Only thing I dont like about the old Horn hook couplers is they look silly and when they would get worn out sometimes would catch on the ties, aside from that they DO work and there really isnt anything wrong with them. I only switched to knuckles after picking up a few 2nd hand cars that already had them installed on them, I thought they were the coolest thing evar
Seriously though you could remove all your couplers and tie all your cars together with string, whatever works!
Sorry to bring this old thread to life, but i think that's better than starting a new one and duplicating just to share another opinion.
I have both new (2011) and rather old (1980s) rolling stock from Bachmann, Life-Like, Walthers and Mantua, the lower section of my layout which is flat, works great with MKII plastic knuckle couplers and cargo rolling stock, forward and reverse motion works well, derailments are few, and cars rarely uncouple on 18" and 15" sections.
Unfortunately that's not the case on the upper level where there are 22" sections and elevation changes, 89' McKinley Explorer passenger & larger auto-carrier cars are used, rolling stock constantly uncoupled to the point where I really had to go back to the horn hook couplers which solved the uncoupling problem quite nicely.
I don't mind running mixed couplers on my layout.
In my humble opinion knuckle couplers do look a bit better, but horn hooks do couple more "securely".
My $ 0.02
Byros: Welcome to the Forum.
At the present time, I have three HO consists running on three separate lines. One is Bachmann with H/H couplers. The second is a mix of Bachmann and Life-Like with H/H couplers. The third is Varney with Kadee Knuckle couplers.
Except for the fact they are not compatible, for me, if the consist runs without problems, the type of couplers doesn't really matter.
Long after `serious' model railroaders had standardized on Kadees, Ed Ravenscroft's Glencoe, Skokie Valley layout soldiered on with horn-hooks. Of course, he had been NMRA president when they were developed, and had been very active in the research involved. His worked like silk, even at the crest of his automated hump yard...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with Kadees)
More than likely the knuckle couplers don't have sufficient swing in there coupler box. Might try a longer coupler shank. Plus, 22 inches is tight for a 89 foot coach. Other thing to look at is dips and high spots on the rails. Horn hooks are way more forgiving than knuckles. Did you set the height of the couplers with a gauge?
Cuda Ken and
I hate Rust
Assuning that KDs are installed correctly, 99% of the reasons KDs uncouple can be traced back to track work. KDs are not very tolerant of sudden vertical changes. If one is careful when laying the track including testing with a variety of cars, one should be able to find and fix the trouble spots before they become a problem. If one just slaps the track down without regard to making sure that the track is level and flat and vertical transitions are smooth and gradual, then sticking with the old horn hooks is probably a good idea. I run 60-80 car trains and I can barely remember the last time anything uncoupled on its own. Many of the non-hobbiest vistors to my layout do notice the "real" couplers. And I always have fun running my trains.
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
TA462 Byros: Unfortunately that's not the case on the upper level where there are 22" sections and elevation changes, 89' McKinley Explorer passenger & larger auto-carrier cars are used, rolling stock constantly uncoupled to the point where I really had to go back to the horn hook couplers which solved the uncoupling problem quite nicely. I don't mind running mixed couplers on my layout. In my humble opinion knuckle couplers do look a bit better, but horn hooks do couple more "securely". My $ 0.02 Your track work is to blame. You have built unrealistic elevation changes which cause your couplers to uncouple. It's not the couplers fault, its poor track work and over all design.
Byros: Unfortunately that's not the case on the upper level where there are 22" sections and elevation changes, 89' McKinley Explorer passenger & larger auto-carrier cars are used, rolling stock constantly uncoupled to the point where I really had to go back to the horn hook couplers which solved the uncoupling problem quite nicely. I don't mind running mixed couplers on my layout. In my humble opinion knuckle couplers do look a bit better, but horn hooks do couple more "securely". My $ 0.02
Your track work is to blame. You have built unrealistic elevation changes which cause your couplers to uncouple. It's not the couplers fault, its poor track work and over all design.
I agree with TA and on the basis that your most troublesome rolling stock are long cars, they will emphasize differences in coupler height. So if your track is uneven, as in raising and falling in elevation and not smooth and even, the long cars will have problems first.
Sounds like going to horn hooks couplers may be the short term easy fix since redoing the track could require whole sale ripping out sections of the layout and redoing subgrade benchwork as well as relaying the track.
BTW, something you can also do which will allow you to use knuckle couplers is buy some shelf couplers like used on tank cars. Those my help those long cars stay coupled when the dips and rises in track work try to mismatch couplers to the point the become uncoupled.
Ummmm.....this argument was settled back in the 60's. Whether you like it or not the Kadee or knuckle style couplers have become the defacto standard. They look like a coupler and within reason operate pretty successfully. When the Kadee patents ran out other manufacturers jumped in. Did they try to revive the horn hook? No, they created their version of the Kadee. Do you suppose that just maybe that was because that style of coupler was what most modelers preferred?
If you don't like knuckles, then by all means don't use them. Use string or rubber bands, horn hooks or whatever. Nobody but you really has to be pleased.
BYROS: Looks like the "pros" are telling you that your track level is suspect!.......Well, it could be.....or maybe they just favor knuckle couplers. It is worth checking. If H/H couplers work for you, use them. Main thing is to have your consist run without problems. Have fun.
Thanks for the Welcome Traindaddy1!
Thanks all for your replies and advise, lots of variables to consider and fix in-order to improve coupling, I would have loved to get a larger space to have all the tracks running on a flat surface, what little space I ended up with, was all that negotiations with my wife yielded, and that was no easy task, thus I had to go vertical and that's when the problems began with knuckle couplers and large cars.
You are right TA, track work is poor, more so on the upper level, and as Rio Grande points out larger cars react badly to elevation shifts, so horn hooks being more forgiving provided a solution, and no I don't have a gauge to measure and adjust the height, so maybe that could have helped a lot, this is only my 2nd layout ever, the first one I did when I was 12 with my father, now 26 years later this is what I've come out with, and the tracks barely fit due to limited space, so please bear with me.
Here's a picture of the current situation which explains the issues with dips and rises:
I googled the shelf couplers used on tank cars, and this it what I got, are these the ones Rio Grande is talking about? I don't recall seeing them before, but they look just fine:
By the way, it was not my intention to stir things up, I just wanted to share what I'm experiencing with both knuckle couplers and horn hooks, and well I guess it's really about enjoying the trains with whatever configuration anyone might have to secure the consist.
Byros You are right TA, track work is poor, more so on the upper level, and as Rio Grande points out larger cars react badly to elevation shifts, Here's a picture of the current situation which explains the issues with dips and rises: I googled the shelf couplers used on tank cars, and this it what I got, are these the ones Rio Grande is talking about? I don't recall seeing them before, but they look just fine:
You are right TA, track work is poor, more so on the upper level, and as Rio Grande points out larger cars react badly to elevation shifts, Here's a picture of the current situation which explains the issues with dips and rises:
Please be aware that if you use those shelf couplers and have a derailment where the engine heads toward the floor, it will pull every car in the train after it.