West is a great alternative...although I have thought about a new scale coupler box like the one you designed.

[rhpd42002]

That's a good looking buffer, Donnell.

I've yet to use any KD 158 couplers yet, but should this come to pass, what kind of mods would the coupler need?

I'm sure I'd be up to the task of modifying 'em. Would likie to know what would need to be done to make it work.

[el3637]

I don't object to scale or near scale draft gear as long as the model either comes with Kadees or doesn't require a Dremel to install them. A few not so great experiments like Athearn's Trinity 5161 that came with Accumate scale couplers in boxes you couldn't put Kadees in.

RYM's kits have scale draft gear designed to take Kadee #78 couplers, or #58 on some of the later ones I think.

I have some resin early prototypes of the DW buffers and I have installed them on some scratchbashed SD40-2s I'm working on, and figured out how to set up a #58 in them. I don't require sprung centering or a lot of swing, so I'm ok with it.

Andy

[Deleted]

May 4, 2012 22:33:58 GMT -8 el3637 said:

I don't object to scale or near scale draft gear as long as the model either comes with Kadees or doesn't require a Dremel to install them. A few not so great experiments like Athearn's Trinity 5161 that came with Accumate scale couplers in boxes you couldn't put Kadees in.

RYM's kits have scale draft gear designed to take Kadee #78 couplers, or #58 on some of the later ones I think.

I have some resin early prototypes of the DW buffers and I have installed them on some scratchbashed SD40-2s I'm working on, and figured out how to set up a #58 in them. I don't require sprung centering or a lot of swing, so I'm ok with it.

Andy

Andy:

Coupler swing was an issue I was mulling over...before finally deciding to go with the smaller coupler plate...I figured 32" radius wouldn't be an issue with these...provided they are pretty close to centered-up.

[Paul Cutler III]

With me, if I wanted scale draft gear boxes, scale wheel thickness, and scale couplers, I'd be in Proto87 and not NMRA HO. I'm in a large club, and I have a large layout. The interchange of equipment and operational ability of that equipment is of more importantance to me than scale fidelity...especially when it comes to the mechanical pieces. IOW, I'm willing to overlook fat wheels and #5 Kadee couplers because they operate better than scale or semi-scale variations. OTOH, I'm not willing to overlook out-of-proportion details like handrails, windows, fans, and especially paint (the cheapest thing to get right).

[Donnell Wells]

Hi Paul, this is where I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. Reliable operation of equipment has more to do with the way that it is set up prior to operating, as well as the environment that the equipment is set to run in. Kadee #58/158 couplers operate just as reliably as the original #5s granted they are mounted at the specified height, and that the track structure is sound.

You can have poorly installed track and correctly installed couplers, and the chances are your train may stay coupled. On the other hand, improperly installed couplers may stay coupled on bulletproof track, but the second the train runs over any imperfections in the track structure, it is highly likely that the train will uncouple. And obviously, poor track and improper coupler installations is just a recipe for disaster.

Having said all that, scale draft gear on locomotives would hardly impede operation granted you aren't trying to pull or shove 60' or greater length cars around an 18", or even 22" radius curve. And again, couplers mounted at the correct height, running on solidly built track should cause little or no problems. Now, you said you're not willing to overlook out-of-proportion details such as handrails, fans, windows etc., however, I will contend that an extra-wide coupler pocket on the front end of a locomotive is one of those details that I choose not overlook.

Donnell

May 8, 2012 18:54:36 GMT -8 Paul Cutler III said:

With me, if I wanted scale draft gear boxes, scale wheel thickness, and scale couplers, I'd be in Proto87 and not NMRA HO. I'm in a large club, and I have a large layout. The interchange of equipment and operational ability of that equipment is of more importantance to me than scale fidelity...especially when it comes to the mechanical pieces. IOW, I'm willing to overlook fat wheels and #5 Kadee couplers because they operate better than scale or semi-scale variations. OTOH, I'm not willing to overlook out-of-proportion details like handrails, windows, fans, and especially paint (the cheapest thing to get right).

[nw611]

I agree with Donnell. Over 25 years ago in Europe was introduced the NEM standard 362 for couplers and in the last 15 year all the manufacturers have complied with it. Now we have a large number of different couplers (even Kadees) that can be used in a standard coupler box. I think that the NMRA should introduce standard dimensions for coupler boxes (based on Kadee dimensions) and ask manufacturers to comply.
R. Galiano

[el3637]

May 9, 2012 1:20:38 GMT -8 nw611 said:

I think that the NMRA should introduce standard dimensions for coupler boxes (based on Kadee dimensions) and ask manufacturers to comply.

Too much water under the bridge for that. The Kadee #5 style coupler box was a de facto standard for some years before manufacturers began grudgingly acknowledge it. Oddly enough the first diesel to actually be set up for a #5 was a Japanese-made product - the Atlas/Kato RS3. Things sort of fell into line for a while, Atlas and Proto products were all set up for the Kadee #5 either in its own box or in the manufacturer's box. But lately we're heading down a coupler-box-of-the-month-club route, as some manufacturers have developed their own couplers and then act as if nothing else in the world exists. Kadee installation was an art for a while - the much-heralded Atlas Roco diesels for instance, were a technical milestone in diesel drive lines and body tooling in their time, but were absolute hell to install Kadees on. The post-Kato era made Kadees a drop-on breeze for 20 years, but then the clones came, including clones that used thinner boxes - not just for a scale width but some were slimmer in height so there was no room for a Kadee 5/58 and spring.

And it continues. Tangent and Exactrail cars come with real Kadees (although some early Exr cars came with McJunkys). Of course Kadee cars have real Kadees, and most Intermountain and IM-branded/assembled other stuff. Athearn sticks with their McJunkys and it's just sort of flip a coin whether or not a 58 or 158 will work. MTH's passenger cars have their own wacked out coupler mount, which I understand will be changed for their Empire State cars... couldn't be any worse. The couplers on Fox Valley's Hiawatha cars were only suitable to couple to each other, the height was so far low. Rapido has their own (or affiliated) coupler that is a head scratcher... not a scale coupler, just a clunky, sluggish clone that has to be replaced.

At any rate, if the NMRA standardized now on the Kadee #5 draft gear dimensions, it would be cheerfully ignored. Right now we have a potential diesel kit manufacturer whose products will require a separate, parallel universe with different laws of physics to operate in. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a manufacturer bring out rolling stock with non-NMRA compatible wheel sets that will only run on their brand of track (coming soon) which will make a nice display case piece.

Andy

[Paul Cutler III]

Donnell,
Sure, if the equipment & track are both perfect, then of course the couplers, no matter how small or limited, would operate well. The only problem is that I don't have perfect track or equipment and neither does my club.

One thing that's not mentioned yet is the "gathering range" of the coupler. With the wider pocket, that range is increased so when making a hitch you have more room to play with. If we all had scale boxes, that ability would be reduced.

It's great if you like smaller coupler boxes, but IMHO they belong in Proto87 and not on NMRA HO equipment. I like and admire any P:87 modeler because they all seem to be excellent modelers and everything I've seen has been exquisite. I still they they are nuts, just like the 1/350th ship modelers who put in tiny cockpit interiors on all their WWII fighters on the flight deck of an Essex-Class carrier. But great stuff to look at. Not for me to build, however. I like my sanity just fine they way it is, thanks.

[Deleted]

Bumping this one back up...I finally got pictures of the Sergent compatible shank coupler and Details' West #363 and #377 scale coupler plates.

I milled .005" off each side of the Sergent shank to allow them to slide through the opening of the Details West part. Kadee scale couplers can be trimmed as well to fit these parts.

[Donnell Wells]

Hi Thomas,

Are those scratch-built coupler boxes in white?

[Deleted]

Yes...the lid (flat part is .030") styrene...and the channel is from Plastruct and has the following dimensions:

Outside:.310"
Inside web: .240"
Web rail: .035 "

The dowel is also from Plastruct:

.125" OD
.070" ID

This setup allows the Athearn Genesis GP15-1 to retain it's original screw mount...without drilling new holes...and lines up the Sergent coupler at the correct height.

[Donnell Wells]

I really do like the look of Sergent couplers, and may even try them in the future, but for now I am sticking with the Kadee scale #158s. I have modified the factory coupler boxes to allow the Kadees to be used with the Details West scale buffer in a manner similar to what you have shown. It works great, and gives a better overall look to the front (and rear) end of my models.

Donnell

[mlehman]

The way to get something like a scale standard box right and out there is to adopt a standard for interchangeable 'standard' and scale draft gear. Modeler has the choice, which makes a heck of a lot more sense as extra parts in the box than the X2Fs ever did.

That may call for compromises that the scale draft gear crowd may not want to make.

I can see and appreciate the desire to improve the 'face' of the loco. On the other hand, the reality is that 95% of any locos sold will be going to those whose layouts may run into trouble with scale draft gear. If there's a good all around solution to that issue, then makes no difference to me.

I've got a 28" min main and often wish it was 36" -- but it's not and will never be, short of hitting the lotto

[curtmc]

The only places that I would see fit for scale draft gears on a modern freight train is the front of a locomotive that is going to lead most of the time, on a caboose, or on the rear coupler of the car that has the FRED.

The central core of the train needs structural strength and you are not going to be able to reliably run prototype length trains (80-120 cars) with a scale or reduced shank coupler cross section (even with Kadee #58 or #78). Yes, I've seen both break in long trains, and every plastic clone do so in short or medium trains.

And the "improved appearance" those pushing for scale draft gears incessantly beg for isn't going to be noticeable in the core of a train.

Draft gears are one of those places where those who operate trains are going to have a different opinion than those who super detail cars to look pretty setting alone on a siding or in a display case.

[edwardsutorik]

The NMRA has had a "standard" coupler box since 1958. I repeat, 1958:

www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp22.html

Granted, it's an RP (recommended practice), not an S (standard). But you do recall RP25? That's not a standard, either. But "everyone" uses it.

That pocket pretty much drove the Kadee number 5 coupler and related pocket. You'll note that the dimensions of both are strikingly similar.

Predating the 5 was the 4. I've got some around here somewhere. My recollection was that the shank was a good bit narrower than the 5 series shank.

So, most likely, we could have had Kadee couplers in scale coupler pockets IF history had happened a bit differently. But we didn't.



Myself, I lean towards the scale pockets. But I'm not going to convert all my rolling stock. Some of those conversions would be hellish, no doubt. But, as much as I can, I will go towards scale pockets.

Serious modelers sure seem to lean towards Kadees. REALLLY serious modelers sure seem to lean towards Sergents. So, it would be nice if those two massive corporations would set up a committee with the NMRA and maybe a couple of the big manufacturers and put together another coupler pocket/shank style that was scale width.

Like, maybe, on Monday.




Ed

[fr8kar]

This "core of the train" argument is interesting. I think most of us are interested in highly detailed models that are close representations of the prototype. I disagree that superdetailing cars, operating models and running long trains are all mutually exclusive. I run trains as long as I am able, I am guilty of superdetailing my models, but most of all I'm interested in switching operations, where any locomotive and any freight car can be the end of the train. Any moment is a photo opportunity or just an opportunity to gaze upon the models in their miniature world. Getting the models to look right is the ultimate goal for me.

Personally, I would appreciate it if manufacturers - including Kadee - would begin to move toward a closer approximation of scale draft gear. However, I'm not going to sit around and wait for it to happen. I'll continue to kitbash, scratchbuild and retrofit my equipment with the parts necessary to achieve the look I want.

[Donnell Wells]

Curt and Ed, I understand what you are saying, but...

shank size does not have to change at all except at the base, and this only has to be reduced by no more than .010" on each side to clear the scale-width buffer. The size of the buffer has very little to do with the pulling strength/force, so I doubt that train length would be affected any.

[kentuckysouthernrwy]

I'll toss my nickle in with Curt and Paul-3 as I am not willing to machine, trim, modify or make 'better' looking coupler boxes. I will stick with my #5s and accept their operational strengths in contrast to their visible shortcomings.

I'd like to see readily available parts available so that those of you so wanting to can dress up your models as you desire.

[Donnell Wells]

Hi Karl,

That was the whole point of the original post; for you not to have to "machine, trim, or modify" anything, but that it be done by the manufacturer. There is nothing wrong with current coupler box size other than its size. Also, just because the current coupler box size is considered the defacto standard, why should something that comes along, which may be just as good or better, be shunned?

Whenever the mention of scale draft gear or Sergent couplers come up, some people think that what is being suggested is that they immediately have to change over their entire fleet. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am suggesting is that manufacturers include, or at least consider the inclusion of scale draft gear on future releases, compatible with current coupler designs on the market.

Donnell

[edwardsutorik]

For the scale sized coupler boxes to work, Kadee MUST first come up with a coupler to fit--a drop-in one. Sergent, too, for that matter. So, when someone sells you a junky coupler in a scale box, you can drop in a Kadee. Or a Sergent.

I think my proposal earlier that the major players should get it together on this matter and should start tomorrow should be taken seriously by those players.


Ed

[drolsen]

Sept 16, 2012 12:22:22 GMT -8 edwardsutorik said:

For the scale sized coupler boxes to work, Kadee MUST first come up with a coupler to fit--a drop-in one. Sergent, too, for that matter. So, when someone sells you a junky coupler in a scale box, you can drop in a Kadee. Or a Sergent.

That's exactly how it works for me with Sergents on models (e.g Athearn's original Genesis Trinity 5161 covered hopper and Atlas's Thrall 2743 gon and new Thrall stack car) that have the Accumate-style narrow draft gear. Sergent's narrow shank coupler is a drop-in fit (since it was designed for that coupler box) and works great. I think with the new whisker design, Kadee could easily make a coupler to fit that box. It would have been nice if they'd done that originally when the Genesis hopper came out, and it seems like there's more incentive now with the new Atlas double stack car showing up with the same narrow draft gear (that most people are unhappy with).

I know that it really bugs people that Atlas keeps using the Accumate-style draft gear - I'm not sure why they keep doing that, to be honest, based on the previous complaints - but it works out well for me.

I also like ExactRail's narrower draft gear (not scale, but better looking), except that they tend to be very generic-looking, including on cars that should have cushioned draft gear.

Dave

[el3637]

Sept 16, 2012 12:22:22 GMT -8 edwardsutorik said:

For the scale sized coupler boxes to work, Kadee MUST first come up with a coupler to fit--a drop-in one.

Not really necessary. Kadee has always filled the need. If a new line of rolling stock came out with scale boxes, and came with clones - Kadee would come up with a shank style to fit it.

Andy