POLL...Kadee Shim versus Coupler Pocket

Personally, I prefer the simple mounting shim, which I have always made myself. Besides, it is not as convenient as thought trying to purchase just the Kadee coupler & springs, i.e. WITHOUT their gearbox.

I prefer the shim too.   It would be nice to mount the boxes back flat with the ends.    I am not sure one shim would work for all Atlas cars either.

Are you planning to market these?

I prefer the shims.

Normally I would prefer the shim, but my past experience is that Atlas freight cars ride way to high even when I buy the 2 rail version, so I have to lower the cars by using a Weaver or Athern truck (did I spell that right). I do not buy a lot of Atlas because of the ride height and the difficulty in Kadee installation.  My vote is for the pocket. I'm concerned about the coupler box opening.

Clem

prrjim posted:

I prefer the shim too.   It would be nice to mount the boxes back flat with the ends.    I am not sure one shim would work for all Atlas cars either.

Are you planning to market these?

 

The Atlas shims have been done for a little while.

Thanks.

Mario.

I'm fine with the Kadee box as is - not needed shims or whatnot on any of the few conversions that I have done to date.  If the car lacks a car body bolster, I add one, drill and tap all to meet my spec's and add Athearn trucks with IM wheelsets - done.

I am intrigued by the narrowed box. I'd probably use both items.

I would like a box with the two side holes moved forward.  This would effectively "shorten" the coupler.  I am getting tired of tapping new holes to move the cars or engines closer together.

john handlogten posted:

I would like a box with the two side holes moved forward.  This would effectively "shorten" the coupler.  I am getting tired of tapping new holes to move the cars or engines closer together.

I agree...

you can see from the adaptor above, the two side holes for the Kadees are not in line with the lugs at the bottom of the car. 

with the exception of the Lionel die cast 3-bay hoppers, I design all of my mounts so the face of he coupler box is flush with the end sill.

I had two objectives in mind when starting a post over on the 3RS forum.  One was a better way to mount Kadees on AtlasO cars in a manner that the pocket's location relative to the car's end sill was consistent with prototype practice.  Mounting Kadee pockets using the existing Kadee and Atlas holes typically results in the pocket protruding beyond the end sill - not enough for a cushion car, too much for a non-cushion underframe car.  I learned that Mario's 3D printed AtlasO mounting adapter/shim nicely satisfies this objective. 

My second objective relates to improving the appearance of freight cars by offering an alternative Kadee draft gear pocket with a near prototype width on its face. 

Left to right in the photo above are cars with AtlasO, Yoder, and Kadee coupler pockets.  The AtlasO and Kadee pockets have .45" interior width openings at the face.  The Yoder lost wax brass pocket opening is .30" wide.  IMO the narrower pocket look noticeably better.  I've operated narrow pocket cars over 42"r on curves on my previous railroad (51" on my current mine branch) without issue.  What is lost with narrow pockets is Kadee's delayed coupling feature which requires a wide coupler swing to misalign the coupler heads when cars are positioned over a fixed magnet.  I believe a narrower Kadee mounting  pocket would be a viable option for most 40'-50' cars on layouts with modestly tight curves.  

Whether the shimming/mounting  feature should be one piece with the narrow pocket  or separate pieces is an interesting  question.  I believe separate pieces would satisfy the widest audience - but with the flexibility of CAD and 3D printing perhaps customers could be offered both options.  I wonder how many O scalers would be interested in equipping some or all of their freight cars with better looking Kadee coupler draft gear.    

CentralFan1976 posted:

john handlogten posted:

I would like a box with the two side holes moved forward.  This would effectively "shorten" the coupler.  I am getting tired of tapping new holes to move the cars or engines closer together.

I agree...

you can see from the adaptor above, the two side holes for the Kadees are not in line with the lugs at the bottom of the car. 

With the exception of the Lionel die cast 3-bay hoppers, I design all of my mounts so the face of he coupler box is flush with the end sill.

PS - Don't forget that these mount with the spring in front of the screw, not behind it... so they are "buffered" when coupling.

I think a narrow box might not work for shorter cars connected to the longer ones or between the longest cars? The real RRs don't run 89' cars into small radius curves I'd have to guess. I have the longest shank KDs on my 89' cars and they max out on some S curves going in and out of my yards.

I'd have to go with shims.

Mario

If people have a choice then there is no wrong answer. 

Thanks, everyone. 

I think I have my answer... "yes". 

Boy, it's going to be busy winter. 

sweat the details... I love it, and am all over that!

I think its great that this has finally taken off.  https://www.shapeways.com/shops/gandyman?sort=name

Mario,  As evident by the responses it would seem both are needed.  Some want the most prototypical looking and operating equipment as possible, whereas others want more compatibility and then there are those in between.  Personally as good as the 700 series couplers are from Kadee, putting them in a near scale coupler pocket may not functionally operate but only in the near perfect conditions.  May not be the biggest bang for your buck.  So in terms of priority maybe the shim is best bet, making it easier to put Kadee's in more situations will not able be good for us but also the manufacturers, perhaps it will even yield more product sales and further development. 

I know that is a glass half full view.. I really appreciate the efforts of guys like you who help make it easier and increase the level of realism for products that should have been designed that way from the beginning!   

I'm staying with shims...cost effective.

I do lots of conversions, I'm not a scale modeller. Put me down for the shims. Anything to save me a bit of time I'm for it.  Please tell me you would ship to West Australia. I like some of your other stuff as well. Roo.

Roo posted:

I do lots of conversions, I'm not a scale modeller. Put me down for the shims. Anything to save me a bit of time I'm for it.  Please tell me you would ship to West Australia. I like some of your other stuff as well. Roo.

Roo, thanks for letting me know. 

I don't actually sell them, I just upload the files to a website and they sell them, make them and ship them. They have production facilities all over the world, so I'd bet there's one near you.

Here is the their latest shipping information. 

https://www.shapeways.com/support/shipping

Thanks for that 15-26 dollars is about right for shipping to where I live. Roo.