richhotrain riogrande5761 This topic seems like it was posted to throw a cat among the pigeons considering how universal is the preference of the KD standard. LOL An interesting observation, Jim. Rich
riogrande5761 This topic seems like it was posted to throw a cat among the pigeons considering how universal is the preference of the KD standard.
This topic seems like it was posted to throw a cat among the pigeons considering how universal is the preference of the KD standard.
LOL
An interesting observation, Jim.
Rich
Thats one way of putting it. But when you look at the totality our own experience plus the universality of the opinions posted, it's hard to wrap my head around there being a defense for horn hook couplers. It's kind of mind boggling, but as the old saying goes, it taks all kinds. I guess "underdogs" have their fans, but the first thing I noticed about HO trains when I began looking at them around the age of 10 or so was that the couplers looked totally unrealistic. Later, when I saw Kadee couplers, I thought, now that looks tons better! I don't know, it's kind of a "no brainer" to me, you know, realism being kind of the goal of model railroading etc. Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth. To each his own.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
There were alot of couplers before Kadee #5 including Kadee ramp couplers. The real trouble with hornhooks is uncoupling and needing a ramp for hands off.
Ed and Dr. Wayne:
Prototype Sharks couldn't normally be run elephant style because they didn't have nose MU capability. (I don't know whether any prototype owner retrofitted them after purchase). I do recall seeing four PRR Shark A units pulling a train through Akron, Ohio in the 1960's. They were configured as two A-A sets, and required two engine crews! A diesel double-header!
In this day and age, I cannot imagine any justification for producing models with direction-specific couplers. If the manufacturer doesn't want to provide operating knuckle couplers, then they ought to provide non-operating knuckle couplers that will mate equally well with Kadees (or equivalent) or each other. The seemingly bogus solution on those Sharks required two separate, different pieces. The dummy coupler solution would be simpler because it would require two identical ones. What am I missing here?
Tom
riogrande5761 Thats one way of putting it. But when you look at the totality our own experience plus the universality of the opinions posted, it's hard to wrap my head around there being a defense for horn hook couplers. It's kind of mind boggling, but as the old saying goes, it taks all kinds. I guess "underdogs" have their fans, but the first thing I noticed about HO trains when I began looking at them around the age of 10 or so was that the couplers looked totally unrealistic. Later, when I saw Kadee couplers, I thought, now that looks tons better! I don't know, it's kind of a "no brainer" to me, you know, realism being kind of the goal of model railroading etc. Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth. To each his own.
Its fun to read other forums too. There is a small but vocal crowd that constantly points out flaws with the accuracy of a manufacturers models. Its a hoot to read, because they seem to take the position of expert judge on the competency of a manufacturer but ignore some basic goals most modelers care about. Does it run.
Example: I bought one of those highly detailed RTR Exactrail boxcars and noticed that the underbody was so over populated with details that it kept the truck from turning sharp enough to negotiate even a 30 inch radius curve. I had to remove the underbody detail just to get the thing to run. I don't see a defense for paying upwards of $30 for a model that was designed with a flaw that Tyco solved decades ago. But I'm sure it photographed well as it sat on display.
What's my point? Even couplers are getting so protoypically sized that they don't operate very well.
If the guy likes his horn hooks, that's enough defense for me.
And my lesson learned: Prototypical accuracy can really ruin a good model railroad.
- Douglas
rrebellThe real trouble with hornhooks is uncoupling and needing a ramp for hands off.
LOL! Only newbies used those stupid ramps that didn't work half the time or broke anyway.
Serious operators used small flat tip screwdrivers-these came with those el cheapo small screwdriver sets that was found in five and dime stores. Today you can find them at Family Dollar,Dollar General and other like stores for around $2.00-Dollar Tree has 'em for $1.00.
If you wanted to get all uptown fancy then you bought a small flat screwdriver with a pocket clip. It's true a lot of us wore pocket protectors so we wouldn't put a hole in our shirt pocket or skin.
These flat tip screwdrivers works equally well with KDs.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Ah, yes, the great HO coupler discussion.
When I started in HO there were a dozen different scale-size dummy couplers, all of which required filing beyond flash removal just to get them to couple - and even more if using several different brands. Of course, back then a set of needle files was considered a basic tool.
There were also Mantua's basketball hoops, the Ulrich proto-action knuckle coupler, and the Baker cross between a tin box and a logger's Peavy. (All further comment deleted.)
Then the Edwards brothers presented us with the Kadee K coupler - the one with the vertical trip pin sticking down from the corner of the knuckle.
In a valiant attempt to create order amidst the chaos, the NMRA set up a coupler design team, which eventually gave birth to the X2F, the much-maligned horn hook. When compared to Mantua and Baker, it didn't look TOO horrible, and, when properly made and finished smooth it operated about as well as the Kadee K.
So the toy train makers adopted it, as did most of the kit purveyors. Unfortunately, each installed them (or provided them) rough - to people who didn't all have needle files. And people discovered that getting them uncoupled by lifting them wasn't as easy as lifting scale dummies. The NMRA decided to distance themselves from the 'NMRA coupler,' with good reason.
In the meantime, those devious Edwards brothers brought out the magnetic, and then magnetic-delay Kadee couplers - and then set out to customize them for every HO locomotive and car in the known universe. The result is history.
As for how well properly adjusted X2Fs could operate, Ed Ravenscroft used them until his death - on a layout that included an automated hump yard. (He also told me that not one manufacturer had ever hit the NMRA dimensions spot-on.)
So, how about me? Kadees (including some really ancient Ks) all the way on the JNR and TTT, which run on 16.5mm gauge. The prototypes for my HOn762 feeders don't have a standard coupler yet - so I'm still in the market for a link-and-pin that will couple automatically.
And now a note on that 'thing' on the sharknoses. The last time I saw anything similar was on my very first Lionel train, new in 1937.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with appropriate couplers)
Doughless What's my point? Even couplers are getting so protoypically sized that they don't operate very well. If the guy likes his horn hooks, that's enough defense for me. And my lesson learned: Prototypical accuracy can really ruin a good model railroad.
The way it looks is you are making a "straw man" to knock down and the argument has little credibility. Modelers who use Kadee's know from years experience that they are the best thing on the market for many years for HO couplers. Give it up man! There is no contest. Of course if someone wants to use horn hooks, thats their choice. But the topic title was "are horn hook couplers that bad" so I gave my opinion. I can't really add anymore so cheers /nuff said.
riogrande5761 Doughless Example: I bought one of those highly detailed RTR Exactrail boxcars and noticed that the underbody was so over populated with details that it kept the truck from turning sharp enough to negotiate even a 30 inch radius curve. I had to remove the underbody detail just to get the thing to run. I don't see a defense for paying upwards of $30 for a model that was designed with a flaw that Tyco solved decades ago. But I'm sure it photographed well as it sat on display. Nice try, but this topic is about horn hook couplers. The gripe above is something else which I don't really care about. What's my point? Even couplers are getting so protoypically sized that they don't operate very well. If the guy likes his horn hooks, that's enough defense for me. And my lesson learned: Prototypical accuracy can really ruin a good model railroad. The way it looks is you are making a "straw man" to knock down and the argument has little credibility. Modelers who use Kadee's know from years experience that they are the best thing on the market for many years for HO couplers. Give it up man! There is no contest. Of course if someone wants to use horn hooks, thats their choice. But the topic title was "are horn hook couplers that bad" so I gave my opinion. I can't really add anymore so cheers /nuff said.
Doughless Example: I bought one of those highly detailed RTR Exactrail boxcars and noticed that the underbody was so over populated with details that it kept the truck from turning sharp enough to negotiate even a 30 inch radius curve. I had to remove the underbody detail just to get the thing to run. I don't see a defense for paying upwards of $30 for a model that was designed with a flaw that Tyco solved decades ago. But I'm sure it photographed well as it sat on display.
Nice try, but this topic is about horn hook couplers. The gripe above is something else which I don't really care about.
What's my point? Even couplers are getting so protoypically sized that they don't operate very well. If the guy likes his horn hooks, that's enough defense for me. And my lesson learned: Prototypical accuracy can really ruin a good model railroad.
I guess my annoyance at people passing judgment on the producers (and indirectly those hobbysist who don't share their tastes) is rather fresh. I just spent a Saturday night lurking on another forum reading about everything that's wrong with every new model that's introduced...literally, that's what the threads were about....but if the company would've just made that paint a little darker on that one road name of that loco, they would order 15 of them...at $150 to $250 a piece, because they needed 15 for their roster. Yeah, sure.
But that's okay. Its a broad hobby.
I agree, its about realism. As another mentioned, back in the day, they put dummy couplers on the front of steam engines strictly for apprearance sake. When I was a kid, the first thing I would do is rip out that dummy coupler and put in a horn hook so I could switch cars with my steam loco, or run tender first like was the case on branch lines.
Realism can have a broad definition.
I find that most people gravitiate to buying what is right for them and align those purchases with their needs, because they don't like to waste money. So, if you have a layout where you have to back a 40-car, 15 pound train up a 2% grade, couplers matter more. Not sure if the OP's friend places those kind of demands on his couplers, or how many people in the hobby do either. Afterall, its a broad hobby.
DAVID FORTNEY I was visiting a freinds HO layout that is really large and very well detailed. After spending about 2 hours watching him and a few others operating his layout I was amazed to see that he uses nothing but horn hook couplers. He refuses to use KD's or something similar. He just don't like them. His layout runs smooth, looks great and you don't even notice the horn hooks until they pointed them out. What are your thoughts.
I was visiting a freinds HO layout that is really large and very well detailed. After spending about 2 hours watching him and a few others operating his layout I was amazed to see that he uses nothing but horn hook couplers.
He refuses to use KD's or something similar. He just don't like them.
His layout runs smooth, looks great and you don't even notice the horn hooks until they pointed them out.
What are your thoughts.
To each his own. Square wheels are good too.
RR
CAZEPHYRTo each his own. Square wheels are good too. RR
Yes,they work but,the cars bounce going down the track.
One of the advantages of the horn hook coupler was that it gave manufacturers a standard low cost coupler to include with low cost kits. If you didn't like them you could replace with KD's. But if you couldn't afford KD's (and metal wheels) you could still build and run cars.
Paul
IRONROOSTEROne of the advantages of the horn hook coupler was that it gave manufacturers a standard low cost coupler to include with low cost kits.
From what I remember reading in the past, even though the horn hooks were supposed to be "standard", each manufacturer used their own opinions as to what the tolerences should be. Therefore the "standard" couplers did not necessarily work well with each other.
And remembering my days as a kid when I used them, it was differing coupler height that presented most of the problems, not the horn hook couplers themselves. In addition to being mostly truck mounted (and too light), all of those manufacturers seemed to make cars that had slightly different height's so cars might not couple or uncouple properly, or came uncoupled over track undulations. For me, they always worked just fine in MDC and Athearn BB cars where the coupler boxes were at a consistent height, so I can certainly see how somebody might not care to swap them out even today.
IRONROOSTERIf you didn't like them you could replace with KD's. But if you couldn't afford KD's (and metal wheels) you could still build and run cars.
Paul,IIRC it wasn't the cost because my first KDs cost around 95 cents a pack and since the X2F worked we spent money on Central Valley trucks so our cars could roll smoother. Then smooth running Athearn BB trucks began to edge out CVs as replacements and in the late 60s there was another change of direction-KD couplers was fast becoming the defacto standard coupler by choice. Metal wheels wasn't all that important since there was more important changes such as moving from brass to nickel silver track.
The 60s seen a lot of changes in the hobby and overall it was a exciting time due to the amount of better running models especially the brass steam engines since steam still ruled the modeler's roost in the 60s.
BRAKIE IRONROOSTER If you didn't like them you could replace with KD's. But if you couldn't afford KD's (and metal wheels) you could still build and run cars. Paul,IIRC it wasn't the cost because my first KDs cost around 95 cents a pack and since the X2F worked we spent money on Central Valley trucks so our cars could roll smoother. Then smooth running Athearn BB trucks began to edge out CVs as replacements and in the late 60s there was another change of direction-KD couplers was fast becoming the defacto standard coupler by choice. Metal wheels wasn't all that important since there was more important changes such as moving from brass to nickel silver track. The 60s seen a lot of changes in the hobby and overall it was a exciting time due to the amount of better running models especially the brass steam engines since steam still ruled the modeler's roost in the 60s.
IRONROOSTER If you didn't like them you could replace with KD's. But if you couldn't afford KD's (and metal wheels) you could still build and run cars.
Larry,
For me starting in the early 70's, just buying a couple of locomotives, some cars and Atlas buildings was all I could afford to start. Once I had a 4x8 layout built with brass track and wired for 2 train operation, then I could start upgrading.
BRAKIE rrebell The real trouble with hornhooks is uncoupling and needing a ramp for hands off. LOL! Only newbies used those stupid ramps that didn't work half the time or broke anyway. Serious operators used small flat tip screwdrivers-these came with those el cheapo small screwdriver sets that was found in five and dime stores. Today you can find them at Family Dollar,Dollar General and other like stores for around $2.00-Dollar Tree has 'em for $1.00. If you wanted to get all uptown fancy then you bought a small flat screwdriver with a pocket clip. It's true a lot of us wore pocket protectors so we wouldn't put a hole in our shirt pocket or skin. These flat tip screwdrivers works equally well with KDs.
rrebell The real trouble with hornhooks is uncoupling and needing a ramp for hands off.
rrebell Uh, since when is using a screw driver hands-off?
Hands off uncoupling with X2F is funny since the ramps was crappy at best. The screwdriver was the best method for uncoupling cars while switching industries and yards.
The only true hands off uncoupling was and still is using KD couplers with magnets but,using magnets seems to be frown on by the experts and their followers.
BRAKIESorry Jim,a lot of you young folks would have not made it in the 50/60
You certainly don't sound at all sorry and frankly no one now much cares about how tough it was then.The model railroad world is a very very different place today, but there are still plenty of things to tinker with for those that want to follow that particular aspect of the hobby.
There is simply no merit in struggling with components that are not well suited for purpose, if there are better choices readily available.
Software Tools BRAKIE Sorry Jim,a lot of you young folks would have not made it in the 50/60 There is simply no merit in struggling with components that are not well suited for purpose, if there are better choices readily available.
BRAKIE Sorry Jim,a lot of you young folks would have not made it in the 50/60
That is an interesting comment, but I don't believe I understand it clearly as it relates to couplers. Can you explain how you define better?
Software ToolsYou certainly don't sound at all sorry and frankly no one now much cares about how tough it was then.
Ever think how much knowledge I gain from those experiences? Sure,the hobby change for the better from those growing experiences..Even the highly detailed P2K locomotives came from years of requesting better models.
Or do you think it was done by the manufacturers out of the goodness of their hearts?
We made the KD the de facto standard coupler because it gave hands free uncoupling and we no longer had to leave our stool at the control panel just to uncouple cars at a industry nor did we no longer need to stand while doing yard switching..You stood because you had to uncouple the cars. 48 years later and I still use magnets for hands free uncoupling.
Software tools:
You are extremely dismissive, not to mention insulting, of the past experience of Brakie and others with much more experience than you seem to have. It would be very easy for us old timers to just ignore questions that are naive, or to which the answers seem obvious to us. Instead, we generally try to help with the best information we have, and the most relevant experience. Accept it or ignore it. That's your choice. But try not to be insulting as you go your merry, ignorant way.
Thank you.
There seems to be a pattern of those lately...
I disliked X2F couplers appearance, so I went with Kadee's. No operational issues, so not changing now. The cheap clones however.......
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.
ricktrains4824I disliked X2F couplers appearance, so I went with Kadee's. No operational issues, so not changing now. The cheap clones however.......
I fully agree but,my only problem is some time the knuckle spring goes missing while other couplers retain their springs for decades.
I've started adding a small tiny tab of ACC on the springs holder before I insert the spring into the knuckle and that should end the fly aways.
The only clone I use is Walthers Protomax II since its all metal and works as well as the KD so,I found no justifiable reason for a change out.
Horn hook couplers are much more forgiving vertically. Once you get them coupled, they never uncouple, no matter what the grade. I can't say the same for Kadees. Having said that, I've switched to using Kadees because everything I buy has kadee or kadee compatible.
BRAKIE....my only problem is some time the knuckle spring goes missing while other couplers retain their springs for decades. I've started adding a small tiny tab of ACC on the springs holder before I insert the spring into the knuckle and that should end the fly aways.....
Larry, back in the stone age when I was using Kadee K-type couplers, the fix for fly-away springs was a dab of contact cement (Pliobond in those days) on one of the mounting nubs, usually not the one on the knuckle. The advantage over ca is that it stays pliable and is thick enough that it can't accidentally run in between the moving parts and seize-up the works.
Wayne
TheWizard Horn hook couplers are much more forgiving vertically. Once you get them coupled, they never uncouple, no matter what the grade. I can't say the same for Kadees.
Horn hook couplers are much more forgiving vertically. Once you get them coupled, they never uncouple, no matter what the grade. I can't say the same for Kadees.
But you can say the same since Kadee began offering shelf type couplers like those installed on real tank cars.
Kadee makes shelf type couplers now which should mitigate the vertical issue and keep cars coupled in situations where your track work isn't up to par and cars tend to come uncoupled due to mismatches or couplers not being installed to match the Kadee height gauge.
I really didn't have an agrument one way or the other on the functionality of the X2f's. I started in scale modeling in the early 90's and, yes, kits were still being supplied with X2f's back then, but for me, it was how realistic a coupler looked, not really how it worked. Because of that, I was immediately sold on the KD's. In 1993, when I started collecting HO equipment, I also subscribed to MR and other popular model railroading press. Even back then, there were still models pictured that had X2f couplers on them. To me, that was like someone running their fingernails across a black board. In my mind, it simply ruined the look of a fine model.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing anyone who uses X2f's; It's their railroad. I'm sure that anyone who ever saw my railroad would see features that they may not like to have on their layouts as well.
E-L man tomI really didn't have an agrument one way or the other on the functionality of the X2f's. I started in scale modeling in the early 90's and, yes, kits were still being supplied with X2f's back then, but for me, it was how realistic a coupler looked, not really how it worked. Because of that, I was immediately sold on the KD's. <snip> Even back then, there were still models pictured that had X2f couplers on them. To me, that was like someone running their fingernails across a black board. In my mind, it simply ruined the look of a fine model.
Well said. Your reply definitely fits into the question posed at the start: "Are horn hooks really that bad". Even if you can get them to work well enough, and some have argued that they can, they look nothing like a real coupler.
Lets face it. One thing about model trains which is important to us is how they look. Otherwise you could use a bar of soap and put it on flanged wheels. It is so important to some that they go as far as to install fine scale wheels and Seargent coupelers, which both look the most realistic in HO scale.
Not all of us go that far, but we do want the couplers to look similar to real couplers, to which most of us, I think can agree, that horn hook couplers do not look similar to real couplers. Even as a young teen, it bothered me as I could clearly see at that tender age horn hook couplers looked nothing like real couplers, never mind if you can get them to work well or not.
For for me, that is why I argue that yes, horn hook couplers "are that bad", yes. I realize for some, looks don't matter; thats their choice of course. For me, it's Kadee (and I"ll accept Walthers Proto metal couplers too).
E-L man tom I really didn't have an agrument one way or the other on the functionality of the X2f's. I started in scale modeling in the early 90's and, yes, kits were still being supplied with X2f's back then, but for me, it was how realistic a coupler looked, not really how it worked. Because of that, I was immediately sold on the KD's. In 1993, when I started collecting HO equipment, I also subscribed to MR and other popular model railroading press. Even back then, there were still models pictured that had X2f couplers on them. To me, that was like someone running their fingernails across a black board. In my mind, it simply ruined the look of a fine model. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing anyone who uses X2f's; It's their railroad. I'm sure that anyone who ever saw my railroad would see features that they may not like to have on their layouts as well.
Those are excellent points. They highlight the difference between your situation and the situation the OP described.
You are looking at the photograph of the end of a car, where there isn't much to see...but you have a lot of time to see it. The OP was watching an entire train of moving cars, where you see the sides not the ends, and don't have the time to stare down the couplers. He didn't even notice the couplers until they were pointed out.
Personally, 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. But all things considered, more realism is always desired over less, when available.
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. And many comments come from that perspective.
I'll give another example of perspective: Metal wheels...free rolling cars. I operate a flat switching layout where maximum train length is about 8 cars and I like the entire layout to mimmick the prototype. Although the layout is flat, spurs have a slight swale to them. With free-rolling cars, I can't spot a car on a spur without the cars rolling to the bottom; however, a non-free rolling car would realistically mimmick a real car being held on a spur by its brake.
I'm about ready to search ebay for all of the 33 and 36 inch plastic wheels I can find so I can rip out the metal wheels the manufacturers have been commanded to install . I need to make my cars less free rolling so I can operate with greater fidelity to the prototype.
Any HO locomotive can pull a train of 8 cars over a flat grade at 20 scale mph, so free rolling cars mean nothing to me (and metal wheels are noisy).
But, if I had a different perspective and wanted to pull a 20 pound train up a 2% grade and around a sharp 30 inch radius curve at 50 mph (to better mimmick the protoype I guess ) I'd need free rolling cars. It would also better to have metal couplers.