sdp45
Road Foreman
Posts: 67 
|
Post by sdp45 on Jul 21, 2014 15:55:36 GMT -5
Hello All, I am looking to start switching my freight car fleet from Kadee #5's to Kadee #58's. I am wondering, in your guys experience, what is the right shank length to select for most cars? My fleet is Athearn RTR, Athearn Genesis, Intermountain, and Atlas with a few Walthers and Kadee cars for good measure. The era I am modeling is late 80's early 90's if that helps. Thanks in advance,
Lance
|
|
|
|
Post by iomalley on Jul 21, 2014 16:02:26 GMT -5
If you're switching to 58's they will be 0.281" in length. This is standard in HO. I would start with this for all your models unless problems with coupler height/swing are encountered.
|
|
dtinut
Chairman
Modeling the DT&I of the 60's & 70's
Posts: 661
|
Post by dtinut on Jul 21, 2014 19:51:14 GMT -5
stuff over 85ft in length will typically have long shank couplers (extra swing)
|
|
spike
Chairman
They say I can't be Spike anymore, so Mr. Burns it is!
Posts: 561
|
Post by spike on Jul 21, 2014 23:48:38 GMT -5
They now have the shelf couplers for the tank cars, and tight locks too. I have seen these on a few tanks, and hoppers with rotary couplers. Good for passenger too. Some freight units have them. BN SDs, and same with CP.
|
|
sdp45
Road Foreman
Posts: 67
|
Post by sdp45 on Jul 22, 2014 11:40:45 GMT -5
Spike, does Kadee make the tight lock and shelf coupler? I have seen those types done by athearn but those are the plastic ones not the nice kadee's? Thanks everybody for the info. =)
|
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Jul 22, 2014 12:14:02 GMT -5
The Kadee #118 represents a type SF coupler (upper and lower shelves). This can be modified into both Type F (lower shelf only) and Type H couplers (no shelves). Kadee #119 represents the type SE coupler, basically a typical #58 with upper and lower shelves.
Not to start a drawn out debate, but have you considered Sergent couplers? IMO, they look much better than the Kadees, and typically more economical than Kadees if you are planning on converting your roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by iomalley on Jul 22, 2014 12:53:09 GMT -5
Some thing you might also want to consider, is if you have tracks on your layout that are out of reach or on tight curves. (like industrial spurs, or where un/coupling is in a difficult spot) I typically keep #5s on my switchers and GP9s RS18s due to their 'workload' in these areas...as a #5 has a higher probability of coupling than the 58s. I also keep the uncoupling pins on them as well. It seems that the 58s sit slightly off centre and decrease the chance of mating with another 58 on anything but dead straight track, whereas the #5 will make the joint on slight curves. Not sure if there's any engineering validity to this, just quiet observation. It almost seems that Kadee needed to modify the centering spring to line the prototypical heads up better for the 58s but didn't bother.
The Kadee tightlocks are a real PITA on cars that require frequent uncoupling by hand. I used to install them to BN units, but took them off because they were such a pain to release with anything but an under track magnet. They would be great on dedicated trains on your layout like unit trains and passenger trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by CP_8530 on Jul 22, 2014 13:28:17 GMT -5
Some thing you might also want to consider, is if you have tracks on your layout that are out of reach or on tight curves. (like industrial spurs, or where un/coupling is in a difficult spot) I typically keep #5s on my switchers and GP9s RS18s due to their 'workload' in these areas...as a #5 has a higher probability of coupling than the 58s. I also keep the uncoupling pins on them as well. It seems that the 58s sit slightly off centre and decrease the chance of mating with another 58 on anything but dead straight track, whereas the #5 will make the joint on slight curves. Not sure if there's any engineering validity to this, just quiet observation. It almost seems that Kadee needed to modify the centering spring to line the prototypical heads up better for the 58s but didn't bother. The Kadee tightlocks are a realy PITA on cars that require frequent uncoupling by hand. I used to install them to BN units, but took them off because they were such a pain to release with anything but an under track magnet. They would be great on dedicated trains on your layout like unit trains and passenger trains. I've encountered the same thing with my Kadee 58's not aligning perfectly. I've had to slightly bend the straight spring on the centering spring a little bit straighter to get the proper alignment. Hard to describe. The Kadee double shelf couplers are also a bit of a PITA for frequent switching. |
|
sdp45
Road Foreman
Posts: 67
|
Post by sdp45 on Jul 23, 2014 13:07:47 GMT -5
Thank you guys for all the info. It sounds like it may be a better idea to stick with #5's especially since all I plan on doing is a switching layout. (Though based on the amount of equipment I have you would think I was starting a retail store)
|
|
fr8kar
Chairman
Little man raise the cotton, beer joints get the money
Posts: 309
|
Post by fr8kar on Jul 23, 2014 15:05:42 GMT -5
The Kadee double shelf couplers are also a bit of a PITA for frequent switching. Kadee double shelf couplers are one of the reasons I switched to Sergent couplers. The Kadee #58s look good, and the #5s even have enough heft to pass for a Type F coupler, but Kadee's versions of shelf couplers look awful and operate poorly, unless you use magnets with the trip pins. I decided I wanted to have both looks and operation, so I went with Sergent couplers. |
|
