ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless Since weight does not scale down with our models, how does the NMRA address weight of cars for switching layouts? Or do the standards ignore them and focus on layouts that operate many trains over grades and long mainline runs...to maximize train length. I find that the standard weight of a car is way too light....and its wheels way too free rolling...to provide sufficient resistance when coupling. That realistic clunk-look of two heavy objects striking each other....competing inertias so to speak.... is hard to represent. Excessively floppy coupler springs is not the answer. IMO. I'm skeptical that any standardized answer for what a car should weigh would not capture the diversity in our hobby. Modern free rolling cars need more weight added to them...and maybe their axle journals stuffed with tacky glue...in order to provide the realism needed when switching...and staying put on a slight grade. Heavier, poor-ish rolling models should still make little challenge for a modern loco to pull a 7 car train. Interesting thought. But my free rolling metal sprung truck cars equiped with code 110 wheels and Kadee original head couplers couple easily with a feather touch, without causing the stationary car to roll. The Kadee semi scale coupler requires more coupling force even when perfectly aligned. And because it is smaller, it is not always as well aligned, causing it to require even more force. While my old layout and my new layout have lots of mainline running, I also have plenty of industrial areas requiring switching. I have never had the kind of problem you are describing to any degree that would cause me to over weight cars. In fact, many of my cars are just under NMRA RP by a 1/2 oz or so. Again, this situation is related to the semi scale wheel and coupler issue - the degrade the performance of coupling and uncoupling. Sheldon
Doughless Since weight does not scale down with our models, how does the NMRA address weight of cars for switching layouts? Or do the standards ignore them and focus on layouts that operate many trains over grades and long mainline runs...to maximize train length. I find that the standard weight of a car is way too light....and its wheels way too free rolling...to provide sufficient resistance when coupling. That realistic clunk-look of two heavy objects striking each other....competing inertias so to speak.... is hard to represent. Excessively floppy coupler springs is not the answer. IMO. I'm skeptical that any standardized answer for what a car should weigh would not capture the diversity in our hobby. Modern free rolling cars need more weight added to them...and maybe their axle journals stuffed with tacky glue...in order to provide the realism needed when switching...and staying put on a slight grade. Heavier, poor-ish rolling models should still make little challenge for a modern loco to pull a 7 car train.
Since weight does not scale down with our models, how does the NMRA address weight of cars for switching layouts? Or do the standards ignore them and focus on layouts that operate many trains over grades and long mainline runs...to maximize train length.
I find that the standard weight of a car is way too light....and its wheels way too free rolling...to provide sufficient resistance when coupling. That realistic clunk-look of two heavy objects striking each other....competing inertias so to speak.... is hard to represent. Excessively floppy coupler springs is not the answer. IMO.
I'm skeptical that any standardized answer for what a car should weigh would not capture the diversity in our hobby.
Modern free rolling cars need more weight added to them...and maybe their axle journals stuffed with tacky glue...in order to provide the realism needed when switching...and staying put on a slight grade. Heavier, poor-ish rolling models should still make little challenge for a modern loco to pull a 7 car train.
Interesting thought.
But my free rolling metal sprung truck cars equiped with code 110 wheels and Kadee original head couplers couple easily with a feather touch, without causing the stationary car to roll.
The Kadee semi scale coupler requires more coupling force even when perfectly aligned. And because it is smaller, it is not always as well aligned, causing it to require even more force.
While my old layout and my new layout have lots of mainline running, I also have plenty of industrial areas requiring switching. I have never had the kind of problem you are describing to any degree that would cause me to over weight cars.
In fact, many of my cars are just under NMRA RP by a 1/2 oz or so.
Again, this situation is related to the semi scale wheel and coupler issue - the degrade the performance of coupling and uncoupling.
Sheldon
That's correct, semi scale couplers do not operate as freely as the normally oversized kadees.
So if I want things to look as prototypical as I can nowadays, the harder it is to couple means I have to increase the rolling resistance of the car. Not to mention just plain replicating the gobs of intertia two rails cars compete with as they couple (one moving, one not) and being able to park on a ever so slight grade.
So, IMO, for modern models with the newer semi sclae couplers, the NMRA standards might be outdated....as they apply to coupling individual cars or a small cut. If you're coupling a cut of 20 cars to a cut of 25 cars, none of this really comes into play because there is plenty of weight (resistance) to couple with a hefty prototypical look.
- Douglas
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless Since weight does not scale down with our models, how does the NMRA address weight of cars for switching layouts? Or do the standards ignore them and focus on layouts that operate many trains over grades and long mainline runs...to maximize train length. I find that the standard weight of a car is way too light....and its wheels way too free rolling...to provide sufficient resistance when coupling. That realistic clunk-look of two heavy objects striking each other....competing inertias so to speak.... is hard to represent. Excessively floppy coupler springs is not the answer. IMO. I'm skeptical that any standardized answer for what a car should weigh would not capture the diversity in our hobby. Modern free rolling cars need more weight added to them...and maybe their axle journals stuffed with tacky glue...in order to provide the realism needed when switching...and staying put on a slight grade. Heavier, poor-ish rolling models should still make little challenge for a modern loco to pull a 7 car train. Interesting thought. But my free rolling metal sprung truck cars equiped with code 110 wheels and Kadee original head couplers couple easily with a feather touch, without causing the stationary car to roll. The Kadee semi scale coupler requires more coupling force even when perfectly aligned. And because it is smaller, it is not always as well aligned, causing it to require even more force. While my old layout and my new layout have lots of mainline running, I also have plenty of industrial areas requiring switching. I have never had the kind of problem you are describing to any degree that would cause me to over weight cars. In fact, many of my cars are just under NMRA RP by a 1/2 oz or so. Again, this situation is related to the semi scale wheel and coupler issue - the degrade the performance of coupling and uncoupling. Sheldon That's correct, semi scale couplers do not operate as freely as the normally oversized kadees. So if I want things to look as prototypical as I can nowadays, the harder it is to couple means I have to increase the rolling resistance of the car. Not to mention just plain replicating the gobs of intertia two rails cars compete with as they couple (one moving, one not) and being able to park on a ever so slight grade. So, IMO, for modern models with the newer semi sclae couplers, the NMRA standards might be outdated....as they apply to coupling individual cars or a small cut. If you're coupling a cut of 20 cars to a cut of 25 cars, none of this really comes into play because there is plenty of weight (resistance) to couple with a hefty prototypical look.
The irony in this is that 50 years ago when I was just starting out in this hobby, there were lots of trucks with poor rolling qualities that held cars still on 1% grades, and there were working mechanical knuckle couplers that were pretty close to scale size.
My own choices put operation above absolute scale accuracy. And since Kadee semi scale couplers and code 88 wheels are still not to scale, why bother?
It is 1/87th scale - compromises will be made.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL My own choices put operation above absolute scale accuracy. And since Kadee semi scale couplers and code 88 wheels are still not to scale, why bother? It is 1/87th scale - compromises will be made. Sheldon
BINGO!!!
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And since Kadee semi scale couplers and code 88 wheels are still not to scale, why bother?
And since Kadee semi scale couplers and code 88 wheels are still not to scale, why bother?
Because some of us want to be as close as possible? If you are fine without trying to make things prototypically correct as possible, good for you. Like I have always said, the hobby is big enough for both points of view.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 ATLANTIC CENTRAL And since Kadee semi scale couplers and code 88 wheels are still not to scale, why bother? Because some of us want to be as close as possible? If you are fine without trying to make things prototypically correct as possible, good for you. Like I have always said, the hobby is big enough for both points of view.
I have no problem with that, long before I ever saw you on this forum I have been a big advocate for choice, for the fact that one size does not fit all, and that we all have different goals. DC or DCC, Sound or not, switching or mainline, or both, kits or RTR, or in my case both, CTC and signals (necessary in my view) or not, etc, etc.
But don't complain that your cars roll away when you try to couple them when anyone who has really tested them will agree that the semi scale couplers require more coupling force than the original head coupler, and require even more force when coupling to the original head coupler, and that they are more likely to have gathering range issues on even the best NMRA spec track.
If you are willing to accept those issues, more power to you, uses whatever you prefer.
Lots of people think I'm nuts because I use sprung metal trucks, but I run long trains, and tests have shown they track better. So yes I am also willing to give up the more realistic appearance of the truck springs to get equalization. I am however using more of the new HGC trucks from Kadee for the best of both - equalization and appearance.
I'm not suggesting anyone should do what I do, but, I'm not changing or replacing 50 years of model building either. And I'm not changing or replacing everything every time some new product comes along.
This is a forum, people put questions or statements out there, they are going to get opinions - some based on experiance or proven facts - and, opinions, and specifc modeling goals will vary - so the best answer may be different for each person.
The things I do on this topic meet my goals. I keep car weights on the light side of the NMRA RP. My truck, wheelset, coupler and track specs allow me to do this and pull long trains with locomotives (steam in many cases) that might not other wise pull that many cars (40-50 car trains typically) up my 2% grades and around my 36"R and larger curves.
Others will have different goals.
I'm building a large layout with a 3-6 foot viewing perspective designed to showcase long trains, mainline operations, CTC and signals and a fair amount of non railroad scenic features - while still having lots of industrial switching.
I built a multi deck layout with narrow shelves only modeling the 80' on each side of the tracks - hated it before it was complete - going back to the old way.
n012944Because some of us want to be as close as possible?
As close as possible would be Proto-87, not odd looking semi-scale couplers or wide-frame-gap code 88 wheels.
Of course, Proto-87 is all custom and craftsmanship, but the accuracy matters to some people.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless Since weight does not scale down with our models, how does the NMRA address weight of cars for switching layouts? Or do the standards ignore them and focus on layouts that operate many trains over grades and long mainline runs...to maximize train length. I find that the standard weight of a car is way too light....and its wheels way too free rolling...to provide sufficient resistance when coupling. That realistic clunk-look of two heavy objects striking each other....competing inertias so to speak.... is hard to represent. Excessively floppy coupler springs is not the answer. IMO. I'm skeptical that any standardized answer for what a car should weigh would not capture the diversity in our hobby. Modern free rolling cars need more weight added to them...and maybe their axle journals stuffed with tacky glue...in order to provide the realism needed when switching...and staying put on a slight grade. Heavier, poor-ish rolling models should still make little challenge for a modern loco to pull a 7 car train. Interesting thought. But my free rolling metal sprung truck cars equiped with code 110 wheels and Kadee original head couplers couple easily with a feather touch, without causing the stationary car to roll. The Kadee semi scale coupler requires more coupling force even when perfectly aligned. And because it is smaller, it is not always as well aligned, causing it to require even more force. While my old layout and my new layout have lots of mainline running, I also have plenty of industrial areas requiring switching. I have never had the kind of problem you are describing to any degree that would cause me to over weight cars. In fact, many of my cars are just under NMRA RP by a 1/2 oz or so. Again, this situation is related to the semi scale wheel and coupler issue - the degrade the performance of coupling and uncoupling. Sheldon That's correct, semi scale couplers do not operate as freely as the normally oversized kadees. So if I want things to look as prototypical as I can nowadays, the harder it is to couple means I have to increase the rolling resistance of the car. Not to mention just plain replicating the gobs of intertia two rails cars compete with as they couple (one moving, one not) and being able to park on a ever so slight grade. So, IMO, for modern models with the newer semi sclae couplers, the NMRA standards might be outdated....as they apply to coupling individual cars or a small cut. If you're coupling a cut of 20 cars to a cut of 25 cars, none of this really comes into play because there is plenty of weight (resistance) to couple with a hefty prototypical look. The irony in this is that 50 years ago when I was just starting out in this hobby, there were lots of trucks with poor rolling qualities that held cars still on 1% grades, and there were working mechanical knuckle couplers that were pretty close to scale size. My own choices put operation above absolute scale accuracy. And since Kadee semi scale couplers and code 88 wheels are still not to scale, why bother? It is 1/87th scale - compromises will be made. Sheldon
Yes, semi scale couplers need more rolling resistant trucks. I'm glad to see history backing me up on that. I didn't need it to see it, but its nice to know its out there.
In fact, operations is exactly what I'm talking about, slow speed switching ops with one or two cars. We make personal choices that sometimes require work-arounds to overcome deficiencies in products or Standards that might be made to accomodate the majority.
To ensure operation, you choose to always use oversized couplers. I may add tacky glue to the truck journals to add rolling resistance.
If the NMRA recommendations, the topic of the thread, were to be set with higher weight recommendations for rolling stock, I might not need a personal work-around at all. Too bad for me and modelers like me.
Kadee Cars makes rolling stock. Those are high quality assembled, high detailed cars with their semi scale couplers installed, and metal wheels that are actually dark colored so that they look real (like plastic wheels). Thing is, their rolling resistance is pretty high, making them great cars for smaller layouts. Semi-scale couplers with more rolling resistant trucks (than the norm these days) right out of the box. Great company.
DoughlessKadee Cars makes rolling stock. Those are high quality assembled, high detailed cars with their semi scale couplers installed, and metal wheels that are actually dark colored so that they look real (like plastic wheels). Thing is, their rolling resistance is pretty high, making them great cars for smaller layouts. Semi-scale couplers with more rolling resistant trucks right out of the box. Great company.
Kadee undecorated tank cars and covered hoppers only came with semi-scale couplers.
These cars have a unique coupler shank and are not easily converted to other Kadee couplers.
I wrote to Kadee after purchasing a couple of these, and Sam helped out. He told me a "full size" head coupler is available for customer conversions where people do not want the semi-scale coupler.
I placed an order, and now all my cars have full size coupler heads.
-Photograph by Kevin Parson
Yes, Kadee is a great company.
Douglas,
Interesting that you bring up the Kadee rolling stock and the rolling qualities of the stock Kadee sprung truck with its plastic axles.
Two interesting points that fit right into this descussion.
Couplers - when Kadee first got into the rolling stock business, their cars came with the standard head coupler. If you have never had reason to disassemble a Kadee car, you might not be aware that their rolling stock uses a unique coupler shank, not one of their other standard designs.
When Kadee first switched to installing the semi scale coupler on their rolling stock, it was possible to purchase the older original head version and replace them. I bought a reasonable stock of those couplers for just such occasions, although to this date I only have a small roster of Kadee rolling stock. They have since discontinued the original head version of the coupler that fits their rolling stock.
Trucks - interstingly Kadee rolling stock still comes with code 110 wheelsets.
Over two decades ago when I was on the quest for a more free rolling truck, I was already heavily invested in Kadee sprung metal trucks. So I started investigating why the Kadee truck was not as free rolling as other trucks.
I will not go deeply into the science right now, but replacing the wheelsets with Intermountain wheelsets, which have a smaller diameter axle projection outside the wheel, turned the somewhat sluggish Kadee truck into the most free rolling truck I tested.
I contacted Sam at Kadee and spoke with him personally. He informed me that my science was spot on and that Kadee had always known this. And that if I wanted super free rolling trucks, I was taking the right path.
He also indicated that they were developing a new line of trucks, now available, that would be more free rolling with their wheelset. These are known today as their HGC trucks with a flexing two piece sideframe/bolster assembly.
https://www.kadee.com/shop-by-category/trucks-and-wheels/563-ho-scale-a-s-f-ride-control-50-ton-self-centering-trucks-with-33-ribbed-back-wheels-hgc
I do use these on some rolling stock, they do roll better than the sprung versions with Kadee wheelsets, but they too roll even better with Intermountain wheelsets.
So there you have it, Kadee has always known their trucks are not overly free rolling. And when I spoke with Sam he said they had no plans to discontinue the sprung trucks when the HGC trucks came out. A statement that has been proven true over the 20 year continued availability of both lines of trucks.
So, the simple fact is, I can set one of my free rolling 3-4 oz cars on level track, and gently approach it with my DC powered locomotives, and couple to it at 1-2 scale miles per hour with hardly moving the car, or without having it pushed away without coupling.
I credit the following factors:
The minimal pressure required to couple a properly installed and lubricated original head coupler.
The wider, more reliable, side to side gathering range of the original coupler.
The more reliable car centering of the code 110 wheelsets in my Kadee sprung trucks.
The high quality motor control of my DC-PWM (full voltage pulse width modulated) Aristo Craft Train Engineer throttles.
Free rolling qualities - my own tests show conclusively that my free rolling trucks allow most locos to pull as much as 30% longer trains, not just on level track, but up my 2% grades as well. A single Bachmann Spectrum USRA Heavy Mountain will pull 35 of my 4.3 oz 50' piggyback flats. Before changing the wheelsets this loco would only pull 22 of these same cars equiped with stock Kadee sprung trucks.
To conduct the desired operations, both opps sessions (including switching operations in a large yard and servicing about a dozen industries, most on a separate ISL like belt line) and display running on my new layout will require about 1000 freight cars - I already have about 900, which already have Kadee original head couplers and most already have my upgraded Kadee sprung trucks.
Way too late to change now, and not sure I would want to in any case because suitable performance would require finer scale track. (I already have the 140 turnouts for the new layout as well)
Others will choose differently.
I'm not complaining that Kadee should sell their trucks with Intermountain wheelsets because it is what I need? I pony up the money (typically about $14 a car these days) and install what I want.
SeeYou190 Doughless Kadee Cars makes rolling stock. Those are high quality assembled, high detailed cars with their semi scale couplers installed, and metal wheels that are actually dark colored so that they look real (like plastic wheels). Thing is, their rolling resistance is pretty high, making them great cars for smaller layouts. Semi-scale couplers with more rolling resistant trucks right out of the box. Great company. Kadee undecorated tank cars and covered hoppers only came with semi-scale couplers. These cars have a unique coupler shank and are not easily converted to other Kadee couplers. I wrote to Kadee after purchasing a couple of these, and Sam helped out. He told me a "full size" head coupler is available for customer conversions where people do not want the semi-scale coupler. I placed an order, and now all my cars have full size coupler heads. -Photograph by Kevin Parson Yes, Kadee is a great company. -Kevin
Doughless Kadee Cars makes rolling stock. Those are high quality assembled, high detailed cars with their semi scale couplers installed, and metal wheels that are actually dark colored so that they look real (like plastic wheels). Thing is, their rolling resistance is pretty high, making them great cars for smaller layouts. Semi-scale couplers with more rolling resistant trucks right out of the box. Great company.
Kevin, so funny, I was covering that same situation in my long more detailed post.
That's a great looking model Kevin.
Yes, I have several of those exact covered hoppers factory painted for the FEC and Central of Georgia for when I want to run older era trains
From my experience, those cars....at least the several I have, cant speak for every car Kadee has made.... have more rolling resistance than the typical new car produced by other manufacturers. They switch well, stock, right out of the box with their semi scale couplers. But I don't know how well they would work for building a 50 car train traversing a 2% grade. I suppose others would swap out the trucks or wheels.
Too bad Kadee doesn't make contemporary era models, or they would be my go to source for rolling stock.
Edit: I see Sheldon explained basically the same thing, so my response to him would be repetitive. And his solution is to modify (work-around) the standard kadee truck/wheelset issue.
I hope Kadee continues to make the more resistant rolling truck/wheelset. They work better than the standard combo so many other manufacturers use.
Of course, for my contemporary era, I would need 36 inch wheels.
Doughless SeeYou190 Doughless Kadee Cars makes rolling stock. Those are high quality assembled, high detailed cars with their semi scale couplers installed, and metal wheels that are actually dark colored so that they look real (like plastic wheels). Thing is, their rolling resistance is pretty high, making them great cars for smaller layouts. Semi-scale couplers with more rolling resistant trucks right out of the box. Great company. Kadee undecorated tank cars and covered hoppers only came with semi-scale couplers. These cars have a unique coupler shank and are not easily converted to other Kadee couplers. I wrote to Kadee after purchasing a couple of these, and Sam helped out. He told me a "full size" head coupler is available for customer conversions where people do not want the semi-scale coupler. I placed an order, and now all my cars have full size coupler heads. -Photograph by Kevin Parson Yes, Kadee is a great company. -Kevin That's a great looking model Kevin. Yes, I have several of those exact covered hoppers factory painted for the FEC and Central of Georgia for when I want to run older era trains From my experience, those cars....at least the several I have, cant speak for every car Kadee has made.... have more rolling resistance than the typical new car produced by other manufacturers. They switch well, stock, right out of the box with their semi scale couplers. But I don't know how well they would work for building a 50 car train traversing a 2% grade. I suppose others would swap out the trucks or wheels. Too bad Kadee doesn't make contemporary era models, or they would be my go to source for rolling stock. Edit: I see Sheldon explained basically the same thing, so my response to him would be repetitive. And his solution is to modify (work-around) the standard kadee truck/wheelset issue.
They make their trucks in every type and style for every era. And they offer semi scale wheelsets. In fact the HGC trucks can be purchased with code 88 wheeelsets installed. Changing trucks seems easier and more effective than adding weight.
And even with your switching theme, you may see benefits to equilized trucks.
That's good to know. I bought a Kadee Delaware & Hudson Boxcar about five years ago. I think it was at a discount due to being part of an estate sale. When I discovered it was a semi-scale, I attempted to replace it with a #148 and realized it wouldn't work. I'm glad to learn there is a large head option because that highly detailed car has been in a storage drawer ever since. Do you remember the number of the replacement coupler.
The term "semi-scale" reminds me of a George Carlin routine about contradictory terms. It's like semi-boneless ham. How can that be? Does it have a bone in it? Then it's a bone-in ham. Plastic glass is another one. And why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL When Kadee first switched to installing the semi scale coupler on their rolling stock, it was possible to purchase the older original head version and replace them. I bought a reasonable stock of those couplers for just such occasions, although to this date I only have a small roster of Kadee rolling stock. They have since discontinued the original head version of the coupler that fits their rolling stock.
I replied to Kevin's post before reading yours. I see now the larger head couplers are no longer available for Kadee rolling stock. Do you have enough of those couplers in stock that you could sell me a pair of them for my Kadee D&H boxcar? If not, can you give me the number of the coupler. I might be able to find it on ebay.
SeeYou190 n012944 Because some of us want to be as close as possible? As close as possible would be Proto-87, not odd looking semi-scale couplers or wide-frame-gap code 88 wheels.
n012944 Because some of us want to be as close as possible?
Of course, so some take the happy medium of not customizing everything. However we don't want to look at #5's that are almost S scale, or wheels that are as wide as the 355's on the back of my Viper.
The Kadee HGC 100 ton roller bearing truck is offered with 36" code 88 wheels.
https://www.kadee.com/shop-by-category/trucks-and-wheels/ho-scale-trucks-and-wheels/1569-ho-scale-a-s-f-100-ton-roller-bearing-self-centering-trucks-with-36-smooth-back-code-88-semi-scale-wheels-hgc
And the 36" code 88 wheels are offered separately.
I'm sure Kadee has NO plans to change any of these products. They have a large and loyal following for all these different versions of their product and no incentive to change any of it.
Most of the people willing to spend $13 on a pair trucks understand exactly what they are buying - that is why they are buying them.
I strongly suspect that a great many of their customers are just like you, happy with cars that will not roll away.
One other note about my choice. There is some high level physics to suggest that my refitted trucks actually require just a little more force to get moving than the average cheap plastic one piece plastic truck with metal wheels on most rolling stock today, but then have stronger inertia once moving, lowing the energy required to keep them moving. This would account for the improvement in pulling ability even on grades and would contribute to why coupling a single car is not a problem.
And I strongly believe having the weight lower, by having the trucks made of metal (or HGC) is an advantage in all of this as well.
John-NYBW ATLANTIC CENTRAL When Kadee first switched to installing the semi scale coupler on their rolling stock, it was possible to purchase the older original head version and replace them. I bought a reasonable stock of those couplers for just such occasions, although to this date I only have a small roster of Kadee rolling stock. They have since discontinued the original head version of the coupler that fits their rolling stock. I replied to Kevin's post before reading yours. I see now the larger head couplers are no longer available for Kadee rolling stock. Do you have enough of those couplers in stock that you could sell me a pair of them for my Kadee D&H boxcar? If not, can you give me the number of the coupler. I might be able to find it on ebay.
I would be happy to send you a few, no worries. I will round them up get them on the way.
By the way, at the train show last weekend I found more Ernst gear kits for the RDC's, so I am now making plans to use the ones you sent to built a close to accurate version of the B&O Speedliner train. Thanks.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless SeeYou190 Doughless Kadee Cars makes rolling stock. Those are high quality assembled, high detailed cars with their semi scale couplers installed, and metal wheels that are actually dark colored so that they look real (like plastic wheels). Thing is, their rolling resistance is pretty high, making them great cars for smaller layouts. Semi-scale couplers with more rolling resistant trucks right out of the box. Great company. Kadee undecorated tank cars and covered hoppers only came with semi-scale couplers. These cars have a unique coupler shank and are not easily converted to other Kadee couplers. I wrote to Kadee after purchasing a couple of these, and Sam helped out. He told me a "full size" head coupler is available for customer conversions where people do not want the semi-scale coupler. I placed an order, and now all my cars have full size coupler heads. -Photograph by Kevin Parson Yes, Kadee is a great company. -Kevin That's a great looking model Kevin. Yes, I have several of those exact covered hoppers factory painted for the FEC and Central of Georgia for when I want to run older era trains From my experience, those cars....at least the several I have, cant speak for every car Kadee has made.... have more rolling resistance than the typical new car produced by other manufacturers. They switch well, stock, right out of the box with their semi scale couplers. But I don't know how well they would work for building a 50 car train traversing a 2% grade. I suppose others would swap out the trucks or wheels. Too bad Kadee doesn't make contemporary era models, or they would be my go to source for rolling stock. Edit: I see Sheldon explained basically the same thing, so my response to him would be repetitive. And his solution is to modify (work-around) the standard kadee truck/wheelset issue. They make their trucks in every type and style for every era. And they offer semi scale wheelsets. In fact the HGC trucks can be purchased with code 88 wheeelsets installed. Changing trucks seems easier and more effective than adding weight. And even with your switching theme, you may see benefits to equilized trucks. Sheldon
Thanks for the tip. I'll see what I can find at Kadee regarding 36 inch wheelsets/trucks. Since I only need about 60 cars for the layout, it might be a worthwhile expense.
The proper way to add weight would be to disassemble a car and add more weight to where the manufacturer placed it, over the wheels if possible although there are easier places to add it. But disassembling a modern, highly detailed, car is not encouraged.
Still, rolling resistance or not, I prefer the feel of a heavier car than what the standard weight generally is, but I don't have the long train/grades issues that others have to fight with.
Edit: I see that you already searched the Kadee site. Thanks.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I would be happy to send you a few, no worries. I will round them up get them on the way. By the way, at the train show last weekend I found more Ernst gear kits for the RDC's, so I am now making plans to use the ones you sent to built a close to accurate version of the B&O Speedliner train. Thanks. Sheldon
Thanks in advance.
I'm glad the RDCs will finally be put to good use. I bought them on impulse at a train show about 10-15 years ago and they just sat in the boxes until last year I finally decided to open them up and see what it would take to convert the powered unit to DCC. That's when I discovered the rubber band drive mechanism and realized they would be more expense and trouble than they were worth. It sounds like you have the know-how to make them operational in DC. Good luck.
John-NYBWDo you have enough of those couplers in stock that you could sell me a pair of them for my Kadee D&H boxcar?
John... you do not need the special coupler head/shank for the Kadee PS-1 boxcars.
The coupler box on those models is factory sealed and I have not found a way to take it apart.
Conversion is easy. They already drilled the hole in the frame for you to use with a standard Kadee coupler box, it just needs to be tapped for 2-56 threads.
-All Photographs by Kevin Parson
The first step is to simply remove the trucks. The newer cars with the "semi-scale" couplers have HGC two-piece equalizing trucks. Be careful when removing these because they can fall apart when the screw is removed.
I mount the HGC trucks to a piece of plastic that has been tapped for 2-56 screws just to make sure eveything stays together while the box car is being worked on.
Then the floor needs to be removed from the box car body. This is a matter of simply prying the body away slightly until the nubbins release.
Only remove the floor slightly, then work the uncoupling levers and vertical brake rod from the floor connection points.
Then the floor can be removed all of the way.
Remove the coupler box/stirrup assemblies by sliding them out of the locating slots in the frame.
The original couplers and boxes will be discarded. Cut the stirrups off of the coupler boxes with a good pair of flush cutting nippers.
Make sure to leave a little of the guide that goes into the locating slot in the floor.
Now tap the factory drilled hole for a 2-56 screw.
I use Loctite super glue to attach the stirrups back onto the car floor. I use a big old glob of the stuff. It will be inside the body, so excess glue is not much of a concern here.
Let the glue fully harden before installing the floor back onto the box car body.
Then install the floor back into the car body.
The white pieces of 3/8" plastic angle are to keep the car upright while it is being painted.
After the car is painted, I install the "Full Size" coupler. I use #148 Whisker Couplers in the #242 snap together coupler boxes.
The #242 is a "universal" black box similar in size the the classic #232, but does not have the outside ears. I use the Kadee black plastic screw to hold these on. It disappears under the car in the shadows.
Now install the trucks and verify coupler height. It should be perfect.
There you have it. Simple conversion to "Full Size" couplers.
I hope this helped.
Oh... If your D&H box car has the cushion underframe, nothing that I posted above will work.
Kevin, I going to bet John is never going to do that, I know I would not do that.
I can't recall specifically how right now, but I have had those couplers out and they can be replaced, at least on the few Kadee box cars I have.
I found my stash and will sent him a few tomorrow.
And while I don't doubt they have switched to the HGC trucks, in my small collection of Kadee cars several came with semi scale couplers and the metal sprung trucks.
SeeYou190 Oh... If your D&H box car has the cushion underframe, nothing that I posted above will work. -Kevin
It does.
It's been a few years and like Sheldon, I can't remember exactly why I couldn't just replace it with a #5 or #148 but I remember thinking it odd that Kadee would produce a piece of rolling stock that couldn't have the coupler swapped for it's most popular coupler.
I'm in the middle of a train room reorganization right now (again) and I'm not sure which of the storage drawers that D&H boxcar is in. When I get things organized I'll take another look at it. I do remember it was an excellent piece of rolling stock other than that issue but I didn't want to put it on the layout with the small head coupler. I know they say it will mate with a #5 but I found that to be unreliable besides looking strange hooked to the larger coupler.
The cushion underframe assembly comes pre-assembled from Kadee, even on their kit cars. The kit cars include a note to not even think about taking the cushion underframe assembly apart.
Hopefully you can swap out the couplers without needing to do anything to the functioning cushion spring.
I received a pair of Kadee 1569 HGC 100T trucks today. They look great and roll really freely...ahem.
They are, for some reason, a two part assembly which must be installed with their supplied doo dad in the hole and a 2-56 screw. Which does not fit my $30 Atlas covered hopper. A nice truck that seems over-engineered to the point that it doesn't work for my situation.
2-56. Right. I know what that means. These are trucks designed for upgrading an Athearn BB car.
My expectations for any HO truck made to install on any HO scale car: Unscrew factory screw. Remove truck. Put new truck on where old truck was just removed. Screw in new truck with factory screw. I guess some model truck engineers must think another way is better.
Also, they are just as free rolling as the trucks I would replace, so its back to the tacky glue in the journals idea to try to scale down weight/brake.
Doughless I received a pair of Kadee 1569 HGC 100T trucks today. They look great and roll really freely...ahem. They are, for some reason, a two part assembly which must be installed with their supplied doo dad in the hole and a 2-56 screw. Which does not fit my $30 Atlas covered hopper. A nice truck that seems over-engineered to the point that it doesn't work for my situation. 2-56. Right. I know what that means. These are trucks designed for upgrading an Athearn BB car. My expectations for any HO truck made to install on any HO scale car: Unscrew factory screw. Remove truck. Put new truck on where old truck was just removed. Screw in new truck with factory screw. I guess some model truck engineers must think another way is better. Also, they are just as free rolling as the trucks I would replace, so its back to the tacky glue in the journals idea to try to scale down weight/brake.
Well Douglas you missed the point. The HGC trucks are made from two pieces so that they equalize - that is ALL four wheels will adjust and ALWAYS be sitting on the rails and be sharing the weight EQUALLY.
This is not possible with a rigid truck. There will be track irregularities that leave one wheel unloaded even if it is "touching".
Ever have that problem with a piece of furniture on an uneven floor?
This is why I use mostly sprung trucks especially on freight cars because they get pulled in much longer trains.
I don't know anything about your Atlas covered hopper, or how its trucks are attached. I don't have any of their covered hoppers, likely out of my era by a good margin. But yes to install the Kadee HGC trucks you often have to modify the car, cut off whatever boss or pin, and use the supplied pivot assembly.
Same is true for other Kadee trucks, both the original and "self centering" versions of their metal sprung trucks also reguire a smooth bolster without a boss or hub.
EQUALIZATION - I consider it important, so did most modelers back in the day. That's why even $2 Athearn cars came with sprung trucks.
When Athearn went to the one piece truck, lots of people complained, replaced them etc.
When I started in the hobby, Central Valley made a line of sprung metal trucks that were considered the very best, I still have a fair number of them, including fully sprung passenger trucks.
The HGC truck was designed to make a non metal equalized truck with more realistic looking springs and still have it be a bit heavier than simple plastic trucks because Kadee understands what I keep saying on here about keeping the car weight down low to improve tracking.
In the history of this hobby there are endless designs for truck bolsters - they don't all interchange - not now, not 50 years ago when I started.
I know, none of this matters on your 7 car trains.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut yes to install the Kadee HGC trucks you often have to modify the car, cut off whatever boss or pin, and use the supplied pivot assembly.
ATLANTIC CENTRALIn the history of this hobby there are endless designs for truck bolsters - they don't all interchange - not now, not 50 years ago when I started
My point for trying the Kadee trucks had to do with getting a modern 100T version of the trucks that are on my 1950s/60s era Kadee cars....because they roll worse than most new cars, which, IMO, helps to scale down weight of the prototype.
The stuff about two-part, tracking, wheel tread width was just noise around my main goal that doesn't really matter to me. I understand that Kadees are two part for a reason, but the hole is for an Athearn or MDC car, mainly.
I've been in the hobby 40 years and it never occurred to me that different manufacturers would have bothered to engineer their own way of mounting a truck to the bottom of a car. I figured there would be a flat spot in the middle of the truck with a big hole in it that fit over a flange in the bottom of the car that was threaded to accept a screw. If not a screw, a plastic pin press fitted. A solution that would have been standardized by about 1960. I started buying trains about 1977.
Mounting a truck to the bottom of a car body doesn't seem like a problem that requires six or more different engineered methods. But I guess Atlas has to have a different size of hole than Kadee, different from Intermountain, Athearn, etc? Go figure.
Douglas, do the wheels on a Chevy fit a FORD? They do not consult each other in deciding what bolt circle or offset they will use to build their cars? Why would Athearn ask anyone else what they are doing?
BUT, more to the point, you might want to look closer.
The KADEE truck does not fit an Athearn car without modifing the car, the hole in the truck does not fit over the hub, and the HGC or metal self centering version of the Kadee truck will not work without the special hub that comes with them.
All three versions of the Kadee trucks require a flat smooth bolster with NO flange, lip, hub, which ever term you prefer.
So the first thing you do on most brands to install Kadee trucks is cut off the hub and make sure the bolster surface is flat and smooth.
Pictures at 11.
Regarding you particular issue - maybe weight is you best option.
You may have been happier modeling in a larger scale, like S or two rail O "scale", where you get more of that "intimate" feel of being around trains and they have much more "mass".
Doughless2-56. Right. I know what that means. These are trucks designed for upgrading an Athearn BB car.
Hi Douglas...
Unfortunately in HO there is no standardized truck mount like we have a more-or-less standard coupler box.
The most difficult train cars I have fitted Kadee trucks to are BLI New York Central boxcars and Atlas USRA boxcars. Those required a bit of re-work to get the job done.
Since I have mostly Kadee, Red Caboose, Intermountain, Brass, and Resin Kits, the 2-56 screw is perfect for me. The only Athearn cars in the Fleet Of Nonsense are a handful of upgraded flat and gondola cars. I do not think there are any Roundhouse cars.
With the obvious exception of Kadee, these pieces of rolling stock tend to come with trucks of questionable quality. The decision to replace them is easy.
Good luck.