# Couplers



## TundraSpyder (Jun 9, 2015)

So, I have been acquiring cars, and coupler selection seems to be all over the road. 
Kadee would obviously be the best choice, but second to that, who has stuck with Hook and loop couplers, and switched to bachmann knuckles?

Aristocraft seem to work great, but no point if I can't get them anymore.

I need to buy and switch them all to the same type.


----------



## Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

Kadee's all the way here. All my engines and cars get them before they go on the tracks.
All body mount and metal wheels.

Don


----------



## ewarhol (Mar 3, 2014)

Kadees for me too.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Kadees are the obvious choice because of their compatibility the various makes. If I had to stick with one type that wasn't Kadee, I would go with USAT because they are a bit smaller and less obtrusive than most.

If you wanted to go with all AristoCraft, you could probably pick up tons at next to nothing from those who switched to Kadees, if you put the word out.

I've given away beaucoup couplers of most types (except Kadees) removed from railcars and may even still have some left for the cost of shipping.


----------



## Peter Eaton (Mar 11, 2015)

Body mounted Kadees and metal wheels I've found to be the best combo for my garden railway. Pete


----------



## Mike Toney (Feb 25, 2009)

With my tight cuves, I stick with truck mounted couplers, all LGB on my on my American prototype trains. My Euro stuff still has hook and loop. My friends Kaydee's have no problem coupling with the LGB knuckles. I think the fit and finish is better on the LGB, while out of scale, so are the wheel flanges and LGB in general. Mike


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

It all depends on the coupler height you want. If you want truck mounted couplers you have many options: USAT, Bachmann, aristo, H&L, Delton and others. Your options for body mounted couplers are less: Kadee and Bachmann (if you are into 1:20.3).

With body mounted couplers I use Kadee # 830 if the car body doesn't require surgery. If I would have to cut something off the body, I'll use Kadee #831 on the trucks. That mates with body mounted couplers. It is a step up rather than a straight shank.

If you have tight curves (LGB R1 and R2), you might want truck mounted couplers. Body mounted couplers work better on larger diameter curves and switches.

If you have tight curves, I would use USAT couplers. They fit on the truck shank in place of the H&L. All you have to do is clip off the button on the end of the shank.

USAT used to have a step up coupler. When I was in Ro's a few years back, they said that they were no longer being made: NOT GOOD. I have some and they are very nice. CALL CHARLIE!

Chuck


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Note, Kadees can be truck mounted too.

With the demise of Aristo, the incompatibility of USA, the cost and availability of LGB, if I was starting out, Kadee seems the only logical choice to me.

Greg


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg

What problem do you have with the incompatibility of USAt couplers? The only couplers I have problems with mating to other brands is Aristo. The USAt couplers work very well on my cars with truck mounted couplers. I just wish that they still made and sold the step up version.

I do have some problems of incompatibility with Kadee gauge 1 and non Kadee "G" gauge couplers. But since I use mostly "G" gauge Kadees I don't have any problems other than with AristoCraft. My train with Kadee #1 gauge couplers is a unit train and runs by itself.

Chuck


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Mostly the stock mounting height is an issue, different than most.

But their knuckles don't seem to work with as many other brands...

Somewhere Kevin Strong did a nice compatibility matrix...

Greg


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

I like knuckle looks but for an open house I prefer double hook and loops as these never come apart and I run these with 2 axle equipment on my 2 4 foot diameter loops.

My mainline (8 foor diameter) does have Kadee with large 4 axle American freight and passenger consists.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg

I agree the height of the USAT couplers on some of their equipment is a giant PIA. It is fine on freight cars, but on engines and stream liners is the problem. On their diesels it is an easy fix. I can use their now discontinued step up coupler, or a Kadee 831.

I gave up trying to modify the coupler height on their GG1 and Hudson. The easiest solution was to use an idler car with a low coupler at one end and a higher body mount at the other. The couplers on the streamliners are body mounted, just too low. I have several USAT streamliners with 830s on one end so that my engines with the standard height body mounts can pull the train.

Chuck


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

For ease of installation and the best operation, I use Kadees. 99.9% of my equipment is fitted with G gauge size Kadees. Being my layout is on a mostly flat patio currently, I tried the Gauge 1 Kadees on a 16 wheel depressed flat car I recently purchased. I found that the larger Kadee couplers did not want to lock on to the Gauge 1 coupler as easily as coupling to another G gauge coupler. They also would uncouple every once in a while even though the amount of coal hoppers being pulled behind the flat car were less than 10. For this reason, I'll be going back to using the G gauge Kadee couplers from now on. While looks are nice, function is more important to me.


----------



## riderdan (Jan 2, 2014)

Not to hi-jack the thread, but has anyone tried the Train-Li replacement hook and loop couplers? I run hook and loop because my layout is 1920's Germany, so knuckle couplers are right out and screw couplers and sprung buffers (as discussed elsewhere) won't work. Just curious, as these are claimed to be somewhat closer coupling and are narrower than the LGB hook and loops (so not quite as ugly).


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

What scale and era are we talking?


----------



## TundraSpyder (Jun 9, 2015)

thanks for thereplies folks. I expected Kadee would be the logical choice. Just wondered if I missed some thing.


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

Hooks and Loops V's Knuckle Couplers ... wow, decisions decisions.

All of my current "fleet" (mainly USA trains) come with hook and loops; however, also come with Kadee Knuckle couplers. I prefer the look of the knuckle coupler as they are (obviously) more realistic, but which ones do I use? Truck mounted, Body Mounted? Is there a standard Kadee that fits all or do you have to buy specific couplers for specific cars, engines?

It seems as though there are so many choices (Kadee) - which is the "right choice" and how on earth do you put them on?


----------



## ewarhol (Mar 3, 2014)

wombat457 said:


> Hooks and Loops V's Knuckle Couplers ... wow, decisions decisions.
> 
> All of my current "fleet" (mainly USA trains) come with hook and loops; however, also come with Kadee Knuckle couplers. I prefer the look of the knuckle coupler as they are (obviously) more realistic, but which ones do I use? Truck mounted, Body Mounted? Is there a standard Kadee that fits all or do you have to buy specific couplers for specific cars, engines?
> 
> It seems as though there are so many choices (Kadee) - which is the "right choice" and how on earth do you put them on?


Here's a link to Kadee's website for the conversion charts. Click on the manufacturer, then the model, and it will tell you what style of coupler you need. http://kadee.com/conv/lscc.htm

Kadee has many styles of couplers. If all you want is the knuckle coupler look and don't care about all the different types of shanks (center set vs off set) then go with the conversion chart. If you want all center set, then it takes some work to get them all set to the correct height. Either way I highly recommend using their coupler height gauge to make sure they're all set to correct height.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

TundraSpyder said:


> So, I have been acquiring cars, and coupler selection seems to be all over the road.
> Kadee would obviously be the best choice, but second to that, who has stuck with Hook and loop couplers, and switched to bachmann knuckles?
> 
> Aristocraft seem to work great, but no point if I can't get them anymore.
> ...


*If you want everything to be the same you might as well use Kadees.*

What are you looking for?

Appearance? Most seem to prefer Kadee.

Never failing coupling?

In my opinion hook & loop will always win.

Tight R1 curves?

Hook & loop wins again.

Steep ramps and dips?

Hook & loop wins again.

Truck mounted?

Kadee requires you to cut the tang to fit Kadees (Why I NEVER buy rolling stock where the owner cut the tangs to fit Kadees).

Body mounted?

Might as well go with Kadees.

In my case I usually go with the least expensive that I know will work.

Personally I prefer LGB & USAT Hook & Loops over the others (Bachmann IMHO are not the same quality). I don't use Aristo H&L because they catch on LGB track magnets etc.

Sometimes I find that USAT truck tang heights don't match other brand tang heights making the hook & loops not line up as well. I could be mistaken.

What everyone seems to fail to notice (I have no idea why not) is that there are a LOT of products where Kadee DOES NOT make a coupler. Try fitting Kadees to an Accucraft 0-6-0 (electric) to Accucraft stock cars (all 1:29).

I recently bought a Kadee automatic uncoupler set that I will probably never use because:

1. Requires body mounts (I don't have a single body mount coupler on my layouts). 
2. Body mounts don't work on R1 curves.
3. Body mounts can disconnect on the hump and dip of my steep ramps.
4. Unnecessary (for me) excessive additional cost.
5. Don't mate with my hook & loops.

In the end it only matters what YOU like and what meets YOUR expectations.

It just happens that the way I built my layouts they are not compatible with Kadees. If I had nothing but wide sweeping curves and my layout was perfectly flat and if Kadee made couplers for everything I own I too would probably be using Kadees.

Whatever you choose you will probably be happy with it because most things can be made to work.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Your choice of coupler has as much to do with your track as it does your rolling stock. The first consideration would be your curves. Do you run tight (<4' radius) curves? If so, then you will want to steer clear of body-mounted couplers. Once you get under 4' radius (8' diameter), you start to push the limits of the side-to-side play of body-mounted couplers, which will lead to derailments on your curves. Wider than that, and you should be okay with body-mounted couplers, but know that if you're running longer equipment such as modern freight cars or passenger cars, you'll want to use wide switches (#6) so not to pose too much trouble going into and out of passing sidings. Shorter equipment (Typical LGB/Bachmann-sized equipment) shouldn't have any trouble with body mounted couplers on 4' radius curves and switches. 

Now, look at your track itself. Is it fairly smooth and even, or does it have lots of peaks, valleys, and twists as the track sits on the ballast? If you're the kind of garden railroader who doesn't put a whole lot of attention into your roadbed for your track, relying on the flanges of your equipment to keep things on the rails, then perhaps you may want to think about sticking with truck-mounted couplers. The couplers will follow the track much better being truck-mounted, so there's much less chance of them coming uncoupled as the track rises, falls, and twists around the railroad. 

(As an aside, I'm firmly of the belief that smooth trackwork is paramount to a successful and reliable garden railroad, so if your track is just haphazardly laid on ballast and you _need_ deep flanges and truck-mounted couplers just so your trains make it around your railroad without derailing, perhaps it's time to re-think the engineering on your track.) 

Truck-mounted couplers have their drawbacks, though. First, you're placing the weight of the train on the trucks themselves, which may introduce forces which will cause the trucks not to track well, especially when backing up and the weight of the train is causing the couplers to want to rotate sideways. Also, truck-mounted couplers are subject to something weirdly called "tongue droop." This means that since the coupler is supported by a fairly long arm attached to the bolster in the middle of the truck, there's little (if anything) to keep it from raising or sinking due to the forces of the train on the coupler. This is often problematic on long trains going up hill where the couplers are in tension, and they have a tendency to rise up over one another and slip out. (Note, this is most noticeable with knuckle couplers, much less so with hook-and-loop, especially with double hooks.)

And that is a great segue into the question of hook-and-loop vs. knuckle couplers. No doubt that hook-and-loop couplers (especially with hooks on both ends) have proven themselves wildly reliable over the years. I suppose that's why many cling to them despite their unprototypical appearance. There are some considerations, the foremost of which is availability. USA Trains' stuff may come with hook-and-loop couplers, but how widespread is that among other manufacturers? LGB and Piko will likely continue to offer H&Ls with their equipment; Bachmann's "Big Hauler" line as well. However, move up to their "Spectrum" line, or buy anything from Accucraft, and it's not an option (nor are any kind of truck-mounted coupler). If Aristo/Polks gets back into production, I couldn't say whether H&Ls will be an option with them either. (I can't remember if they were originally.) So there's that consideration. If you're going to be sticking with those manufacturers who supply H&Ls as stock, then the primary advantage of converting to a 3rd-party coupler comes down to aesthetics.

That having been said, for all the talk of incompatible couplers in large scale, there has been a growing movement in the last 5 - 10 years on the part of manufacturers to accommodate simple conversion to Kadees, which have really been established as the de facto alternative. Bachmann and Accucraft use draft gear boxes which are similar and/or identical to those used by Kadee, so converting is a matter of removing one coupler and adding another. Other manufacturers have molded in mounting pads on some of their models to accommodate the "standard" Kadee coupler boxes. It's not quite as difficult as it might seem to convert your equipment, and it gets easier as you do more and more cars and figure out tricks along the way. By establishing your own standard, you know what _you_ run on _your_ railroad will work, no matter what the manufacturers give you to begin with.

If you're looking at trying to decide which Kadee coupler to use, here's my take on it. Kadee makes two sizes of couplers, "G scale" and "#1 scale." The "G scale" coupler is larger than the "#1 scale" coupler. Operationally, they're identical, and they do couple together. The "#1 scale" coupler is designed to be used with 1:32 and 1:29 equipment, as it's scaled appropriately for a standard-sized coupler in those scales. The "G scale" coupler is scaled appropriately for models scaled to 1:24 - 1:20.3. If you're aesthetically minded, then go with the coupler that's appropriate for your scale. 

Having said that, there are many who will use the "G scale" couplers on the 1:32 and 1:29 equipment because they like the safety net a larger coupler gives you. Larger couplers can tolerate rougher track because there's more surface area on the coupler keeping your cars together. Again, I say "fix your track," but to each his own. Just know that there's no difference in reliability between the two sizes of couplers when it comes to operations for trains of any length and weight when your track is engineered well. 

Just to muddy the waters a bit, if you're modeling narrow gauge, many narrow gauge lines (especially those in the east) used a smaller-than-standard sized coupler. Most used a "3/4-sized" coupler. If you're modeling narrow gauge in 1:24 - 1:20, the Kadee "#1 scale" coupler scales out very well for this smaller coupler in those scales.

In terms of compatibility with other couplers, the Kadee "G scale" couplers are more-or-less compatible with the Bachmann knuckle coupler and Accucraft 1:20 and 1:29 couplers. By "more or less compatible," I mean that they will stay coupled once coupled together, but the mere action of pushing one coupler into another may not cause the pins to drop on the non-Kadee couplers. Note also that this compatibility requires the couplers to be mounted at nominally the same height. Bachmann has two different coupler heights for their two different product lines ("Big Hauler" vs. "Spectrum.") 

The Kadee #1 scale coupler is more-or-less compatible with Accucraft's 1:32 coupler. Compatibility with USA and Aristo couplers is more suspect, mostly because USA's and Aristo's couplers are mounted lower than Kadee. 

That brings us to one last consideration - height. There are two de facto standards with regard to couplers; truck-mounted and body-mounted. Truck-mounted couplers (Hook-and-loop or factory/non-Kadee knuckle couplers are mounted at a centerline of 3/4" above the railhead. The NMRA adopted Kadee's "standard" heights for body-mounted couplers; 1 1/16" for "#1 scale," and 1 1/8" for "G scale." Kadee's truck-mounted couplers are set to be the correct height to match their body-mounted couplers, so a Kadee "G scale" coupler mounted on a Bachmann truck will be at a different height than the Bachmann knuckle it replaced. 

Whether you use these standards or adopt your own is entirely up to you. I opted for a higher centerline for my couplers, as that matched the prototype. Since I only ever run my own equipment on my railroad, that's not an issue. Like the prototype, the only time you have to worry about compatibility with the rest of the world is when you interchange with the rest of the world.

Later,

K


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

K

An excellent summary. In my experience there is no single answer. Depending upon the train my couplers are up-up, down-down, up-down and occasionally down-up one has to develope a knowledge base that can cover various situations. Most of my cars and engines are set to "body mount height". Therefore if the car/engine doesn't come with that height coupler, I usually modify. My couplers of choice are Kadee #830 (for body mounts) and #831 ( for truck mounts). When I first purchased a string of USAT stream liners my engines couplers were higher than the cars. I modified the first car and all was fine.

I now have some USAT engines with lower couplers. I just leave out the first car when necessary..

There are no solid answers to most questions. We have to learn and adapt to various situations. Couplers are a good learning experience.

Chuck

Sorry Jerry, you won't want any of my cars. When I need truck mounted couplers, the tabs are the first to go. I have actually, on occasion removed the whole tongue. The cars do seem to roll a little quieter.


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

East Broad Top,

As Chuck has said, excellent summary with very clear explanations.


----------



## TAAudi (Dec 6, 2012)

hello,

I´m using Kadee 1907 ..... it looks more prototypical and I think it should be work with R3 curves on short cars and 4-axle locos

greetings from Germany
Thomas


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, didn't you do a "compatibility matrix" of couplers at one time?

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Not that I published. I worked with an NMRA committee who was looking at coupler standards, and we put something together as part of that effort. I think that was published in the NMRA's magazine, but it's not made its way into anything I've put out recently. 

_Garden Railways_ did run a survey of couplers probably 12 or so years ago. I'd have to go back and look to see what couplers were covered, but I don't think there have been any new couplers since that time, save perhaps for Accucraft's 1:32 and 1:29 couplers. 

Later,

K


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

K

I thought the article was more recent, but years are going faster. I would have guessed it was in the last several years that you did the comparison. I've gone through the issues I can find since 2012, but some are missing. If it was 12 years ago I'm getting older than I should be.

Chuck


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

chuck n said:


> Sorry Jerry, you won't want any of my cars. When I need truck mounted couplers, the tabs are the first to go. I have actually, on occasion removed the whole tongue. The cars do seem to roll a little quieter.


Hi Chuck,

No problem. In many cases it is impossible to mount Kadees without cutting the tang. Even mounting non-kadees may require cutting the tang. 

My concern is that LGB, USAT & Bachmann all designed their tang/coupler interface to maximize the contact and horizontal stability including the parts of the tang that are cut off. Most folks don't think about or are unconcerned with selling their trains. I simply choose to buy and sell "factory original." I trust the LGB, USAT & Bachmann engineers had reasons why the interface is as they made it.

I only point it out so that folks will at least mention they cut the tang if they then sell the items on eBay (saves me the lost time & hassle of returning them). For 2nd generation sellers a cut tang is not readily visible. My buying days are pretty much over so it is no longer a problem for me.

A few other things worth mentioning regarding hook & loops:

1. Sometimes they work too well. I have had a coach derail on a 6' high portion of my layout and it pulled 5 more coaches off the layout with it to the ground. I was lucky because they were the light LGB two axle coaches and I had installed the LGB lights. The light wiring harnesses held the coaches in a string so only the last one reached the ground leaving the rest suspended in the air. No damage was done. Had they been full size 3080 D&RGW coaches they would probably all have hit the ground and brought a Mogul and tender to the ground with them.

2. Covered wagons like the F7A and F3A may not be able to handle R1 (4' diameter) curves with the nose coupler which has a lot less swing than the rear coupler or "B" unit couplers.

3. Another advantage of hook & loop couplers is that they will be much more likely to be able to couple on curves without being manually aligned.

4. Even though my layouts are perfectly flat, another reason I cannot use Kadees is that I have steep ramps (10% grades) that are dictated by the fact that trains must go up and down the grades (sharp hump at the top and dip at the bottom) to get to and from the outside layout and also to get from the lower deck/yards to the upper deck/yards.

5. Single axle trucks such as LGB European types and starter sets have little tolerance for truck swing. Anything but hook & loops would probably lead to derailments (especially on sharp curves as when backing into sidings). Even double hooks can cause problems with very light rolling stock with single axle trucks as the hook's plastic springs will try to force the loop coupler to stay centered rather than to allow the hook to slide the width of the loop. 

6. Most references to couplers have pulling in mind. As trains get longer and/or heavier, when reversing (especially on curves & backing into sidings), hook & loops tend to push up and over each other causing derailments and other problems.

7. Sometimes (I don't always know why) long truck tangs (passenger coaches & cabooses etc.) vary in height enough so that it makes it difficult for the loops to match with other rolling stock. For that matter not all brands of rolling stock & locos have the same hook & loop height when they leave the factory (same with factory knuckle coupler heights).

8. If you change the wheels to wheels with a different diameter you will change the height of the coupler (even body mounted).

If you put a 20" wheel on a bicycle that came with 26" wheels you would end up closer to the ground. There is a lot of difference between wheel diameters (even comparing plastic & metal wheels from the same manufacturer).

9. Metal wheels can add a LOT of weight to a train making it much harder for the couplers to pull and push.

10. The trucks themselves matter. It is difficult to mount LGB or USA or Bachmann hook & loops or LGB knuckle couplers on Aristo freight trucks without the coupler mount binding against the axle of the end wheels. Often a much smaller contact surface is left and it can be hard to drill the new mounting hole that is centered and is strong enough.

The only way I have found to make it work is to find a balance within each train so that in the end the train "works." That may mean a conversion pair at each end (perhaps hook & loops on the loco and caboose and on one end of the 1st & last freight car. Of course if one stayed with one brand of locos and rolling stock their choices would be simpler.

Rather than new Kadee mounts I would really like to see someone come out commercially with an adapter to get a perfect fit of LGB & USAT couplers to Aristo freight trucks.

Jerry


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

By pure chance my wife walked in the office with a small handful of old GR Magazines. I glanced at them and there it was on the cover of one issue: Coupler Compatibility.

The August 2003 [12 years ago] issue has a 5 page article with many photos and a 3/4 page compatibility matrix. Missing are the Accucraft 1:32 and the new family of Kadee 900/1900 series couplers. It is an excellent article.

I, like Chuck, seem to remember a more recent review of this subject.


----------



## Sjoc78 (Jan 25, 2014)

My personal favorites right now are the Accucraft 1:20.3 scale body mounted couplers and the LGB truck mounted. The LGB and Accucraft will mate with no modification which has allowed me to use some of my LGB and Bachmann(with LGB coupler) cars with out modification here and there. The LGB couplers tend to be quite robust as is most of their products so I really haven't had any issues. I also like that the LGB are offset so that they are at the correct height.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I wonder if we could get permission to reprint part of the article, or at least the compatibility matrix.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The article I remember is from the August 2003 _Garden Railways,_ written by Scott Anderson. It starts on page 56, and has a compatibility table on page 61. It does not have Accucraft's 1:32 or 1:29 couplers in the matrix.

I have not covered compatibility per se in any of my columns, though I have covered converting from factory to Kadee/Accucraft couplers. It has been a while since Scott's article ran, so perhaps it's time to revisit the topic. 

Later,

K


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Jim and Kevin

Thanks for the information. It is truly hard for me to believe that the article was 12 years ago!

I knew that the years are getting shorter, but WOW.

Chuck


----------



## Sjoc78 (Jan 25, 2014)

It would be worth it if some one or a club with some of the newer couplers did an updated matrix. Some of the old designs have been updated. like the Bachmann and LGB couplers are a little different than before. Bachmann body mounted on the Spectrums work OK and seem to be similar to but a little more robust than their old couplers, but are still not as good as the others.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I just tested the coupling for the 9 different couplers I have in my possession. Eight are on cars used on a regular basis. The ninth (AristoCraft) I mounted of a pair of trucks for the tests.

I pushed the cars together with the knuckles open. If they closed and locked I gave the pair a yes. If they didn't it was a no. In a couple of instances, if one or the other was open and the other closed they did mate.










Others may get different results.

With the exception of the Kadee gauge 1 couplers most of them could be coupled by lifting one into the other.

Somewhere I have some Delton couplers, but I'm not currently using them and I couldn't find them.

Chuck


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

*Body Mounting Kadee "G" type Centersets*

I am a believer in Kadee "G" type centerset couplers - all being body mounted both for operational performance and aesthetics. Aside from hook & loops that are very suitable for trains going around the Christmas tree (really tight curves), Kadees are the "glue" to mix & match virtually all brands of equipment in a more realistic layout.

I have written many "vignettes" about body mounting Kadee "G" centerset type coupler assemblies on Aristo, USA Trains and AML 1/29 scale equipment, including locos, freight cars and passenger cars.
The *vignettes* are hosted for me by Greg E. on his Web site.

Since Greg is still in the process of upgrading the site, navigation may be somewhat difficult. (It's best to use the upper left corner 3 bar icon to get the entire menu field.)

When I mount Kadees, I target train operation on the layout down to 8 foot diameter curves which are on my under house layout rail yard section. With respect to directional changes ("S" bends) , a straight track section about the length of a car is placed there between. My outdoor layout includes a double loop grade (average ~2.2 percent - up to 3 percent in parts) in varying curve diameter ( 12 ft ~ 16 ft diameter) that I have operated a 40 car train all equipped with body mount Kadee centerset couplers pulled by up to 6 locos. 

As to cutting off the truck coupler tangs, I do this only when needed. Sometimes the truck can be turned 180 degrees (with original coupler removed) and remounted.

To accommodate body mount centerset couplers, sometimes a spacer may be needed, or some material may be removed from the car floor, or the car may be lowered. In some cases, lowering a car can be done by relocating the bolster within a truck (USAT freight car trucks lend them selves to doing this.) 

I am currently preparing a vignette write up on the body mounting Kadee 906 centersets on the USAT metal streamliner cars.

I plan to prepare a vignette on body mounting the Kadee 907 centerset coupler on the Aristo Heavyweight passenger cars - which I have successfully done.

Most recently, I have successfully body mounted Kadee 907 centerset couplers on the LGB "modern tank car" which included lowering the car by substituting Aristo "roller bearing" Barber trucks or replacing the bolster within the as equipped LGB "roller bearing" truck. I plan to prepare a vignette on this car, too.

For those folks that prefer Aristo Knuckle couplers, I sold over 400 that I took off my cars & locos to *RLD Hobbies* some time ago. So you might contact Robby to see if he has these available at this time.

-Ted


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Ted

Don't worry, on a regular basis, I DONT mix and match. I run three scales, but not at the same time. The table was set up for all possible combinations.

I run 1:20.3, 1:22.5/24, and 1:29. They are all different, and come out at different time. 

If I could use body mounted kadee's all the time, I would. I just don't like doing cosmetic surgery on my classic LGB cars. There are times when truck mounts are better.

Chuck

There's a market for Aristo couplers?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Chuck, I don't know when Aristo added the "shelf" to the bottom side of the coupler, but since then, you cannot pull them apart by lifting, and you cannot assemble them with the knuckle closed.

The idea was to eliminate couplers overriding each other. They are very effective at that.

Greg


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg

When I bought my first Aristocraft cars 15 or 20 years ago, I quickly learned that they would not couple with any of my existing cars. I think I tried an idler car with lower couplers on one end and body mount height on the other. They wouldn't couple with my kadee's regardless of the height.

I removed them added Kadee's and I have been doing that ever since. I never looked closely at them, as every time I brought a new Aristo in the door, I removed the couplers and threw them in a bag by the work bench along with the plastic wheels. I never really looked at them, closely, to see if there had been any design changes. The overall shape hadn't noticeably changed. After your comment, last night I looked at the one I used for the test and there is a small platform on one side of the bottom.

Chuck

Ps since I use body mounted height for most of my cars, I would of had to remove them anyway. My heavyweights all are body mounted and close coupled.
I have a unit coal train with low truck mounted couplers on most of the cars. The couplers at each end are a step up, so it will mate with the engine and caboose.


----------

