Re: Kadee minimum body box widths


bnsd45
 

Guys, at risk of annoying the group, I want to reask the question
since the thread veered off topic. I will reword it to make the
intent more clear.

Has anyone on list ever done math to determine the minimum Kadee
coupler box width needed to adhere to 18 - 20 - AND 24" radius curves
yet allow use of Kadee couplers? If our goal is more realism with
our cars, we naturally should want to narrow the coupler boxes on
them which are far too wide (like almost twice as wide as the
prototype). Thanks to the new Kadee #158 "whisker" couplers, coupler
boxes on our models can be more narrow because the centering spring
is no longer necessary for centering operation (let's leave out the
fact that real couplers do not center on their own).

I know there are a series of variables, but an enterprising engineer
could determine, given this series of variables, what an "alternate
standard" box width could be. With Mr Storzek's Accumate research, I
figured he might have done this already?

Variables I can think of:
- what car is coupled to (ie length, distance from coupler face to
truck center, and its associated overhang)
- distance from coupler face to truck center of subject car
- length of Kadee shank (ie they offer multiple length shanks).

Of course, because the coupler pivot point is so far back (ie with a
standard shank), it is impossible to make the boxes as narrow as the
Accurail design. With the shorter shank Kadee offering, the pivot
point could move toward the car ends.

I started thinking about this when I noted Jon Cagle's Southern Car &
Foundry Standard tank cars have narrow boxes and use Kadee whiskers.
They probably can be coupled car to car on an 18" radius curve
because the distance from pivot to truck center is relatively short
to - say - a 40' AAR boxcar.

Any mathmeticians out there? I am wondering what an "alternate
standard" could be.

David Lehlbach

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.