Timmy ,
Be careful that the extension you have put on is well anchored , the amount of leverage at the length you have there could easily break the extension off . A single bolt right down through it would stop that happening .
Don’t let criticisms put you off , they are there to help . Keep modelling , it gets better .
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:I'm not sure what they are modelled after but they are sold as 1:20.3 NG couplers. Besides Timmy isn't that particular about prototypical couplers. If he's more interested in how they operate these are great couplers. They are about the same size as the Kadee "G" couplers. But the way they sill mount is typical NG and they look and operate great.
But aren't those model after the SG size that DRG&W and/or RGS used?? A bit large for a logging line??
Warren
Hi, the Accucraft/AMS couplers are body mounted. They sit, where they are supposed to be at the prototype.
Bachmann mount their couplers to the trucks. That means, it is very low. I lowered my Bachmann skeleton cars and mounted a link & Pin coupler to the center beam.
Peter Bunce disribed at MLS a year ago, how to convert standard archbar trucks with some strips of plastic to something which looks like a Carter Brother truck. GARDEN RAILROAD had a list couplers from various makers, which harmonize. Some do, some do not. Have Fun, Juergen Zirner
How do the flush mount Kadee’s or Accucraft couplers work on R1 curves?
timmyd said:My [b]guess[/b] is not very well, too much overhang to cope with. At least that's what it looks like on the drawing I linked in the earlier post.
How do the flush mount Kadee's or Accucraft couplers work on R1 curves?
To adequately handle R1 curves talgo mount (on the trucks) is about the only way. My understanding is that the Accucraft will handle 5’ and 6.5’ with some modification of the spring and some grinding. There are some articles around about that…not sure where though. Body mount Kadee’s are the same way. They take some fiddling to get to work on the smaller curves. But R1’s seem to be out of the question for body mount anything.
Warren
Hi, Guessing how to mount couplers does not help anybody over here. I don´t know, what a R 1 curve is, but if you have narrow curves, it helps to give the coupler some side play:
In this example it is a Saxon link & pin, body mounted on a 32mm track (Bachmann) for 800 minimum radius. It works for loop & hook or for knuckle couplers as well. On Timmy short caboose with the trucks mounted near the end, there is only little swing out of the center line. So give the coupler some play or use a longer coupler. Have Fun Juergen Zirner
Warren Mumpower said:
To adequately handle R1 curves talgo mount (on the trucks) is about the only way. My understanding is that the Accucraft will handle 5’ and 6.5’ with some modification of the spring and some grinding. There are some articles around about that…not sure where though. Body mount Kadee’s are the same way. They take some fiddling to get to work on the smaller curves. But R1’s seem to be out of the question for body mount anything. Warren
Warren, Precisely!
Looking at the drawing one could surmise that enlarging the opening in the pocket together with trimming material from the coupler shank will allow a few more degrees of lateral motion. To make it suitable for R1 (that is a 600mm radius, for those not familiar with the R designations LGB uses) would take considerably more than could be achieved by that method. Of course one could construct a computer model of the different variations i.e. swing of x coupler in relation to the center line of the track (in this instance 600mm radius) when attached to a car with x distance from kingpin to endsill plate. I did something along those lines (in HOm and 2m) to determine how closely I can space the sill to sill distance of RhB models and have reliable operation. But without doing that it is reasonably safe to surmise that R1 curves and body or sill mounted Kadees are not a happy combination.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:I think it's safe to say that body mounted couplers of any kind, modified or not, are not going to work on R1 curves.
[i][/i] But without doing that it is reasonably safe to surmise that R1 curves and body or sill mounted Kadees are not a happy combination.
JR
Jon Radder said:
I think it’s safe to say that body mounted couplers of any kind, modified or not, are not going to work on R1 curves. JR
Excuse me for my different opinion and allow me to demonstrate with an example:
These Korean made couplings, body mounted to LGB waggons work quite well on 600 mm radius curves. Nobody guessed, they simply made them. If you take a close look you´ll realize, why it works. there is no reason, why it should not work with knuckle or simple link & pins. They are very convincing models of metre gauge prototype couplings, common on very many European lines. Have Fun Juergen Zirner
Juergen ,
I shall have to get the address of a dealer from you , they look damn good . I’ve been trying for some time for a more scale look on my Euro stuff .
I have body mounted couplers by Accucraft on my Hartford models , and while they may not go round an R1 curve–I have none-- they are surprisingly capable of some sharp work , especially on crossovers where a reverse curve is involved . But Hartford do stress the need to modify the couplers .
Jon Radder said:Hans-Joerg Mueller said:I think it's safe to say that body mounted couplers of any kind, modified or not, are not going to work on R1 curves.
[i][/i] But without doing that it is reasonably safe to surmise that R1 curves and body or sill mounted Kadees are not a happy combination.JR
Hi Jon,
Other opinions not withstanding, I agree.
Perhaps someone in the group has some AMS or Accucraft 1:20.3 cars to try this in real life.
I would be most interested in the results on entering a 2ft radius curve (without easement) and of course the effect in an S curve with the minimal tangent track between two easements and the same without easements.
Personally I don’t believe that any mfg will state a minimum radius for a product other than to advise the prospective buyer what the technical limitations are. In the case of AMS the most often stated minimum radius is 4ft.
The exception being the four wheel short flat car.
However never say never! If those 1:20.3 cars with the nice trucks and the nice couplers negotiate 2ft radii, I’m sure AMS/Accucraft will be tickled pink to hear about it. 
Mike Morgan said:Mike,
Juergen , I shall have to get the address of a dealer from you , they look damn good . I've been trying for some time for a more scale look on my Euro stuff . I have body mounted couplers by Accucraft on my Hartford models , and while they may not go round an R1 curve--I have none-- they are surprisingly capable of some sharp work , especially on crossovers where a reverse curve is involved . But Hartford do stress the need to modify the couplers .
Someone actually built that balance type with the balance beam hidden behind the end sill plate. Looks absolutely beautiful, the only snag is: not so practical for an operating layout.
But if you run mostly fixed consists it’s doable.
Here in NA some of us are great believers in operating prototypically, the closer to the prototype the better. In the case of the RhB that could mean a 5 min station stop to pick up a cut of empties. Take a 4:1 fast clock ratio and you’re looking at 75 seconds. 
No problem with Kadees, but I would need to see it done with the balance type couplers on a garden layout that runs at ground level. 
Of course some of us on the RhB Forum have given some thought to a simulated balance coupling which would twist to engage the chain loop to the hook. All fully automatic with decoder actuation; time will tell!
Hi,
who in earth will have the urge to force a 1 : 20,3 model of a 20 or 30 foot car through a 600 mm radius? An absolute ridicilious idea. On small radi you use short wheel base waggons. At least that is, what the prototype does.
@mike: Have a look here. Click at “Impressum” at the upper left corner.
http://www.fgb-gallery.com/gallery/index.php They sell about 20 or 25 different types of couplings. Scharffenberg, Balancier inside or outside, various buffers… You name it, they probably got it.
We operate with link and pin couplers or chains on our modular layouts 3 feet above the flooor level. Simply use long tweezers. I am getting too old to crawl around on the floor. Meanwhile we are experimenting with small, strong magnets in the couplings. It works for the Lego Toy train system, so it will for us.
MTH has patents for a simple remote uncoupling system in their knuckle couplers. On the other hand, most knuckle couplers just work perfect. In every scale.
Have Fun
Juergen Zirner
Zirner said:
Hi,who in earth will have the urge to force a 1 : 20,3 model of a 20 or 30 foot car through a 600 mm radius? An absolute ridicilious idea. On small radi you use short wheel base waggons. At least that is, what the prototype does.
um… when you don’t have enough room to use a larger radius curve and want to play with trains??
I’m not sure that Zirner understands that a 25’ box car is considered tiny by American standards and that with rare exception 4 wheel cars are not prototypical for American railroading…NG or SG.
Timmy, I did have one more idea that might work in your case and give you the swing you need and still be body mounted. It would have to go on a pad underneath the deck rather than a sill plate. Kadee makes a swingplate for the Aristo heavyweights that allows a lot more swing on a body mount. That might work in your case too.
Warren
I think that Juergen understands well enough the relative sizes of European v. USA , we both use the stuff .
I think that a lot of the difference is in the approach to our models .
Your enjoyment seems to come from prototypical operating , with everything to do with coupling automated . Fine , nowt wrong with that , it’s a case of My Train , etc , and rightly so .
Juergen and I differ from your approach in that we enjoy the fun of making things , the operating side is a bit of a penance , especially if prototype ops go out the window when your train won’t get round a too small radius . I have carriages which will go round a min rad curve , but it looks totally wrong with the overhang produced . Too wrong to me , that is . So I don’t do it , and as a result am more pleased with the look of my models .
The business of couplings surviving sharp curves has been a problem ever since a toy track was first laid . I think that the concept of toy track with scale trains is not attractive . Thus I avoid sharp curves . Obviously this means compromise , which a lot of people seem to have problems with .
We all have to compromise with our models , some do it one way , some others , while we all , I think , become accustomed to a middle way .
If you want a good example of "close coupling " which could work for a lot of us , look at the ROCO system . I shall have to take pics of some of my ROCO and post them , it is far to complicated to describe , but by golly it works very well indeed .
So , chaps , compromise is what it’s all about , don’t start navel gazing or you will spoil your own fun .
Warren Mumpower said:
I'm not sure that Zirner understands that a 25' box car is considered tiny by American standards and that with rare exception 4 wheel cars are not prototypical for American railroading..NG or SG.Warren
Hi Warren,
so far I had the impression, we are talking about American narrow gauge in 1 : 20,3 in this thread. After all, we are trying to find a solution, to get a suitable coupling to Timmy´s logging caboose.
According to the book: American Narrow Gauge Railroads by George W. Hilton, most goods waggons were from 20 to 24 feet long. The now well known 30 feet waggons were not introduced until the early years of the 20th century. They said, you need two narrow gauge waggons, to transport the contents of one single standard gauge boxcar.
I can dearly recommend this 580 page book to everybody interested in the American narrow gauge movement. There is some very good basic narrow gauge knowledge contained in its pages.
Most model railroaders never have enough room for the dream railroads they have in their imagination. So if you only got the space for tight curves, use short locos and rolling stock.
There is a prototype for almost everyting. A 20 foot prototype is only 1 foot long in 1 : 20,3.
You can impress your visitors. Most of them probably do not even know, that these short waggons were prototypically and comon all over your country.
And for Heavens sake, if you want knuckle couplers on 600 mm curves, mount them to the bogie/truck. It works.
Have Fun
Juergen Zirner
Hmmmm. Did I miss the era that Timmy is modelling? I’ll admit that I made the assumption that it was depression era (30’s) as that is the most popular era in most narrow guage modelling. I also think that Timmy stated he wanted couplers that coupled freely which would leave out link & pin. If I recall, he said he didn’t plan on doing much switching but he wanted to watch his trains run…but didn’t want to fiddle with couplers.
Oh, Timmy! I think we need a recap.
Warren
Warren Mumpower said:
Hmmmm. Did I miss the era that Timmy is modelling? I'll admit that I made the assumption that it was depression era (30's) as that is the most popular era in most narrow guage modelling. I also think that Timmy stated he wanted couplers that coupled freely which would leave out link & pin. If I recall, he said he didn't plan on doing much switching but he wanted to watch his trains run..but didn't want to fiddle with couplers.Oh, Timmy! I think we need a recap.
Warren
I am not modeling any particular error, just narrow gauge early american steam. You can see all that I have and play with on my website, http://timothydehan.com/redmondcreekrr
Being prototypical is nice however only goes so far when one has only so much room and so many locomotives and rolling stock. So, I am looking for realism only to the point that I can still run and play with my trains. At this time, I basically run the trains around thet track as you can see from the videos and pictures on my website.
I really liked the logging caboose kit and thought it would be a fun project. It did turn out to be a fun project but a very tough project as I have stated the instructions are about as clear as mud. However, I did end up with what I think is a nice looking caboose. The plan all along was to pull it behind one of my logging consists. So, I really don’t care how I do it, just as long as I can. I would be ashame to have spent so many months on this thing and only be able to display it.