…I need to know how to replace the KD couplers on a couple of KD boxcars. Normally I don’t buy high end rolling stock since I don’t appreciate all that fine detail which is what you are paying for and would actually prefer it wasn’t there. These normally sell in the $35-40 range but I found two of them on sale in the low $20 range which is the most I would spend for a simple 40’ boxcar. The problem is these came with what appear to be 158 couplers. I experimented with these a while back before settling on the 148 as my standard coupler. I managed to remove all those fine details from the underside of the boxcars as well as the chassis. I can’t figure out how to remove the coupler plates from the pocket so I can replace the 158s with 148s. The floors of the boxcars are made of metal and it appears the coupler plates are too. They aren’t screwed into place but I can’t figure out how to get them off. I’ve tried gently prying them but they seem to be firmly in place. Is there a trick to getting these off without risking damaging the coupler pocket.
Sounds like they have scale couplers? Who made the cars?
The Kadee website has instructions for assembling their boxcars, but none of the diagrams show coupler installation (go figure! [banghead] ).
Here’s a link to Kadee:
Use the “Contact Us” area (near the bottom of the page) to explain your dilemma. I’ve found them to be very helpful, and they reply promptly, too.
Wayne
To access the coupler boxes on Kadee 40’ boxcars, you have to first remove the floor from the car. The coupler boxes are a large one piece assembly that includes wings that go out and also include the stirrup steps. You have to pry both sides up and slide the assembly off the end of the car to remove the coupler.
I dug into my bucket and came up with this picture. The shiney plastic part that goes out to the stirrups on both sides is all one piece with the coupler pocket. They are a real pain for me as I use Sergent couplers on all my equipment and the Kadee pockets are too thin and the post is too big, but I can’t just cut them off and use a regular draft box because of the stirrups being molded in.
I have really mixed emotions about the semi scale couplers. I know, of course, why many people like them for their closer to scale, more realistic appearance. But being smaller and having a narrower vertical profile they will be more prone to coupler mismatch and therefore false uncouplings. Not good.
I guess this is a conundrum for the manufacturers who include KD’s such as Intermountain, ExactRail, Tangent and I think Bower too on some of their RTR cars - whether to mount semi-scale or regular KD’s.
As much as I like the closer to scale appearance, I also don’t want false uncouplings so when I buy the bulk packs, it’s still generally the traditional full-size KD, such as the 148 whisker I prefer. I do have quite a few nicer RTR freight cars that came with the 58 but for now I’m leaving them on because the higher priority will be to replace the plastic couplers as they fail or are found to be unreliable.
Speaking of unreliable plastic couplers, I ran a string of 20 Athearn RTR Thrall coal gons on a modular layout at a show, and as many know, they come with McHenrey plastic KD clones. Sure enough - I learned first hand what junk they are - that train came uncoupled constantly and at different points in the train, randomly. It seem mainly that the plastic whisker that is supposed to act like a spring holding the coupler closed had fatigue in many cases, and randomly many of the couplers would be too relaxed and not remain closed - causing the random uncouplings.
The Athearn RTR Thrall gons are nice models, and I have over 100 of them and darn it, it looks like it’s going to cost a “pretty penny” to replace them all! I think the fatique on the plastic whisker just happens over time - those models were new in the box and never ran before the modular meets. The steel spring in KD’s are obviously FAR superior and not prone to fatige.
In contrast, my kit built cars which I ran (Wa
Call me “old fashioned” or resistant to change, but I prefer the old standard Kaydee no. 5’s. That’s what I started with in 1993 when I got into scale modeling and they’ve been very reliable for me. Say what you want about them (the No. 5’s) being a bit out of scale, but at the normal viewing distance (usually at more than 100 scale feet), who really notices? I’ve heard too many complaints about the closer-to-scale couplers coming uncoupled unintentionally; makes me not want to invest in something that I may have problems with.
Agree’d, and mostly the couplers are between the cars so the advantages of the semi-scale couplers are most appearent when photographed up close on an end view. Which is IMO good for display but in practical terms, I’m more interested in reliability. I can’t afford to change everything out at once, but it will be an ongoing process.
BTW, The KD#148 (bulk pack) have the same head as the KD#5 but have whisker centering springs vs. the separete bronze spring. I’ve found I now prefer the the whisker version to the traditional #5 now, and after I used up whats left of the bronze spring versions, I don’t anticipate buying anymore of them.
As a temp fix, you could use a small amount of glue to lock the couplers in a closed position. Since it is a coal train there wouldn’t be much coupling and uncoupling. Put KD’s on every 5th car to make long blocks that could be switched more easily if you want.
Not perfect, but a plan to work the money you have for your hobby.
It’s not a stupid question at all. Back when Kadee first introduced that PS-1 boxcar, the first ones came with standard large #5 style heads. After a short while (maybe a year or less) Kadee introduced the “scale” head. A retrofit kit, Kadee part 2100 Coupler Replacement, was sold with instructions for disassembly so that the purchaser could make the change. There was no equivalent kit to change from scale couplers to the larger ones. I had about 6 or 8 cars, and bought the kits & changed them all. I was surprised at what a complex puzzle it was. I would check with Kadee to see whether they have those old instructions. Unfortunately, I don’t have them any more.
The Kadee refit kit came as a complete subassembly with corner steps, draft gear box, and installed coupler. If I recall correctly, I don’t think the instructions told how to disassemble that subassembly.
Tom
P.S. See my P.M.
[quote user=“riogrande5761”]
I have really mixed emotions about the semi scale couplers. I know, of course, why many people like them for their closer to scale, more realistic appearance. But being smaller and having a narrower vertical profile they will be more prone to coupler mismatch and therefore false uncouplings. Not good.
I guess this is a conundrum for the manufacturers who include KD’s such as Intermountain, ExactRail, Tangent and I think Bower too on some of their RTR cars - whether to mount semi-scale or regular KD’s.
As much as I like the closer to scale appearance, I also don’t want false uncouplings so when I buy the bulk packs, it’s still generally the traditional full-size KD, such as the 148 whisker I prefer. I do have quite a few nicer RTR freight cars that came with the 58 but for now I’m leaving them on because the higher priority will be to replace the plastic couplers as they fail or are found to be unreliable.
Speaking of unreliable plastic couplers, I ran a string of 20 Athearn RTR Thrall coal gons on a modular layout at a show, and as many know, they come with McHenrey plastic KD clones. Sure enough - I learned first hand what junk they are - that train came uncoupled constantly and at different points in the train, randomly. It seem mainly that the plastic whisker that is supposed to act like a spring holding the coupler closed had fatigue in many cases, and randomly many of the couplers would be too relaxed and not remain closed - causing the random uncouplings.
The Athearn RTR Thrall gons are nice models, and I have over 100 of them and darn it, it looks like it’s going to cost a “pretty penny” to replace them all! I think the fatique on the plastic whisker just happens over time - those models were new in the box and never ran before the modular meets. The steel spring in KD’s are obviously FAR superior and not prone to fatige.
Thanks for the good info. I’ll give this a try but right now my dogs are going crazy waiting for their daily romp. Once they run off all that pent up energy, they’ll be ready for their nap and I’ll be able to concentrate on the task at hand.
Thanks, Tom. Now I don’t feel quite so dumb because I wasn’t able to figure it out.
I see a huge irony in the “reliability over appearance” arguement. What make the coupler “unreliable” is either there are poor standards or maintenance on the cars or track or there is a mix of coupler types.
If the track is in good shape and all the cars have the couplers properly adjusted and at the proper height, then the 158’s perform fine. If they are no bad vertical curves in the track and there track has a consistent roadbed, then the couplers should not be out of line.
The only place I have seen real problems is when couplers of different manufacturers are mixed, then the differences in designs can cause issues, but those are usually problems with the mating surfaces. If there is a coupler height mismatch, that’s not a problem with the coupler, regardless of make, that’s either a track or car maintenance problem or the couplers haven’t been installed properly.
The Athearns I discussed above are not the old blue box with the metal clip, but rather the much newer, upgraded ex MDC, high side Thrall coal gondola’s, which came as RTR models in 5-packs and great for modeling unit coal trains of the late 1960’s thru late 1980’s. Remember the old Model Die Casting Thrall coal gondolas? They had the much better coupler boxes than the blue box Athearn with a lid and a screw. Replacing the offending McHenry couplers should be easy, its more a matter of money and time, but also a shame Athearn decided to use an inferior coupler.
As for the old Athearn blue box, I never cared for the metal clip cover, but mostly I’ve been able to make them work. If they are mounted, I usually can remove them by taking a pair of needle nose and prying them off. If they don’t stay on, you can pinch the clip slightly to make it fit tighter, but still, it lousy in terms of a coupler mount. Thank fully no other company copied it.
Let me address your irony.
Thats all fine and dandy if you are building your own layout, which I am doing so I am doing my best to lay track with good geometry etc. However, what you fail to consider is many people run trains on club or modular layouts, which in many cases, they have limited control over the standards. I ran some of my trains on at a local train show where two different clubs combined their modules to make a large modular layout, so the track probably wasn’t real even. Remember, each module has to be adjusted to correct height and made even (as possible) in a large multipurpose room and in fairly short time to be ready for a show.
So naturally track is a huge part of the equation, but you only have control over what you have control, in some cases thats the only the rolling stock. So in some cases, the larger #5 type couplers give you a small measure of adding reliability to the mix, which is the spirit of this aspect of the discussion as I see it.
So sure, semi-scale couplers should work fine if you can control all the variables - thats the trick isn’t it?
Even if all your couplers are perfect height, and all your trackwork is perfect, the semi scale couplers have one big drawback.
They have a smaller “gathering range”, that is the side to side variation that they will tolerate and still couple.
Considering the tolerences in truck/wheel set/king pin relationships, and wheel set track guage relationships, especially if you use regular NMRA Standards based products, the semi scale coupler runs the risk of not lining up close enough to the track center in all cases to properly mate with another such coupler at the extreme of the tolerences in the other direction.
AND, the semi scale couplers have just as much, and by my measurements possibly slighty more, push-pull slack - not desireable for long trains.
AND, they require extra “impact” effort when they are asked to couple to a standard coupler. in fact, from my tests, nothing couples with less impact effort than two correctly installed regular head genuine Kadee couplers.
All features that have me staying with the standard coupler.
I go to great lengths in some cases to close up the coupled distance between cars to a more scale spacing. I also find the semi scale couplers less friendly in that process as well.
Sheldon
That pretty much summarizes my experience when I briefly experimented with them a few years ago. I installed 158s on about a dozen cars and saw the problems with mixing them with the traditional sized couplers. It got to be decision time. Did I want to replace all the 5s and 148s or take out the 158s. The cost was the overriding decision but the operational issues you’ve outlined also played into the decision. Now all new rolling stock gets 148s. Any old rolling stock with Brand X couplers get 148s any time there is a problem with coupling or uncoupling. 5s are kept as long as the centering spring fu
In a perfect world all our track would be perfectly laid out and all our rolling stock and locos would have couplers at exactly the right height regardless if they were kit built or RTR. They would also have the correct amount of side swing and always center perfectly when uncoupled. If that were the case, scale sized couplers would not have any operational issues. But few of us have reached that model railroading Utopia so to achieve operating reliability we need some margin for error in our couplers. It is far easier to replace couplers than tear out several feet of track and/or turnouts as well as a good bit of scenery. The oversized couplers are simply more forgiving and will accomodate our other imperfections.
I’m surprised that the link to Kadee’s website which I provided doesn’t work for you, je. [sigh]
Wayne