New Question: Has anyone used full size HO couplers (Kadee brand) on HOn3 equipment?
My reasoning for this question is most HOn3 models are based on the Denver and Rio Grande Western (D&RGW); which, to the best of my knowledge the D&RGW used full sized couplers on their narrow gauge equipment. However, all the HOn3 equipment I have seen uses 3/4 size couplers. Other famed narrow gauge lines like the White Pass and East Broad Top (could be wrong) used 3/4 size couplers. But on narrow gauge lines that reused existing standard gauge hardware, it was very common to see full size couplers, like the D&RGW and Sumpter Valley.
On the 1:1 scale full size couplers are much nicer to work with than the 3/4 size counter parts, and I would think the same is true for the HO scale models. At least that was based on my limited experience.
Well that is a thought…
However, it may be good to point out that HO couplers are not Scale, with the exception to Sergent’s couplers.
I have used Sergents in moch-ups & in a few models & I really like them, but being Scale they are smaller than the 158 Scale head coupler by Kaydee, I have modified a couple of 158 Kaydee’s to work with them, & they will, but I would not run a consist that way… Ever!
Being Said, I would go with the popular N Scale coupler convention in HOn3, for reliable consists, or if you are really pushing the P87 envelope, go with 100% Sergent Couplers & do not look back…
However, I respect your thoughts & opinions, & it ‘IS your railroad’, so, please do what you see fit, & works best for you!!!
If you do chose to use HO couplers, please invest in a ‘Roll Pliers’ so you can alter the trip pin height, as you will have to alter each & everyone to proper ride height.
The #5 is pretty oversize, so would tend to overpower the other components in the end view for HOn3.
Chad’s mention of the Sergeant is one that is a popular HOn3 option. You must be able to reach in to uncouple manually, as well as align couplers for coupling, so that’s a factor in layout design.
I personally feel the N scale couplers are too small for HOn3, except for the lines that used a smaller than 3/4 size coupler.
The new scale size Kadees (#158) are the best bet if going for the look of the Rio Grande couplers, if the 714s aren’t working for you.
In all cases, the tricky part is a suitable coupler box that won’t interfere with the truck swing in the limited area available on HOn3 models.
The biggest irritation for me with the 714 is the “bounce” it puts in slack action. You can somewhat alleviate this by nesting two of the coupler springs together by doubling them up in each coupler.
Thanks to both posts. Since I read both two very good options to choose from. Also I used this information and found many others have the same problems I found. The link below shows a good comparison to both suggestions.
Kadee makes “scale head” couplers, which have a smaller head than their #5, but they are still larger than the Sergent Engineering ones that are true HO scale. I believe that Sergent Engineering also makes HOn3 couplers.
Not exactly. The EN 87 can be modified for HOn3 use by shortening the draft gear. It remains wider than the 714 draft gear, so will require modification of the mounting location in many HOn3 applications.
I have done several different cars with the Kadee 178 coupler. This is a Rail Line stock car kit that I removed the factory coupler box and added a modified 178 box. No modifications were needed on the body.
I was going this route with all of my HOn3 things and even mounted some on a Westside C16. I ended up not liking HOn3 much…just a bit too small for me!
All HO and HOn3 couplers are less than ideal. The 714 HOn3 specific Kadee is a pain, as Mike noted, due to the push-pull bounce. Coupling in HOn3 is pretty much a manual operation. Most of my railroading in HOn3 is very short train runs and very little switching so coupling and uncoupling is not a big deal.
For me, the Micro-Trains 1016 seems to be the coupler of choice for HOn3. The 1016 is a different design from the 1023 series, and has much less “slinky” action. Since I model a free-lance Oregon line, the smaller head of the N couplers more closely approximates the 3/4 MCB couplers the prototype would have used. The downside of the smaller couplers is the need for accurate height gauging, good trackwork (no dips or humps), and reasonable vertical transitions.
In HOn3, weighting cars consistently and getting consistent rolling trucks are also key to workable switching operations and backing derailment-free. On our modular layout, light cars with trucks that won’t roll down a 2% grade on their own will generally derail when backing during switching operations. Light cars with free-rolling trucks (Blackstone or MT) will bounce instead of coupling if using the 714s. The combination of good trucks with 1.5 oz or heavier cars works well. The MT 1016s work much better with lighter than NMRA RP cars than 714s. Flat cars invariably need some sheet metal sandwiched between the under-frame and deck to get enough weight.
Because I model 1900, I have always used Kadee 711s (same as 714 with longer trip pin) for my standard gauge stock based on appearance. I have never seen the dreaded “slinky” train in standard gauge because (I think) I use full NMRA RP weight with ALL decent rolling trucks. And my trains are pretty short - 7-8 cars in narrow gauge and max of 12 cars in HO. Typically, my trucks are Kadee or Tahoe Model Works archbars. A program to replace the Kadee wheels with code 88 wheels is underway.
I do like the difference in size between the MT and t
