G Scale Model Train Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
21,053 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Llyn Rice had an excellent method of putting Kadee 789s on these cars.

The thread is in the archived section, so I was hoping:

1. That Llyn would repost his pictures and his technique.
2. I wonder if not "turning" the mounting block would allow curves sharper than Lyn's 20' diameters!
3. That anyone else body mounting Kadees on these cars would post here.

Regards, Greg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,626 Posts
I think I changed mine after Llyns photos. Theres only one basic photo you need from under side. I think he wrote on artical about it on the other site.
I used to park mine on 10 dia curves and no problem, I never ran them fast tho over 10 'dia .
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
21,053 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
My min diameter is 10 foot, they run, but I think I will have to go to BB wheelsets because of weight and the length I want to run.

Regards, Greg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
687 Posts
Greg

I have 3 USAT streamliners with body mounted Kadees. I used the larger couplers (G scale as opposed to #1) for their strength. These cars are very heavy and I am mindful of some others' earlier experience of couplers not holding. In most if not all of those cases, I believe the couplers were truck mounted and had a tendency to move vertically under heavy loads.

I run minimum 10 foot radius so cannot comment on a 10 foot diameter curve. That is extraordinarily tight for a full length passenger car.

Regards ... Doug
 

·
Master of Disaster
Joined
·
867 Posts
I will when I get home...but my curves on my mainline are no less then 9'.

I also use 789s'and I mount them on one car one way then closer on the other car Mounting them the same way I do it puts too much room between the cars, and alternating them brings them in closer.

Being at work and answering these posts don't let you use pics to explain things.

Bubba
 

·
Master of Disaster
Joined
·
867 Posts
I have tried numerous time to load a pic to show what I did to fix my problem..but I canniot is something wrong with the syatem for this..I just had to ask.
Any way What I did was to in one cars stock coupler pocket I mounted a 789 inside the pocket, on the opposite car I mounted the 789 outside the coupler box...the square section of the 789 outside of the coupler pocket..this brings them to about 1/4" apart as opposed to way apart mounting both 789s' outside the pockets, and not also mounting them both inside the pockets, this way would not allow the lattitude to manuver my tighter curves as I I have 11' curves.
Alternating the couplers, with the 1/4" between the diaphrams looks good but not as good as them touching, but If I mounted them touching I could not navigate my curves......When I can post the pic I will, but I have tried to and can't at this time.
Hope you get the picture...no pun intended.
Bubba

I just read Lynn's post and the pic with the 2 silver cars connected with the diaphrams 1" or more apart...if you mount one of the cars KayDees' INSIDE the coupler pocket it will bring the diaphrams together about 1/4" apart and look much better, but not as it should look all together touching....

Any way that's what I did..if I could get the frigg'in pic posted I would show you what it looks like, instead of trying to paint a picture with words...hope this helps.

Bubba
 
G

·
Ok so i have quite a few of these cars as well, i thought that someone had posted that the usa couplers worked well on these because they were metal? i converted all my aristo heavyweights to 789's useing rays methads and they work great on 10ft dia but the usa cars i was going to leave alone because i had thought that most of you including Marty had left usa coupler in place and that they ran well with just trimming the diaframs a little. i have not coupled up all 14 cars yet, so what you guys are saying is the USA couplers aren't strong enough to pull lots of them together without problems, or is it just becuse the cars can be coupled closer together with the kadees.....
Nick.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
687 Posts
Nick

There are 2 reasons I put Kadee couplers on my streamliners.

First I prefer body mounted couplers on all rolling stock - it looks better by a wide margin and it is more reliable operationally in backing movements.

I know that many folks run all their trains, especially passenger trains, in fixed consists. If you do not mind the appearance, even hook and loops will do. But at least a few of us prefer to operate our large scale trains doing some switching. Even passenger trains did more switching than most modellers realize.

These cars weigh in at about 6 kg (13 pounds) each. A train of say 8 cars will weigh close to 50 kg (120 pounds). This is quite a hefty tug on the couplers going up a grade and the Talgo mounted couplers (like USA but especially Kadees) have a tendency to move vertically under this much stress. Body mounts work the best, can be made as strong as is necessary and have the other advantages I already mentioned.

Regards ... Doug
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
21,053 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
The stock USAT streamliners are body mounted, so I was a bit confused on what I read that seemed to imply they were truck mounted. Re-reading Doug's post, he does not really say the USAT couplers were truck mounted, but " some others' earlier experience of couplers not holding. In most if not all of those cases, I believe the couplers were truck mounted and had a tendency to move vertically under heavy loads"

For Kadees, whose main weakness is slipping over each other vertically, I completely agree that truck mounting couplers can allow vertical movement.

On 40 foot box cars, I find that body mounting really helps this problem, especially with sprung trucks. I had this problem with some Aristo cars. I had to lay on my belly to see why Aristo cars were uncoupling, while the USAT ones were not. The USAT trucks on box cars are not sprung. Remember this is truck mounted.

On long cars, the extreme length accentuates any vertical grades, so even with body mounts, you can get this vertical coupler movement, but for a different reason than the talgo "tongue" acting as a lever to allow movement up and down.

So, the USAT metal knuckles are plenty strong. I'm probably going to try to stick with them, and "open up" the side to side play for my 10' diameter curves, only putting kadees between the locos and the train.

Regards, Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
I have 9 of the USA streamliners that are still configured with the stock body mounted metal couplers. I will say that the stock couplers are problematic and will frequently uncouple. Some couplers are more of a problem than others. Since most of my cars stay coupled together for storage, I solved this problem by drilling a small hole in the bottom side of the metal drop pin and placed a small piece of wire through the hole. This prevents the drop pin from raising up and allowing the car to uncouple. It won't work for those that do a lot of switching. Overall, it's a bad design and one that USA Trains should fix.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
687 Posts
Greg

The cars do come with body mounts as you pointed out.

When they first came on the market there were a number of discussions about couplers and minimum radius with these cars. At the time, many were taken by surprise at just how big a curve was needed and to run them on 4 ft radius converted to talgo mounts. I do recall Howard Sheldon's lengthy problems as he installed body mounted Kadees that would not hold ... and eventually had to had some pins between some cars. A search of teh archives may turn up some interesting examples but no really perfect solutions to sharp curves and reliable couplings. I include uncoupling with staying coupled as part of this.

I acquired mine on a whim (I love passenger equipment though I primarily model narrow gauge) as the price was right. Initially I thought I could just leave the USAT couplers but they would not mate with Kadee #1 scale couplers reliably under load. I bit the bullet then and converted which just confirms what I have always known ... Accucraft couplers are good but all others go straight to trash and Kadees are installed.

Regards ... Doug
 

·
Master of Disaster
Joined
·
867 Posts
Posted By Madstang on 04/21/2008 6:52 PM
I have tried numerous time to load a pic to show what I did to fix my problem..but I canniot is something wrong with the syatem for this..I just had to ask.
Any way What I did was to in one cars stock coupler pocket I mounted a 789 inside the pocket, on the opposite car I mounted the 789 outside the coupler box...the square section of the 789 outside of the coupler pocket..this brings them to about 1/4" apart as opposed to way apart mounting both 789s' outside the pockets, and not also mounting them both inside the pockets, this way would not allow the lattitude to manuver my tighter curves as I I have 11' curves.
Alternating the couplers, with the 1/4" between the diaphrams looks good but not as good as them touching, but If I mounted them touching I could not navigate my curves......When I can post the pic I will, but I have tried to and can't at this time.
Hope you get the picture...no pun intended.



I just read Lynn's post and the pic with the 2 silver cars connected with the diaphrams 1" or more apart...if you mount one of the cars KayDees' INSIDE the coupler pocket it will bring the diaphrams together about 1/4" apart and look much better, but not as it should look all together touching....
Any way that's what I did..if I could get the frigg'in pic posted I would show you what it looks like, instead of trying to paint a picture with words...hope this helps.
Bubba




OK I finally figured it out...here is what I did and it works for me on my layout, as I cannot have the cars actually touching and it still looks pretty good.



Bubba
 

·
Senior Dish Washer
Joined
·
3,203 Posts
I sold and shipped my California Zephyr before taking a good look at what I used to hold the two spring ends for the steps together. Does anyone have a photo or can tell me what to use? I'm thinking I used a pc of wire insulation where I had pilled the copper wire out first but can't remember for sure.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
I have #1 scale body mount 820's on mine. Minimum mainline RADIUS is 10'. Two PA1's will pull a train of nine cars up a long 2% grade, no traction tires. I just put a car on our kitchen scale. Came in at 10lbs. I love the close coupling with the body mounts. You will need smooth level track for the #1 couplers due to the length of the cars and the amount of overhang.
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
21,053 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
So, 5 years later, I have retained the stock knuckle couplers, they tolerate grade transitions better than kadees, and the mounting mechanism allows pretty darn tight curves.

The picture below is all DIAMETER 10', twice as tight as Paul's.... I guess when it's not broke, don't fix it. I'll never get nice close coupling like Paul, but it runs.

I have 10 of them and use a bit more horsepower to pull them because my grade is 3.4%....

(Randy, you may need something much stronger than wire insulation, maybe a short brass tube)

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
263 Posts
Greg, I just finished up mounting a #830 on a combine. I used your site and kadee's for info. I am, like you going to stay with the USAT's couplers accept for the end cars. I think the metal couplers will work well. I mounted the #830 on the non vestibule end... very simple. Had to modify the ribs a little to drill holes. I used a Kadee shim I had laying around. Matched height dead on with the shim.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top