|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on May 9, 2012 13:12:34 GMT -8
Kadee's last significant improvment to its line of couplers was the scale #58, as well as the addition of the steel "whiskers" to eliminate the need for the separate coupler centering spring. Personally, I thought this was a drastic improvement over the standard #5, but as time went on, I began to ask myself, "Had they done enough?"
The one thing I never really cared for regarding the new scale couplers was that they used the same old skinny/thin knuckle. So I will simply ask: Could the current Kadee knuckle stand to be revised?
I'm not looking for suggestions on switching to, or trying out Sergent couplers. This post deals specifically with improving the Kadee coupler to look even more realistic in appearance, utilizing a "beefier" more realistically-shaped knuckle, while not impeding any of its automatic operating characteristics, or sacrificing any backwards compatibility.
Your thoughts?
Donnell
|
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on May 9, 2012 15:02:42 GMT -8
Kadee's last significant improvment to its line of couplers was the scale #58, as well as the addition of the steel "whiskers" to eliminate the need for the separate coupler centering spring. Personally, I thought this was a drastic improvement over the standard #5, but as time went on, I began to ask myself, "Had they done enough?"
The one thing I never really cared for regarding the new scale couplers was that they used the same old skinny/thin knuckle. So I will simply ask: Could the current Kadee knuckle stand to be revised?
I'm not looking for suggestions on switching to, or trying out Sergent couplers. This post deals specifically with improving the Kadee coupler to look even more realistic in appearance, utilizing a "beefier" more realistically-shaped knuckle, while not impeding any of its automatic operating characteristics, or sacrificing any backwards compatibility.
Your thoughts?
Donnell Interesting question. Kadee probably has not considered the change since their standard has now become the standard for most of all model railroaders. If it was made thicker, the increase would be limited since they really use that slight hook on the end of the knuckle to mechanically latch the two couplers. I prefer # 58's for most applications which are smaller but not still not prototype. Maybe a possible suggestion to Kadee to consider a more prototype correct knuckle coupler if that is possible and not hinder the Kadee operation. This would make a good coupler for the front of all units. Larry |
|
|
|
Post by rhpd42002 on May 9, 2012 16:21:02 GMT -8
Kadee's last significant improvment to its line of couplers was the scale #58, as well as the addition of the steel "whiskers" to eliminate the need for the separate coupler centering spring. Personally, I thought this was a drastic improvement over the standard #5, but as time went on, I began to ask myself, "Had they done enough?"
The one thing I never really cared for regarding the new scale couplers was that they used the same old skinny/thin knuckle. So I will simply ask: Could the current Kadee knuckle stand to be revised?
I'm not looking for suggestions on switching to, or trying out Sergent couplers. This post deals specifically with improving the Kadee coupler to look even more realistic in appearance, utilizing a "beefier" more realistically-shaped knuckle, while not impeding any of its automatic operating characteristics, or sacrificing any backwards compatibility.
Your thoughts?
Donnell Interesting question. Kadee probably has not considered the change since their standard has now become the standard for most of all model railroaders. If it was made thicker, the increase would be limited since they really use that slight hook on the end of the knuckle to mechanically latch the two couplers. I prefer # 58's for most applications which are smaller but not still not prototype. Maybe a possible suggestion to Kadee to consider a more prototype correct knuckle coupler if that is possible and not hinder the Kadee operation. This would make a good coupler for the front of all units. Larry I think a more prototypical looking coupler would be welcomed, but I don't see the majority of users making the investment to make a wholesale changeover. In addition, I don't see Kadee tooling up a new coupler that might only be used on the front of lead locos, for appearances sake. Not against the idea of a better looking coupler, I just don't see it happening anytime in the near future, but we can wish and ask, can't we!  |
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on May 9, 2012 16:36:03 GMT -8
I short, to answer the question, probably.
BUT in my case I agree with Mike, the #5 is too well intrenched on my railroad to be replaced, reliability trumps any other contingencies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on May 9, 2012 23:03:40 GMT -8
That's the thing. I'm not advocating changing over anything. This improvement is in addition to, hence the requirement for maintaining backwards compatibility with previous versions of the Kadee coupler.
Donnell
|
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on May 10, 2012 6:20:45 GMT -8
That's the thing. I'm not advocating changing over anything. This improvement is in addition to, hence the requirement for maintaining backwards compatibility with previous versions of the Kadee coupler.
Donnell
The change would have to be backwards compatibility for sure as you have stated and still be as reliable as the standard #5. The final product if it was made would sell on a limited basis until the new model was accepted by the model train community. We tend to go with the old reliable products for the most part and this new release probably would be more expensive. I don't have any doubt the coupler would sell in limited numbers for lead units since that coupler is visable. Kadee has really set the standard for couplers in the past so this might be a new style coupler that would change the standard again if it can be designed to look better and proven reliable. Larry |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 8:01:16 GMT -8
I'd like to see them do their scale head in an AAR type H tightlock coupler. They have the shelf coupler which you can file the top and bottom shelf off to look like a type H, but I'd still like a type H out of the box. The Walthers named train passenger cars would look even better with prototypical couplers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on May 10, 2012 8:39:20 GMT -8
The change would have to be backwards compatibility for sure as you have stated and still be as reliable as the standard #5. The final product if it was made would sell on a limited basis until the new model was accepted by the model train community. We tend to go with the old reliable products for the most part and this new release probably would be more expensive. I don't have any doubt the coupler would sell in limited numbers for lead units since that coupler is visable. Kadee has really set the standard for couplers in the past so this might be a new style coupler that would change the standard again if it can be designed to look better and proven reliable. Larry
Oh well... just thought I'd ask.
Thanks for the discussion though! ;D
Sincerely,
Donnell |
|
|
|
Post by rhpd42002 on May 10, 2012 9:38:48 GMT -8
Donnell, I think your idea has merit. It's like so many other things that have come about due to the model RR community asking for and at times demanding better products. I think that our loco photos would look nicer with a better looking coupler that is, as you say, should be backwards compatible. Now if there's enough call for one and enough of us make Kadee aware of it, it, may take some time, but it could come to pass!  That's how these things "get started"!! |
|
|
|
Post by cprsunburysub on May 10, 2012 9:40:28 GMT -8
Hi Everyone,
The way I look at is "don't fix what aint broke"!!! I have around 1000 cars and a couple hundred locomotives! Every single one has Kadee # 5 couplers ( or #118's in the case of Tankers). I have never had a single issue with Kadee couplers as they are currently designed/constructed (except for Springs).
I tried the #58's and with the long 70 + car trains I operate on my club layout, they performed rather poorly... It was a nice idea, but they didn't work for my purposes! That's why I will continue to stick with the good ole KD # 5 and #118's!
Just my 2 pennies worth!
Jim Cerulli
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on May 10, 2012 13:42:49 GMT -8
I suppose it's one of those "acceptable compromises"...
|
|
DHTR
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by DHTR on May 10, 2012 15:49:17 GMT -8
The Dry Hill Model Railroad Club pulled 251 modern freight cars with 90% # 58's the others are # 5's with no problems and each car weights a 5 - 6 oz. minimum. Done at the Amherst Railroad Show last year. 8 Atlas engines on the point and no mid. or rear helpers !!!! Kadee's rule. I did the math that's over 80 pounds of weight !!!!!!!!!! Come next year to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhpd42002 on May 10, 2012 18:22:58 GMT -8
The Dry Hill Model Railroad Club pulled 251 modern freight cars with 90% # 58's the others are # 5's with no problems and each car weights a 5 - 6 oz. minimum. Done at the Amherst Railroad Show last year. 8 Atlas engines on the point and no mid. or rear helpers !!!! Kadee's rule. I did the math that's over 80 pounds of weight !!!!!!!!!! Come next year to see it. That sounds pretty impressive, dhtr. By any chance, is there a vid of that feat? That would be neat to watch! |
|
bcrn
Full Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by bcrn on May 10, 2012 18:41:54 GMT -8
If kadee wanted to wipe the slate, and start over, with scale and looks, being the target, if it was good enough, I know there are people who would retool. But, I think workability with there other couplers, is the selling point. I can't see changing my #5's out just for the latest and greatest.
|
|
|
|
Post by tracktime on May 11, 2012 0:27:27 GMT -8
I've already expressed my preferences on this to the nice Kadee folks at NTS 2012. It would be great to see Kadee offer a competitor to Sergent. The biggest issues I see in the semi-scale Kadees are two things:
1) Poor rendering of the lower shelf area of the coupler for their double-shelf #119 offering.
2) Time to ditch that knuckle spring. I'm not holding my breath on that one. =(
Somehow, I just don't see Kadee addressing this desire for a more accurate looking coupler anytime soon.
Cheers,
Harry
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on May 11, 2012 5:14:50 GMT -8
Hi Harry,
I called Kadee yesterday and got that same sentiment...
Donnell
I've already expressed my preferences on this to the nice Kadee folks at NTS 2012. It would be great to see Kadee offer a competitor to Sergent. The biggest issues I see in the semi-scale Kadees are two things: 1) Poor rendering of the lower shelf area of the coupler for their double-shelf #119 offering. 2) Time to ditch that knuckle spring. I'm not holding my breath on that one. =( Somehow, I just don't see Kadee addressing this desire for a more accurate looking coupler anytime soon. Cheers, Harry |
|
|
|
Post by catt on May 11, 2012 7:17:30 GMT -8
I read all this noise about scale head couplers ,and prototypical sized coupler boxes but I see nobody taking the fact into concideration that for scale couplers in scale boxes your going to need scale size curves on your layout or the limited swing of the coupler will cause cars to derail if for no other reason than the fact they have swung as far as they can,but it's not far enough to allow the cars to stay on the rails.
Johnathan (Catt)
|
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on May 11, 2012 7:51:01 GMT -8
I read all this noise about scale head couplers ,and prototypical sized coupler boxes but I see nobody taking the fact into concideration that for scale couplers in scale boxes your going to need scale size curves on your layout or the limited swing of the coupler will cause cars to derail if for no other reason than the fact they have swung as far as they can,but it's not far enough to allow the cars to stay on the rails. Johnathan (Catt) You have a valid point about this upgrade we are talking about. I am interested in that type of coupler to be used only on the front of a diesel unit set or in my case for the steam era, steam models. Most of the layouts could not handle this type of coupler, but the requirements were to operate and be backwards compatible to the standard #5 used now. Last year, I tried to run a 4-12-2 on a layout that had 42" and larger radius trackwork and that did not work out that well. Larry |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cutler III on May 11, 2012 9:02:57 GMT -8
Folks,
Having a scale coupler and one that operates with #5's are mutually exclusive ideas. If you want a scale coupler that works, buy Sergents. If you want automatic coupling and hands-free uncoupling, buy Kadees.
For an improvement, I would like to see a single wire replace the coil knuckle spring as it would almost disappear. The problem is in manufacturing them. Note that the Whisker couplers have their whiskers pressed into the shank. There's no place to do that on a knuckle. You'd almost have to drill a small hole, then insert the wire and keep it there...somehow. As much as it annoys me, I think we're stuck with the coil knuckle spring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on May 11, 2012 10:44:22 GMT -8
Well, it may sound like noise, but I do think the issue has some merrit.
In fact, there was a thread on the Atlas forum about Kadees vs. Sergents, and a question about Sergent couplers and minimum radius was brought up. One modeler took the challenge and posted this viedo showcasing long cars through an 18" radius S-curve:
Also, Tim Warris of Fast Tracks posted this video on his latest layout. I know for sure that his curves are less than 18":
So, I'll agree that couple swing is important, but at the same time let's be practical. Are we really trying to pull our new El Caps, or shove 89' auto racks, or run Gevos and ACes around 18" or 22" radius curves? You'd have major problems, even with Kadees and Kadee-clones.
DonnellI read all this noise about scale head couplers ,and prototypical sized coupler boxes but I see nobody taking the fact into concideration that for scale couplers in scale boxes your going to need scale size curves on your layout or the limited swing of the coupler will cause cars to derail if for no other reason than the fact they have swung as far as they can,but it's not far enough to allow the cars to stay on the rails. Johnathan (Catt)
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cutler III on May 11, 2012 11:34:44 GMT -8
Donnell, Please note that in the two videos, the cars are all roughly the same length. And when the first video does mix in a "short" car, it's still a 50' or 60' car coupled to long cars that have swinging coupler pockets. The real trouble with coupler swing isn't when the cars are the same length. It's when they're different. IOW, try those above experiments with an 89' autorack with a fixed & scale coupler pocket with a 35' 2-Bay Hopper with a fixed and scale coupler pocket, all equipped with Sergents, going through an 18" S-curve, and then we can talk. |
|
|
|
Post by el3637 on May 11, 2012 12:23:16 GMT -8
As much as it annoys me, I think we're stuck with the coil knuckle spring. Since the plastic finger spring on the clones has been a total fail and even the Botch Brothers have gone to a coil, I'd say we're going to be stuck with it for a while as long as automatic coupling (if not uncoupling) is desired. Kadee at least now provides a blackened knuckle spring instead of the shiny bronze one. Andy |
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on May 11, 2012 12:48:55 GMT -8
Hi Paul,
Even real railroads have rules about coupling extremely long cars (80'+) to extremely short cars(45'-). And suprisingly, it's for the same reasons that we encounter on our layouts.
For the record, all of the real autoracks that I've encountered were equipped with long drawbars that had a considerable amount of coupler swing. In fact, centerbeam flats, 60'+ boxcars, and 89' flats all have long drawbars with a fair amount of coupler swing, basically to address the very issue we are now discussing...
Donnell
|
|
|
|
Post by sd80macs on May 11, 2012 15:39:49 GMT -8
Here is a view of a yard with a tight curve with long cars on it. if you look to the right side there is a long flat with a short car attached to it and I have seen plenty of that on the prototype too. maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.597973,-90.149431&spn=0.004872,0.010858&t=h&z=17 |
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on May 11, 2012 17:05:25 GMT -8
Hello Mark,
One of the primary issues with coupling long cars with short cars has to do with how much weight is behind that particular two-car consist, and the fact that too much weight cold result in a derailment. Yes, there are instances where this can happen, but certain restrictions doo apply.
On the Union Pacific Railroad the rule reads:
Do not couple freight cars 80 feet or longer to any car 45 feet or shorter when weight behind the coupling exceeds 3000 tons. However, this does not apply to :
- A locomotive crane 45 feet or shorter when coupled to a boom idler car 80 feet or longer.
- A car listed in the TCS train consist as 80 feet and the consist does not show a train placement error.
Donnell
PS - Great discussion by the way!
|
|
DHTR
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by DHTR on May 12, 2012 4:13:05 GMT -8
If you click on our web site in my signature then click on 2009 long train video you will see a train being puled by 6 P&W's and 242 cars. we started out with 100 cars in 2006 and every year on Sunday afternoon we keep adding cars and last year 2012 we pulled 251 cars with my son Dakota's 8 conrail engines. I don't know of any video of it but next year we will because we now have a video camera. count the cars |
|
