# USAT 60 Footer w/#1 Kadees



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

Cars will now negotiate reverse 1600 curves









Used (3) 1/16 thick shims










Notched the draft gear box









Notched the coupler shank









Result









Notched top of box to clear shim mounting screws


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

However you have lost the cushion efect of they car by installing the Kadee as you did. I'm sure the cushion system can be retained with a bit of thought. I am in the processed of doing the cars with AC couplers. Just a few more details to work out. Later RJD


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

an 820 or 830 has the cushion affect or some call it slack action. I plan to use the stock couplers.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I don't see any difference in the coupler shank in your pictures, did I miss something. 

There is some "slack action" as Kadee says in the couplers used, but the effect is opposite to the action in the stock car. 

The Kadees will "pull out" a little on moving. 

The USAT car has a spring that compresses when coupling (coupler moves in). 

I believe the big selling point was not jarring when coupling in the prototype, but I cannot find references to how the prototype mechanism worked. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 02 Aug 2011 08:25 PM 
I don't see any difference in the coupler shank in your pictures, did I miss something. 

There is some "slack action" as Kadee says in the couplers used, but the effect is opposite to the action in the stock car. 

The Kadees will "pull out" a little on moving. 

The USAT car has a spring that compresses when coupling (coupler moves in). 

I believe the big selling point was not jarring when coupling in the prototype, but I cannot find references to how the prototype mechanism worked. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

Okay, what I wanted to say was the difference is in the length of the arc (white area).


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Got it Jim, yes, now I'm looking for it, it's obvious ha ha! 

Nice tip on the mods to the Kadee! 

Greg


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes, I gave up the cushion effect, but I gained remote uncoupling and more importantly, the cars now fit in my longest carrying case.


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Does anyone have any pictures of the car with the original coupler configuration before putting the kadee's on?

JJ


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg, 
You asked about the purpose of the prototype cushioned underframe. This is my understanding of how it works based on what I've seen on cars that have these under frames and the ones that don't. The cushioned underframes allows the motion of the coupling to travel the whole length of the car and theoretically travel to the next car. When you make a hard joint normally the slack in the coupler takes the brunt of the force, and pushes the car in the direction of the coupling. On a cushioned underframe car the car body (ie the actually box of the car) will remain standing still, while the whole underframe (trucks, couplers etc) moves backwards to absorb the impact of the coupling. But there is a big difference between cushioned underframe cars, and cushioned drawbars. According to the USA website the cars they are modeling are cushioned drawbar cars. In this case if you still make a hard joint (ie kicking a car to hard) the entire car will still move, but the drawbar will absorb most of the impact. These cushioned drawbars are on autoracks, boxcars, some centerbeam, some bulkhead flats. 
Hope this helps. 
Craig


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It does a lot Craig, have been trying to find the info on the web (my book collection is poor). 

So both type exist, that makes sense, since the term "cushioned underframe" implied to me exactly how you explained it, but the USAT model is clearly not an underframe "type". 

If you have any references on the web to share, I would appreciate it. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

I don't have any web references that I can pull up right now, but I do recall Railway Age having articles about drawbar slack, and the impact on loads. Quite a serious topic for shippers. USA should have labeled their cars as 60' Cushioned Drawbar Boxcars, not couplers. As any rail knows you can pick up a coupler (knuckle) but you can't pick up a drawbar! 
Craig


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

These first two don't really directly address cushion underframes but the impact of coupling on loads 
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/sb/ra1207/index.php?startid=46&qs=coupler 
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/sb/ra0210/index.php?startid=20&qs=coupler#22


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

J.J. see http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/aff/17/aft/121436/afv/topic/Default.aspx


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Here's a patent for slack adjusters or draft gear. 
http://www.patsnap.com/patents/view/US4531648.html 
http://www.patents.com/us-5312007.html 

This is about all I could find. Don't search using couplers but search using draft gear and you might be able to find something a little better. 
Craig


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Just found this, although it doesn't come from a reliable source (ie manufacture or industry magazine) 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/true2death/5176680113/ 

http://www.patentsurf.net/3,630,388


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

Southern Pacific developed the Hydra-Cushion underframe with Stanford Research Institute
See* how Hydra-Cushion works*

-Ted


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Thanks Jim for the link. 

JJ


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Thats interesting...


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

The hydro cushion is a full underframe cushioning device, were as the USA model only represents a drawbar cushioning device. Now it would be really neat if USA came up with a working model of the hydro cushion! Again remember the difference between the two. 
Craig


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

After doing some research, the look of the draft gear on the USAT model seems to be the right one for the cushioned underframe. 

Look at the one of a "super shock control" on a prototype, the draft gear seems to be rectangular and wider than what is on the model. 

Just picking a few nits.... 

Greg


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg, 
Okay if that's the case (I can be wrong about things!) then shouldn't the draft gear continue into the middle of the car, and then have the spring action there instead at the ends of the cars? Nitpicking can be fun!! If your right about what USA is modeling then they might be confused too! Maybe they were trying to model a cushioned drawbar, but instead found prints of a cushioned underframe and thought it would be good enough. 
(Now all the non rivet counters will be after me!, and then the 'true 1/32' will pipe in and tell us all that it's all wrong!  LOL) 
Craig


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, you are of course absolutely correct, was just commenting on the limited surfing I have done, that the shock control draft gear seems to be larger and rectangular, not the shape on this model, where it's relatively narrow and flares out near the knuckle. 

But, I did read that there were many different styles of "cushioned draft gear", so who knows. 

In the USAT model, the Santa Fe model was of "Super Shock Control" which was cushioned draft gear, but the SP model is of the cushioned underframe, so if nit picking, one of them is definitely wrong. 

Greg


----------

