I know that with passenger cars, to maintain the prtotypical look, you want the cars nearly touching each other.
But, what about freight cars?
Most of mine seem to be about 1/2 inch apart. But I have a whole bunch of Athearn RTR box cars that are 3/4 inch apart. The reason for this is the fact that the coupler box, which is part of the frame, protrudes out from the body of the box car by about 1/8 inch. Any thoughts? That is, other than the fact that I should toss those Athearn RTRs - - - LOL
Is it really 1/8 inch that the coupler boxes stick out? Are those cars intended to model modern boxcars with cushion underframes, because those cars are a considerable distance apart when the train is stretched out, less so when the train slows and the slack starts to bunch in.
Because very few people use the uncoupling magnets to uncouple their Kadee equipped cars anymore, but use sticks or other mechanical tools, it might be that people have come to prefer freight cars that are “too far apart” these days.
There are many modern prototype boxcars now that the draft gear box does actually protrude significantly from the body of the car. However if you’re modeling something older than than present day that type of coupler box setup may not have been in use. Unless my recollection is off (and it probably is) the distance between 1:1 freight cars is generally three to three and a half feet, maybe as much as four feet.
Yup another step back to the days of body mounted X2F couplers.Sheesh! KD couplers ended that manual uncoupling.I still prefer the magnet.
Now then I would venture to say the majority of modelers doesn’t even know how close freight cars are when coupled.Suffice it to say the extended cushion coupler pocket was much safer and gave you more room to escape then standard coupler box if the cut started to move…
The distance between cars is normally measured to the pulling face (inside of the knuckle) of the coupler.
The plans for a relatively modern boxcar on line showed a distance over the strikers (the part of frame right behind the coupler head) as 51 ft 8.5 inches and the distance to the pulling faces of 54 ft 2.5 inches. That’s 2 ft 6 inches between the strikers of adjacent cars. For HO that would be .34 in or about 5/16-5/8 in.
The caveat here is that the distance between the car ENDS could be anywhere between that 2.5 ft and up to 6 ft with some of the cushioned underframe cars. The distance between the ends is not one set amount.
I would change to knuckle couplers if you haven’t already. The more scale couplers have sorter shanks and Kadee sells shorter shank couplers. The brute force method is to remove the coupler housing and install your own at whatever the appropriate distance is for the car you are adjusting.
Dave, thanks for that info. I have Kadee #5 couplers on those cars, but your suggestion is a good one to install short shank couplers in place of the medium shank couplers.
Spacing varies among cars depending of the type of draft gear installed. I’m not sure exactly which Athearn cars you’re talking about, but a number of them do represent cars with Evans or hydra-cushion underframes, so the couplers should extend quite a ways from the ends. On some cars from Athearn and others, the draft gear doesn’t extend far enough, so I install additional parts to represent that.
This Kadee car came with a working cushion underframe and extended draft gear.
This Athearn car came with the typical underframe. I modified the draft gear and added a facsimile of extended cusioning devices using Walthers parts.
Here’s an Ahtearn RTR car representing a prototype with an Evans cushioned underframe. The draft gear doesn’t protrude as far as the cars above.
There are also cars with extended, but not cushioned, draft gear. Depending on which cars you have, they may be accurate. Even if they aren’t exact matches for particular prototypes, the variation in spacing between cars can be realistic, so I wouldn’t worry about it unless trying to copy a car from photos and it doesn’t match.
The only one of those likely to have been built with a cushion underframe would be the last E-L car, given it’s 8/64 build date. It’s possible the UP car did, but more likely not. The SP car built during WWII most likely did not, although it appears this car was modernized and may have received a cushion underframe in rebuilding.
The problem you’re running into is the typical model manufacturer tendency to throw any paint scheme they want onto whatever car is available. Athearn has one combination door car, so they use it for everything. They have other 60s/70s era cars that are frequently decorated for earlier prototypes that are entirely inappropriate.
All of the cars you listed are based on the old Details West models that Athearn reworked somewhat. They resemble several 60s era cars, but aren’t really accurate for anything (the Weyerhaeuser car I showed above is an example). All of them are supposed to represent cars built with cushion underframes, in 1966 or later due to the modernized safety appliances (i.e. they are intended to be cars built with four-rung ladders on all four corners, lowered brake wheels, and no running boards).
I was given one of these with a different number, and have yet to find any prototype photos of this number series. The model has a hydra-cushion underframe, which was popular with SP but had few fans elsewhere. There is no “Hydra-Cushion” lettering, suggesting the prototype (if there was one) lacked cushioning, which SP and SSW advertised on just about every car thus equipped. The series around it were either built or rehabbed in the 60s, and the lettering scheme is more or less consistent with that. I’d bet this car is made up.
This is a case of Athearn using their only available combination door car for any old paint scheme. Athearn applied what looks like a 1970s repaint (similar lettering was applied to numerous cars in the 60
I’ve been involved in the hobby for awhile, and I don’t remember anyone picking nits over the distance between box cars. Passenger cars and F units maybe, but freight cars no. And if they should happen to make such a comment about any of my boxcars, I have a nice ball peen hammer which will take care of any of their concerns.
Aw, now, ya don’t have to go smashin all your cars![;)]
I think if there’s a bit of added distance between the cars, it’s a small price to pay for reliable “Delayed Uncoupling”, which works better with longer shanks. (I have a switching layout) Many such compromises are made by the majority, such as wheel width, taller rail, tighter than prototype curves, and more. It goes with the territory.
But, each gets to choose where and how to more or less stick to 1/1 appearance. Dan
I only listed those three boxcars because I happened to be working on the couplers and noticed the spacing distance. I have to believe, though, that the other 17 Athearn RTR box cars have similar descriptions. I bought them all back in the 2004-2005 timeframe when I was building up my rolling stock fleet. And, I bought them all with little or no regard for prototypicality.
I agree. As I look at a freight train on my HO scale layout, it seems that 1/2 inch spacing looks appropriate. However, when I see freight cars spaced 3/4 inch apart, it seems to be too much distance. But, from the comments being made on this thread, and I appreciate them all, 3/4 inch spacing may be prototypical, so I am satisfied - - - and relieved.
Guys,I can remember when the complaint was the cars was too far apart to look realistic…The change to body mounted X2F couplers then to KD couplers ended that concern since the cars was closer together.We was happier then a bear in a honey tree since we could enjoy true hands off uncoupling by using the KD magnet life was good.
Now,personally I think it foolish to stick anything between today’s highly detailed cars just to save a few bucks on the cost of KD or any suitable magnet.
We pay high dollar for these supped up cars why risk breaking of the end details?
Oh,I know! Some expert in the pages of MR said magnets look ugly so he suggested using round sticks to uncouple BB and Accurail cars years ago…Modelers was blindly rim rocked not realizing they paid good money for hands free uncoupling.
You can take a few extra minutes to remove the ties then install the magnet and cover up with ballast.Then paint the ties on both sides of the magnet a slightly different shade of tie
Didn’t reply to this thread yet! So my [2c] You are not on a soap box. The maggots,work fine. I wonder what the experts, had to say about the unsitely, Horn-Hook uncoupling ramps that were made years ago, that never worked. [(-D]
I’m one of those who doesn’t use magnets, as I don’t care for them regardless of their appearance, even if they’re hidden. Kadees work better than something like horn hooks, so I figure I’m paying for better operation, not hands-free uncoupling. I supply crews with skewers to uncouple wherever they need to. Despite regular operation, damage from uncoupling is so rare as to be a non-issue.
