# putting KDs on USA intermodal cars (Formerly - Please Delete)



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

I did a search but nothing came up on putting Kadees on the USA intermodals. I looked at Greg's pages too. Before I start guessing how to shim or grind, hasn't anyone done this??


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

*RE: please delete*

Better to do a google search and tag it MLS. ie; MLS USAT intermodals kd. Others do fancy punctuations but this works for me. 
Good Luck, I'm sure it's been done. Did you check Greg E's site? 

John


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

I have a few of these cars and plan to use Kadee body mount centersets on them but have not gotten to them yet. The cars I have are independent - not daisy-chained in a group. 
As usual for me, I will strive to make them operate on 10 foot diameter curves with limited use on 8 foot as I have done with all other rolling stock and locos. 

I noticed these cars seem somewhat flimsy and without the containers, they're light weight for their long length. On my under house layout I can only use one container as a stack of two will hit some of the ceiling beams by about a 1/4 inch too much. 

When I do the Kadees, I will examine the car height compared to a prototype, and if lucky, maybe I can lower them at the same time. This is the strategy I always strive for in the past before incorporating body mount centerset couplers. I won't be surprised that additional weight will be needed for operation on my 10 foot diameter loop back. 

Like other items, I can memorialize all that is done in a "vignette", and Greg E. can put it on his Web site with all the others (about 50 so far). 

-Ted


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

I started using 820's to allow slack action on those cars for more user friendly ease.


----------



## papabaer465 (Nov 22, 2012)

*RE: please delete*

have anyone a picture of bodymount Couplers on Gundersons? 

thx Thomas


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

I put the #820s on because I had them and they seemed to sit best. 830s and the new ones were too big of a box. I would have preferred bigger couplers for better allowance of track conditions. 
I actually just shimmed the frame to sit flat with the protrusion already there. Thanks for the help guys. I must have measured wrong at first, I started to file one end of the car. 
I did the dreaded no no. I used any car I could grab for height without checking. I really need to get a gauge or make one quick. 
I'll try and get a pic of the good end!


----------



## papabaer465 (Nov 22, 2012)

*RE: please delete*

hi,


now i`m ready

finishd

using the #830 with a little bash









Kadee#830

fingertip

best wishes, a marry christmes and a happy new year

thomas


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: please delete*




























I had some problems using the links you provided, so I used them, saw the pictures, then right clicked and copied the picture location info.. I also took the pictures and scaled them down to the requirements of the forum, 800 pixels wide.

Greg


----------



## papabaer465 (Nov 22, 2012)

*RE: please delete*

thx Greg, i`m new here, must learn it


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Just trying to be helpful. 

Why did you cut the front of the box so narrow? More for appearance? Some people just cut the sides out. 

Just curious, nice work. 

Greg


----------



## papabaer465 (Nov 22, 2012)

*RE: please delete*

next photo shows the details

the side-cuts on the KD-boxes is for wheel clearance











trucks can now 7ft curves, 2100mm radius works fine











and coupler can LGB-R3 s-curves 












i hope, the tumpnails works fine now^^


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Posted By papabaer465 on 23 Dec 2012 04:44 PM 
_{snip...}_ I hope, the thumbnails works fine now.
Review the information in the MLS FAQ area for how to include images in your posted replies (the path listed below is also a link to the FAQ).

MLS menu >> Resources menu >> FAQ >> As a Standard Member how do I use the Rich-text/HTML Editor? >> Including Pictures in Your Replies:[/b]

While on the abload.de page displaying one of your images, if I right-click the image and select the properties option on the context menu displayed I get the direct URL to the image file, and then use that in the HTML img element tag. Note: the UBB/Forum Code tags (i.e. the ones that use square brackets are not supported by the MLS software). For your information I'm using MS/Windows 7 & MS/Internet Explorer 9 to accomplish the above.


----------



## papabaer465 (Nov 22, 2012)

*RE: please delete*

thx Steve


new attempt

the other side


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

I was thinking of ordering these #907 w/ small boxes as they might not need cutting. What do you think? 
http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/page907-1907.htm


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

The 907s have a much shorter shank than the 906s, so the 907s will be more restrictive on curves and "S" bends. 

Admittedly, the 907s may look better with its draft gear box having a smaller foot print than the 906s, but then the longer 906 gear box look is more appropriate to newer prototype rolling stock typically having Hydra-Cushion / Shock Control with their projected mounted boxes and couplers. 

-Ted


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Posted By papabaer465 on 23 Dec 2012 05:49 PM 
{snip...}[/i] new attempt _{snip...}_
Looks like you've got it nailed.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Thomas, I would like your permission to post your pictures on my web site. I would of course give you credit for the pictures and the method, etc. 

You can email me privately... 

No one else has done this so easily and cleanly. 

My site is to help others, so your efforts would be accessible to the hundreds who visit my site every day, and easy to find. 

Greg


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Ok thanks, I just ordered them. I love watching the "slack action" pull out when starting. When I get a big USA ultimate, I order KDs with them. The USA knuckles worked as long as I ran them in groups with each other. 
It would be nice to have my RR with a standard coupler someday. Some of the truck mounted couplers have served very well and never failed. It's a shame to change them out. I'm going to start with all the problem cars that have different heights. Some of them already have #1 KD couplers. They look better to me. Trouble is they release when the track work is "less than perfect" or the problem cars connected have theirs at different heights. So I'm torn to change out the MTH yet as they take #1s. 
The Aristo car's and the MTH car's stock couplers actually work pretty well. The Aristo's take just a little extra force to couple. How are the couplers on the AML cars?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

There's some extensive threads on interoperability. It's a BIG subject with LOTS of opinions.

I don't want to derail a thread specifically on one particular car and a particular installation. 

Short answer the AML interoperate well... matching heights is all what it is about, especially on Kadee. 

greg


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

*RE: please delete*


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

these are the #1s I had already so I mounted them. They're working on my 11' curves so far.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

So, what's with the "Please Delete" as the title for this thread? From what I can tell, it's been an informative and educational thread that would be beneficial to others. Just curious.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Reading back, he made a duplicate post... but people started posting on the duplicate he wanted deleted...


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Yeap, maybe the moderator could put a title on it now. I can't see how to.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Posted By Enginear on 26 Dec 2012 08:08 PM 
Yeap, maybe the moderator could put a title on it now. I can't see how to. Well, it might help if you give us what you want to see as a title.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 24 Dec 2012 10:41 AM 
Thomas, I would like your permission to post your pictures on my web site. I would of course give you credit for the pictures and the method, etc. 

You can email me privately... 

No one else has done this so easily and cleanly. 

My site is to help others, so your efforts would be accessible to the hundreds who visit my site every day, and easy to find. 

Greg


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

*RE: please delete*

Posted By SteveC on 26 Dec 2012 09:05 PM 
Posted By Enginear on 26 Dec 2012 08:08 PM 
Yeap, maybe the moderator could put a title on it now. I can't see how to. Well, it might help if you give us what you want to see as a title.










Steve all the clues are in his first post .... putting KDs on Intermodals ... even I could figure that one out.

















John


----------



## papabaer465 (Nov 22, 2012)

*RE: please delete*

Greg, they refer to their emails


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Posted By Totalwrecker on 27 Dec 2012 08:06 AM 
Posted By SteveC on 26 Dec 2012 09:05 PM 
Posted By Enginear on 26 Dec 2012 08:08 PM 
Yeap, maybe the moderator could put a title on it now. I can't see how to. Well, it might help if you give us what you want to see as a title.








Steve all the clues are in his first post .... putting KDs on Intermodals ... even I could figure that one out.








John

John

Yes sir, but it's his topic, it's his responsibility.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

*RE: please delete*

Well then, my good sir, you may be in for a Holiday wait... there was an informal request in a post above. 
Hmmm I wonder what the thread police think? ha ha ...........................(No! Please I didn't mean it...) 
Happy Holidaze 

John


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Thomas, I am confused at your answer. 

I thought the work shown was yours, but maybe I am in error... I can go back and read the links, but the links were to the pictures, I guess there's some emails somewhere? 

Thanks, Greg


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Posted By Totalwrecker on 27 Dec 2012 01:18 PM 
Well then, my good sir, you may be in for a Holiday wait... there was an informal request in a post above. 
Hmmm I wonder what the thread police think? ha ha ...........................(No! Please I didn't mean it...) 
Happy Holidaze 

John John

There's no rush from me, I've got absolutely nothing pressing on my schedule for at least the next 18 months or more, so whenever he gets around to it is fine with me.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Thread police? I think since it is a forum anyone can comment. We are all free to express our opinions. 

Even though a reasonable title is glaringly obvious, I, as moderator and owner of about 7 forums several of which are train related, agree, it is common courtesy to abide by the desires of the OP... even if he/she is not reading the thread every day... 

Greg


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

*RE: please delete*

Wow what a surprise!








The OP did, though informally, ask for a new title, just never specified one... 
So which OP desire is being supported? 

"Yeap, maybe the moderator could put a title on it now. I can't see how to. " 

The OP seems more informal and may never respond and yet there is info here that could help... but no.... 

John


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

I knew you were referring to me, no surprise to anyone. I felt that in the Christmas spirit, I would rise to your bait and chomp down on it.... my present to you. 

Take a few more jabs if you want, it's apparently ok to refer to people in this way, and complain about "one mega poster" feeling that if you don't mention my name directly you have followed the rules of no personal attacks. 

Go ahead, swing away... 

oh, Merry Christmas...


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

*RE: please delete*

Very sorry for all this. I had a title of "putting KDs on USA intermodal cars" or something close. 
An original search of this forum brought up nothing. While searching on the web overall, I found a post on this site? So I tried to delete this thread so there was not duplicates. I did not look back here until now when I see the moderator's did respond. 
The time must have elapsed where I could not edit the original anymore??


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: putting KDs on USA intermodal cars (Formally - Please Delete)*

And you can STILL ask the moderator to rename the thread... just click the alert button on the right and ask... your alert will go to all mods. 

Then it SHOULD be easier to search for. 

Greg


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

*RE: putting KDs on USA intermodal cars (Formally - Please Delete)*

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 27 Dec 2012 06:13 PM 
I knew you were referring to me, no surprise to anyone. I felt that in the Christmas spirit, I would rise to your bait and chomp down on it.... my present to you. 



Go ahead, swing away... 

oh, Merry Christmas... 


OH Greg! You're the best! But no I wasn't Swinging away, my friend, was just a gentle poke, a tickle, a tease and nothing more.









Look I found you a car! (this was the way I found it on google images).

Happy New Year!

John


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: putting KDs on USA intermodal cars (Formally - Please Delete)*

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 11 Jan 2013 10:56 AM 
And you can STILL ask the moderator to rename the thread... just click the alert button on the right and ask... your alert will go to all mods. {snip...}[/i] Greg

Just a FYI the title of the topic was changed on 07 Jan 2013 07:45 PM.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: putting KDs on USA intermodal cars (Formally - Please Delete)*

Ahh... now don't laugh... I was reading the topic subject: 

RE: putting KDs on USA intermodal cars (Formally - Please Delete) 

which should be "Formerly".... as in the past, nor "Formally"... as in not casual, formal vs. informal... 

So I thought he was objecting to that... 

Greg 

 hey, I told you not to laugh!


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 11 Jan 2013 02:16 PM 
which should be "Formerly".... as in the past, nor "Formally"... as in not casual, formal vs. informal... 
No laughing here, but thanks for pointing out the error and it has been corrected.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

(most _recent_ offending posts deleted) 

Good LORD, gentlemen... don't y'all have projects in the workshops that need your attention instead of bickering back and forth here? If not, I'll send you some of mine! Who wants to refurbish my buildings for me? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Kevin! (sincerely) 

Greg


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

If I may get back to what I think was the original intended thread, I'm wondering if Papabear tested his converted Intermodals against the Kadee test gauge. 

I've converted most of my rolling stock to 1906 and a few 1907, all that remain are my five-unit USAT Intermodal bunch and a single unit. To test, I simply taped a 1906 onto the end of the car - no cuts have been made to the car. As taped, the 1906 matches almost perfectly to the Kadee gauge. If I made the cuts that Thomas did, in order to make use of the built-in pockets, my 1906 would be way high compared to the test gauge. It looks to me that I'd have to insert a quarter inch of shims to get the knuckly low enough to meet the Kadee standard. 

I'll go take a picture an post it shortly. 

JackM


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

If I may get back to what I think was the original intended thread, I'm wondering if Papabear tested his converted Intermodals against the Kadee test gauge. 

I've converted most of my rolling stock to 1906 and a few 1907, all that remain are my five-unit USAT Intermodal bunch and a single unit. To test, I simply taped a 1906 onto the end of the car - no cuts have been made to the car. As taped, the 1906 matches almost perfectly to the Kadee gauge. If I made the cuts that Thomas did, in order to make use of the built-in pockets, my 1906 would be way high compared to the test gauge. It looks to me that I'd have to insert a quarter inch of shims to get the knuckle low enough to meet the Kadee standard. 





















????

JackM


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I know that many of the USAT intermodals are "warped" at the ends.... the ends are actually separate pieces from the center section. 

In addition what I have seen and what I have been told that that they warp upwards at the ends. 

It APPEARS so in your pictures, but with closeups, you can get distortion, so I have to state it APPEARS so. 

In addition, in your last picture, notice the gap between the end and center... very noticeable at the bottom of the car and not at the top, consistent with an end warped "up" 

If all of the above is true, then the end of the car would be abnormally high and would need shims "down" to properly locate the coupler, as opposed to what would be needed if the ends were "correct" 

So maybe this is an answer... since these are your cars, only you can verify if you have the "end of car warp" or not. 

Thus here is one possible explanation. 

Greg


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

The ends are noticeably warped upward, even with an even joint, on the USAT Intermodal cars I have. 

BTW, when Greg has time to place my pictures on his Website server, I can post (hopefully tonight) what I have done to lower these Intermodal cars for mounting Kadee 907 centerset couplers - giving a more prototypical look with minimal impact on the car's end sill detail. This is done With coupler box notching modifications etc. which, also, allows the cars to operate on 8 foot diameter track. 

-Ted


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

While I was taking pictures, Ted added his note. I look forward to seeing his solutions to this problem. Meantime, something I never noticed until Greg mentioned it: 










Wow!

While I was at it, I tightened up the 1906 that I taped on just to see how it would match to the Kadee gauge. The box is fairly tight against the built-in coupler box. I would expect this is close to the position I would have mounted it with about 1/4 inch worth of shims. Definitely not satisfactory. Which brings me to my point: if I had sawed up the built-in box (and no shims), even the 820 or 830 wouldn't mate properly with the gauge. I'm definitely looking forward to Ted's solution.











JackM


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry to bring your attention to the "warp" because now you will probably see it until it is corrected! 

Greg


----------



## Dick413 (Jan 7, 2008)

wow its as if somebody had put there hand in the center of the car and pushed down


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep, some of them are pretty unreal looking and it can really affect the couplers. I believe Ted corrected the car first and then installed the coupler. I put the pictures where they are accessible so I'm sure Ted will put something up here soon. 

Greg


----------



## Dick413 (Jan 7, 2008)

I'm going to have to watch for that. when I put kd's on mine I turned the kd gauge around and it was at the top of the coupler opening


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

USA Trains Intermodal Container Car - Lowered & Fitted with Kadee 907 Centerset Couplers
February 11, 2013
Ted Doskaris

Shown below is the car after lowering it with Kadee 907 centerset couplers installed.
Note how the end sill detail appearance is minimally impacted.










The lowered cars with coupler boxes having been modified to best preserve end sill detail can operate on 8 foot diameter track curves - shown below.










Now for some background info. and methods:

The first thing checked on these cars is how the coupler pad relates to the Kadee 980 coupler height to track gauge.

According to the gauge, the car as it comes from the USAT factory appears to sit almost 0.10 inch too high!










With the car sitting high, this is a clue to take a look at some prototype information to examine the car height before proceeding.










Examination of the above pictures shows that the Gunderson "Husky Stack" non "All Purpose" (non AP) type car closely resembles the USAT Intermodal car. 

Note how close the prototype car belly is to the rail head. The belly appears to be lower than the roller bearings in the trucks!

Moreover, the dimensional drawing, though not too clear, shows a height spec. of 7 foot 9 inches (7.75 ft) as measured from the top of the brake wheel to the railhead. At 1/29 scale, this car height is 7.75ft / 29 = 0.2672 ft. Or 0.2672 ft x 12 inch/ft = 3.21 inch.

Shown below is the USAT Intermodal car as I measured it.










Measuring the USAT Intermodal car shows it sits about 3.7 inches above the rail head. That's almost 1/2 inch difference compared to the prototype! Now one thing that is not known is the size of the brake wheel diameter on the prototype car vs. the one USAT chose to use on their car; also, the ends of the car are warped uphill - so these can make some differences. That said, the thing to conclude from this info. is that the car can be lowered somewhat and appear to be made more prototypical.

Given the constraints of reasonable wheel tread diameter but having tall flange heights of the trucks used on the USAT car, I concluded that the car can be lowered 0.090 inch. This allows the coupler pad to be located at about the proper height with the truck still being able to pivot (with some minor mods. to the car) whilst, also, making the car appear to be more prototypical as to belly distance from the rail head.










In order to least impact the appearance of the end sill detail of the car, and still have workable car operation in a train, I chose to use Kadee 907 centerset coupler assemblies. However, modifications to the coupler box and lid must be done along with some cutting on the end sill of the car. 

Shown below is a drawing of the modifications required of the coupler box and lid.










Shown below are the actual modifications done to the Kadee 907 coupler box and lid and how the whole assembly is to be placed on the car's coupler pad.










Show below is what must be done to modify the car to lower it and to accept the coupler assembly.










In order for the car to operate on 8 foot diameter track curves, the sides of the coupler box must be beveled so the truck can pivot a bit more. (You don't need to do this if your layout has 10 foot or greater diameter track curves.)










(When re-installing the truck, install the truck first, then place a few 1/4 inch ID washers over the protruding pivot post before putting the screw to hold the truck in place. The truck should still freely pivot, but this keeps it from wobbling.)

With all modifications done, the coupler can align with the Kadee 980 gauge. (Note that some minor shimming at one end or the other of the coupler box may be needed to best align the coupler because the ends of the cars are typically warped uphill.)










Shown below are two USAT Intermodal cars with the modifications on 8 foot diameter track curves.



















-Ted


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

What more could I ask for? I was also considering trimming the bolsters to lower them; now I can proceed with confidence. 

Good thing this is a hobby. Otherwise we'd all be sending checks to Ted for his excellent work. 

JackM


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

Wow Ted, you don't get much more thorough than that! Nice work! Thanks for sharing. 
Did you add any weight to get the car to standards?? Mine seem light and even wobble a little in a large train.


----------



## Dick413 (Jan 7, 2008)

thank you Ted for your research and your thoughts 
dick


----------



## Jethro J. (Apr 4, 2012)

Nice job Ted, I did 30 of the cars a couple years ago but didn't lower them just cut off the pocket and added a 0.010 shim between the 787 Kadee coupler and the body. I may eventually look into lowering as you did.
As far as the warp is concerned I have found if you drill 2 small holes on the lower body of the car were the center section and the end cap meet and install some small machine screw with nuts, when
you add the intermodel containers as weight the car doesn't bow any more.

J.


----------



## Jethro J. (Apr 4, 2012)

O and a word to the wise, if your going to use these cars all the time, take all the little pins out that hold on the walkways, and put a dab of glue on them as they come loose and get lost quickly.


J.


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

J., 

I always strive to use centerset type couplers wherever possible. The Kadee 787 is an upward offset coupler. 

As to the warped up ends. My cars are not like Jack's with the noticeable gap at the bottom of the seam but the ends are still warped upward. I agree any car like Jack's must be corrected first if they are that way. 

As to the little pins being loose - yes I had one missing and substituted a garment type pin (cut down) to replace it. Also, that long plastic rectangular cross span the ties together the stanchions typically falls out, so I CA glued them to the stanchions. 

I did not show those things here (along with some other details), but plan to in the memorialized version to be placed on Greg E. Website. 

As to weight, I found using one container as a load is enough to keep the car on my layout curves when in a long, heavy train. 

Thanks to all for the feedback, 
-Ted


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Ted, 
What's the diameter of the USA wheels on the well? I'm guessing its a 36" wheel instead of a 33" or 28" wheel like it should. I wonder how much of a difference that would make in lowering the car? I think the car should be lowered even more... The bottom of the well should be just above the bottom of the springs on the truck.. I really wish USA and others would supply the correct diameter wheel on their products. Not just cars either  

Too modern for my era, but the mods look like they will work  
Craig


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

My USA well cars came with 33'' wheels.... 

Dirk


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

And why I am confused by USA's choices to use a 36'' wheel on the new autorack, when they have a metal 33'' wheel in their inventory now!! 

And why I will use the 33'' well wheels on My autoracks... 

D


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

AS confirmation here, like Ted, I have shortened the bolster wings on MY cars to get them to a lowered center of gravity, and in-line with a G-coupler install. 

In My case I found the sweet spot to be .080'' needed to lower a car to bring a coupler in-line.. I will not haggle over the .010'' difference tho!! 

Even lower would help the looks for this car allot still tho!! 

Dirk


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

The amount of warpage at the car ends will have an influence on the value to be trimmed from the bolster wings. For the 4 USAT Intermodal cars that I have, 0.087 to 0.090 inch worked best so I have adopted 0.090 inch. 
As to lowering the car even more, installation complications can arise since it seems one would have to trim off the Kadee coupler box housing rails and do away with the lid so that the centerset coupler will still align with the Kadee gauge. 

Using more proto wheels (maybe Gary Raymond has one) having a more desirable tread diameter, but just as important, shallower flanges, would allow the truck to pivot with more clearance with a more lowered car, but doing this may not be easily embraced by most folks. I chose to compromise with best effort/ cost / benefit tradeoff and make best use of what comes with the car from the USAT factory. 

-Ted


----------



## Jethro J. (Apr 4, 2012)

Posted By Ted Doskaris on 12 Feb 2013 09:09 AM 
J., 

I always strive to use centerset type couplers wherever possible. The Kadee 787 is an upward offset coupler. 

As to the warped up ends. My cars are not like Jack's with the noticeable gap at the bottom of the seam but the ends are still warped upward. I agree any car like Jack's must be corrected first if they are that way. 

As to the little pins being loose - yes I had one missing and substituted a garment type pin (cut down) to replace it. Also, that long plastic rectangular cross span the ties together the stanchions typically falls out, so I CA glued them to the stanchions. 

I did not show those things here (along with some other details), but plan to in the memorialized version to be placed on Greg E. Website. 

As to weight, I found using one container as a load is enough to keep the car on my layout curves when in a long, heavy train. 

Thanks to all for the feedback, 
-Ted 
Sorry Ted, I meant 789's. I too use only center set couplers and now have move to the new style couplers as they weren't available back when I did these car up.

You are also correct in that the containers are more than enough weight to keep the cars on track.


J.


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

Posted By JackM on 12 Feb 2013 06:08 AM 
What more could I ask for? I was also considering trimming the bolsters to lower them; now I can proceed with confidence. 

Good thing this is a hobby. Otherwise we'd all be sending checks to Ted for his excellent work. 

JackM

***

Jack, There is much more detail information in the full article - now available. 
See "*USAT Intermodal Container Car Lowered & Kadee 907 Centerset Couplers*"

For "Jethro", Among the material is a section on adding weight. 

-Ted


----------



## papabaer465 (Nov 22, 2012)

wow Ted

that looks relly good, awesome


i`ll show my second generation little later, need to make fotos

thomas


----------

