NP, My Apologies, I was offline with work, etc.. Yes, Maxman said it better than my explanation did.It is the outside surface of the face that I ground & filed down to 'nest' inside the bearing (contact) surfaces of the Sergent. Without this the closure captivity is limited & the couplers are more askew when joined. I ground it until it would capture positively, then as a second step ground it more to allow relief to become closer to shank parallel with the Sergent capture surfaces. Alhough it can't be perfect, it is functional.I do not have a layout to test this (on severe turns), but in a pull situation it works great, however, I could see potential issues in a push situation with a higher load force. As they go skewed out when pushed as my video shows.However, I use Sergents for some more closer to Scale Models, & some Photo Shoots, like I also do with with too close (set back) Kadee E & F Couplers, when taking pix. (I have been called out on this)..For running I will be using Med Shank KaDee's, or what is appropriate for that situation.This was an experiment to see if I could make a custom compatibility option to my current standard, (KaDee Scale Head Couplers), & for me it was a success.Thanks, I appreciate the interest & the comments, it's nice to share.
Hey guys ---
I must agree with Chad. Mike, your dual gauge coupler system is really neat.
And Chad, the modified couplers look like they would hold a lot of promise.
And Randy, I don't know what's more dangerous: close-coupled cars or distant-coupled cars on sliding underframes. Whichever one kills you, you're just as dead. That's why the rule.
NP2626In note #3, Outside bearing: relieved to allow engagement & closure/capture in Sergent. What bearing are you talking about?
I believe that he means the outer surface, as in "the outer load bearing surface".
About those cushion underframes - sure the nominal distacne between the ends of the carbodies was greater, but wouldn;t they be MORE dangerous during coupling, because while the center sill stops, the actual carbody could shift depending on how rough the coupling was made? Though I suspect it would be not a whole lot unless the engineer really slammed them together.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Chad,
In note #3, Outside bearing: relieved to allow engagement & closure/capture in Sergent. What bearing are you talking about? What I see is the outer face of the "Knuckle" (unsure of correct terminology) of the coupler has had the "flash" cleaned up.
Your photo, better than any I've ever seen, demonstrate the difference in size between the Kadee and Sergent couplers. In actuality the shank and body of the two couplers are very similar in size, shape and detail. It is the "Knuckle" portion of the two that is the most different.
Again, thanks for your photos and explanations, Chad!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
ChadLRyanMike, I really dig that Dual Gauge coupling system, Excellent!
Sometimes I even amaze myself. I was fully expecting a do-over, but I managed to get it right the first time.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Hey NP, & all,I would not be able to find the actual thread as fast as I can find this pic..so check this out, click the pic, as it should show you the full size version in a new window.
There may be other ways, but this is how I Dun it, only modified the KaDee, Sergent is stock.Althought it is altered it will work with other KaDee's, but is somewhat less reliable, due to the stock removal shown in the pic.
Thanks
ChadLRyan I did this back in January, for another Sergent thread.It may help but may not, I try to be honest in the presentation. watch?v=Ky4tQMQVN0 Mike, I really dig that Dual Gauge coupling system, Excellent!
I did this back in January, for another Sergent thread.It may help but may not, I try to be honest in the presentation.
watch?v=Ky4tQMQVN0
Mike, I really dig that Dual Gauge coupling system, Excellent!
Chad, what did you modify to get the two to link up? Is the method of modification described elsewhere and could you provide a link to it? I should think those interested in considering switching to the Sergents would be interested in what you did. Thanks for the video!
csxns What about that brakeman standing between the rails waving to the engineer to couple up to the train in Pelle's article.
What about that brakeman standing between the rails waving to the engineer to couple up to the train in Pelle's article.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
The brakeman standing inside the gauge?
1. The engineer could probably see him if he were standing almost anywhere else, BUT NOT WHERE HE IS.
2. He doesn't know and/or doesn't read his rulebook.
3. He may be suicidal, in which case he has a good chance of achieving his goal.
4. I don't think I'd let him marry my daughter unless she stands to inherit a fortune.
On a more practical note, I would add that the successful operation of fairly long HO trains with 714's (mentioned above) was carried out on curves of less than 20" radius.
Russell
Wow! Get away from the computer for a couple hours & look how much gets said while you're gone.
Prototype freight cars of the transition era (i.e., 1940's and 1950's) tend to have the coupler pulling face about 18" from the car's end sill, which means about 36" between cars. This is presuming we're not dealing with a Duryea underframe or some other factor that would change the dimensions. I got my numbers mixed up a while ago, but it appears from this that a 48" distance is excessive. Coupled 711's or 714's have a distance close to 18 scale inches from pulling face to end sill, which is just about right. I have seen full sized HO transition era freight cars so equipped, operating successfully in both pulling and pushing situations, with 714's. The plastic used by Kadee on these couplers is tough!
That said, I still use 58's for most of my equipment. So I'm not saying 711/714's are necessarily the answer for everybody, including me. I often use 714's on the pilots of steam locos, simply because their smaller size fits into tight spaces more readily.
One problem with the Sargent coupler is that (as far as I know) they won't couple up with any coupler except another Sargent or a dummy.
BRAKIE NP2626Larry, as a former 1 to 1 scale railroader, do you know what the distance between the bodies of freight cars is? -------------------------------------- No sir never gave it much thought to be honest..I was more concern with a sudden run in of slack. On the Chessie a lot of cars had extended cushion coupler boxes or longer couplers which made it a lot safer to be in between.
NP2626Larry, as a former 1 to 1 scale railroader, do you know what the distance between the bodies of freight cars is?
--------------------------------------
No sir never gave it much thought to be honest..I was more concern with a sudden run in of slack.
On the Chessie a lot of cars had extended cushion coupler boxes or longer couplers which made it a lot safer to be in between.
Larry,
I believe the Chessie did that, so those cars could negotiate,,18'' to 24'' Radius curves,that a lot of layouts don't have the space for broader curves...so close coupling,is out of the equation..
Just My Two Cents..
Cheers,
Frank
NittanyLion,
Good point. Operation is the prime directive for couplers. If that's reliable, it's a good coupler. If it's not, doesn't matter how good it looks.
Richard,
That's also where I'd be cautious about including all Kadee-clones. Some are good enough, but many are not. Long trains and heavy grades are a sure route to failing them chintzier ones. I do agree that it's great that at least a semi-working coupler is on everything these days. Man, I hated those horn-hooks. Not even its Mama liked its face.
In my book, there are certain tradeoffs that must be made because we're building working models. If I was building some display model museum piece thing, then scale couplers would be required. But Kadee does something that fits one of my rules: allows for hands off operating. I abhor reaching "into the scene" to manipulate the model in any way. No breaking the fourth wall! Until such time that tiny men controlled wirelessly can be moved about the layout to center couplers and pull cut levers, magnets and springs will have to work.
Plus, like someone else said, there's enough other things to worry about first if you're being ultra-prototypical. For one, SD40-2s don't draw electrical power from the two rails...
Except for the recent Sergent discussion, couplers, in general, are just a non-issue for the modern model rail, especially for the beginner. All models that are R-T-R and in all kits that include couplers, the tendancy to supply kadees or kadee work alikes is the norm now. Remember when all R-T-R and all kits came with the rather clumsy, but workable NMRA horn couplers! What a waste of good delrin plastic. They always got tossed by all but the most novice among us.
If I was in standard gauge HO, as I was for 35 years, I would keep my old #5's. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Sergents are most attractive to hyper scale buffs and HOn3 folks.
Richard
If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed
ACY NP 2626: Forgot to add one thing: Kadee 711/714's will couple with 5's and 58's with no problem.
NP 2626:
Forgot to add one thing: Kadee 711/714's will couple with 5's and 58's with no problem.
Yes, this is important if you operate dual-gauge. Because of the size of the draft gear, the only way to get two couplers in close proximity, standard and narrowgauge, in HO is to use a 714 for the centered SG coupler and a 1015 (IIRC) N scale coupler for the offset NG coupler. If you try to use a full-size Kadee and a 714 instead, you can't get them to sit in the correct place in relations to each other to handle both SG and NG cars.
Here's a pic of the dual-coupler install I did on a Bachmann 44-tonner. I extended the deck a foot or so in order to provide clearance at the back of the draft gear to the truck. It requires accurate work to get them placed right, but worth it once it's done.
This is another area where the wide draft gear of the Sergent will be an issue for narrowgaugers.
BRAKIE davidmbedardX2F is to Kadee #5s as Kadee #158s is to Sergents. It's an elvolution people. If you don't want to buy in, that's fine. I think that anyone who is starting a serious layout should atleast consider them. Eventually the local standard groups will list Sergents as "required". It'll take time, but like everything else that has evolved in this hobby, so shall the couplers. One day there will be something superior to the Sergents......wash, rinse, repeat. David B I agree..I thought about equipping 30-40 cars for use on my ISL instead of the equpped #5 and 148s. The jury is still out.
davidmbedardX2F is to Kadee #5s as Kadee #158s is to Sergents. It's an elvolution people. If you don't want to buy in, that's fine. I think that anyone who is starting a serious layout should atleast consider them. Eventually the local standard groups will list Sergents as "required". It'll take time, but like everything else that has evolved in this hobby, so shall the couplers. One day there will be something superior to the Sergents......wash, rinse, repeat. David B
I agree..I thought about equipping 30-40 cars for use on my ISL instead of the equpped #5 and 148s.
The jury is still out.
Larry, as a former 1 to 1 scale railroader, do you know what the distance between the bodies of freight cars is?
NP2626:
I guess this is a reminder for me to recheck my facts before jumping to contusions. You're right. Kadee 5's couple about 4 scale feet apart. But 711/714's couple at about 1/3 to 1/2 that distance & the appearance of a train is much better.
Some time I want to get out and measure the actual distance between two coupled cars of the transition era and see what's prototypically correct. I still think 4 feet is too much, even though I accept this compromise on my own equipment. As I said, I use 58's.
My very limited experience with Sargents was a long time ago. I do remember that they coupled fairly closely, looked terrific, and operated well.
As for centering the couplers in order to couple up, it's done with a hard kick with a heavy boot on the prototype. Of course, the curves are generally much gentler on the 1:1 railroads.
ACY
ACY A couple things to consider: 1. ... 2. Appearance at trackside: When two cars are coupled, is the distance between carbodies prototypical? Among those discussed here, Kadee 5's are the worst (X2F's may be even worse than that!) Much too much space. Mated Kadee 58's are much better, but not ideal.. That's what I've settled on for my equipment, which is standard gauge. Yes, it's a compromise. I know of 714's (i.e., standard gauge "Old Time" 711's) being used on transition-era freight cars with very good results. The couplers are probably undersized, which means they don't call attention to themselves, and car spacing is approx. 4 scale feet, which is very close to prototype. The couplers are much more durable than many people think. I've seen successful operation of standard gauge trains of 20 cars and more with 714's. Just thought I'd throw that out for discussion.
A couple things to consider:
1. ...
2. Appearance at trackside: When two cars are coupled, is the distance between carbodies prototypical? Among those discussed here, Kadee 5's are the worst (X2F's may be even worse than that!) Much too much space. Mated Kadee 58's are much better, but not ideal.. That's what I've settled on for my equipment, which is standard gauge. Yes, it's a compromise. I know of 714's (i.e., standard gauge "Old Time" 711's) being used on transition-era freight cars with very good results. The couplers are probably undersized, which means they don't call attention to themselves, and car spacing is approx. 4 scale feet, which is very close to prototype. The couplers are much more durable than many people think. I've seen successful operation of standard gauge trains of 20 cars and more with 714's.
Just thought I'd throw that out for discussion.
I just measured the coupled distance between car bodies of several of my Kadee #5s equipped freight cars, which is scale 4 feet!
I understand the "714 bounce" sorta, now. Although if I take Jeffrey Wemberly's explanation as the cause, it makes me wonder why a lack of free rolling of the trucks is being blamed on the 714 coupler? Mike went on to further explain, so I'm good.
As far as the Sergent Engineering coupler being the next evolutionary step-up in coupler design, I would say this remains to be seen. If so, Who-ray, if not, Who-cares.
1. The Concertina effect, or "bounce-back". It is greatest when there is a lot of play between mated couplers, and the 711/714's do have a lot of play. The double-spring trick sounds like a great idea because it would minimize buff & draft movement, and probably reduce the Concertina effect.
A little more explanation to add to Jeffrey's.
The 714 is an old design Kadee used prior to the good ol' #5. It was originally considered a standard gauge coupler and some of those who do Turn of the Century (the 20th, that is) use them to model 3/4 AAR size couplers. Now they're used almost exclusively for narrowgauge and most NG kits and RTR comes set up to accept the 714 format coupler's draft gear. That's why my desire for proper draft gear for the Sergent to work within the 714 format. I'm certain if Kadee does come out with a next gen 714-replacment, it will fit the existing 714 draft gear location, even if it ends up being different mechanically.
The springs in it are a little different, rather more like many N scale couplers use. The spring sits in a cavity former by the coupler halves and bears against the center post. Thus the spring also acts as part of the draft gear. Which is neat the first time you see it, but is rather unprototypical and irritating after the 1,000th time. The whole consist gets to bobbing like ducks on a string. Adding the second spring tames it some. So does have very smooth running trucks, as the differing resistance to rolling aggravates whatever bobbing gets the "bounce" started.
The first to act to give a turn-key solution to this dilemma will get the appreciation -- and the funds -- from many HOn3 operators, a small, but dedicated and growing market segment.
With trucks that intermittently drag or don't roll freely 100% but roll-drag-roll-drag and each time the wheels break loose, the coupler springs store the momentum and release it, creating a rebounding bounce to the consist line, which in turn gets transmitted to the next coupler spring and so on and so on.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
O.K., I'll bite, what is the 714 "Bounce"? Please describe what is happening during "the bounce".