HO Coupler Size Question

Kadee, McHenry, and maybe others now have "scale" size couplers which are smaller than the Kadee #5 which is most common. See the Kadee #58 and McHenry #41 on their web sites. I've used both. I use the McHenry's where they are just a direct replacement for the #51's or Bachmann EZ Mates some manufacturers sell (like Athearn and Bachmann) since they just drop in. The Kadee's are kind of the standard of the industry and since they are metal, are stronger. They both have actual springs and not just plastic fingers to keep the coupler closed.

The couplers are smaller and will mate with the #5 (#51) standard size, but vertical alignment is even more critical with the smaller size, and they don't mate as well on curves. But when installed, they do look better.

Ed

in article 8CxHd.6134$% snipped-for-privacy@news.cpqcorp.net, Jim at snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote on 1/19/05 10:25 AM:

The oversize depth of the (Kadee) coupler is needed to allow for slack mounting, uneven track laying and poorly understood vertical curves. If the depth of the coupling face was any smaller then the design would have gained a reputation for poor reliability.

I imagine there is probably room in the market for a more scale coupler, but it is not going to be compatible with the Kadee and friends.

Regards, Greg.P.

It's happening NOW. Kadee and several other makes of their 'clones' now have scale sized couplers (#58, etc.). Mostly, they mate with the full sized Kadees, so one need not switch everything at once.

The drawback is that they are FAR more fussy about both coupler mounting height and irregularities in the trackwork. Thus they are less dependable for many people ... MANY of whom have considerable coupler height issues with the oversized couplers anyway.

They can work dependably only **IF** you mount them properly and with care, and have total control of the trackwork standards (and this is RARELY the case on club operations for one problem).

But, like the semiscale wheels also coming into use, they sure LOOK nice, especially on older and smaller equipment.

Dan Mitchell ============

Close to scale Kadee and "Kadee clone"couplers are available NOW, and DO mate with standard Kadees and other clones. Unfortunately, as you imply, they are lot less forgiving of poor craftsmanship and bad track.

Dan Mitchell ============

These look like a pretty good start:

Anyone have any experience with them? I'm going to order a couple of sets just to play with.

-CJ

Well, try hooking your hand with that of a small child and see how well they mate. Sure you can trim some of the excess material from an oversize coupler design to make one smaller in appearance but you end up with one that has the same size space between "fingers" and "thumb" if it is going to work with the larger one, or in operating terms, an increased amount of slack. Compromises often aren't a good thing.

Regards, Greg.P.

"Jim" skrev i meddelandet news:8CxHd.6134$% snipped-for-privacy@news.cpqcorp.net...

Only one coupler is invisible! TB-Koppel

Pepe

The new closer-to-scale couplers offered by KD, McHenry et al. show why: coupler operation is very dicey with such small couplers. Track must be dead level, vertical curves (transitions between level and grades) must be very large (at least 12" to go from level to 1%, and correspondingly longer for steeper grades), trucks must track well, and above all, don't try to couple on curves.

OTOH, the prototype isn't all that easy to couple up on tight curves, either, esp. with long cars, so it's OK to give the couple a little nudge now and then. :-)

HTH

The most unobtrusive one I have seen is the (British) Alex Jackson coupler. It is a cunningly shaped hook at an angle to the vertical, made from fine steel wire. It is springy enough so the hooks couple to each other when the cars are pushed together, and uncoupling is magnetic. The hooks slide past each other and are now behind each other giving advance uncoupling like the Kadees. Their big problem is that they go out of adjustment very easily.

Proprietry standard wheels have about 1mm of slop on the rails - with both ends of a

4 wheeler moving in opposite directions, you can have misalignment by as much as 2mm! That's getting close to the limit AJs, without having any curves or turnouts! As well, there is no buffing capability.

But prototype couplers aren't invisible.

John

European ones nearly are. The British used US style couplers on (some of) their passenger stock They appear to be considerably smaller that the US ones. I tried Kadees, but even the 3/4 size narrow gauge ones were too large, and the N gauge ones had too much slack and don't look like the prototype.

Back when the Kadee K series coupleer was designed in the '50s, construction of track and rolling stock was a bit cruder. In addition, most railroads at the time used 18" or even smaller radius curves which made the use of more scale couplers more difficult. Scale dummy knuckles were available back then and it took a good tracklaying crew and larger radius curves for them to work right. Today, trackwork is done a lot better for the most part and larger radius curves are more common thus the ability to use smaller couplers on the cars and locos.

-- Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

So it sounds like that the hobby is unable to go to a smaller sized (more realistic) HO coupler because there is not enough margin for error for it to be operationally feasible.

Thanks for all the responses.

Jim

I've NOT had the problems you allude to. Yes, some of the 'scale' couplers proportions are incorrect due to the requirement that it mate with standard Kadees. This they do quite well, aside from the already mentioned problems with vertical alignment and coupling on curves (which Kadees are NOT good at anyway).

Being smaller in cross section they seemingly can't be as strong, and may be more prone to breakage in heavy service. This remains to be seen. I've not YET had a noticeable problem with them in this regard. Breakage is something the full sized Kadees (especially the metal ones) are amazingly resistant to. I have several hundred in service, often fairly heavy service (70+ car trains), and have broken only a very few in some

40 years. This does NOT including dropping the cars on the floor, or similar non operational disasters. One does need to replace an occasional knuckle spring, as these 'go south' occasionally for no apparent reason.

Dan Mitchell ============

Not true, as stated. The smaller coupler (and other closer-to-scale) options will work quite well. The price required is much closer attention to spacings and dimensions in all working parts, especially the track. That is, finer standards and higher craftsmanship. Most seem unwilling or unable to accept the added 'fussy' work necessary to achieve this.

The NMRA standards were ALWAYS a compromise. Much if this was WELL known at the time they were adopted, many years ago. They sought to establish a USEABLE set of standards that most hobbyists could accept and work to, and that manufacturers would actually USE. Mostly they were successful in this.

Today more seem inclined to experiment with finer standards. If enough do, perhaps the accepted "standards" can be changed.

Dan Mitchell ============

They are not designed for proprietary standard wheels but for scale wheels.

Because they are designed for vehicles with buffers.

Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

There weren't any scale wheels at the end of the 1940s(?) when Alex Jackson designed the coupler, just the horrible, unworkable, BMRSM (or whatever it was) standards.

True, but since then curves have been invented! :-)

I've played with the AJ couplers and tried to redevelop the concept to suit my HO models which have about the same wheel/gauge slop as those AJ must have used. By the time I solved all those immediate problems a new set had developed - great for models with finescale wheels and much larger radius curves than I have!

Regards, Greg.P.

Oh yes there were, AJ and his Manchester MRS friends made their own, creating the 'Manchester' profile, they used them on finescale EM. The group also made their own motors wound for 24V.

Refer to contemporary articles on the 'Dog Track', or the Efficiency Hounds, or 'Presson'

Don't you mean 'corners'

But didn't use, see above.

Agreed, and they don't look like railway couplings either, which is why I prefer KD. They may not be hooks and chains but they do at least look like they belong on a train. Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.