There arent any on the loops, just in the yard plan. But that could change. But, remember, I do have the R2 curves by the door to the house.
John
Greg has some info on his site : https://elmassian.com/index.php/large-scale-train-main-page/couplers
This might also help : http://www.girr.org/girr/tips/tips.html
Fred Mills. said:
When making a choice; as observing many, many other’s experiences, no-mater if some manufacturers’ couplers may seem to work with others; I don’t think recommending “Mix and matching” is a good plan, in the search for frustration free operation of your rolling stock. I don’t think that promoting such practise, is in the best interest of people new to the hobby.
Others may have different opinions…
Fred Mills
I’m not going to argue that statement. However you probably should write a letter of disgust to Garden Railways magazine as they have written many articles on mixing and matching. Now back to helping a man whom is “not” new to the hobby according to his postings if you read them twice as suggested by the experts in the hobby .
I use body mounted “G scale” ones set to height with the kadee gauge because that’s what my club does and makes life easier. I personally like the #1 better as it looks right to me being smaller. I have one car that came with them. I will say it couples up decent enough to the larger ones. So if only occasionally using equipment from others with the bigger ones you would likely be fine.
Thank you everyone. This has been most helpful. I think I will need to stick with truck-mounted couplers for the time being, since I do have a section of R2 curves on my line. I have removed all R1 switches from my track plan, but they might make an emergency appearance at some point. (Plus, if I want to run anything under the Christmas tree, they have to fit around R1 curves.) Also, since I have some interesting grades to my line, I’ll be using the G-scale couplers.
I will definitely buy a gauge so I can fit things properly.
Kadee recommends #831 for all the rolling stock I have right now. They recommend the 790 for my Forney. However, I don’t really like the off-set couplers. Any opinions/comments/ideas?
John Wilda said:
Kadee recommends #831 for all the rolling stock I have right now. They recommend the 790 for my Forney. However, I don’t really like the off-set couplers. Any opinions/comments/ideas?
I dislike the off-set couplers as well so I only use centerset. You will need to build or buy a shim to get them to correct height. Some of us here have designed 3d printed adapters. See here https://largescalecentral.com/forums/topic/26803/3d-printed-gp9-kadee-adapter/view/post_id/337814 to get an idea of what I’m talking about. I don’t believe anyone has for the Forney yet. Eric?
I don’t have a Forney, so I haven’t looked at it.
John: Kadee’s recommendations generally assume that you’re not willing to modify your equipment at all. Putting centerset couplers on engines often requires cutting the engine up to some extent.
Eric Reuter said:
Putting centerset couplers on engines often requires cutting the engine up to some extent.
Well, I’ve already done that modifying it for R/C control and battery power. But, again, if I was to do that, it’d end up a body-mount coupler. I’m concerned about the mobility restriction there.
Maybe you saw this already, but there’s one for sale at TrainZ with the offset coupler. It looks like to use the centerset, you’d end up having to mount it above the bumper (or whatever that’s called).
https://marketplace.trainzauctions.com/offer/details/LGB-20251-SR&RL-Forney-Locomotive-EX%Box-307523
Looks like you would definitely have to cut into the body.
Perhaps a bulkhead coupler like the 791:
Clearly it would depend heavily on what you couple to the loco and your curves. (I am assuming you meant LGB forney, since you did not say it was a Bachmann after Eric’s post)
You might care to call it “The end beam” on the locomotive…
The Kadee 791 may be applicable for the front end of that locomotive also…it is also used on the front of Bachmann 10 wheelers, and the LGB Mogul.
taking a step farther…it might work on the Piko locomotives too. Piko does not seem to realize that most locomotives had couplers on the front end too…offset shank couplers look like hell, to my eyes, and are not prototypical, although somebody sure as heck will come up with a picture of one…!!
Fred Mills
Eric, that link doesn’t bring up a Forney for me; just a main menu. weird.
Greg, that is correct. It is an LGB. I like the look of the 791. I’m going to buy a height gauge and maybe this one coupler and go from there.
John Wilda said:
Eric, that link doesn’t bring up a Forney for me; just a main menu. weird.
Greg, that is correct. It is an LGB. I like the look of the 791. I’m going to buy a height gauge and maybe this one coupler and go from there.
A space crept into Eric’s link…
https://marketplace.trainzauctions.com/offer/details/LGB-20251-SR&RL-Forney-Locomotive-EXBox-307523
I removed the %25(https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
The tang, or whatever you call the coupler mount on truck mounted couplers is low, so you almost have to use the offset coupler. I have used the 831 offset truck mounted coupler on most of my rolling stock. Last head count was over 130 pieces of rolling stock. Yea, it looks kind of bad, but it gets the job done.
Backing up a long train with truck mounted couplers can be done, but the track has to be free of any dips, and the speeds have to be slow. Even with that, sometimes a truck will just cock sideways a bit and cause a derailment.
With the Kadee height gauge, I also use a 1/8 thick piece of strip-wood to make sure the trip pin is 1/8th inch above the rail-heads. I have found that most of the 831s I mounted had low trip pins, and low trip pins will snag on diamonds, switches, and crossings.
Coupler preference, ie. Kadee vs Aristo vs LGB vs Bahcmann, etc., is personal. Each person’s preference is based on their modeling skill and budget. Are there operational advantages of one over the other, maybe yes on some, not so much on others. The other choice factor is availability and cost.
As for Kadee coupler scale and mount, in my opinion it is simply a decision of do you value function over appearance or appearance over function. Kadee’s latest version coupler has finally made the coupler much more prototypical in appearance with out sacrificing functionality. Also in the functionality department is the scale. The #1 coupler which is well scaled for the 1:32 / 1:29 folks gives a really good appearance but for it to function optimally needs to have track work that is rather high quality, no dips, kinks, etc. Combine this with the less preferable truck mount (due to the ability of the coupler to move vertically with the tang/tongue on the truck) and the reliability will likely suffer. The larger ‘G’ scaled coupler will look huge on the smaller scaled equipment but on the larger 1:22.5 / 1:24 / 1:20.3 scale looks more prototypical. Body mounting also increases the reliability removing the vertical movement allowed by truck mounting. In addition the larger vertical coupler face will tolerate more variation in track quality and in my opinion is a more durable coupler, less likely to break due to handling.
Again, the decision to truck mount or body mount is also a personal choice based on preferences and conditions. The only real controlling factor is how small are the curves on your layout. Curves smaller than 8 foot diameter (4 foot radius) in my opinion almost require truck mounted couplers to allow the cars to negotiate the curve with out binding on the corners of the car and causing derailments. I am sure I will get the folks who say “…but I use XXX curve with no problems”, and I am sure they do.
Remember, “It’s your railroad, you’re the CEO.” And above all else “Have Fun”.
after watching a LOT of videos of peoples trains, I have come to the conclusion that unless it is a closeup and someone stops directly on the coupler, no one notices it, it is barely visible as a train rolls by. By stopping the video sometimes I can see what the coupler is, one guy popular on facebook converts everything to USA trains truck mounts, which I never noticed until I asked about his preference. Most visitors to a layout are looking at the train, the cars, the buildings and will not notice any non “prototype” things, such as the fact that most trains are not on the proper scale track, most buildings and diecast cars are not the proper scale, and with a few exceptions the cars themselves can be mixed in scales on a train and will not look “wrong” until someone points it out. I run USA trains 1/29 and 1/24 cars, Aristo 1/29, LGB 1/2whatever they think is right, and have recently added a 1/32 MTH tank car and they all look fine together. What I am getting to is whatever size coupler, whatever body/truck mount you decide on, only a select few will notice if it doesnt exactly match the prototype, so pick what you like and mount it how you best know how and have fun.
Side note, my RR will have a NO RIVET COUNTERS ALLOWED sign as I model to my eye, not to scale
I agree with Pete, in practice the absolute coupler size is hard to see, maybe most seen on the head of the loco.
But derailments are very visible to all people, even non train people and children! (https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Appearance is nice, but for me reliable operation is top dog.
Greg
Body Mount Kadees
My layout includes a quasi indoor (under house) portion that goes outdoors that has some 8 foot diameter track curves, but mostly 10 foot diameter and greater. I chose to use body mount Kadee “G” scale centerset type couplers.
Shortly after I joined the Bay Area Garden Railway Society (BAGRS) in late 2017, I was asked to give a talk by president, Colin Camarillo, on body mounting Kadees. If of interest, that included a Power Point presentation (link) with respect to “Body Mounting Kadees - with focus on 1/29 Scale”.
-Ted
Pete Lassen said:
after watching a LOT of videos of peoples trains, I have come to the conclusion that unless it is a closeup and someone stops directly on the coupler, no one notices it, it is barely visible as a train rolls by. By stopping the video sometimes I can see what the coupler is, one guy popular on facebook converts everything to USA trains truck mounts, which I never noticed until I asked about his preference. Most visitors to a layout are looking at the train, the cars, the buildings and will not notice any non “prototype” things, such as the fact that most trains are not on the proper scale track, most buildings and diecast cars are not the proper scale, and with a few exceptions the cars themselves can be mixed in scales on a train and will not look “wrong” until someone points it out. I run USA trains 1/29 and 1/24 cars, Aristo 1/29, LGB 1/2whatever they think is right, and have recently added a 1/32 MTH tank car and they all look fine together. What I am getting to is whatever size coupler, whatever body/truck mount you decide on, only a select few will notice if it doesnt exactly match the prototype, so pick what you like and mount it how you best know how and have fun.
Side note, my RR will have a NO RIVET COUNTERS ALLOWED sign as I model to my eye, not to scale
I could never bring myself to buy Bachmann trains because of the ballast dragging location of their couplers. So I opted for equally off; truck mounted ones!
All of my equipment is equipped with truck-mounted, Kadee “G-scale” (the larger) couplers. Why?
I’ve not found a single piece of rolling stock that I cannot get to work with Kadees, regardless of make.
It comes in three “offsets” to make them easier to adapt.
The larger couplers work better (fewer unintended releases) over less than perfect track such as in a garden setting.
The truck mounts allow for tighter radii, especially if you make the mounting tangs as short as possible.