Help with Kadee Couplers

[Aviator]

I certainly don't expect zero slack action. I spent some time riding freight cars as a conductor and understand that there has to be slack. Ideally the slack is either bunched up when shoving or run out when pulling (not taking into consideration braking).

It's the way that the car(s) bounce fore and aft that takes away from the experience.

I have found a few cars were underweight regarding NMRA specs so I have added weight to those, and have added some drag on a few cars. I took a page from the N scale world and added a coupler spring to the end of one of the axles on several cars. These cars now behave like I would expect, and at this point I am much more content.

Believe me, I wish I had a large layout where I was running mainline trains and some odd slack action was not even noticed. But this is a small swithing layout that I operate very slowly, often times with one eye at track level, other eye closed, watching very closely as if I were the railroader on the ground.

Thanks to all, I appreciate the advice and thoughts. Have a great weekend!

 

Sam

[hon30critter]

Hi Aviator:

Just wanted to say Welcome to the forums!!   

I'm afraid to admit that horizontal coupler slop is not something that I have ever concerned myself with, but kudos to those who model to that degree. I'm happy if they just stay coupled! I do adjust all of my couplers for proper height including the trip pins, and I eliminate any sagging.

Dave

[riogrande5761]

For what it is worth, I have on many occasions heard the sound of slack action when a train stops propagating through out a long train when braking or when pulling it out when accelerating.  Just sayin...

If you want your freight trains to behave like passenger trains with tight lock couplers, well, thats up to you.

[SeeYou190]

Aviator

Thanks again to all, I will be sure to update the thread with my experiments.

.

Oh... By the way...

.

to the Model Railroader forums. I am sure you noticed that your first few posts are delayed by the moderators, but that ends very soon. Please stuck around and join the conversation.

.

I would love to get updates on your project.

.

-Kevin

.

[zstripe]

In that type of situation, I was able to put a piece of heat shrink tubing around the undersize pins in some of the coupler boxes....but I am in HO. Don't have experience with N-scale.

Take Care! 

Frank

[Aviator]

Thanks to all that replied. Sorry for not describing the situation better, it's not coupling to a free rolling car that is the issue, it is in fact the slinky type effect when operating at very slow speeds.

I am going to try the suggestion of adding some drag to the cars, with no mainline or grades and only about 15 cars on the layout at one time it won't take much effort.

I agree about all coupler boxes not being the same, and that the Kadee box is the way to go.

I may give the Seregents a try, with a small collection focused on switching it may be worth the funds and the effort.

Thanks again to all, I will be sure to update the thread with my experiments.

[7j43k]

SeeYou190

As you mentioned, most of the slop comes from undersized coupler pivot/pilot pins in the OEM provided coupler boxes.

 

 

I was surprised to read that "most" of the slop comes from undersized...pins.

So I ambled into the train room and checked the slop between a Tangent hopper and an Exactrail hopper, factory equipped with small-head Kadee couplers.

Total slop was .06".  Of that, .02" was indeed from a sloppy coupler fit.  In this case, the Tangent car.

But that leaves .04" of slop integral with the coupler design.

Now, .04" could be laughed off as minimal.  Except that it was enough to get the OP to post this topic.  And what got me started on the search for a new coupler.

 

Ed

[SeeYou190]

As you mentioned, most of the slop comes from undersized coupler pivot/pilot pins in the OEM provided coupler boxes.

.

That is one of the reasons why I am such a constant proponent of using Kadee couplers in Kadee's own coupler boxes whenever possible. I know that HO scale coupler boxes are supposed to be "universal", but in reality there is quite a bit of sloppy standardization among the freight car manufacturers.

.

-Kevin

.

[7j43k]

Aviator

1) Some "posts" in draft gear boxes are smaller in diameter than others, allowing the coupler to move fore and aft more than others. I'm tempted to try to either shim the coupler box in some way, or even shave off the post and install a new one of larger diameter that allows for less movement. Or use Kadee's box.

When I need such "posts", the first thing I consider is slicing off the little "post" that comes with the Kadee coupler boxes and using that.

 

Ed

[7j43k]

I noted the Kadee slinky-effect awhile ago, and didn't like it.  Having a tighter fit on the mounting post is certainly a good idea, but most of the slop is in the coupler itself.

Sergents do indeed drastically improve this.

I decided to install Sergents on cars that operate as unit trains (in that they travel a layout without the cars mixing with other cars--no "switching").  The list includes intermodal cars in the late era (about 1990 to now), coal gons, and passenger cars.

I decided, at least for now, to keep scale-head Kadees on general freight cars, as they may interact with other people's cars during Free-mo setups.

If I were approaching a stand-alone industrial switching layout, I would use Sergents in a flash.  And I would keep in mind that I need vertical access for the magnet, which should be easy on a shelf-ish layout.

 

Ed

 

PS:  I do have Kadee adapter-cars for my coal gons (and might do some for the other types).  This allows, for example, me to use Kadee-equipped locomotives, if I choose.  

I still have my Athearn pickle car, which has a Kadee K-style coupler on one end and an X2f on the other.  'Cause Ya Never Know.......

[Paul3]

I think it would help if you could describe this "bounce effect" you're getting.  You said it's not like the slinky effect (which I've seen on Kadee #714's, their narrow gauge couplers).  So is this more like, try to couple up to a car and watch it bounce away without coupling?  (Which can happen with super free rolling cars)  Or are you talking more about just slack action while running back and forth?

Because if it's just the slack running in and out on a switching layout, I'd say just induce a little drag on every car.  Take a piece of solder or a resistor or small brass wire and wrap it around both axles on one truck.  You can adjust the amount of drag pretty easy just by how much you crimp the wire.

And BTW, slack is required in each HO coupler face not just for coupling with older-style couplers, but just to uncouple at all.  Note that all the knuckles have a lip at the end that prevents uncoupling accidently.  To get the coupler to let go, one has to pull the knuckle open far enough to get past the lip.  If there was no slack, that would be impossible.

If you want to eliminate slack, then you're going to have to go with Sergents.  They have minimal slack as they are very tight fitting couplers.  They are, however, more challenging to use.

[Aviator]

Hi all. After spending 20+ years in N scale I made the switch to HO about a year ago. With my primary interest being locomotives, it was fun to paint and detail in a larger scale. And the old eyes aren't what they used to be!

With very little space available I settled on a shelf style switching layout. I sometimes miss continuous running but for the most part I am enjoying operating the switching layout. I even sprung for a ProtoThrottle, which has been great fun.

I am equipping all of my rolling stock with Kadee 158s. I like their appearance and operation. There is just one thing nagging me about the Kadees..the "bounce". It is somewhat reminiscent of the slinky action I dealt with in N scale with Micro-Trains couplers. But the physics are different.

After closely examining all rolling stock and locos here is what I've come up with:

1) Some "posts" in draft gear boxes are smaller in diameter than others, allowing the coupler to move fore and aft more than others. I'm tempted to try to either shim the coupler box in some way, or even shave off the post and install a new one of larger diameter that allows for less movement. Or use Kadee's box.

2) Even with two pieces of rolling stock that have the couplers properly installed and do not have the above mentioned issue there is still some bounce effect simply due to the space between the knuckle and coupler. I understand this, it's necessary to allow the 158 to couple to other couplers such as the #5 etc.

I am aware of Sergent, and may think about giving them a try, they're a good fit for a small switching layout. But I'd like to see if there is a way to minimize the issue first.

I realize that some slack action is normal. I spent some time as a conductor on a freight railroad and know all about slack action.

In N scale to minimize the MT slinky effect many folks would put a retaining spring on a car at the rear of a train to create some drag and keep the slack tight. This works good if you're modeling the caboose era.

There are other factors that can contribute to this: trackwork, rolling qualities of freight cars, and smooth locomotive performance come to mind. I believe my trackwork is well laid, it's on cork sheet over plywood, no grades, and is mostly Micro Engineering Code 70. Freight cars are from various manufacturers and all have free rolling trucks. The locomotives are a mix of Athearn, Atlas and Walthers. All have been broken in and operate very smooth at low speeds.

Sorry for the long post. I guess I'm just wondering if other folks are experiencing the same thing, and if anyone has any ideas to minimize the issue other than what I have mentioned.

Thanks in advance for any advice!