Doughless...But, if you want to pull a 20 pound train up a 2% grade and around a sharp 30 inch radius curve at 50 mph (to mimick protoype fidelity I guess Wink), you need free rolling cars. Its also better to have metal couplers.....
Sorry, but I can't resist: the train was actually 22lbs.:
...and there were two curves (the other inside the tunnel), although both were 34" radii...
and there were two locomotives, as one couldn't quite do it...
However, not a metal wheel on any of the 44 hoppers, only on the locos and the caboose.
The couplers were, of course, Kadees. I would guess, though, that properly adjusted X2Fs might have been up to the task, too - that plastic is incredibly strong and the one-piece couplers have no moving parts.
Wayne
DoughlessPersonally, when there is a train of cars, to me the couplers in between the cars look like black horizontal blobs with two black verticle thingys sticking down, whether or not they are knuckles or x2f's.
My vision is still pretty decent as long as I'm not too close to models I can see the couplers quite well and they don't look like plastic blobs between the cars. I can easily see horn hooks vs. knuckle couplers; looks do matter to me in a running train.
But all things considered, more realism is always desired over less, when available.
It's available so I scratch my head over why, if economical, modelers would rather not go more realistic. And if Kadee's are too costly, there are probably modelers here who would happily send the plastic couplers they don't use so the folks who still want semi realistic couplers can have them with minimal cost, even of not genuine metal Kadee's.
Spending time collecting models to display and comparing them to static photgraphs of the protoype for fidelity mistakes is only one way to enjoy the hobby.
Yes, people do that, but thats not what myself or others are talking about here. We want to have "operating" models which look realistic. I don't buy my models for static display, nor did I when I was a wee teen and didn't like those unrealistic horn hooks way way back then. It's kind of a straw man argument to add static display models to the argument; easy fodder to knock down and irrelevant to many/most of us.
But, if you want to pull a 20 pound train up a 2% grade and around a sharp 30 inch radius curve at 50 mph (to mimmick the protoype I guess ), you need free rolling cars. Its also better to have metal couplers.
The horn hooks may be ok for that. When MR magazine did their stress test on the plastic KD clones, surprisingly they held up to quite a bit of stress before failing. But the reason the KD clones may still fail on grade is the shanks may bend up or down under stress causing the train to separate and run away down grade.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
YES!!
Wayne, I was actually thinking of you when I wrote that. I knew you use plastic wheels and have commented that metal wheels are no advantage for you.
Yeah, I need the old "horrible" AHM/TYCO truck with the coupler to get the type of grade holding "performance" I'm looking for. Plastic wheels alone won't do it.
I'd like to get my hands on more 36 inch plastic wheels since they are more appropriate for my era, and I prefer the look of all of my cars sitting up off the rails. It looks better to me than the more accurate 33 inchers on many cars.
- Douglas
riogrande5761For for me, that is why I argue that yes, horn hook couplers "are that bad", yes.
Jim,IIRC we was talking about operation of the X2F not the looks but,we can talk about looks..Even in the early years the X2F didn't look like the couplers on the prototype but,we was force to make a compromise in order to have a "standard" coupler supplied in kits that was at least compatible instead of the incompatible hodgepodge array of couplers we had from various manufacturers-know and fully understand that..
The X2F was sorely needed and thank goodness the NMRA designed a compatible coupler for the manufacturers to used. Now a Varney kit had the same couplers as the Main Line kit as did the Hobbyline,Athearn,Roundhouse etc. A major break through no more hodgepodge..
Then we (modelers) decided that KD was the better all around choice and we made it the de facto standard coupler and along with Athearn or Roundhouse kits we normally picked up packages of KDs. The X2F like today was placed in file 13.
BTW..Today's coupler box is based on the X2F coupler box again sitting a manufacturing compatibility standard since the KD mounting hole is the same size as the X2F mounting hole..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
doctorwayneThe couplers were, of course, Kadees. I would guess, though, that properly adjusted X2Fs might have been up to the task, too - that plastic is incredibly strong and the one-piece couplers have no moving parts. Wayne
Wayne,First mighty fine looking bridge. The X2F would indeed work in long trains. When I was around 10 I saw a IIRC 40 or 45 car train at the Columbus HO gauge club and it boggled my young mind since the club usually ran 20-25 cars due to passing siding limits-I found that out 5 years later when I was invited to join the club since I was showing up every visitor night and was running trains as a guest engineer.
Jim, no worries.
The OP asked a question are horn hooks "that bad".
After describing his friends layout and a situation where the type of coupler was not even noticed for a long time, some still commented "yes they are".
A head scratcher indeed.
Edit: The x2f has a long horizontal part that is used for bumping the opposing coupler and sliding them apart before they close together and lock hooks. The long horizontal part is longer than what is typically needed to reliably couple cars together, provided the cars are reasonably aligned when coupling (usually on a straight track) Shortening the length of this "horn" , so it doesn't stick out so much sideways, helps to diminish the obvious appearence problem of the x2f, especially when cars are coupled together.
By Horn you mean the tab sticking out in back You can clip that off with a spue cutter as well as that bottom part if you like and make a temporary coupler to gp with the knuckle couplers. does not work too well though. I did that with a trainset Tropicana car for a while until I decided to turn that odd ball car into a shed.
Joe Staten Island West
riogrande5761Spending time collecting models to display and comparing them to static photgraphs of the protoype for fidelity mistakes is only one way to enjoy the hobby. Yes, people do that, but thats not what myself or others are talking about here. We want to have "operating" models which look realistic. I don't buy my models for static display, nor did I when I was a wee teen and didn't like those unrealistic horn hooks way way back then. It's kind of a straw man argument to add static display models to the argument; easy fodder to knock down and irrelevant to many/most of us.
My sentiments exactly. I wasn't just referring to pictured or displayed models, I was also talking about operating models that mimmic as close as possible what the prototype would show and do.
BRAKIE riogrande5761 For for me, that is why I argue that yes, horn hook couplers "are that bad", yes. Jim, IIRC we was talking about operation of the X2F not the looks but, we can talk about looks..
riogrande5761 For for me, that is why I argue that yes, horn hook couplers "are that bad", yes.
Jim, IIRC we was talking about operation of the X2F not the looks but, we can talk about looks..
Looks matter alot so it should be included in the "are horn hooks really that bad" discussion.
Ok, I realize you were born during the Triassic period during the geologic, er model train o logic time scale, and I was born during the Jurassic period but lets face it, thats all ancient history for fossiles or fossile like trains. We now live in the Holocene period of the train o logic time scale so it's what is most relevant now. X2F horn hooks can be found if you go on an archeologic dig at your local train show and some train fossiles still show up on Ebay, and in some peoples back yards. Some still like to collect fossiles; I understand since I hold a bachelors and masters degree in geology, er trainology - you get the drift. =P
or they've become fossilized in the strata of train geologic time and still get unearthed from time to time.
Doughless The OP asked a question are horn hooks "that bad". After describing his friends layout and a situation where the type of coupler was not even noticed for a long time, some still commented "yes they are". A head scratcher indeed.
Since you mentioned head scratcher indeed, I'll try to address that.
TBH, thats one of the problems with some of the topic titles, they tend to prompt a reaction out of people. So if we are skirting around the example given (horn hook operation) and talking about looks, then should we just walk away at the Jedi Handwave and "these are not our droids?" "move along, move along". Unfortunately topic titles still invoke a reaction and I'd argue they "may" be crafted to do exactly that, get attention and invoke a reaction and being the people that modelers are, still need to have their say. One could draw that conclusion very easily.
Apologies if the "looks" subthread sent this topic in a direction not wanted by the OP; but to be fair, if the topic was titled a bit differently, maybe it may have lead things more specifically in the right direction - maybe not, we may never know. My feeling is it "might" help a bit if title topics were a bit less, lets say, "loaded" as they seem to be all too often here. When others in this topic said they have noticed a pattern, there is a reason for it. I'll just leave it at that.
Shortening the length of this "horn" , so it doesn't stick out so much sideways, helps to diminish the obvious appearence problem of the x2f
There have been some who have emphasized the operability of the horn hooks, but if they are shorn of the horn to improve appearance, won't that reduce the operability? Which gets us back to the notion that if looks really matter and you want the best of both worlds, looks and good operability, we end back up at Kadee's again.
E-L man tom riogrande5761 Spending time collecting models to display and comparing them to static photgraphs of the protoype for fidelity mistakes is only one way to enjoy the hobby. Yes, people do that, but thats not what myself or others are talking about here. We want to have "operating" models which look realistic. I don't buy my models for static display, nor did I when I was a wee teen and didn't like those unrealistic horn hooks way way back then. It's kind of a straw man argument to add static display models to the argument; easy fodder to knock down and irrelevant to many/most of us. My sentiments exactly. I wasn't just referring to pictured or displayed models, I was also talking about operating models that mimmic as close as possible what the prototype would show and do.
riogrande5761 Spending time collecting models to display and comparing them to static photgraphs of the protoype for fidelity mistakes is only one way to enjoy the hobby. Yes, people do that, but thats not what myself or others are talking about here. We want to have "operating" models which look realistic. I don't buy my models for static display, nor did I when I was a wee teen and didn't like those unrealistic horn hooks way way back then. It's kind of a straw man argument to add static display models to the argument; easy fodder to knock down and irrelevant to many/most of us.
With respect, you mentioned how you hated when you looked at a photo in a mag of an otherwise impressive model and you see the horn hook coupler. I was reminded that there is nothing more static than a photo. OTOH, the OP was watching a moving train.
As far as the broader statements about comparing models to photos of actual rolling stock:
It was not an accusation, primarily because there is nothing I feel is "bad" about it. And I never said that people who do that don't have layouts. (How would I know?) The idea that I DID say that was put there by someone else. ( Or readers are mentally rehashing some sort of banter in a typical "operator" vs "collector" debate, something I never join).
My view is that comparing static models to static photos of the prototype for painstaking accuracy, layout or not, and collecting them or building them for a lyout or future layout, is yet another ordinary way to enjoy the hobby. No different than someone wanting to run with horn hooks.
riogrande5761There have been some who have emphasized the operability of the horn hooks, but if they are shorn of the horn to improve appearance, won't that reduce the operability?
Jim,No..In fact and IMHO they operated better that's why I trimmed mine off.. With my two tricks and two-three turns with a rat tail file in the mounting hole I could "kiss" couple cars-in fact that's how I learn to gently couple cars without moving the standing car.I can do the same with KDs..
That's why I will never understand why a modeler needs to slam into a freight car and move it 6 scale feet in order for the cars to couple.
As far as KD versus the prototype coupler the KD falls short. The only coupler that does look like a prototype coupler is the Sergent coupler.
subway ars of LION came with Kadee Couplers on them. Cars were too far apart t look good. Had same problem with ABBA and PA1 units. LION went to Drawbars and never looked back. All-wheel pickup makes a big difference.
Anyway lion pulled out all of the ready made drawbars and made his own from brass. The buff action brought the anti-climbers into contact in push mode and caused derailemnts. Since motors of LION were always in the middle of the consist half od the train was always in buff mode. New drawbars of LION are just a little longer than the ones that came with the sets, but have smaller holes to eliminate anti-climber contact, and are thin enough to allow vertical motion without derailing adjoining cars.
As for Horn-Hooks, LION never had good luck with those things, but then nobody ever told him to fine tune those things. And him could never figure out those uncoupling ramps, as those would derail trains comng and going.
Uncoupling sticks will allow to uncouple cars in the exact position you want, but do not work if you have to walk acound the layout to use them.
Magnets worked perfectly, but required a stop in an unnatural place to uncouple and then spot the consist. And new locomotives were so smooth running that you had to make more movemements to force the uncouple.
LION fixed this issue by putting a yard light over the magnet so that the operator on the other side of the room new where the magnet was, and by installing a "cutting key" unknown on feight roads, but all transit motormen carried them to open the electronic uncoupler. My cutting key was a momentary dpdt button that would reverse the power to the track so instantly that you could not see the train balk, but uncouple it always did.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BroadwayLion subway ars of LION came with Kadee Couplers on them. Cars were too far apart t look good. Had same problem with ABBA and PA1 units. LION went to Drawbars and never looked back. All-wheel pickup makes a big difference. Anyway lion pulled out all of the ready made drawbars and made his own from brass. The buff action brought the anti-climbers into contact in push mode and caused derailemnts. Since motors of LION were always in the middle of the consist half od the train was always in buff mode. New drawbars of LION are just a little longer than the ones that came with the sets, but have smaller holes to eliminate anti-climber contact, and are thin enough to allow vertical motion without derailing adjoining cars. As for Horn-Hooks, LION never had good luck with those things, but then nobody ever told him to fine tune those things. And him could never figure out those uncoupling ramps, as those would derail trains comng and going. Uncoupling sticks will allow to uncouple cars in the exact position you want, but do not work if you have to walk acound the layout to use them. Magnets worked perfectly, but required a stop in an unnatural place to uncouple and then spot the consist. And new locomotives were so smooth running that you had to make more movemements to force the uncouple. LION fixed this issue by putting a yard light over the magnet so that the operator on the other side of the room new where the magnet was, and by installing a "cutting key" unknown on feight roads, but all transit motormen carried them to open the electronic uncoupler. My cutting key was a momentary dpdt button that would reverse the power to the track so instantly that you could not see the train balk, but uncouple it always did. ROAR
I seem to recall my Walthers Subway set came with Kadee clones and horn hooks in a little bag. But Lion you are right the spacing is way too wide. I think I might try drawbars or at least shorter couplers, once I get around to that part of my layou.
BRAKIE riogrande5761 There have been some who have emphasized the operability of the horn hooks, but if they are shorn of the horn to improve appearance, won't that reduce the operability? Jim,No..In fact and IMHO they operated better that's why I trimmed mine off.. With my two tricks and two-three turns with a rat tail file in the mounting hole I could "kiss" couple cars-in fact that's how I learn to gently couple cars without moving the standing car.I can do the same with KDs.. That's why I will never understand why a modeler needs to slam into a freight car and move it 6 scale feet in order for the cars to couple. As far as KD versus the prototype coupler the KD falls short. The only coupler that does look like a prototype coupler is the Sergent coupler.
riogrande5761 There have been some who have emphasized the operability of the horn hooks, but if they are shorn of the horn to improve appearance, won't that reduce the operability?
Wouldn't the horn hooks have less "gathering" capacity if the horns were being trimmed off? They were designed that way, logically, so when the are not coupled, and the spring holds them to the side against the shanks, then I would think without the extended range afforded by the "horn" the couplers would be more likely to miss each other. But I abandoned horn hooks a long time ago so I'm going on what seems logical. Being right or wrong on this isn't going to bother me - it's totally academic since I happily abandoned horn hooks a long time ago.
Really, it goes without saying that Kadee's fall short in a direct comparison with real couplers and I already covered that earlier mentioning that for those who are sticklers about appearance, they will have to go with Seargents. For a number of reasons, cost, time to out fit hundreds of cars, and more limited operability, most of us stick with the "happy medium" and compromise with Kadee's.
That's a fact, but they can be shorn too short of course.
To my eye, looking at the coupled couplers in the shadows that exist between two moving rail cars, knuckle couplers look like a blob comprised of two hooks stuck together with small "thumbs" sticking out from each side and fake hoses sticking down. And a big spring resting horizontally.
To my eye, looking at the coupled couplers in the shadows that exist between two moving rail cars, shorned "horn" x2f couplers look like a blob comprised of two hooks stuck together with small (thanks to the horn being shorn) thumbs sticking out from each side and fake hoses sticking down. And no big spring.
This summers eye exam confirmed I still have 20/20 vision.
Larry, I must have bought some of your old BB and and MDC cars at train shows. I've seen a lot of them with shorn horns.
riogrande5761Wouldn't the horn hooks have less "gathering" capacity if the horns were being trimmed off? They were designed that way, logically, so when the are not coupled, and the spring holds them to the side against the shanks, then I would think without the extended range afforded by the "horn" the couplers would be more likely to miss each other. But I abandoned horn hooks a long time ago so I'm going on what seems logical. Being right or wrong on this isn't going to bother me - it's totally academic since I happily abandoned horn hooks a long time ago.
Jim,The X2F didn't need that long horn to couple so,a a trim would improve the performance since it had less room to travel before coupling.
Back in the 50/early 60s hobby shops in Columbus didn't readily stock KD couplers because maybe one in ten customers was buying them.
I will share this..When the Columbus MRR club moved to its current location back in '68 one of the longest and loudest meeting we had was voting in KD couplers as the club's standard. The motion barely passed.
The X2F was free in car kits..The KD cost money and it would be costly to convert a large fleet of cars for club use was the main reason behind the nay votes...
To answer the OP's question are X2Fs really that bad?
Yes. And Im going to toss in a cat in a bag...
Take a photo of your front or rear of your model train infront of completed scenery. What is the first thing that stands out?
Do the same with a Kadee, what do you notice now. A giant spring and a trip pin.
In both cases the coupler stands out (have a look at model railroad calendars if you dont beleive me).
Now take a Sergent Engineering scale coupler. Same photo but look at the difference.
No uncoupling ramp or below track magnet (just a 3" brass tube you hold in your hand with rare earth magents in each end).
Cost: Compareable or less than Kadee. But yes you do have to assemble them or pay someone to do so.
BRAKIE I will share this..When the Columbus MRR club moved to its current location back in '68 one of the longest and loudest meeting we had was voting in KD couplers as the club's standard. The motion barely passed. The X2F was free in car kits..The KD cost money and it would be costly to convert a large fleet of cars for club use was the main reason behind the nay votes...
Glad thats all in the dustbin of ancient history. Of course with a lot of things best left unspoken here, I have nostagia too about the olden days.
The cat just found a hole in the bag and climbed out. People who don't like the trip pins simply cut them off; problem solved. A little grimy black will tone the spring down.
Obviously there is no perfect world; but clearly the horn hooks look like some strange alien contraption that even a small kid can see looks totally wrong. And for those who can't handle the closure spring even painted to blend in, as always, get your Seargents.
Model Railroading is a great hobby because there are so many choices; I think if you'll survey a experience model railroaders, you'll find it's going to be 99% Kadee, Kadee clones or Seargents, but mainly Kadee's. In this topic we are hearing from a tiny vocal minority based on all the forum posts I've read since being on train forums in 1995; it's pretty clear where the perference lies. I think we've about beat this horse to death. Cheers.
BMMECNYCTake a photo of your front or rear of your model train infront of completed scenery. What is the first thing that stands out?
I don't run my trains with a camera. So I don't really care what a photograph looks like. I want something very reliable and that looks reasonably good at 3 feet actual viewing distance. I will sacrifice appearance for reliability.
Frankly, I think there is way too much emphasis on correctness in the smaller scales. If you want extreme accuracy then proto48 is the road to go. There you can acutally see it.
My model railroading is like a painting. Good looking at the correct distance, terrible under a magnifying glass at 3 inches.
Paul
BMMECNYC Cost: Compareable or less than Kadee. But yes you do have to assemble them or pay someone to do so.
How do you replace them? It looks difficult.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
riogrande5761Model Railroading is a great hobby because there are so many choices; I think if you'll survey a experience model railroaders, you'll find it's going to be 99% Kadee, Kadee clones or Seargents, but mainly Kadee's. In this topic we are hearing from a tiny vocal minority based on all the forum posts I've read since being on train forums in 1995; it's pretty clear where the perference lies. I think we've about beat this horse to death. Cheers.
Jim,I would say the number is closer to 99.9%..I don't know of anybody that uses X2F couplers.
I also don't think anybody is suggesting going back to X2F couplers a valid question was asked about the X2F from watching a friends layout in action since the X2Fs reportedly was working far better then one might expect if one has no or very limited knowledge based on train set experiences..
80% of the experiance modelers are more concern about building or scenicing then they are over a missing tiny detail part that can't be seen or if there's a missing screw in the engineer's seat. I would be more concern over the missing head brakeman's seat in first and second gerations of diesels..After all the left hand seat is where the fireman set and later the head brakeman.
BMMECNYC Take a photo of your front or rear of your model train infront of completed scenery. What is the first thing that stands out?
angelob6660 BMMECNYC Cost: Compareable or less than Kadee. But yes you do have to assemble them or pay someone to do so. How do you replace them? It looks difficult.
Not sure what exactly your question is, but its pretty much a one for one swap in most cases (assuming you did not glue your coupler boxes together (have a few of those). Some coupler boxes that are thinner than others require filing get a sergent to fit (also the kadee that was replaced needed to be filed).
Responses to other comments:
Yes I agree, most modelers do not photograph their models.
Sergents, assembled per the instructions, are every bit as reliable as a kadee, in some cases more so. I have yet to have an unintentional uncoupling on our modular layout due to couplers slipping over each other. Have had plenty with Kadee.
Also I can couple on a curve due to no centering spring (yes you can omit the kadee spring or cut the whiskers off).
Double shelf couplers for modern era modelers cannot physically be uncoupled without a magnet, the shelfs are actually interlocking (this could be considered good or bad depending on if you loose your magnet, if only a few cars you can turn them upside down and they will uncouple).
I started out by cutting my trip pins off of my Kadees. Eventually got tired of doing that (different pins on kadee clones are made of harder metals that like to destroy lesser cutters, Rapido HO passenger cars especially).
There is no spring that can fall out of the coupler (optional spring that goes inside the coupler box for added side to side resistance).
But to each his own. I prefer to count this particular rivet on my own trains and on published photographs. To me, even with weathering and trip pin removed, a Kadee #5 just looks wrong. The X2f by and far looks horrible; it served its purpose until something better came along. That was the Kadee. I beleive the Sergent is at least equal to the Kadee in cost and reliability, and is superior in appearance. These are my opinions.
David:
"Are horn hooks all that bad? "
I never thought so. I have always been amazed at their simplistic, yet genius design.
PM Railfan
Since the coupler conversation seems to be petering out....
DoughlessYeah, I need the old "horrible" AHM/TYCO truck with the coupler to get the type of grade holding "performance" I'm looking for. Plastic wheels alone won't do it.
...how's this for rolling resistance:
Originally an Athearn coach, this car has its original plastic wheels with largish flanges (not RP25, I think) and all-metal trucks. The car is on a 2.5% grade and was pushed (downhill) into this position, where it stopped rolling of its own accord in a distance of only a few inches. If vertically mismatched Kadees, ahead of this car in a passenger train, happen to come uncoupled on a trip up the hill, I won't worry about lawsuits from passengers in other cars due to a wreck caused by the runaway, as it's unlikely to roll too far.
I do agree with Andrew's assessment of the Sergent couplers, though, and with a smaller roster of cars and locomotives, would be very tempted to convert. However, that conversion would have to be to Proto87 standards, as those scale couplers would then emphasise our overly wide wheels and the overly wide trucks required to accommodate them. Another one of those "slippery slope" issues, I guess.
Compared to Kadee couplers, horn hook couplers make models look very unrealistic and toylike.
doctorwayne Since the coupler conversation seems to be petering out.... Doughless Yeah, I need the old "horrible" AHM/TYCO truck with the coupler to get the type of grade holding "performance" I'm looking for. Plastic wheels alone won't do it. ...how's this for rolling resistance: Originally an Athearn coach, this car has its original plastic wheels with largish flanges (not RP25, I think) and all-metal trucks. The car is on a 2.5% grade and was pushed (downhill) into this position, where it stopped rolling of its own accord in a distance of only a few inches. If vertically mismatched Kadees, ahead of this car in a passenger train, happen to come uncoupled on a trip up the hill, I won't worry about lawsuits from passengers in other cars due to a wreck caused by the runaway, as it's unlikely to roll too far.
Doughless Yeah, I need the old "horrible" AHM/TYCO truck with the coupler to get the type of grade holding "performance" I'm looking for. Plastic wheels alone won't do it.
Thanks for the pic Wayne.
Yeah, I don't need to hold a 2.5% grade. My spur track laying isn't that bad.
But, I'm currently looking for 36 inch plastic wheels to replace the factory metal ones on my Tangent 4750 grain hoppers. While they look nice in the box, the metal wheels just don't allow me to mimmic prototype fidelity when operating the grain spur.
I'm hoping the plastic wheels roll poorly, and also since the black doesn't fall off black plastic over time, those wheels will be a much better product for those hoppers.
Thanks for the contribution.
doctorwayneI do agree with Andrew's assessment of the Sergent couplers, though, and with a smaller roster of cars and locomotives, would be very tempted to convert. However, that conversion would have to be to Proto87 standards, as those scale couplers would then emphasise our overly wide wheels and the overly wide trucks required to accommodate them. Another one of those "slippery slope" issues, I guess. Wayne
Wayne,If the Sergents came assembled I would be tempted to equipped 60 of my higher detailed cars with those couplers--60 cars is a nice number for my in/out rotation and I would need to buy 10 more to reach that figure.
Not sure if I would go Proto87 just because of the couplers though. The main reason Proto87 wheels isn't that forgiving if the track isn't flawless.
Agreed. Who wants to assemble couplers? And glue them, no less.
Plus all of the carcinogen warnings. Wash your hands after each session to avoid cancer? Oh my!
Rich
Alton Junction