[HO] coupler poll

LOL :)

I'm pretty sure W will just retire to his ranch in Crawford. Not so sure that Nixon won't return. Didn't the "stake" remark come from someone from his own administration? :)

Further derailing the topic. But hey- derailments are on topic here, I suppose...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------=

--------------------------------------------

Maybe it's time that the U.S. Presidency is outsourced to India... maybe even the entire U.S. Government.

BTW, does anyone still use (HO) Baker couplers? When I was modeling HO, I used "horn hooks"... couldn't keep the cars coupled while on the track and couldn't get 'em uncoupled when I picked them up. Sigh. Might be one of the reasons I changed to N scale. I still use Rapido couplers.

Bill Bill's Railroad Empire N Scale Model Railroad:

A good chance they'd speak better English; a different accent wouldn't hurt, either.

And, lessee, the "traditional" Columbus Day is 12 Oct, so I always make note, if not celebrate, Lief Erikson Day on 11 Oct.

mark "and then there's the Cymraeg Saint who sailed over the Pond in a coracle in the 600's...."

I still want to dig the body up and put one through it.

mark

On 5/12/2008 8:14 PM mark spake thus:

Or, like Paula Poundstone, piss on his grave. (I think she was the one who said that.)

It depends, I am seriously contemplating using the NEM coupler pocket-compatible Kadees (types 18 and 19, mostly).

As Greg said, in European continent, nearly everybody uses NEM coupler pockets, either bogie-mounted or body-mounted (the latter becoming slowly the majority).

There is a 'close coupling' system by Roco (which is the one used in most of the trains/wagons in continental Europe trains, if you want realistic passenger operation). Problem is, they are using a rather obtrusive center 'thing' that is visually irritating to people like me.

I suppose that you mean a 'close coupler' like the ones by Roco? Another solution (pricey, though) is to use sprung buffers (just like the prototype), so the pressure on a buffer doesn't cause a wagon to derail.

Hm, maybe I will try to equip a small fleet of passenger wagons with Kadees, it should be an interesting experiment... but first I have other projects to do.

Cheers, N.Fotis

As I stated elsewhere, these will work well if your numbers of wagons in a train are kept small. As the train gets larger, the weight of the trailing wagons will pull the close coupling mechanisim to one side or the other.

I presume you mean Roco's coupling head. :-( To me that is an unacceptable non-prototypical addition.

Yes.

That works _if_ you can employ curves large enough to ensure the buffers always coincide. (circa 1m in HO) Most of us are forced to utilize tighter curves, which guarentee that buffers wil cross behind each other and lock.

It's a quick test to do, but unless your trains are short it will not work 100%.

Regards, Greg.P.

Greg, people have backed up long trains at speed. Me too. No problem with Kadees. Actually, it's a good way to find glitches in the track work. ;-)

HTH

My experience is different, and my analysis of the forces involved suggests you are on the point of disaster with that action. Glitches in track formation should take you over that point. Kadees will _not_ operate the KK kinematics in the manner required but will operate them in a disasterous manner. Admittedly it does require a gradient and a change of curve, but many layouts have those. IOWs, you might have got away with it, but don't presume everyone will or even that you will 100% of the time. Your success is entirely based on each individual coupling centering spring having a centering force greater than the load imposed by the tractive effort of the loco and greater than the rolling resistance of the train being pulled. Any glitch can pull the KK mechanisim fully to one or other side, and a change in curve, such as a crossover will derail the wagons on either side of the extended KK mechanisims which cannot pull back.

Regards, Greg.P.

Well, a typical European passenger train reaches about 10 wagons, and a typical freight reaches 30 to 40 wagons (both 2-axle and 4-axle). If such size trains work well, that's more than enough for our needs.

I agree, it's pretty intrusive visually, but not worse than the others used in Europe (look at the following page another poster mentioned:

Since me and my colleagues are using FREMO modules, the *minimum* curves we are using are (guess what) around 1 meter (3+ feet), so I think we might pull it off.

I am tempted to try this, especially with push-pull trains (with the locomotive pushing - THAT should be fun :-) )

An important thing to note: the wagons being pushed must be heavy enough for that push-pull action (many 2-axle European wagons are way too light, and derail at the slightest provocation).

Cheers, N.Fotis

Interesting that there are basically two types: hook and loop, and knuckle. Last time we were in the UK I noticed that pretty well all the trains now have knuckle couplers, although the older coaches have a drop-down version so that the hook and link coupler can be used. On the continent, trams and commuter trainsets all use some kind of knuckle coupler combined with brake lines and power/control lines. There doesn't seem to be a universal type, though. The railroads still use hook and link.

HTH

I came to grief with a 20 (Landerbahn) wagon train on 900mm (3') radius at a gradient of 1 : 30-40. (3.3%-2.5%) 99% of the time. The level track formation at the top of the gradient was a passing track with an 'S' curve formed of a pair of Peco large radius turnouts. Taking the straight through track, the KK and couplers being offset fully generally did not derail the wagons, but taking the crossover always derailed them. Working backwards from there by reducing the train length, 100% operation was reached at about 15-16 wagons, but only at scale speeds. You might well get away with your 30-40 wagon train with Kadees, but the couplings will have locked at full swing and there will be no leaway for any other faults, however minimal.

I currently have a much smaller NEM compatible KK coupler design with Brawa for consideration.

I'm sure you will, but it will be like fitting a Porsche Turbo engine to a standard VW Kaefer and driving down the Autobahn at 350km/hr. ;-)

As I said at the beginning, the problem arises from the train load exceeding the centering force of the KK centering spring, adding weight to the rolling stock exasserbates the problem. I weight my wagons using a formula similar to the NMRA formula, resulting in a 65 gram weight per 105mm wagon.

Regards, Greg.P.

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

Hi Wolf,

That's _three_ types. The European tram coupler (name escapes me right now) has been around since the early 1900s. It consists of a buffing plate with a domed peg on one side of the centre-line and a matching hole on the other. There is a dropping cross latch behind the plate that rides up over the mating peg of the other coupler and drops into a slot in the top of the peg. In addition there are gathering bar "ears" at opposite top and bottom corners so that misaligned couplers pull into alignment as they meet. There are two main types of hook and link couplers, loose link (now defunct) and screw link couplers. The difference in operation between coupled screw link and knuckle couplers is that the screw link tightens to the point where wagons are in tension against the sprung buffers, forming a single unit train, whereas knuckle couplers have a considerable amount of loose slack. A European goods train will start and run as a single unit (requiring more horsepower per unit) whereas a knuckle coupler train can be started one wagon at a time. The downside of the slack is in more damage to goods and slower speed operation. European railways did decide to introduce a standard modern technology knuckle coupler (late 1980s) but it didn't happen, presumably due to the huge cost for minimal gain. Automatic couplers have been used for passenger service in Europe for some considerable time, largely due to the difficulty of operating screw couplers in the confined space between buffers under corridor connectors. A problem there is that countries (eg UK) that fitted knuckle couplers early are stuck with the poorly functioning (slack coupling) "Buckeye" types, while countries standardizing on more recent designs get better operation but incompatibility.

Greg.P.

Since there's no way I could dig the body up, I'd settle for that, too.

mark

The coupler system in use in the US is also used in common with Canada and Mexico -- isn't it?

I believe Russia's coupler system developed from the US coupler pre WWI. AFAIK the US's coupler system is it's own, but it is also used by several other nations.

The use of geographically standardized coupler systems is useful for interchange. Where rail systems are isolated, what is required is a workable coupling system.

Greg, What statement did you view as "'anti- 95% of the world' and take it as such?

Hi Mark,

we're in danger of making _way_ too much of this. ;-) It was the comment where the US uses coupler design "XYZ" while other countries use their own designs.

To me, that leaves the USa in exactly the same position as other countries, ie using it's own design, or to put it another way, there's no distinction. The exceptions are where other countries don't use their own design, such as Canada, Mexico, all the countries of Europe using the European standard, etc.

Regards, Greg.P.