Anybody else doing "3-rail scale" with claw couplers?

@Garfield Irwin posted:

So my first foreway into Lionel 3-rail o-scale with a small switching layout naturally involved replacing the claw couplers with kadees because "that's what you're supposed to do"…..

I think Kadees are part of the 3RS definition.  Without them, are you not a “high railer”.  I am moving from high rail to 3RS but it is taking a long time since I have so many other projects that need to be done.  I will keep your comments in mind.

I am slowly converting my Lionel and K-line rolling stock to Kadee's and am having a great time doing so.  I enjoy the process and the overall look.  You do have to make sure the couplers are dead center.  Are you using the Kadee 812 height gauge to make sure the placement is accurate?  I have discovered that sometimes using the "overset" or "underset" couplers can be used instead of having to install shims with a "center set" coupler.

There are some informative videos on YouTube done by "LaidoffSick" about 10 years ago that I used to get started.

PS - I kind of like the "slinky" effect...its how real trains "roll" when then start up! LOL

I'm running claw couplers at the moment but the dream is to go to Kadee/scale couplers. It's just low on the priority list. Track needs done, then scenery, THEN I'll worry about the couplers and weathering of equipment.

I also like the electrocouplers though.

I thought rolling performance was supposed to generally improve with Kadees?

Since the term "3-rail scale" has been perverted on this forum to require Kadee couplers, I refer to my layout as "O-scale 3-rail" instead.  The trains are scale, the scenery is scale, everything is weathered, but I purposely use standard 3-rail couplers.  I've worked on the couplers to improve their performance, and visiting operators (mostly in HO scale) comment on how well everything works.  They love the electrocouplers on locomotives, and remote uncoupling with old Lionel magnets transplanted into Gargraves track works fine.  I've hosted over 200 operating sessions with 9 to 14 operators switching cars for 3 to 4 hours.

IMHO, anyone who focuses on the size of the couplers in these scenes is in need of serious help.

I personally find the scale couplers to be a huge visual improvement over the "lobster claw" Lionel style couplers.  However, I am increasingly simply transitioning to 2 rail as I find the removed 3rd rail much more visually pleasing.  The result has been less conversions to Kadee couplers and just finding 2 rail equipment that often exceeds the scale fidelity of my 3 rail train and is lot less work over a conversion.

While I still live halfway between the 3 rail and 2 rail worlds, I am increasingly moving more towards 2 rail O.

It's all preference. I started converting about 2 1/2 years ago and there's no turning back. I have done some basic switching and for the most part, haven't had any problems with the kadee couplers. I use a skewer to uncouple the cars, so technically the "hand of God" is still involved. I started with rolling stock that came set up for kadee couplers. As I became more confident with that I moved to rolling stock that was not set up in this way. I mostly enjoy train running versus switching. Reliability and good operation are very important, but the more scale appearance has me sold. Have you changed out your wheel sets to 2-rail wheels? If not, I'm a bit confused on how the wheel slip would happen because of the couplers. Maybe someone else can chime in on that one. There is a slack action when using kadees but it doesn't seem to adversely affect operation from my experience.

Bill- A word of advise. I did the same thing as you and waited until I got to this stage in my scenery work to start modifying locomotives and rolling stock.                   That's ok if you don't have a significant amount of equipment you have to convert. However, if I had it to do over again, I would have started the                           modifications a long time ago. This would have allowed me to do smaller amounts at a time. Had I done that, I would be ahead of the game now and on             track to make modifications soon after purchasing equipment. I honestly, am probably years away from completing this task. Now that I've seen the                   difference in appearance from conversions, it's hard for me to run unconverted equipment on my layout after it has been tested. That's just me!

Dave

@Bob posted:

That's a very cool scene. VERY "urban" feeling! (I think because of my Kansas City roots, I have a soft spot in my heart for city railroading.)

Plus, that's some excellent modeling on all fronts therein!

To me, you're a "Hi-Railer". It's my understanding the term was originated to refer to layouts that used 3-rail track set amid "sincere" scenery. (Which would include weathering/etc.)

Personally, I don' t get the 3RS thing.

Andre

@laming posted:

...

To me, you're a "Hi-Railer". It's my understanding the term was originated to refer to layouts that used 3-rail track set amid "sincere" scenery. (Which would include weathering/etc.)

...

I'm in this camp.  I find it unlikely that I will install Kadees in all my rolling stock or convert to 2-rail.  There's way too much money sunk into track and locomotives for that.  And I like the electrical simplicity of 3-rail.

George

@Gregcz1 posted:

I am slowly converting my Lionel and K-line rolling stock to Kadee's and am having a great time doing so.  I enjoy the process and the overall look.  You do have to make sure the couplers are dead center.  Are you using the Kadee 812 height gauge to make sure the placement is accurate?  I have discovered that sometimes using the "overset" or "underset" couplers can be used instead of having to install shims with a "center set" coupler.

There are some informative videos on YouTube done by "LaidoffSick" about 10 years ago that I used to get started.

PS - I kind of like the "slinky" effect...its how real trains "roll" when then start up! LOL

Yes, I am using the 812 height gauge and use shims when needed. Of course my small shelf switcher requires coupling on curves which I'm not expecting to work, but even on straights I have trouble when connecting the first car to the converted locomotive for some reason. Even having standardized on kadee 740's doesn't guarantee success. And thanks, I have watched "Laidoffsick's" videos which were helpful.

When I say "slinky", it's not just when starting up/stopping (which is OK -- very prototypical as you say), it's that some cars jiggle back and forth when the locomotive is rolling at very slow but constant speed due to the kadee spring. This doesn't/can't happen with the fixed lobster claws.

@BillYo414 posted:

I'm running claw couplers at the moment but the dream is to go to Kadee/scale couplers. It's just low on the priority list. Track needs done, then scenery, THEN I'll worry about the couplers and weathering of equipment.

I also like the electrocouplers though.

I thought rolling performance was supposed to generally improve with Kadees?

Yeah, the loss of electrocouplers on a switching layout is a pretty big loss. I've read that kadees are more reliable than claws, but I don't have enough experience with either to confirm. So far I'm not having any trouble with the claws staying coupled but then I only have one non-coverted car to test!

@Bob posted:

Since the term "3-rail scale" has been perverted on this forum to require Kadee couplers, I refer to my layout as "O-scale 3-rail" instead.  The trains are scale, the scenery is scale, everything is weathered, but I purposely use standard 3-rail couplers.  I've worked on the couplers to improve their performance, and visiting operators (mostly in HO scale) comment on how well everything works.  They love the electrocouplers on locomotives, and remote uncoupling with old Lionel magnets transplanted into Gargraves track works fine.  I've hosted over 200 operating sessions with 9 to 14 operators switching cars for 3 to 4 hours.

IMHO, anyone who focuses on the size of the couplers in these scenes is in need of serious help.

Thanks Bob -- this is some really excellent modelling -- something I can aspire to! I appreciate the food for thought!

@GG1 4877 posted:

I personally find the scale couplers to be a huge visual improvement over the "lobster claw" Lionel style couplers.  However, I am increasingly simply transitioning to 2 rail as I find the removed 3rd rail much more visually pleasing.  The result has been less conversions to Kadee couplers and just finding 2 rail equipment that often exceeds the scale fidelity of my 3 rail train and is lot less work over a conversion.

While I still live halfway between the 3 rail and 2 rail worlds, I am increasingly moving more towards 2 rail O.

No disagreement over the appearance -- the kadees are definitely better. I initially looked at 2-rail as I wanted to run DCC with protothrottle but the complete dearth of available locomotives for a small switching layout forced me to go 3-rail. Once I finish my shelf switcher and if I decide to do a larger continuous run layout I may look closer at 2-rail.

Very thoughtful comments everyone -- I really appreciate them all.

I have been using KDs on my 2-rail layout for many years -- like most other 2-rail modelers -- and I have never had a problem with them uncoupling during operation, even on relatively long trains (30 cars). The plastic ones can break, however, so use the metal couplers. My personal experience is that older KDs couple more readily than the newer E-type, which often bang against each other without engaging. Other users disagree ...

Those pictures from @Bob of the weathered "claw" couplers look great! -- and keeping them saves all the work of conversion. I can absolutely understand the appeal of staying with 3-rail track and stock couplers in order to enjoy the huge amount of equipment available without a lot of extra work. It seems to me from these photos that some time spent weathering track, rolling stock and couplers pays good dividends visually.

When you convert to body-mounted kadees, what's the minimum radius the cars can negotiate now?

@Slugger posted:

When you convert to body-mounted kadees, what's the minimum radius the cars can negotiate now?

That would depend on the length of the cars.

@Garfield Irwin posted:

So my first foreway into Lionel 3-rail o-scale with a small switching layout naturally involved replacing the claw couplers with kadees because "that's what you're supposed to do". But the conversion has been painful in terms of overall performance, if not appearance. Firstly, I'm finding there's a lot of wheel slop on many 2-rail freight cars which (1) requires shims to be installed on my Atlas o-switches and (2) results in failed coupling situations if the cars are not in perfect alignment on the track. I'm also getting a "slinky" effect when running trains slowly (it's a switching layout) which is annoying and my attempt to install kadee uncouplers on 3-rail track has been problematic which only leaves "the hand-of-God" uncoupling option.

So I'm  back to playing around with the claw couplers and am really enjoying having the electro-coupling option. Coupling can be a bit rough at times but I've read that by disassembling the claw couplers and sanding the mating parts can really improve their operation. The claw couples are ridiculously large of course but I'm starting to wonder if I could live with them. I'd have to weather/paint them to better blend into the loco's/rolling stock. I also don't mind the look of the large 3-rail wheels/flanges which thankfully operate flawlessly on the Atlas-o track without issue.

So is it just me or is this just part of the learning curve converting claws to kadees in 3-rail? Any suggestions welcome.

Thanks!

I have found over the years that most of these arguments have to do much more with snob appeal than anything else. Before we had scale locomotives in O gauge the brass guys would give us such crap, I made the mistake of thinking, isn’t it just about running trains and having a good time? When I run my Trains I am looking for simplicity as well as looks. I have also learned to go by the 4 foot rule, if it looks good at 4 feet it’s good. I have too much fun, running my trains and my electromagnetic couplers to worry about if they are scale or not scale.

all the pictures are from various Christmas layouts that the grandkids and I set up together separate from the big layout. I’m not really concerned about the couplers at that point…….lol

craig

PennCentralShops

KDs are nice. I grew up with Lionel couplers and that's what I've stayed with. The size doesn't bother me at all.

@Bob is achieving what I'm aiming for on my layout. In the stills he posted, one can zero in on the couplers (and thumbtacks) if one wishes, but when standing at the side of the layout, I don't see couplers. So that's a "No KDs" for me.

Dave Minarek has an article on KDs in the current OGR. My takeaway from reading it is that the ONLY benefit is appearance. Operation--my top priority--can suffer, including loss of electro-couplers. So that's a "No KDs" for me.

A major reason I chose 3-rail O was to get O-scale rolling stock with HO-scale radius curves. That comes with truck-mounted couplers. Body-mounted couplers on full-length passenger cars prefer O-72 or broader. O-72 is my max. So that's another "No KDs."

To quote the great 3-rail scaler St. Paul (I Corinthians 3.11),

“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I ran toy trains like a child, I thought constantly about toy trains like a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish thoughts and began the adult quest of seeing beyond the claw and center rail in order to achieve the best realism within 3-rail limits.” 

@Slugger posted:

When you convert to body-mounted kadees, what's the minimum radius the cars can negotiate now?

My switching layout is based on o-54 switches with a couple of o-45 curves here and there. I'm limited to 4-axle locos exclusively with mostly 40 foot cars and I wouldn't want to go with anything smaller with body-mounted couplers.  i.e. o-36 is a no-go IMO.

@Ken Wing posted:

@Bob is achieving what I'm aiming for on my layout. In the stills he posted, one can zero in on the couplers (and thumbtacks) if one wishes, but when standing at the side of the layout, I don't see couplers. So that's a "No KDs" for me.

Dave Minarek has an article on KDs in the current OGR. My takeaway from reading it is that the ONLY benefit is appearance. Operation--my top priority--can suffer, including loss of electro-couplers. So that's a "No KDs" for me.

A major reason I chose 3-rail O was to get O-scale rolling stock with HO-scale radius curves. That comes with truck-mounted couplers. Body-mounted couplers on full-length passenger cars prefer O-72 or broader. O-72 is my max. So that's another "No KDs."

I resonate with these astute comments Ken. When converting to kadees I knew the biggest reason to do so was "looks" and never really considered the operational downside that I'm experiencing. That caught me by surprise.

I agree with everything said thus far by the others, and will throw out the old quote "it is your RR so you can do what you want".

In your original post it sounds like you are using 2R cars, not 3R cars with the couplers changed out.  Some problems you are experience is due to the different wheel profiles of 3R vs 2R Wheels, not the couplers per se. Although this can compound coupler issues.  3R Wheels have a wider tread and deeper flange.  Many also have a much more tapered or curved tread.  The effective diameter of the wheel is often generally larger than a 2R wheel when placed on the track.  Of course this is also driven by the profile of the track you are using.  Due to this setting coupler height can be tricky.  If you are going across a 3R switch with a 2R wheel it will have a tendency to "drop" effectively changing the coupler height, which can lead to uncoupling.

If reliable running is your priority, keep 2R Wheels with 2R Track, 3R with 3R. The use of Kadees is up to you, but in tight radius situations, TRUCK MOUNTED couplers have a definite advantage staying coupled. This is due to the "geometry" involved.  It really isn't because they are Kadees or Lobster Claws.

For the "scale look" you can just change out to fixed pilots and scale couplers on the front of locos, and at the rear of the train.

I haven’t had any issues with the claw couplers as of now.  At one point I had some minor issues with a couple of Menards rolling stock but that that was corrected

I was three rail scale before they had a name for it.  Yet aside from a few cars purchased second hand with kadees already installed, my cars and locomotives have claw couplers. 

Our layout, Central Connecting, was all 3RS. Weathered rail, weathered buildings, and all weathered locomotives and rolling stock. Being a former HO modeler, I immediately upgraded everything to Kadee couplers. I also had a bunch of 2-Rail Scale freight cars, and thus had to modify all the Atlas solid nickel silver turnouts, by adding ship stock to the top of all the guard rails. Just like real freight cars, coupling on a curve was a challenge, and sharpened Chinese "Chop Sticks" worked great, in order to align couplers.

I tender to prefer the Kadee #805 metal couplers on rolling stock, with the newer #740 metal couplers on motive power. I never liked the having to "bash into" a piece of rolling stock with the big "claw couplers", in order to get them to properly latch & hold.

@MainLine Steam this assumes you are just running whole trains, rather than switching cars with the front of the loco, or less likely, the caboose. It would also mean that your caboose can only run one way, like the cheap Lionel ones that only had a working coupler at one end.

@luvindemtrains noted. Every last bit of energy I have is going into that blast furnace kit I'm still working on. I'm at 199 pieces. I wouldn't even think of starting on conversions until this thing is done haha but your insight is helpful. Sounds like I underestimated the effort/time it takes.

While I haven’t fully made the plunge to Kadees (just converted my first locomotive over) I have long despised the operational problems with claw couplers. Random uncouplings leaving half the train stranded, unreliable coupling requiring a slam-bang with only 30% chance the coupler latched, and the awful new Lionel couplers on the Vietnam produced cars. I have scale rolling stock from Lionel, Atlas, MTH, K-Line, Weaver, and GGD and the quality and performance of claw couplers are all over the place. I intend to convert all or most of my scale rolling stock and engines to Kadee. Will start with some engines and make transition cars to feel the waters out. Kadees work great in HO so I figure they should be just as good in O.

I mostly want the reliability of cars not uncoupling while the train circles the layout and being able to easily couple to a cut of cars. The Kadees do look nice as well.

I’m glad to see my opinion is correct. As in most groups the minute something new comes out everything  Before it was absolutely horrible.

“I used to be a people person, until people ruined it for me”

lmao

Craig

PennCentralShops

Specifically, I have uncoupling issues with Lionel's "kinematic" couplers.  I see it with both their 21" passenger cars as well as their 86' hi cubes and scale auto racks.  You can be pretty much guaranteed that in a new train of eight or so cars, one or two of them will have a coupler that will consistently pop open after rolling along for a few minutes.  Your options are:

• Put it towards the back of the train so it's pulling less weight (doesn't work if the car is head end)
• If it's modern freight, put a helper engine part-way or at the rear of the train
• Try some of the various hacks / fixes listed on the forum (everything from tape and wire tires to permanent but time-consuming repairs)
• Ditch them for Kadees

Yeah I know it's part of the hobby, but fixing this kind of stuff out of necessity is an aspect I don't particularly enjoy.  One should spend time replacing brand new couplers because it's an upgrade, not because they're not working right out of the box.

I'm personally split.

If there's an option to easily swap in Kadees to my locomotives or rolling stock, I'll do it. It cuts down on excessive weight in cars, and generally no accidental uncoupling. Diesels in particular benefit appearance-wise from the Kadee conversion. The downsides are that layouts with S curves are a no-go and you have to have a minimum of O-72 diameter always. Maybe O-54 if you're lucky, but often that's pushing it.

However, there are some models in my collection that I just will not convert simply due to the process of getting them to that point. Those old school Lionel heavyweight passenger cars from the late 90's come to mind.

IDK, maybe this is a win for the forlorn and forgotten 3RS Forum. On the one hand, a thread was posted about NOT doing 3RS, but on the other hand we may have gotten a special announcement black bonnet Hudson spam thread pushed down a notch or two.

I'm doing non-scale (Thomas the Tank) but using Kadees.  Is this the right forum?

- Crank

I like the concept of 3-Rail scale, with scale sized equipment and realistic scenery. But I don't bother with Kadee couplers. If I wanted them, I would go to 2-Rail O scale. The claws are just fine for me.

@Eccentric Crank posted:

I'm doing non-scale (Thomas the Tank) but using Kadees.  Is this the right forum?

- Crank

From the header of this forum:

3-Rail Scale is an approach to model railroading in O scale that strives to achieve the most true-to-prototype realism possible with locomotives, rolling stock, paint schemes, scenery, operation, and other aspects of the hobby, while still using 3-rail O gauge track.  This would include the use of scale (Kadee) couplers, and other modifications that make the model as close to prototypical as possible. The intent is to get as close to the prototype as you can in your pursuit of the hobby with the talents you possess.

****

So, if your Thomas the Tank is close to one of the prototype Thomas engines that currently serve on tourist railroads and it has Kadees, you are indeed on the right forum!

@Bob posted:

From the header of this forum:

3-Rail Scale is an approach to model railroading in O scale that strives to achieve the most true-to-prototype realism possible with locomotives, rolling stock, paint schemes, scenery, operation, and other aspects of the hobby, while still using 3-rail O gauge track.  This would include the use of scale (Kadee) couplers, and other modifications that make the model as close to prototypical as possible. The intent is to get as close to the prototype as you can in your pursuit of the hobby with the talents you possess.

****

So, if your Thomas the Tank is close to one of the prototype Thomas engines that currently serve on tourist railroads and it has Kadees, you are indeed on the right forum!

There is only one "real" Thomas the Tank steam locomotive, and it currently resides on the Strasburg Rail Road, and was made from BEDT #15. BEDT #15 (Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal) was/is a real 0-6-0T. All the other Thomas the Tanks are fake, i.e. NOT powered, and must be pushed around.

What a great Christmas 'layout' there Craig. That's larger and more impressive than the best of my early 1950's Christmas layouts as a boy.  Mom would let me extend out aways from the tree but our home was rather small so I felt/was severely constrained!  Only caution would be that over-taxed wall outlet that might be a concern!  Ha!

@Bob posted:

From the header of this forum:

3-Rail Scale is an approach to model railroading in O scale that strives to achieve the most true-to-prototype realism possible with locomotives, rolling stock, paint schemes, scenery, operation, and other aspects of the hobby, while still using 3-rail O gauge track.  This would include the use of scale (Kadee) couplers, and other modifications that make the model as close to prototypical as possible. The intent is to get as close to the prototype as you can in your pursuit of the hobby with the talents you possess.

****

So, if your Thomas the Tank is close to one of the prototype Thomas engines that currently serve on tourist railroads and it has Kadees, you are indeed on the right forum!

      Well played, sir.

Does anyone know where I can get a scale Sir Toppam Hat?

George