# Kadee G or #1 couplers?



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

I'm a little late to the party, but maybe I can take advantage of others' experiences on this.


A year ago I ordered two sets of the custom-build Datum Precision coupler boxes for my Aristo GP-40 and SD45. At that point, all my rolling stock (A/C and USAT only) had their factory-supplied knuckle couplers and my SD45 wasn't even painted yet. It was my plan to convert everything to Kadees over the course of the summer. Well, that didn't happen; everything is still the factory-supplied knuckle couplers.


Now it's a year later, and I'm finally getting serious about converting to Kadees. By now, I've decided that I want to use the #1 scale couplers. I think I'll like the smaller, more prototypical size. My outdoor layout (something over 500 feet of code 250) is fairly smooth, with 16 foot minimum diameter curves - okay, I fudged maybe 14' diam. in a few spots.


I was about ready to order a boatload of Kadees to start the transition, but then I started reading everything I could find about the Datum boxes - thanks, Ted; thanks, Greg - and find that they're intended to use the G scale 901 Kadees, not the #1 scale 1901 that I was about to order. What to do?


Seems I have three choices:


1 - install the Datum boxes in my GP40 and SD45 - with the larger G scale 901 - and use the smaller 1901 on the rest of my rolling stock. Probably no one would ever notice the difference - except ME.


2 - put the Datums up on eBay and use 1901s on everything and live with the difficulties associated with using the stock Kadee boxes


3 - use the Datums and switch everything else to the larger G scale 901 couplers


I'd appreciate any opinions.


JackM


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Jack,
I think the 1901 will work. Take a look at the Kadee website. The 1901 knuckle is the same one used in the #1 1907 (old 1789) which is the same pocket as the G 907 (old 789). I exclusivly use Kadee body mounts on all my equipment. The 1789 (new 1907) is my favorite followed by the 820/920 (new 1906). I use the 1789 on both cars and locos. They have a fairly straight shank. Stay away from anything with a large offset. With your track description you should not have any problems. I also use code 250 track. I really think the 1907 will work in most of your installs. The Datum will be good for specific locos. Confused? Here are a couple photos.

1789 on Aristo SD45 and GP40


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

OK 

So what is a Datum Precision coupler box and what problems are there with the Kadee boxes?


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

Sorry - I shouldn't presume everyone knows. The "Datum" boxes were a special order coupler box that someone (Ron ___?) on MLS designed and had built by the Datum Precision Co. It was a one time only thing that started about two years ago and culminated with some of us signing up in time to buy these aluminum boxes. Ted D. has details on Greg E.'s site detailing how there was some flexation found when standard Kadee boxes were mounted on A/C GP40 and SD45 engines. I happen to have both a GP40 and SD45, thus my interest. 

Everyone who signed up for the Datum boxes got their's in early 2012, but I just stored mine away when I realized my RR projects were getting behind "schedule". Now that I'm ready to begin the switch to Kadees from the factory couplers, I'm trying to get up to speed with all this, including whether I want to go with Kadee G or #1 scale couplers. I was presuming the Datum boxes would accept only the G scale couplers when I think I want to go with #1 throughout. Paul's reply above seems to indicate that the #1 will work in the Datum box whle Ted's vignette only refers to using 901. Unless anyone else has a definitive answer, I guess I can spring for a pack of 1901 and see if I like them. 

JackM


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The Datum Precision boxes were designed by Ted Doskaris and featured in his Vignettes hosted on my site. He had them made by a company in the bay area. A second run of them was commissioned by Ron Bodnar and sold to several people. 

Since you only have 2 sets of them and you are considering your entire fleet, your decision should be made based on whick Kadee you want to use, not based on a couple of coupler boxes. 

Yes, of course the logical thing to do is buy a couple sets of #1 and see how they fit. 

Greg


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

At this time I cannot speak to using #1 scale couplers in the Datum Precision coupler boxes since I only use the "G" scale couplers myself. (I would prefer to study this application before making any comments.)

The boxes were originally designed by me (Ted Doskaris) in concert with owner Jon Jans of Datum Precision Co. located in Grass Valley, CA.

The initial intended use was on the Aristo GP 40 and SD 45 locos - but also configured with potential applications on others from the onset.

The applications are now expanded and include the following locos:
(Others will likely follow as I get to doing them.)

Aristo-Craft applications presently include:
GP 40
SD 45 
Dash -9
RS-3
E8 /E9
RDC

As Greg mention, I have written articles about the coupler boxes and their applications that he hosts for me on his Web site.
For Aristo applications, see article - title:
"*Custom Made Coupler Boxes & Kadee Centerset Couplers for Selected Aristo-Craft Locos*"

USA Trains applications presently include:
GP 38
SD 40

For USAT GP 38 application, see article -title:
"*USA Trains GP 38 - Kadee Centerset Coupler Install, Abandoning Traction Tires & Various Mod's*"

(Up until now, I have not had time to write about the SD 40 application, but I still intend to do so.)

-Ted


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

Posted By Ted Doskaris on 09 Dec 2012 08:20 PM 
At this time I cannot speak to using #1 scale couplers in the Datum Precision coupler boxes since I only use the "G" scale couplers myself. (I would prefer to study this application before making any comments.)

The boxes were originally designed by me (Ted Doskaris) in concert with owner John Jans of Datum Precision Co. located in Grass Valley, CA.

The initial intended use was on the Aristo GP 40 and SD 45 locos - but also configured with potential applications on others from the onset.

The applications are now expanded and include the following locos:
(Others will likely follow as I get to doing them.)

Aristo-Craft applications presently include:
GP 40
SD 45 
Dash -9
RS-3
E8 /E9
RDC

As Greg mention, I have written articles about the coupler boxes and their applications that he hosts for me on his Web site.
For Aristo applications, see article - title:
"*Custom Made Coupler Boxes & Kadee Centerset Couplers for Selected Aristo-Craft Locos*"

USA Trains applications presently include:
GP 38
SD 40

For USAT GP 38 application, see article -title:
"*USA Trains GP 38 - Kadee Centerset Coupler Install, Abandoning Traction Tires & Various Mod's*"

(Up until now, I have not had time to write about the SD 40 application, but I still intend to do so.)

-Ted


----------



## llynrice (Jan 2, 2008)

My experience has been that the smaller gauge #1 couplers look best on 1:29 or 1:32 models. However, on irregular track, they come uncoupled fairly easily. The larger G gauge couplers are just enough bigger that I've found them to be bomb proof even on rough track. I do have a few pieces of rolling stock with the smaller couplers and they do fine on my indoor layout and my friend Larry Green's outdoor layout which has very well maintained track. So I put up with oversize version on nearly all of my equipment and run confident that my trains will not break apart.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It's more than rough track, if you body mount and have long cars... if you don't have smooth transitions from flat to grade and back, the length of the cars will enhance the vertical "displacement" between couplers... I found this out the first time a passenger train crested a grade... 

Greg


----------



## Dick Friedman (Aug 19, 2008)

I use No. 1 because I like the size for my 1:29 and 1:32 equipment, my track is pretty flat, and the transitions are very gradual. Do two or three, run the layout and see what happens. If it's a bad idea, I'll buy your #1s from you at cost.


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

I hope this is alright here. Ted you have probably seen this page on NWSL: 
http://shop.osorail.com/category.sc?categoryId=104 
had you considered ordering their wheelsets in the 40" size? I have one GP38 engine here for upgrading and before I mount couplers, I'd better consider fixing the wheel size? Ro has sent me some replacement wheels quickly so just order theirs??


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

I prefer the look of the smaller KD coupler and I even run a lot of 1/32 scale stuff. I'm switching to all larger ones where possible because of unwanted uncouplings. A lot of my equipment will only take the smaller coupler so I'll probably end up with both each by scale of car. 
I had bought a USA car with smaller KDs mounted to the trucks. To me that's a complete waste of time. Under heavy load from a long train, the car would uncouple. I could actually see the coupler drop to release. It's important to mount these things solidly to the body for fool proof operation. The smaller ones once moved haven't been much of a problem unless trackwork got sloppy and cars couplers weren't evenly mounted with others and engines. My MTH Challenger has a KD on the back of the older one. That one drops out if put on the pulling end of the train because of the mounting system. The arm it's on can sag under load. I run it in the lead and it's OK. I'll be fixing that too. 
I've been struggling with this decision for a while.


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Are the Kadee's that failed the ones with a large offset?


----------



## Enginear (Jul 29, 2008)

The one car I mentioned with the #1s truck mounted...were the large offset type.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

There's a BIG difference between the performance of truck vs. body-mounted couplers of either size. I've used Kadee #1 couplers since they first came out, but they're all body-mounted, and I'm careful to make sure they're all mounted within 1/16" of my height gauge. If you're not body-mounting the #1s, go with the larger couplers. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Those large offset couplers are trouble if pulling any weight,especially truck mounted. Physics is all wrong. They make quick easy conversions but that is about it.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I have used the "G" full off set truck mounted couplers (Kadee S31) for many years. They mate with body mounted Kadees. I prefer not to do surgery on cars that do not easily accept body mounted couplers. I also use the USAtrains full step up coupler. In fact I have step ups on several engines. I also have several car sets with #1 Kadees. My track, is not the best, but I have not had any problems. This includes a string of 10 LGB hoppers, LGB D&RGW coaches (better closer coupling), and some Aristo heavyweights, also for closer coupling. Experiment with a few cars and see what works for you. The only couplers I toss are Aristo. They do not mate easily with anything. 

Paul, my trains rarely exceed 12 cars. 

Chuck 

I prefer Kadee G because I have cars that came with usable Bachmann, Accucraft and USA Couplers. The Kadee Gs will mate easily with all my cars. The #1s do not mate easily with these other manufacturers. I don't think that any one would say that truck mounted couplers are better that body mounted, at least not many. Backing trains through curves and switches with body mounts is much easier.


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

RE: Kadee #1 vs. G Gauge couplers in Datum Precision Metal Coupler Box 


I obtained a Kadee "#1 Gauge" coupler from the 1907 kit and compared it with the Kadee "G Gauge" coupler from the907 kit.
An Aristo-Craft GP40 is used in examples for 1/29 scale environment.













As shown in the above and below pictures, I installed the smaller #1 Gauge coupler into a Datum Precision metal coupler box and mounted it on the Aristo GP40 (in place of the larger coupler from the Kadee 907).












With respect to the kits, the 1907 assembly has identical plastic box, lid and springs when compared to the 907, and the coupler itself fits and operates perfectly in the Datum Precision box; however, there is more to consider than this---


First, a comparison of the Kadee coupler kits and Datum Precision metal coupler box will be shown and described below.












Compared to the coupler from the 907 it can be seen, as shown below, that the coupler from the 1907 does not appear to be truly center set as it has a notable downward offset!












In spite of the obvious downward offset, the Kadee description for both 907 & 1907 kits includes the same statement: "*#907 G-Scale Centerset Couplers & #911 Gearboxes #1907 #1-Scale Centerset Couplers & #911 Gearboxes*". 



The following pictures provide information for helping understand the significance with respect coupler height to rail head distance.
In this regard, drawings of a prototype loco and of the Kadee coupler height gauge are included:













The Datum Precision coupler box was initially inspired and developed for accepting a Kadee centerset coupler having no up or down offset (e.g. coupler from the Kadee 789 or 907 kit) for mounting on the Aristo-Craft GP40 and SD45 diesel locos - withmany applications for others since then.



With the Kadee "centerset" statement, one would expect when using the coupler from the 1907on a 1/29 scale loco (or rolling stock)that the center line of this smaller #1 gauge coupler should still align with the center line of the larger coupler from the 907 with the Kadee 980 or 880 gauge. However, when the coupler from the 1907 is mounted in the GP40, it is too low compared to the 907 as shown in the prior pictures!


Aside from the mismatch coupler centers, I found that they still function over the Kadee track magnet for uncoupling - though not always consistently.






















*Kadee coupler height gauge vs. prototype railroad coupler to rail head height:*


The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of transportation (DOT) is codified by the Code of the Federal Register, *CFR 49*. It includes section 232.2 having information about coupler height.


CFR 49 section 232.2, includes the following stated requirements (expressed in terms of a drawbar) for prototype 1/1 railroad freight car coupler heights, including standard-gauge railroads in the United States that "... shall be 34 1/2 inches, and the minimum height of drawbars for freight cars on such standard-gauge railroads ... shall be 31 1/2 inches".


The Kadee 880 coupler height gauge is the predecessor to the newer Kadee 980 gauge with the newer gauge having the new generation "E" coupler. The specs. for both gauges are intended to be the same. The measured coupler centerline to rail head of the Kadee 880 gauge was 1.115 inch. Scaling up for 1/29 this is about 32.3 inches. This is somewhat below the center of the CFR range of 33 inches but appears good for establishing a reference for coupler placement on 1/29 scale items. 


*Some Thoughts:*



Studying the pictures comparing the two coupler types, it appears the #1 gauge coupler from the 1907 kit is offset downward somewhere near a 1/16 inch (0.063 inch) with respect to the "G" coupler from the 907 kit. Thus, scaling up for 1/29, that would be (29 x 0.063) = 1.83 inch. Thus, with the Kadee gauge representing 32.3 inch less the downward offset of the # 1 coupler of 1.83 inch (32.3 - 1.83) = 30.5 inch (up from the rail head when scaled.) Therefore, it would appear to be out of spec. by 1 inch too low (31.5 inch minimum) as defined by CFR 49.


It's reasonable to assume Kadee's initial intended application for the Kadee 1907 was predicated on 1/32 scale rolling stock, whereby, the coupler height to rail head distance would be smaller (lower to the rail head) compared to 1/29 scale rolling stock.


If using the Kadee #1 coupler from the 1907 kit on 1/29 scale products, my preference is to use a coupler height to rail head distance for 1/29 scale so that the centerline of the coupler aligns with the center line of coupler of the Kadee 980 / 880 gauge.


Therefore, if it is desired to use the #1 gauge coupler from the Kadee 1907 in the Datum Precision metal coupler box mounted on the GP40 (being 1/29 scale), one would have to correct for the mismatch. The same would be true for other 1/29 scale applications.


Another consideration would be that the shorter shank of the #1 Gauge coupler can be expected to limit operation on only the widest of curves when the loco is equipped with them being coupled to another loco or train (closer coupled proximity).


As to mounting the #1 Gauge coupler from the 1907 kit on the GP40, it seems possible that some shorteningof the loco's post and the pilot lip that protrudes could be trimmed off to obtain the proper coupler to rail head height. Since my original intent for designing the Datum Precision coupler box employing true Kadee centerset couplers was to avoid doing any cutting on the GP40, this would seem counterproductive.


Alternatively, I suppose a slice of about 1/16 inch off the upper portion of the shank of the #1 coupler could be done, then use a spacer washer on the Datum Precision box pivot so when the coupler is installed, it would raise it up, but this would notably weaken the coupler.


-Ted


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I don't think sanding 1/16" off of the top of the coupler shank itself will weaken the coupler much if at all. I've had to do similar for some installations with no ill effects. One problem--if you're using the track magnet uncouplers, you really can't raise the couplers up too much, lest the trip pins not work properly to uncouple the couplers. I don't know what the tolerance is in terms of the magnet, but the Kadee specs state that the pins need to be 1/8" above the railhead. If you raise the coupler up 1/16" to be "prototypical" in terms of height, then you risk it not working properly without re-bending the pins. You are correct; the #1 scale coupler height is accurate for a 33" centerline in 1:32. The G-scale centerline of 1 1/8" is accurate for a 25" centerline, which is in the ballpark of typical for narrow gauge lines (which usually ranged from 24" to 26" centerlines). 

Personally, I wouldn't worry about a 1/16" height difference from "standard." As I stated earlier, that's my tolerance for my coupler mounts, and they've proven very reliable for the 25+ years I've been using them--even over "not so even" temporary track at public displays. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

K, 

Thank you for the reply. 

I myself don't intend to use the #1 scale couplers but wanted to investigate what happens if someone wanted to use them in the Datum Precision coupler boxes in reply to Jack M who started the thread. 

As to the coupler trip pin, I bent the coupler trip pins on other projects, and it's easy to do. 

-Ted


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

Ted - 

Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain the situation so clearly. As a person who is not trained in mechanical engineering I couldn't begin to analyze, much less explain to others, the situation. Now I know what I need to deal with, and you saved me hours of just plain fumbling around. 

JackM


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

I should also thank others for their contributions as well. I have the pros, cons and possibilities. I should be able to find what will be my best solution. Of course, I have a couple pair of the now-legendary Datum boxes, so I'm at a distinct advantage. 

JackM 

This is why I spring for the annual membership to MLS.


----------



## Dick413 (Jan 7, 2008)

Thanks Ted nice write up. 
dick


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, in applications like your railroad, short trains, minimal grades and slow speeds, I would agree that 1/16" thinning of the coupler shank is probably ok, and 1/16" mismatch of couplers AT REST is probably ok. 

But it's NOT OK if you are pulling long trains, have sharp grades, or especially sharp grade transitions, 80 foot cars with body mounts. 

I happen to have all of those and under those conditions, you basically want your coupler matching PERFECT AT REST, since underway they will vary. 

So, the decisions need to be couched in terms of trackwork, train length, speeds, grades, grade profiles, and car lengths... also truck mounts can displace vertically. 

Based on my different running conditions, my environment, my answer is different... a "it depends" is the real answer to "is it ok to have mismatch or weaken the coupler by removing material from the shank". 

Greg


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

As always - ''your mileage may vary'' seems to fit here once again.. 

Geez the Poor Wacky World of G ...... 

Personally, I would not even consider relieving the shanks on our couplers... 

While most will not exceed the limits of KD's great couplers, let me add that a #1 coupler will hold, start giving at 33#'s and break at 34 pounds, while a G size version hangs in there 'till it reaches 51 pounds before breaking...for you indoor HO ScaleRs sneaking around in here, I just learned direct from KD that they have tested those by hanging a 12.5 pound weight for a week when they started bending... 

Go figure how much you can pull in any of those classes of couplers.... 

BTW, Please Have fun here with your toys!! 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

By the way, my comments are based on the goal of very high reliability.... running a train for hours without any uncoupling. 

If your goal is less, or you don't mind uncoupling happening every so often, by all means you can relax your standards. 

Just needed to add that in, since I HAVE been to places where it's, well, sort of acceptable that you are hooking a train back together every 15 minutes or so. 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

By the way, my comments are based on the goal of very high reliability.... running a train for hours without any uncoupling. 
It's clear that you and I have far different experiences with Kadee #1 scale couplers. I've somehow managed to achieve that goal which you seem to find elusive, and it's not just because of the "typical" trains I run on my home railroad. I've operated Kadee #1 couplers reliably in a wide variety of situations, including long, heavy trains over steep grades. (I don't _just_ run at home with my own equipment...) I have always maintained that the most significant key to reliable operation lies in the track, and making sure your track is built to accommodate the equipment you're going to run over it. Coupler choice is part of that equation. You talk about relaxing standards, and you're correct. If you use the larger coupler, and use its reliable operation as the litmus test for the quality of your track, you'll invariably build to a less-exact standard than you would with smaller couplers for no other reason than the larger coupler can tolerate more unevenness. When you then try to run something with a smaller coupler, it's going to find areas where your track may be reliable for the larger couplers, but not for the smaller ones. (Your sharp transitions between grades, for example.) Once you then adjust your track to accommodate those smaller couplers, they'll prove every bit as reliable as the larger ones. I guess I've just been using the #1 scale couplers for so long that it's simply second nature to make sure my trackwork is even enough to accommodate their reliable operation. It's the coupler I use, thus by necessity my trackwork has to be built within its limitations. "Very high reliability" is achievable with any reasonably-sized coupler, you just have to adjust your engineering to suit. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

I have to agree with Kevin. I have used body mount #1's from the very beginning (1995?) without problems. They are all carefully mounted to match the kadee gauge. Took a bet a couple years ago about backing a train upgrade. We were finished running for the day and had about 45 cars out on the layout. After gathering them up from around the layout into the yard area we put them all into one train and were going to pull them upgrade using a friends Aristo mallet. Thats when I said I would bet we could back it up the hill to the indoor storage yard. The hill is about 135' of 2% grade with a roughly 16' loop at the top. Short of the mallet slipping a little when the full weight of the train was on the loop I won the bet,although nothing was really bet. It really was a sight,especially on the loop with the train crossing over itself. Point is with properly mounted couplers and good smooth track they work fine. All my couplers are 1789,or equivalent, and 820's or equivalent. SMOOTH TRACK AND DESIGN IS THE KEY TO HAVING A GOOD TIME RUNNING OR FRUSTRATION.


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

Another thing that comes to mind concerns coupler centerline height to rail head criteria for folks that use the Kadee "#1 scale" 1/32 scale coupler on 1/29 "G" scale locos and rolling stock. 










Do some folks use the Kadee coupler height gauge spec of 1 1/16 inch for 1/32 scale distance? 
OR
Do some folks use the Kadee coupler height gauge spec of 1 1/8 inch for 1/29 scale distance?
OR 
Something else?

I believe for 1/29 scale, 1 1/8 inch is most appropriate.

For those of you that use the Kadee #1 scale couplers on 1/29 scale equipment, what coupler height do you use?

Thanks,
-Ted


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Ted,
I use the #1 gauge for coupler height and a 1/8" piece of plastic for the trip pin. I think it is very important to make sure the trip pin is properly adjusted. Snagging a trip pin is usually not pretty. I don't use uncoupling magnets so the trip pins are cut off on locomotives and a simulated brake line is added for detail. I bet not too many actually use the magnets. Manual uncoupling is fine for me.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Perhaps I did a poor job of explaining my point.


I believe Kevin's recommendation is too "sloppy" for the average person using #1 couplers.

This is why I stated you should strive to get the coupler height EXACT when installing.

I gave many examples, which now seem to have tempered the responses in disagreeing... i.e. NOW the recommendation of good trackwork.

I maintain that certainly Paul's trackwork and attention to detail is above average, and from Kevin's comeback, he states his is too.

I've been on model railroading since I was 5, and not just running them in circles, but working on the trackwork and trains.

In the approximately 10 years I have been in G scale, I have seen many many layouts, and most are nowhere near the level of trackwork of Paul's layout, I can tell just by the pictures of his layout, not to mention the success he has in operating his layout.

So, were I to be recommending or advising use of the #1 couplers, after seeing so many layouts and trackwork, I recommend that you don't get "sloppy" with the coupler height... 1/16" off is a LOT when you think about it... that could add up to 1/8" mismatch between 2 couplers mounted to those tolerances.

Unacceptable and unreliable on vast majority of the layouts I have seen in 10 years, in my opinion, and the feedback of people who tried and failed.

I try to give advice that either works for everyone, or give copious caveats when the case should be restricted. It's a "rule" that has never failed me.

So, since both Kevin and Paul have given caveats about good trackwork... maybe the "sloppy" tolerance recommendation is tempered by realizing you need ABOVE AVERAGE trackwork to accomodate this.

(I really don't think it's so much work to get coupler height exact, and it's paid many benefits to my operation)

Greg


----------



## Dick Friedman (Aug 19, 2008)

I have been compulsive about good track work since the days of LGB hook couplers. Good track is number 1 when it comes to reliability. Achieving the goal means ANY couplers will work better! I use the kadee No 1 gauge, but found that the couplers seemed too low. So I've put two washers under each screw holding the coupler to the gauge, raising the coupler about 1/8th of an inch. Now they mate better (IMHO) with other knuckle couplers, until I get ALL of them converted.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, you may be misunderstanding my point. Proper coupler height is very important, and in most cases very simple to set exactly to "standard" whatever that may be. (I've written often about ways to shim/trim couplers to get them "correct.") My point was that in isolated cases--such as the specific installation we're discussing in this thread--it may not be possible to mount exactly to that height without an undue amount of surgery to the locomotive/car. In those cases, it's okay to slide 1/16" inch up or down, and not have much to worry about. They're isolated cases, and not representative of the whole population. It's unlikely you're going to have a 1/8" offset because the overwhelming majority of couplers are to standard. 

Ted, my "standard" is 1 3/16" centerline for my #1 scale couplers. In 1:20.3, that scales to 24", which is scale for what the EBT used as their centerline. (The EBT used a 3/4-size coupler, so the #1 scale coupler is a good match for size.) I don't use the magnets, so I cut the trip pins off. (I've also been migrating to Accucraft's 1:32 couplers, which use the same standard draft gear box and are pretty much fully compatible with the Kadees. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

Posted By Paul Burch on 12 Jan 2013 02:45 PM 
Ted,
I use the #1 gauge for coupler height and a 1/8" piece of plastic for the trip pin. I think it is very important to make sure the trip pin is properly adjusted. Snagging a trip pin is usually not pretty. I don't use uncoupling magnets so the trip pins are cut off on locomotives and a simulated brake line is added for detail. I bet not too many actually use the magnets. Manual uncoupling is fine for me.

Paul,

As to snagging Kadee trip pins, I did experience this when a pin hit an Aristo re-railer.
It's because the plastic ramp in the center of those Aristo re-railers sticks up some above rail heads - just enough that on one occasion a pin struck it as the train passed over! Since then I ground out a trough through the center of the plastic ramp in all my Aristo re-railers for added assurance so this would not happen again.

You mentioned (and looking at your realistic Cotton Belt GP40 picture) the trip pin was cut off the coupler on the loco. I noticed the physical size of the pin with respect to the relatively small size #1 Scale Coupler head makes it appear disproportionate in relative size - so there is an understandable aesthetic improvement. With your train rolling stock equipped with #1 Scale couplers, do they have the pins removed, too?

As to the Kadee #1 Scale coupler, Jack M, who started this thread, asked about (and has) the Kadee #1901 (Coupler Only) which is the coupler used in the Kadee #1907 kit - so in response I focused on this particular one.









But Kadee has what appears to be a true centerset #1 Scale alternative coupler - albeit with very short shank. 
Because of the short shank, I doubt it will work on very many layouts in the example here of the GP40 because of inherent very close coupling proximity.

However, since you seem have a layout with very wide curves and are apparently using the #1901 coupler (or 1907 kit), this may be something consider if not already done so.










Just an idea.
BTW, you do beautiful work on your trains.

Thank you,
-Ted


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Ted, I leave the trip pins on the cars since they do look somewhat like brake hoses. The 1/16 reverse offset on the 1907,1789,etc does not seem to effect operation like the large offset couplers. I do whatever it takes to fit those 1789's or now the 1907 to my locos. It usually requires a little surgery to do it.


----------

