"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Originally posted by rexhea To add to Don's fine work, I would like to give an update on this problem. I received information from the Walthers man who designed the Budd car. He recommends that you remove the trucks from the bottom of the car and push (form) the car contacts in toward the car. Apparently the difference in the bow of the contacts give the variation in height per coupler by holding the trucks farther down. . REX [/quote These car lighting contacts are a neat idea, in my case, no light flickering but they certainly have caused a lot of confusion. There's a ton on these still on the shelf and new buyers weekly. This will be a perpetual problem until the Walthers corrects the flaw and includes an addendum with each car. I would think that Phil Walthers should be made aware of this problem. My discounted nickel's worth. Reply Edit Don Gibson Member sinceJune 2004 From: Pacific Northwest 3,864 posts Posted by Don Gibson on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 3:34 PM UPDATE: I have just received 3 more Budd cars. They are from the latest run 'Super Chief' Cars. One has marginally high couplers on one end only, and the other 2 are 'right on.! That's a (tested) total of 7 cars: Score 1 1/2 cars 'slightly' high and 5 1/2 correct. I can't speak for yours. Since the 'original complaint was a mis-match between Budd cars and Athearn engines, I went to my new Athearn RTR GP-60's and CF-7's. Oui! The Athearn engine's were all low - Something they've been doing for 50 years now. - about the ONLY thing Athearn has been totally consistant about. This cannot be contributed to QC. They are intentionally ignoring KD's (and NMRA's) contribution's to the Hobby. (There is a term in the manufacturing world I worked in. "Not Invented Here") in which refer's to designing 'around' and not paying royalties to a competitor..The Genesis engines are the only ones to even come close- and they're also low. Adding KD42's/#49's may lower to Athearn's standards, but wouldn't you rather bring the Engines into NMRA compliance - and get rid of those really shitty coupler's? KD # 47's come to mind. I think some of the complainer's need to (1) BUY a KD # 205 Coupler gauge and (2) USE it. So far The complaints to KD and Walthers seem to be scratching the 'wrong' person's behind. Don Gibson .............. ________ _______ I I__()____||__| ||||| I / I ((|__|----------| | |||||||||| I ______ I // o--O O O O-----o o OO-------OO ########################### Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 4, 2005 4:44 AM Well Antonio, I see you re-activated the question which brings to mind that Sam Clark of KD was re-ordering another Budd for re-evaluation. The second paragraph of their PDF install file has not been corrected since it applies to the Horizon car. I will wire Sam for an up-date. Thanks ! To: mail@kadee.com From: locomotive3@sbcglobal.net Subject: Question about HO? NAME: Chuck Walsh E-MAIL: locomotive3@sbcglobal.net SCALE: HO Retail REMARKS: Mr. Sam Clarke. Good morning Sam. A few moths back we exchange comments on the HO Walthers Budd Passenger cars. I'm wondering if you had an opportunity to re-evaluate the coupler # recommendation. The pdf/w333.pdf, second paragraph,"body mounted springs" I think applies to the Horizon cars since the Budds didn't have them. As usual, THANKS in advance. cgiemail 1.6 Reply Edit AntonioFP45 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Good ol' USA 9,642 posts Posted by AntonioFP45 on Sunday, September 4, 2005 10:02 AM Hello Loco3, One bit of a pickle that I'm in because I should have saved the previous info that Don gave before. On my Walthers Budds, I want to do the trick of using a longer coupler on the forward end of each car, and a shorter coupler on the rear of each car. This way my Budd cars can still negotiate 22" to 24" radius curves, but not have that huge unrealistic gap between them if I were to use long shank couplers on both ends of each car. I want to stay with the recommended 30 series couplers, however I'm still not sure which is which. If any of you have the info, I sure would appreciate it. Thanks! "I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!" Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 4, 2005 1:57 PM Don has a couple of theories and if you are running Athearn motive power he recommended using offset's on the Athearn. "COMMENT: may I recommend KD #47, #37 or #27 with offset's for your Athearn equipment, October 1,2004". Here's something else. http:www.trainbuddy.com/Notes/Notes.htm and click on Budd. I'm running my Budds Amtrak/UP with #26 at both ends and offsets on various locos. I saw a brief comment in Oct. MR about the Kato bi-level and ordered a Amtrak Coach/Cab(Waiting for arrival). Will add light and revenue paying passengers. I experimented running my Budds in push with a Walthers F40PH. Surprise-surprise; no de-railments. There was a time I couldn't keep these babies on the track around the 22" curve in pull. I got excited about the BLI CZ obs car running it as a private car but the Amtrak bi-level is a better fit. Hope the info helps. Reply Edit Don Gibson Member sinceJune 2004 From: Pacific Northwest 3,864 posts Posted by Don Gibson on Sunday, September 4, 2005 2:40 PM Antonioso: A combination of #46 (long) and #5's (med.) offer identical coupling but with different spacing, for navigating different radii curves. I too like to avoid the 'toy train' look of overy-wide spacing between car's - which is necessary with combining 85' passenger car's with unreaslitic curves on a home layout. If a #46 and #5 combination (Wathers' Budd drop in's) work's for you on 22"-24" curves, GREAT. An equivalent for Rivarossi (body mount's) might be #36 and #38's. My favorite for passenger car's is the #38 . If we could install 44"r. curves we might be able to use #33's, (but 28" and #6 Xover's are my ruling radii) Don Gibson .............. ________ _______ I I__()____||__| ||||| I / I ((|__|----------| | |||||||||| I ______ I // o--O O O O-----o o OO-------OO ########################### Reply ndbprr Member sinceSeptember 2002 7,486 posts Posted by ndbprr on Sunday, September 4, 2005 3:43 PM Why put Kadees on at all. Most of us run passenger trains as a block so I use dummies on the coaches and other cars. I only put operating couplers on the head end cars that get switched out. IMHO it is a waste of a good Kadee and costly when it isn't necessary. Reply AntonioFP45 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Good ol' USA 9,642 posts Posted by AntonioFP45 on Monday, September 5, 2005 9:46 AM Don, Thanks very much! This time I'm writing your info down. I'll be visiting my LHS this week to buy a batch of Kadee coupler packs. Glad you mentioned Rivorossi as I have six that I purchased back in the 90s, and plan on running them together with the Walthers Budds. After weighing them down with BB pellets and installing P2K wheels, they roll exceptionally well. BTW: Biggest pain with Rivorossi's is cutting off those blasted skirts! Requires patience. I run an exacto knife repeatedly through one of the corrugated lines until I'm able to bend and snap off the skirt. I then sand the bottom of the cut with 320 grit paper. NDBPRR, Interesting point, however, I want to be able to make or break up passenger trains using Switch Engines, so in my case kadees on all passenger cars are needed, including observation cars. [;)] "I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!" Reply Subscriber & Member Login Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more! Login Register Users Online There are no community member online Search the Community ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Model Railroader Newsletter See all Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox! Sign up