Is it time?

Not till I can use my legacy remote to uncouple .. Till then not a chance I will change over to scale couplers .

Maybe as an option on scale offerings, but there are just too many cars made in the last century with those "lobster claw" couplers for that to be feasible for 0-gauge manufacturers, IMO. That being said, K-line and Atlas 0 did that for a few items in 3-rail 0-gauge, dont know how well they sold. ( I have one of those Plymouth switcher sets with 0-scale couplers on the boxcars.)

Way over due... even Kline reefers had a scale change over coupler and coupler box with screws to drop the "claw"

I don't know what percentage of our hobby is like some of us who convert to scale couplers; but I bet it's growing segment.

I'd say no more than 5% of 3-railers run scale couplers.

I wish!  I really think the Vision Line should have had scale couplers and electro-couplers (or at least that option).  I replace the OEM Lionel electro coupler with the Atlas 2 rail scale electro coupler.  This is not ideal, because even with filing the coupler does not always couple when backed into a train, and it is NO where near as smooth as coupling two kadees.

I don't think it will happen any time soon, but they have started to make the rolling stock Kadee compatible. I think there are still far too many folks using the lobster claws to switch everything just yet. Making them Kadee compatible is a step in that direction and a good idea also, the next best thing to switching over.

At York, MTH had said they are working on it and had made some attempts at it that did not work out, Andy said they are still working on it and hopefully will get one to work out.

I'll stick with my lobster claws, mostly because I've been using them for 63 years, and it seems sort of pointless to change now. 

is it time?...for what?-jim

Actually they didn't drop tinplate track. They have put off production until stock drops to a lower level and then will produce more.

 

Jerry

 I'd rally with you on the option, and I applaud the effort at being KD ready.

  But I am in no hurry to see the death of any icons.

 

 Drop them... Too bad support isn't contagious.

 

  

 

Not for me either. I don't see this happening, too small a market size to warrant it.

 

quote:

Way over due... even Kline reefers had a scale change over coupler and coupler box with screws to drop the "claw"

 

And what happened to Kline?

I agree with PTC - there is not enough demand (financial incentive) to change it.

What's so good about scale?

 

If you like scale - it's your's to change over while the rest of us enjoy what we have.

 

That's why we bought it in the first place.

Claws work okay for me. Make changes which won't be compatible with them will just mean I won't be purchasing any products with newer/non-compatible couplers.

I thought the lobster claw couplers are what made it "scale" to your track gauge???? Learn something new everyday!!!!

Reasons other than couplers...

 

Rusty

I see your point but there are so many people that have the other it would be a headache in a half . I know after WWII they did but then 2 things 1 you had a 3 year break ( give or take a few months) and 2 they also made adapters which where not really that well accepted and yes you still can get repo's of them today. 

Also as stated above they would have to be able to work with command control.

 

 

To me the real question is isn't time that Lionel and MTH finally develop a system that will run both as it would be beneficial to both of them. You would have folks like me refuse to but a MTH engine as I can't run it in my command mode and not going to buy there systen to run a couple of engines and vice-vers yes if you hava DCS you can go get the bridge recterfier or what ever to run lionel but your still not getting the whole thing 100% they need to understand in the long run it would benifit both of them. Yes I understand one runs basically a DC system the other doesn't but there must be a away they could do it and also program it to run the earlier stuff as well of the new items. 

Well, I think you know what most 3RSers think about it, but my answer is it's WAY PAST TIME.

 

How many guys who have converted to Kadees mention anything about having to use rubber bands or super glue to hold the couplers together, none.

 

How many complain about Kadees opening up during operation, not many to none.

 

How many Kadee users complain about how ugly Kadees look or how nice the swinging pilots look, NONE!

 

I could care less if someone who has a closet full of old trains doesn't want to convert, but the makers, by now, ought to know that a lot of folks are after more realistic appearance in their trains.  Offering $75 rolling stock without Kadees (or pads for them) is almost a slap in the face to those wanting scale fidelity.

 

So the battle continues.....

I didn't know it was a battle for crying out loud! Seems everything is!

 

If the goal is to make things look more and more realistic, the claws are little short of ridiculous! Not only are they grotesquely out of scale, they don't even work very well! That fact seems glossed over too often. They just don't work well!

 

To perpetuate hardware solely for legacy reasons is anathema to progress!

 

Mind, I do miss the ability to drop a train using the electrocouplers! Being tied to a decoupling track is so 1950'ish!

 

Give me a scale coupler just for my locomotives that I can fire with my remotes and I'd be completely happy! But the claws had to go on my rolling stock. I haven't done all my locomotives . . . yet. But it seems inevitable.

 

To each his own. There are people who love tinplate. Just not my thing. Others love novelty cars. Again, not my thing. And others are perfectly happy with the claws. Fine with me.

 

Just make rolling stock and locomotives "scale coupler friendly" is all I ask really. KDs are cheap enough. It does irk me to have to take a dremel tool to a car to get the claws off. That should NOT be required! MTH, you know who you are!!

Well said Terry,

 

There's no way I could run 50 car or higher trains with those over-sized couplers let alone even ten cars without one letting go somewhere.

Hello guys and gals.....

 

i believe the Williams claw couplers are the strongest as i never had a problem with them

pulling heavy loads. I had problems with lionel couplers from time to time. 

 

Tiffany

I would welcome a Kadee compatible scale coupler option on for all scale rolling stock.  This would be Lionel VL (others?) products and MTH Premier.  

 

I like to do switching.  The claws are almost impossible to both connect and uncouple.  They are unreliable for long trains.  Passenger cars look silly with claws.  

 

One solution would be to make a transition car that would enable to people to get started without too much expense.

 

The claws are for people who are loop runners and almost never want to switch cars.  The hobby is evolving toward a more scale look.  Why make a VL Big Boy and only equip it with claws?  It doesn't make sense to me.  

 

Joe 

This battle, and its battle cries haven't changed in 40 years.

And I bet it was going on before I caught it in the wind.

IMHO, Modelers build. 3rs is a modelers sect.. I don't get the wanting to "buy scale" so badly. My handmade tin plate is more a model than what you ask for.  

 

Please keep in mind I haven't used scale O couplers in 20 years, but have used them in other scales recently. They just don't impress me enough to change over again.

Size is the only big difference.

  With the exception of non-operating cast knuckles. Scale couplers of the past, the operating ones, have not looked prototypical to me.

The claws looked closer to something real, or at least something possibly real.

 The issues? Visually- The diamond shapes, the "hook" hanging on the bottom, the visible spring on the outside, the hooked knuckle tip.

In operation-  They uncoupled more on height issues, fell apart more, and they "flew apart" more. (Specifically box covers, and knuckle springs were the PITA)

  The "stick" is prototypical? But not my finger under a car? 

Prepare to step up your track laying. If the tension is relieved on a downgrade, best be ready too! They loved to uncouple with slack. The prototypical size doesn't like sloppy track joints, or hard grade changes either.  

The old scale un-couplers sections were junk, centering couplers because you had to back up a bit to slacken the couplers, and pushed them crooked accidently. The "stick" & my feet got lots of workouts. We stopped even trying to use them magnetically, then chucked them, put claws back on, and began using the #90s & UC tracks again.

 "Tuned" metal claws pull, and couple very well. My un-tuned pull twenty+ on level track, and 12 or so heavy cast PW up a 5% grade barely an issue. My claw cars tuned by Gramps 30 years ago close so nice the cars don't budge before the click happens.

  In my head I'm also thinking most model railroaders don't run 50-60+ cars on a train everyday. In fact most don't run twenty. Am I that far off? Just dead wrong?

 

If it aint broke don't fix it. But if claws drive you nuts, there is an option for model builders. Are you a modeler, or do you just run your scale toy trains . 

 

  

 

I do a lot of switching on my layout and the claw works just fine for me. Especially the new pancake design. I have no interest in converting my fleet of rolling stock to Kadees either.

I don't want or need scale couplers, even though I run all scale cars. I just want all the different manufacturers couplers to work well together. Everyone else has to tweak their design to avoid Lionel's patent. Hasn't this gone on long enough?

 

I'm all in favor of of the manufacturers making it easy for those who want to switch to Kadees to do so, but the "lobster claws" do have their advantages. First, because they are oversize, they are more forgiving on uneven track. Second, because they are truck mounted they negotiate the tight curves that many 3 railers still use.

 

I don't have curve problems on my layout, but hard as I tried, I still ended up with some dips and humps.

I also want to eventually do some switching. Good to hear you are doing just fine with switching with the lobster claws. Seeing this I might just get some more uncoupling track sections for my Atlas track and give it a go. I am on the fence about changing everything over to Kadee's. I bought some, then got cold feet after thinking about it for a while. Laidoffsick's videos helped a lot, but I still can't decide. That would be a lot of coupler changes.

 

I do agree with al the others that the manufacturers should make all their items Kadee compatible so those that want to could easily switch over. I also think the manufacturers are headed in this direction. Maybe everyone will be happy soon?

Really????     How hard do you have to bash them together in order to get them to close and stay closed/latched?

Actually after taking to my buddy today, we decided that they keep making the lobster claw coupler that just in case your freight train is a little short and  you have some g scale cars laying around you can couple them together! What a versatile design!!!!!

Now that is funny.

 Touché

While "lobster claws" might be OK for some types of operation, ie short trains on small radius track, they cause some undesirable consequences....the distance between cars is unrealistic, and they positively ruin the looks of a Premier or a Legacy engine. While I am not sure that "everyone" wants Kadees, in spite of their outstanding performance, the inclusion of a mounting pad for a smaller and more prototypical looking coupler is certainly a forward step. I can't criticize the handrail thickness, with what looks like a small refrigerator protruding out of a pilot that that has a height that is over two scale feet above the rail.....

Man are you predictable. 4 smph if you must know. Hope that's not too fast.

You will of course excuse me if I don't believe that. I have yet to see a properly weighted 3-Rail freight car, equipped with lobster claws, that can be coupled into WITOUT MOVING THE CAR. I can do THAT all day long with Kadee couplers, i.e. couple into a standing car without it moving.

What you describe -- of course -- I cannot do. But I can do it with 4+ cars where I have cheated a little on car weight. Also, if I back the car/cars up with a bumper. Also, if I used another engine to assist in the operation. Also with MTH engine electrocouplers instead of Legacy and pancake couplers on scale MTH Premier and Lionel instead of thumbtack. Is my operation perfect and prototypical? No. But it suits me fine. And, like I said, never faster than 4 smph. In fact that's the speed limit for switching ops on my layout.

 

And, for the record, I may have Kadees one day where I can make them work with cars on 036 curves but for now I'm happy with the claw.

Interesting.

 

On the Lionel, how did they manage to get a patent that is still in effect?

 

What you guys need to do is to buy scale cars, and replace the wheelsets.  The down side is you might have to have corners wider than O-27, but the up- side is you get to keep 3-rail track, yet have more realistic rolling stock.

 

As usual, opinion.

I always thought it was able to be renewed indefinitely, but I could be wrong. If they don't have a lock on it, then there's really no excuse for everyone not to be using the same thing. I can say from experience Lionel's always seem to work the best.

Found this about patent renewal.

 

Seems like a tedious and expensive process.  That's probably why in HO once Kadee's coupler patent expired, other versions started showing up.

 

Couldn't find anything about patent renewal on the Patent Office site.

 

Rusty

 

quote:

I always thought it was able to be renewed indefinitely,

 

I don't see how that can be. According to my understanding, Xerox no longer has a patent on copiers because it expired. Wouldn't they have renewed their patent if it was possible? Here is one website that says a patent cannot be renewed. (I'd look for a more authoritative answer if there were legalities involvesd)