|
NOTE: Many statements will be controversial to some and even offensive to others, but the facts must be exposed in order to improve conditions, which have been ignored for too many years. For a full discussion of the basis for many of the following opinions and statements see: CLOSE COUPLING. Examples of problems and (im)possible solutions for common cars will corroborate most comments. The main objective behind scale model railroading is to operate trains as realistically as possible with a believable prototype appearance. Beautiful thousand dollar locos and overpriced super detailed cars are only shelf models or photo subjects, if they do not perform and look well on a layout during operation. Even those from the same maker exhibit the same or other flaws. At normal viewing distances, most appear to be toy-like abominations. Any long string of mixed manufacturer, box or passenger cars will have a myriad of inconsistent spacings, when using standard couplers and provided mounts. The most beautiful scenery or even an outdoor backdrop will not disguise the fact that they are models, at any distance. WHY? Before you cast this discourse aside as so much hog-wash or plain old bull shit, you might consider these questions. Why do we spend hundreds or even over a thousand dollars for super detailed locomotives with scale piping and lost wax appliances? Why are cast-on ladders, hand holds and steps or non-see-through running boards so objectionable? Why is ultra fine lettering, that requires a magnifier to read it, demanded? Why are $30 cars, with etched parts and hand holds that require drilling, cementing, and color finishing, so popular; when a similar prototype is available at one third the price? Why do some of us devote many hours to building Westerfield or F & C resin kits? Why are more hours spent in detailing brake gear on an underframe? Why is it desirable to use the correct trucks with the right wheelbase, smaller flanges and narrower treads? Why are passenger car interiors so desirable? Why are "scale looking" head height and width couplers the rage. The list could extend through scenery and structures as well. Obviously the answer is to obtain a believable, realistic appearance and the satisfaction derived from achieving it. But in reality, can any of these be seen at normal viewing distances and angles on most layouts, without bending over for a closeup view? Concerning rolling stock, what can be seen at almost any angle, distance or height? Car lengths, heights, shapes, color and lettering schemes plus spacing between them. The first few are usually handled very well, even on the least expensive models intended for train sets. But the last one is almost universally neglected, even on the most expensive models. What is the reason? Why have been forced to accept such an obvious flaw in our quest for believable realism for too many years? Isn't it time to investigate the causes and effects in order to search for solutions? Hopefully by digesting the data presented, the importance, enormity and universality of the problem will be exposed. Better yet you might be inspired to do something about it. DISSERTATION. Not one of the available, drop-in, operating HO couplers, "scale" or otherwise, permits the ubiquitous freight car, striking plate to striking plate separation of 30" or 15" pulling face to striking plate distance. All the pulling face (pf) to horn distances exceed the common 20th century prototype 12" by sizable amounts. As shown in MEASURING COUPLERS, some are greater than 18", while the Kadee "scale" #58 is close to 15 5/8". Only the Kadee 711 "3/4", also used in N scale and HOn3, comes close with 12.2". But its operation leaves a lot to be desired. See KADEE 711 EVALUATION. Including swing clearance, the minimum achievable distance with drop-ins makes establishing correct striker separation next to impossible without major surgery. In most cases, Accumate Proto, with 13.0", can meet the requirements with only minor alterations. Since the most obvious distance on house or other high sided cars is the corner at the end sheet, this should set the spacing criterion. The almost standard coupled distance between end corners on higher cars is close to 44" for a pulling face (PF) to-end corner of 22". Subtracting the pulling face to striker of 15" leaves 7" for the striker to -end corner distance. This is not usable on any HO car with present couplers. The maximum might be less than 3" with some couplers. Break out the hammers and saws! In many cases the only way to achieve prototype coupling distances is to put a large part of the head under the end sill or inside the draft gear box. Very prototypical!!! Although it may help in some instances, using short series shanks reduces pulling face to-mounting center by about 2.8", however it can not overcome the pulling face to striker problem. A recent comparison article in July, 2000 MR, limited the discussion to the beauty of the head, presenting only the length from tip to horn; while ignoring the more important, usage value of the pulling face to horn, which is a major factor in determining coupling distance. Although nit-pickers with calibrated eye balls may be able to judge tip to horn lengths on uncoupled cars, no mention was made of the approximate, coupled prototype 24" horn to horn distance (H-H). Those same eye balls might note that H-H ranges from 26.0 (Accumate Proto) to 32.2" for "scale" knuckles and to 36.7 for standard heads in the pulling position. In spite of excess slack; in the pushing position, H-H ranges from 23.9 (Accumate Proto) to 28.7" for "scale" and 33.5" for standard. These would be noticeable at a fair distance. Although Accumate Proto came closest; the all important pulling face to horn distance, for determining fit and mounting center, was apparently not considered. Surely the manufacturers know the dimensions of their designs, at least to the nearest .001". Could this be a proprietary secret? But with variations in knuckle contours, directly measuring the unknown pulling face to horn distance is a guessing game. See MEASURING COUPLERS for a possible method. Mounting in draft gear and compatibility have deteriorated to utter chaos, far worse than the time when the NMRA issued the RP=22 Universal Box. This is quite evident in freight car, cast-on draftgear boxes, with no consideration of tolerances nor striking plate to end sheet and coupling distances. Manufacturers probably have no inkling of coupler dimensions or requirements. Most boxes seem to be an after thought, left to the whims of the die maker. Heights, lengths and widths vary drastically to the point where #5 springs will not fit or are sloppy, producing poor operation. Box edge or striking plate to end sheet distance varies from 0 to 14". Center mounting posts vary drastically in diameter producing wide variations in play with inconsistent shank mounting holes. Even distances from front edge to post varies. Box heights vary greatly as do coupler shank thicknesses, producing drastic vertical clearances. Due to head weight, metal couplers sag; as do almost all when trip pins are over magnets. Dragging or snagging pins are all too common, even after adjustment with height gauge. Many have plastic lid securing pins that are not secure or break on removal attempts , while adjusting or repairing couplers. In spite of more difficult mounting, Accumate Proto has approached the scale and mounting problems better than any others. After removing the cast-on center post, the draft gear box can be mounted in most boxes without height adjustment. Lip must be removed and in most cases, box must be shortened to permit prototype striker to striker distance. Minor beveling, of cast-on box edge, will be necessary. It might be better, if only mounting pads were used; leaving the distance problem and choice of boxes to the modeler as done on brass and craftsman type kits. As it stands, although the result is rewarding with a sense of accomplishment, the work required is abhorable, even with the aid of a milling machine. Steam locomotive pilots fair far worse. Most detailed road loco pilots have no provisions for couplers. Following Kadee's recommendations of butchering pilot sills on a prized beauty has no appeal whatever. In spite of claims, none of the various draft gear designs fit, without major surgery. After 50 years, only the introduction of plastic couplers, relieved some of the strain in insulating couplers , to eliminate potential shorts. For many cases, the most useful gear (oldest 6. 7 and 8) was unnecessarily dropped, when delayed action was introduced. In some cases the shank of the present versions can be modified and juggled through the pilot opening, but the box is designed upside down preventing in place assembly. Although possibly easier, the box included with the 20 series faces the same dilemma. Does anyone listen? At least, N scale had some expensive pilot adapters. The present ipso facto practices were founded in the latter 1950's when Athearn introduced ring type shank end and Kadee followed with the K-5 coupler. Since most modellers did not use micrometers and digital calipers were not available, 1/64" = 1.36 in HO was considered good enough. Examining the evolution of Kadee's couplers from the original "blob" through the K-4 and K-5 to the present "scale?" #58, it is apparent that the couplers were developed from excellent ideas using trial and error. Each new development seemed to follow the same path. Being virtually the only game in town, Kadee has never been amenable to suggestions from consumers or dealers. After 40 years, why is it necessary to waste precious time bending trip pins, when couplers are set to correct height? In spite of hype, and the increased choice, very little has improved in the physical characteristics. Most offerings are rehashes and variations of forty year old technology with the exception of the introduction of acetal plastic. Some of Kadee's shanks go back over 40 years and only minor improvements have been made to heads. The competitors have only copied many features and faults with variations. In many cases they are worse. Even shank thicknesses vary drastically, requiring shims. Not one seems to have done his homework in researching requisites for prototypical coupling, consistent with good operation and compatibility. They seem to have wasted their efforts and money by investing in inferior products. Today with computers, CAD-CAM and machining tolerances of one millionth of an inch, we should expect better design in couplers and mountings, instead of a rehash of 1958 standards. Computer simulations can eliminate empirical guesswork. Couplers and draft gear characteristics are lagging far behind technology. At the risk of antagonizing those who have neglected this vital area by accepting the status quo, well based opinions and suggestions are presented for consideration. In our quest for realism and better operation, something must be done. The examples of more common cases and data presented in subsections of this item are only the tip of the iceberg, which does not reveal the magnitude of the problem. A recent project, involving mounting Kadee 711's on 25 IHC oldtime work cars with cast-on boxes, evoked the irritation which prompted this discourse. Milling to height and clearance plus drilling screw holes on 50 pockets was time consuming and tedious. Why was all this avoidable work necessary. to achieve desirable coupling? Am I the only one, who recognizes this problem area? All we need is a start. At present, exerting financial pressures on manufacturers through sales resistance might prove futile, since we all need couplers and rolling stock, right or wrong. Without these items, there would be no hobby. But we can make our opinions known through many paths. Any self respecting business pays heed to customer complaints, if it desires to compete for your money. Successful competition is always the key to survival. A cursory look, at the history of development of new products, will quickly reveal, a successful product release is soon followed with many quasi clones. Often these create trends and almost exact duplicates, which may apply here. All it takes is for one, new or old, major or minor, manufacturer to tout his better mouse trap and the customers will beat a path to his door. Enviously the others will endeavor to divert the traffic to their paths. Submission of letters to editors or complaints to other areas in advertisement supported periodicals may also prove futile , since fear of offending and loss of revenue may induce filtering. Once the champion of development of and conformity to standards and practices effecting model railroaders , perhaps the National Model Railroad Association might be encouraged to investigate and act upon a solution to this problem. As was done with DCC, devotion of efforts in this area would effect a very large majority of model railroaders. Although one of main goals of the NMRA is to promote interchange compatibility through Standards and Recommended Practices, with the exception of height standards and RP's on dummy scale knuckles, outdated coupler boxes, and the abortive hornhook coupler, nothing has been developed on couplers in any scale. What is the reason? Ignorance, complacency, acquiescence, politics, or fear of offending? But offend we must, if we would gain the attention of the makers and others, who profit from coupler and rolling stock sales. Possibly through the collective strength of the NMRA, makers can be coerced to remedy the situation. If, after digesting these discussions , you are not happy with the situation; join the NMRA and pressure the powers that be to act upon a solution. Then participate in the effort by joining committees or at least contributing ideas, data or even criticism. Every little bit helps. Comments can be posted at MR COUPLER HELP GROUP BACK TO COUPLERS BACK TO METHODS INDEX |
| Browser -- Ibrowse V2.3 -- 2003
Text -- CygnusEd Professional V4.2 -- 1999 Drawings -- XCAD-3000 V1.1 -- 1992 Graphs -- Math-Amation V1.0d -- 1988 Rendering -- Image FX V4.1 -- 2000 Digital Camera -- Kodak DC25 -- 1998 Digital Camera 2 -- Kodak DC280 -- 2003 Scanner -- HP Scanjet 6200C -- 2000 HTML and mistakes -- BUDB -- 1931 |
