Fading memory has started to set in. Does someone on LSC 3D print the KD 830 coupler adapter for the USA modern tank cars.
Asking for a friend…
Ted Doskaris did a vignette on body mounting in 2016, and I believe USAT supplies a plate to mount the coupler.
Greg
Since I wrote that “vignette”, now available for the USAT modern tank car is a direct fit 3-D printed “CamPac” coupler box that accepts Kadee “G” scale centerset coupler, springs and lid from the Kadee 907 kit.
The 3-D printed box was designed and developed by me (Ted Doskaris) and Colin Camarillo who has the 3-D printer.
The factory spacer that is retained by 4 small screws is removed, and the CamPac BoxTM is fastened using the factory spacer screws.
If interested in getting these boxes, see Colin’s Web site
-Ted
You mean the vignette is out of date? obsolete? oh the horror! ha ha!
seriously, I guess it’s due for an update…
Greg
Found it after I searched the technical forum.
https://www.largescalecentral.com/forums/topic/27978/usat-modern-tank-car-kadee-adapter
Double post
Greg Elmassian said:
You mean the vignette is out of date? obsolete? oh the horror! ha ha!
seriously, I guess it’s due for an update…
Greg
The vignette is now updated to include the 3-D printed coupler box option. I do hope people did not take Greg’s joking comment seriously in that the vignette is not obsolete; it just needed another option to be added (the 3-D printed CamPac BoxTM).
-Ted
Reading the vignette, is .030 difference from being perfect alignment really going to give any operational problems ? They should stay coupled without having to raise or adjust the car height for this difference. I will have to check my 29’ car to make sure it’s right, I thought I just added the 906 coupler and it was fine.
Ted the information in your vignettes has helped me a lot , and even if some of the info is older I still use what I can. Now if someone would make new lower frames/ chassis for old Aristo cars I will be happy.
Pete Lassen said:
Reading the vignette, is .030 difference from being perfect alignment really going to give any operational problems ?
Nope …however only my opinion.
Pete Lassen said:
Ted the information in your vignettes has helped me a lot , and even if some of the info is older I still use what I can.
Pete
Ted’s info is fantastic and nice to see he has taken the time to document all. However me personally I have NEVER read the instructions on anything I just wing it.
Pete Lassen said:
Reading the vignette, is .030 difference from being perfect alignment really going to give any operational problems ? They should stay coupled without having to raise or adjust the car height for this difference. I will have to check my 29’ car to make sure it’s right, I thought I just added the 906 coupler and it was fine.
Thank you Pete,
When equipping all rolling stock and locos with couplers, it’s behooving to be consistent and conform to a coupler height standard (example Kadee 980 gauge) for best interaction for all brands of products. In my case I have about 350+ cars and about 60 locos - nearly all of which by now have body mount Kadee “G” centerset type couplers.
Actually, 0.030 inch low height difference (such as the case with the USAT modern tank car) is noticeable to look at and can become an uncoupling problem for locos and rolling stock traversing uneven track work, particularly for long locos and long rolling stock that have truck pivots set closer to their chassis mid point.
The Kadee trip pin used for uncoupling as factory set is optimized for proper track height, so if the coupler is low the pin (if not rebent) can catch on the Kadee uncoupling track magnet, turnout frogs, an Aristo rerailer, and open or uneven railhead joints going in or out of curves.
-Ted
Pete Lassen said:
Reading the vignette, is .030 difference from being perfect alignment really going to give any operational problems ? They should stay coupled without having to raise or adjust the car height for this difference. I will have to check my 29’ car to make sure it’s right, I thought I just added the 906 coupler and it was fine.
Of course it depends.
The 2 issues you want not to have are coupler pins being pulled down so low they catch on the rails, especially on switches, and when there are vertical variations that can cause uncoupling, especially at the crest or breakover point.
The first situation is usually only found on poor or loose body mounts, or truck mount couplers, where the tension on the cars can affect the couplers, especially since many truck mounts require the large offset coupler, when you pull on an offset coupler, the geometry of the situation forces the coupler down.
The second situation when body mounted is of course dependent on the angle and the “sharpness” of your breakover points, normally seen at the crest of a grade, but can also happen at the bottom. The potential offset between 2 couplers is further affected by the length of the car.
So, I would say on the really long USAT modern tank cars, you really want the coupler height perfect unless you have level perfect track. On the shorties, probably does not matter… iffy would be on the medium length cars.
Greg
So when will someone post about the coupler adapter I am in search of.
John Bouck said:
So when will someone post about the coupler adapter I am in search of.
Eric already did as you used his picture ?
here is Erics adapter
John Bouck said:
So when will someone post about the coupler adapter I am in search of.
John, If you are looking to purchase them, I see Eric has enabled the printing services on his Thingiverse page. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2793276 You can click “Order this printed” and choose a printing service. Example: Choose “Print a Thing” and they would be $.62 each + $5 printer setup fee and $5 shipping. The shipping and setup fee stay the same if you buy 1 or 100 of them.