Closer Coupling on Kato Passenger Cars (Illinois Central)

[wmcbride]

I received my Kato IC passenger cars yesterday and was surprised at how much more closely they couple than my last Kato passenger purchase (Super Chief).

Maybe this is old news to many of you and, if so, I apologize

I have attached a link to the thread and photos I posted on Trainboard.


http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?159040-Closer-Coupling-on-Kato-Illinois-Central-Passenger-Cars

[Nato]

             I have access to lots of Kato Passenger cars from different runs (time periods) here is what I found just visually looking at cars when coupled together. First run KATO Smooth side with the old large wide flat couplers compared to cars from the fairly recent City Of Los Angeles set, no difference both are fairly closely coupled, but not like IM Centralia cars with working diaphrams. Chicago & Northwestern cars from the newest run. Same distance visually as other smooth side cars. Burlington Silver Streak train with older tooling Budd cars, more of a gap between cars. Budd cars purchased off a parts special at KATO, coupling distance is closer, like that on smooth sides. A California Zephyr observation car coupled to the parts special cars, very close coupling. I have not had a chance to look at Pooper (Super) Chief cars which are stored away, my Illinois Central set should arrive here this week, then I can tell if these cars couple closer. Nate Goodman (Nato). Salt Lake, Utah.

[PAL_Houston]

I received my Kato IC passenger cars yesterday and was surprised at how much more closely they couple than my last Kato passenger purchase (Super Chief).

Maybe this is old news to many of you and, if so, I apologize

I have attached a link to the thread and photos I posted on Trainboard.


http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?159040-Closer-Coupling-on-Kato-Illinois-Central-Passenger-Cars

Looks like they moved the trucks inboard in the IC models.  Be interested to see a comparison of the undersides of your models....

[CBQ Fan]

You would have to compare it to the original 6 and 4 cars sets to see if there are any modifications. The super chief cars are completely different.

[Nato]

           If they moved the trucks on the IC cars that would be going to a lot of work re tooling the floor/under frame. Yes the truck location on the Super cars is different as it is on the old tooling Budd cars. Nate Goodman (Nato).

[wmcbride]

I did post some underframe comparison photos in the Trainboard thread I linked to in the original post above.

I owned the first Kato 10-car smoothside sets in UP from - when was that? 20 years ago now? I sold them so I cannot compare.

[Nato]

     The truck spacing on KATO mostly Union Pacific and Pullman Smooth Side cars has not changed. In a comparison of the truck spacing on UP car diagrams and some old RMC car plans both new run Chicago & Northwestern for example, and first run cars have spacing that matches the prototype distance. The couplers however, both old bigger flatter ones and the current design smaller ones stick out from the car ends a bit more than prototype couplers do, so even though the cars couple fairly close together there is a small gap that the real cars would not have. Nate Goodman (Nato).

[peteski]

The couplers however, both old bigger flatter ones and the current design smaller ones stick out from the car ends a bit more than prototype couplers do, so even though the cars couple fairly close together there is a small gap that the real cars would not have. Nate Goodman (Nato).

Which is normal for N scale models which traverse very sharp (compared to 1:1) curves and which have either non-functional or very stiff diaphragms.  Many contemporary N scale models of US prototypes couple much closer than models from earlier N scale or even many European models of passenger trains.

[mmagliaro]

I think any commercial 80' passenger car is going to have to make compromises on coupling distance.  I've had 80' cars with installed diaphragms that have been custom modified so they couple up closely, and even on 18" radius curves, they sometimes cause trouble.  Those diaphragms have to slide over each other perfectly every time on curves to
make it work, and they don't always.
Then there's backing up.. ugh.  Once I adjust the cars so there is a little gap, perhaps 1/16" when in reverse and the couplers are totally compressed, I can back a string of passenger cars around the layout.  But not until.

It's just one of those things.  We are running 80' scale passenger cars around curves that are nowhere near prototype radius.  Something has to give.

EDIT:
A 5 degree curve would be an 86" radius curve in N Scale.  Isn't a 5 degree curve still awfully tight for
mainline passenger service in real life?  So that's what we're up against.

[PAL_Houston]

I did post some underframe comparison photos in the Trainboard thread I linked to in the original post above.

I owned the first Kato 10-car smoothside sets in UP from - when was that? 20 years ago now? I sold them so I cannot compare.

Thanks, Bill, for posting that shot.  From the bottom it doesn't look like much of a difference in spacing the king-pin inboard, but the chassis are different.