All --
I have been reading all the varying opinions about couplers, so thought I would
weigh in here --
1. Objectives
First you need to decide what your objectives are. To do this, you need to
recognize whether
you are a railroad model builder or a model railroad builder/operator. Whats
the difference? The railroad model builder (or accumulator)
generally has no layout, and no near-term prospects for one. He/she is
primarily interested in railroad
rolling stock as individual scale models. Well call this person a modeler
for short.
The model railroad builder/operator has a layout, and will
likely always have, or have access to, a layout of some sort. He/she is
primarily interested in
trouble-free operation of every piece of rolling stock. Well call this person
a railroader for
short.
(There is a third kind of person one who eventually finds him/herself
having to take all his/her shelf models and make them work on a layout. I went
through this when I finally built my
first post-college model railroad and discovered that I had to replace many of
the wheelsets and couplers on my pristine models. I had been a modeler who
would have been better off following
the railroader objective.)
2. Selection
Criteria
The selection criteria for each of these follows:
A. Modeler
Realism; i.e., prototype appearance. Scale-size coupler is a must; operational
reliability is a distant
second.
B. Railroader
Operational reliability. Approximate
scale size is necessary, but true prototype fidelity of the coupler design is
second to operational considerations. Must stay coupled unless uncoupling is
desired. Must uncouple (preferably remotely, no
hands-on) when desired.
3. Choices for the
Modeler
You are really limited here. You can choose either dummy couplers (as from Ye
Olde Huff n
Puff) or Sergent couplers. Use of the
dummies on an actual layout requires the old 0-5-0 (hands-on). Sergents
require a magnetic wand and
reachable trackwork.
4. Choices for the
Railroader
Its a Kadee world out there, including Kadee clones like
the McHenry. Your choices are the Kadee
S coupler (the 802 or 808, or even the On3 803) or any of the standard-size
HO Kadees. The Kadee On3 and S couplers
are identical except for the color and shape of the trip pin. The On3 coupler
is a ¾-size coupler with
respect to the Kadee O scale standard gauge coupler. As such, it is also
properly sized for S, at
least to the extent an automatic coupler with the Kadee knuckle design can be
considered accurate.
The S and HO Kadees are interoperable; i.e., the S
couplers will operate reliably with the HO couplers. The HO couplers require
longer trip pins if
you want to use standard Kadee between-the-rails or under-the-track magnets for
uncoupling. The S couplers require
replacement of the overly-stiff centering spring with spare knuckle springs in
order to operate reliably without longitudinal springiness in your train.
For the Railroader who is concerned about picking a coupler
thats closest to scale size, consider this: The Kadee S couplers height is
scale; the width is too large. So if your layout is high, the S coupler
will appear correct, viewing from the side. The HO couplers width is nearly
correct, but the height is too
small.. So if your layout is low, the HO
coupler will appear correct when viewed from above.
But there are two reasons for the Railroader to use the S
coupler:
A. Many
manufacturers design their railroad cars the S coupler. Examples are Pacific
Rail/S Scale America
and S Helper Service. Why not keep your
life simple and go with whats intended?
B. For cars 50 feet
long or longer, the S coupler is mandatory. The reason is the vertical
offset of mating couplers when your train crests a hill. If you use HO
couplers, the cresting cars coupler will lift out of the mating coupler on the
car thats still on the uphill climb. The longer the cars and/or the
steeper the grade (and thus the more abrupt the transition), the more likely
the uncouplings. The S coupler has a lot more vertical "grab"
than the HO coupler, and is therefore much more likely to remain coupled than
the HO versions.
I know that my logic will be severely challenged by the
Sergent fans who look forward to switching just like the real railroads with
a switchman physically present at every coupling/uncoupling event. But
consider this: Every such event brings a 1:1 human hand with a tool into
proximity with scenic details, structural details, and/or rolling stock details
not to mention the arm that must successfully pass over scenic elements
that are closer to the operator than the car to be uncoupled. How likely is it
that the certainty of
hundreds of such 1:1 arm/tool incursions per operating session will never
result in damage? You will have to
build very robustly indeed if this is the route you want to take.
Dick Karnes
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
