Mel,
The #58 looks good, but proved too finicky for my track. Since the head is scale-size, the amount of vertical overlap is reduced over the #5 and its equivalents. This means that you start seeing unwanted uncoupling on longer cars in the vertical curves. Nothing drastic, but I have a lot of hidden track, so it's worrisome. Took a few off, but mostly not adding any.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I am in the same camp as mlehman on this one. A few of the scale couplers managed to sheak in on my layout and they gave me unwanted uncouplings like I never had before. Perhaps if my trackwork was closer to perfect? But I accept the compromise and stay with the number 5's.
While on the subject, What do you feel are the advantages of the whisker centering? The old school design works fine for me. Not a challenge, just asking for information.
Charlie
charlie9What do you feel are the advantages of the whisker centering?
Charlie,About a 2 second drop in versus placing the centering spring and then coupler in the coupler box.
As far as scale couplers if your track is decent without dips or sudden inclines scale couplers will work.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Although I never had any issues on my layout, I would agree that the scale couplers - like the #58s - will be less forgiving about vertical play than the #5s. That said, I've been very happy with the look and operation of #58s and #158s (whisker-version) on my locomotives and rolling stock. And they couple just fine with any #5s.
I buy my #58s/#158 in bulk, as they are less expensive that way. And, as soon as a locomotive or piece of rolling stock comes in, it immediately gets outfitted with the replacement Kadee coupler.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
The whisker coupler, for me, based upon my hand tests, seems to result in both smoother and faster centering of the coupler than the old #5 springs, which I hated dealing with, too. Additionally, the whisker coupler will better fit some of the tighter, more restricted coupler boxes out there on today's rolling stock because no spring is required, so vertically it takes up less space. I have been able to install whisker couplers on some rolling stock where either the thickness or the width, or both, of the traditional #5 spring and coupler setup would absolutely not fit the box.
My layout is all Kato sectional track, with the longer sections used where possible to eliminate joints. I am able to use the Kadee #158 couplers on most engines and rolling stock. However, occasionally long cars will have issues due to vertical displacement. In some cases the off brand, clone couplers are sagging too low already and may come uncoupled from cars that have #158 couplers installed at correct height off the rail.
Rapido's couplers are absolutely the worst of the clone knuckle couplers on my layout. I immediately remove them from any Rapido rolling stock and throw them away as they will cause derailments even for me, who has only one turnout on the entire mainline. Their lame couplers sag and had to be replaced with Kadee long shank (I believe overset) couplers. As soon as I do that on Rapido passenger cars, the derailments are gone and things operate very well. Otherwise they are nice passenger cars (except beware paint overspray around lettering boards).
John
The semi-scale KD's are less forgiving, but I've noticed they come stock on a lot of the freight cars I've been buying such as ExactRail and the new Wheels of Time bulkhead flat cars. They do look clsoer to scale true.
Other than a bulk pack KD58's I found for half off, I don't plan on buying anything but #148 whisker going foward. I prefer them for better smoother operation and reliability. The larger head KD's also have a better gathering range and while the semi-scale head do mate ok with them, it requires a bit more force. Since generally couplers are between cars and not a as easily seen as other details, it doesn't bother me that they are a bit over-sized. I prefer the operational reliability and smoothness over appearance in this case.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
The absolute only issue I have ever had with scale 58's or 158's, is they require a lot of force to couple with 118 shelf couplers.
So, anything that gets coupled to a 118 shelf coupler gets a 5 or 148, everything else does not seem to mind the scale couplers.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
I've been adding the scale couplers in places where they're most visible, but maybe don't get used that much, like the front coupler of a steam engine, or the rear coupler on a caboose (I know cabooses go either way, but since I have crews in them, I prefer to only run them in one direction). I got the idea from Norm Charboneau's layout; he's a 1:48 scale model that uses three rail track. He uses the Lionel type couplers, except he will use Kadees in some spots, like the pilot coupler of the lead unit of a set of Atlas F-units. The other couplers are the Lionel-type ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0mVxyd-ois
I often do the very same (some locomotive pilots are designed to accommodate only a certain coupler easily).
Sometimes, with locomotives, I'll use a #148 on the back of the tender to accommodate the vast majority of rolling stock.
Also, much rolling stock does come with #158 factory installed now, too, including most MTH freight cars.
Hope they continue to do well for you.
I certainly prefer the appearance, but they have to work. My issues have been very few.
I will have to try a 119 then, thanks for the tip.