FIRST LOOK: Sergent Couplers

Those #58s look realllly nice!!

You lost me on the Sargents once you got to CA and the coverplate.  I trust CA like I trust WD-40...

Jeff/Josh-

Excellent article!  I've known all along that they are the most prototypically correct; but you really got my attention when you mentioned how they are available in rotating mount boxes [I have a rotary dumper and a fleet of bethgons], and can couple on curves.  I'd certainly fit all my locos and rolling stock with Sergeants if I didn't have all these other expenses, unfortunately that'll have to wait.  I'm sure they'll replace Kadee as the 'standard' coupler within the next 20 years.

Kadee has the cash to develop new couplers - proven ever since their patent expired.  If Sargents become even near effective, you will see Kadee react - to make a smaller head.

At this point you really can't get better then the price point of a kadee coupler.  They come assembled too.  We'll see if they get any better.

I found myself a little disappointed with the article, no doubt in a large part because I am converting to Sergents, and have had some experience with them. My disappointment wasn't what was in the article, but what wasn't.

I was hoping that there would be some information in it that would be new (to me), a revelation that I may had overlooked. While it's probably a good thing there wasn't, I do think that there are a couple of big considerations that may have been worth including.

1. Layout design.  You do need arm reach access to work with the Sergents, both for coupling and uncoupling. If you have an area on your layout that is set up for remote coupling and uncoupling, such as in a building, or across even a 4x8 foot table, you may find yourself frustrated.  As demonstrated you can delay uncouple while within reach, but aligning the couplers for a reconnect is not a guaranteed thing, and that can be exasperated if it happens in an area where you don't have good arm reach. (in contrast, even with the magnets in place on my test layout, the Kadees didn't uncouple every time either). Depending on your layout, or upcoming layout design this may or may not be a problem, but I feel it's worth noting.

2. Slack. As they are often chosen for their prototypical appearance, proto folks may be disappointed that there is zero slack, even less than in the Kadees. However, you don't get the back and forth car "bounce" that Kadees can produce on the far end of a train, so the trade off has it's benefits.

Other observations that I've had, and posted here and elsewhere. I'll repeat it here only to have the information in one place for folks that may be interested down the road.

When the uncoupling works, it works very well. I find that I am fighting less with the the uncoupling process than I was before. Simply reach in, hold the wand on top of the coupler, and reverse the loco, and viola. And right where I want the car. Smooth uncoupling seems directly related to the assembly process, so a little extra care can really pay off down the road. I now rub the inside of the ball socket with a #2 pencil for lubrication, and lightly file the inside part of the knuckle for smoother operation.

I love how they don't uncouple. Once they are mated, they stay hooked, no accidental disconnects over delayed magnets, etc

I love the way they look. Not only do they look better, but they make trains look better, as the video shows due to a smaller coupler gap, and this is not a problem even over short turnouts and the one piece of 18" radius sectional track on my test layout, on locos like the RS11s and 50" cars.

I like how they install, other than fighting with the spring (but you get better with experience), installation on almost anything is easier than with Kadees, as the height is not as vital.

Working them in is also necessary for good operation, besides the suggested method in the instructions, I connect and disconnect each car time and time again on a straight piece of track until the action works smoothly.The more you use them, they better they connect and disconnect, which reinforces the manufacture's instructions on breaking them in. There can be problems with couplers that are too tight in the coupler box pulling cars off of the track. This may be negated by better track work and properly weighted cars, but be sure that the coupler moves freely within the box.

So thank you for the article, with my few noted slight disappointments in mind, I greatly appreciate the time and effort that went into it.  Like Josh, I'm happy that I have made the switch, and I'd encourage other open minded individuals to take a look at them. Please don't be swayed by a few off the cuff opinion and not fact based comments, just be aware that like any system there are trade offs.

I don't think, however, that they'll be the standard in the hobby down the road. Much as a majority of DC users haven't switched over to DCC, I don't think the majority will take this step either, and that's OK by me, as the hobby is big enough for everyone.

FIRST LOOK is to be a mostly visual introduction to a product's looks and function - and light on advice or critique. This issue's FIRST LOOK is actually more extensive than we want most FIRST LOOK pieces to be. The "average" FIRST LOOK will consist of 1-2 pages of mostly photos, perhaps a 3D click-n-spin or video clip where appropriate. Then some text describing product features in a little detail.

That's it.

With FIRST LOOK, it's hoped the comment thread that goes with the article will form the advice and critique section for the product. Remember, FIRST LOOK will generally be newer products where there's not a lot of in-depth experience yet. We're relying on our readers to add their own experiences. For that, Scarpia, you've helped make sure we're off to a great start!

Remember, this is a FIRST LOOK

Noted!

I noticed in my portion of the article, there's a small inset photo in the EN87 install portion, showing an "EN87" however its actually the EC87 pictured (almost the same photo as the EC87 install portion to the left).

Sergent Couplers have been continuously on display and selling fast from the Proto:87 Stores ( www.proto87.com ) for well over five years now.

And we've had a Bronx Terminal like video of boxcars flying round a 10" radius double oval yard for about the same time. (but ours took two evenings, no  jigs, no expensive tools, no PCB ties, and just $55.00 cash to build, without all the marketing fuss).

http://www.proto87.com/HO_model_railroad_operations.html

Perhaps you guys have been watching the wrong website for the latest news on Advanced Model railroading ;)  This the 21st century now, but we're already working on the 22nd  :)

Gee, I didn't think to go to the Proto87 site because I tend to look at the MRH site in my spare screen time, and didn't see an ad on MRH to remind me.  I've looked at and returned to the websites of virtually all the MRH advertisers, because I'm reminded to by the ads.   And I've made purchases from some.   Such is the nature of marketing fuss!

I think you can tell that I. as a comsumer in this market. am a big supporter of the MRH business model.  Having said that, it's time to check out Proto87.com, again.

Sergent Couplers have been continuously on display and selling fast from the Proto:87 Stores ( www.proto87.com ) for well over five years now.

And we've had a Bronx Terminal like video of boxcars flying round a 10" radius double oval yard for about the same time. (but ours took two evenings, no  jigs, no expensive tools, no PCB ties, and just $55.00 cash to build, without all the marketing fuss).

http://www.proto87.com/HO_model_railroad_operations.html

Perhaps you guys have been watching the wrong website for the latest news on Advanced Model railroading ;)  This the 21st century now, but we're already working on the 22nd  :)

That's kind of funny - in your video link you posted, Andy, they're Kadees. Why not the Sergents? 

For the record, I've been getting my Sergents direct, I like the idea that for a small manufacturer, they get all the funds (I do the same thing with my milk, and buy it direct from the dairy, but maybe I'm just the odd ball).

So am I  (a supporter of Free WEB sites, Free Downloads and low, fair prices), although I tend to feel morally obliged to work on finishing the still missing products in my spare screen time, rather than keep on videoing and/or advertising the ones I already have.  (That can add an awful lot to product prices, if you go overboard) .

On the other hand we just "ran" with Joe's Great Idea about low cost turnouts after the '08 Anaheim convention and figured out how we could possibly sell the COMPLETE kits of parts for detailed HO turnouts for under Ten Bucks (and with a few improvements - like being 88-safe) !!! And  No Jigs, - And No tools  - to make that low pricing. But they would never be that inexpensive if we advertised all the time.  (see Joe's comment on the Proto:87 Stores Video from Anaheim 08)

We're like a "Start-up" that has never stopped being in "New Development" mode. So quite the opposite of a static one or two main products outfit. I'm just passionate about finishing a whole lot more product ranges, before I switch over to sitting back and resting on my laurels and just telling people what we did last year and the year before that. Our existing visitors and customers seem to be spreading the word pretty far and fast as it is, without my prompting them. As with the Sergents.

So Yup! Definitely no charge to visit the "Stores" web site, or download our turnout diagrams or "helpful stuff". But it won't the same every month.

Andy

It's so long ago that I built that test track and shot the "video", that I don't remember if it actually pre-dates the Sergents, but I think it did.  But even now, I don't think they have the swing to handle 8" radius. Nor did/do I want to in any way suggest the cars shown were in any way specially outfitted to help them stay on the track. The Kadee's barely made the curvature only because the box cars were shorty's. Of course, trolleys have special wide swing coupler mounts to handle those curves in normal practice,

I agree about buying direct from small guys :)  You should ask Frank Sergent directly if he want's to discuss whether he was happy with the way the couplers were offered by the Stores. But I will say it pretty much followed the MRH model ;)

Andy

Keeping on topic, thanks for your reply - I haven't seen a difference in swing between the Sergents and the Kadees in the same pocket, but than again I'm not ready to run on an 8" radius. I can see how the slightly longer shank might be an advantage, although I know Tim Warris was able to run Sergents successfully on his 10" radius Bronx Terminal.

I can imagine the response Mr. Sergent may have gotten. I may indeed ask him about that, currently I have an inquiry outstanding with him on the actual draw bar strength of the couplers (I was asked by a you-tube viewer, and didn't have the answer).

I will say he has been fantastic though to deal with; he has even sent me a few extra knuckles to replace the ones I lost through faulty assembly (my own fault, mind you).

While FIRST LOOK is primarily intended for new products, I also see it being useful for less-than-brand-new products that we believe need more exposure because of their value to the hobby.

Such was the Sergents piece. I've personally known about Sergent couplers for at least 4 years. But I kept running into modelers who had never heard of them, so I felt is was time we fix that. We can get the word out to tens of thousands of model railroaders who may not have been aware of this product before.

This FIRST LOOK was more extensive than most FIRST LOOK's will be. FIRST LOOK is intended to mainly be a one-page visual introduction to a product, with multi-media clips to help illustrate what the product is/does if appropriate.

For example, I'm expecting the October issue will have a number of FIRST LOOK pages of products from the National Train Show.

I had an inquiry from a You Tube user about the strength of the Sergent Couplers. Specifically, he was inquiring as to whether 50 cars, or a 70 car coal drag would break them. I didn't know the answer, as I've only run 22 cars (what I have room for and converted), so I asked Frank Sergent.

I thought folks might be interested in his reply (posted here with his permission).

Hi Thomas,

Seventy cars that weigh 3 oz would need about [70 cars X 3 oz/car X 0.01) =
] 2.1 oz of pull on straight and level track. That will require one average
HO diesel to pull it. This isn't even starting to stress the couplers. No
problem.

Seventy cars that weight 3 oz going around a reasonable curve, and up a 3%
grade will need about [70 cars X 3 oz/car X (0.01 + 0.02 + 0.03) = ] 8.4 oz
of pull. That's about 3 decent engines to pull it. Again, we aren't
stressing the couplers at all.

Ten average diesels all pulling together will against a nail driven in the
middle of the track will start spinning their wheels at about [(10 X 3.5 oz)
= ] 35 oz of pull. The couplers will feel that for sure, but this is still
no problem.

Twenty really good diesels all pulling against the nail can generate [(20 X
4.5 oz) = ] 90 oz of pull before the wheels start spinning. That's enough to
make me nervous, but still below any sort of failure point as long as the
couplers are assembled correctly.

Forty really good diesels all pulling against the nail will generate 180 oz
of drawbar pull. That's just silly.

I don't think 70 cars would be a problem at all.

Back when Railmodel Journal was still alive, they printed a Performance
Summary of locomotives in what seemed like every issue that was pretty
useful. It gave tractive force measurements for all sorts of locomotives.

Thanks,
Frank

Haven't seen or noticed Narrow Gauge versions. Had they come out where I had noticed them 3 years ago I would have used the Sergent couplers. Now I would need about 400 of these just to start my change over in Narrow Gauge and alot more in HO so as I really like the Sergent Couplers I'll stick with Kadee for now. give me a few years and I may start the change over.

For anyone just starting in HO or have less than fifty cars and Engines I would say go with Sergent they look alot more like the real thing and seem to act more like them.

Dan

HOn3

http://www.sergentengineering.com/

Marc Fournier, Quebec

I have been debating between the kadees and the sergents for sometime now. I was hoping that this article might help me swing one way or the other. The information was top notch but I was hoping for a more direct comparison between the two types. There was definitely information that has me leaning towards the sergents, specifically, their ability to couple and stay that way and the relative ease of uncoupling using the tool. My freight car fleet isn't that huge so price isn't really a factor for me, ease of assembly and installation are still factors to consider. Thanks for the excellent write up, looks like I'm still on the fence.

Like most things in life, assembly and installation gets easier every time.

Since we intend First Look to be more of a deluxe product announcement rather than an in-depth review, you won't get the definitive answer of pros and cons from a First Look.

We expect the comment thread (like this thread) that goes with a First Look to be more where you will get the pros and cons discussion.

Unfortunately, Sergents are just new enough that they don't yet have a broad base of installations and experience as compared to Kadees. So what you're looking for doesn't really yet exist: someone who has years of experience with Sergents and can give you the definitive list of pros and cons describing how they stack up against Kadees.

First Look is also primarily just that - a LOOK. In other words, most of the content will be around visual presentation and comparison. We'll throw in some animations and/or video clips as appropriate - but again, we're talking visual content not critique.

FYI

I just installed Sergents on a new True Line Caboose

and I ran into a problem with the Sergents. Specifically with the friction spring.

I lost about 4 springs trying to get it in, normally I have it down where it goes in the first or second try. When I took a closer look at the coupler pocket, I noticed that it's not flat - instead the Trueline coupler pocket, at least on this model, is more of a grid with deeper holes. The spring wouldn't lie flat, and instead kept slipping down into the hole.

I considered some fixes, but finally decided that as this is nothing more than a friction spring, a small piece of masking tape applied in the bottom of the coupler pocket appears to provide similar resistance as the spring. I suspect that the tape will wear out over time, after which a complete pocket replacement may be in order. So far it's working, and working well. It sure is a good looking model too!

EDIT: I've come up with a new method that works very well.

[...]I lost about 4 springs trying to get it in, normally I have it down where it goes in the first or second try. When I took a closer look at the coupler pocket, I noticed that it's not flat - instead the Trueline coupler pocket, at least on this model, is more of a grid with deeper holes. The spring wouldn't lie flat, and instead kept slipping down into the hole.

I considered some fixes, but finally decided that as this is nothing more than a friction spring, a small piece of masking tape applied in the bottom of the coupler pocket appears to provide similar resistance as the spring. I suspect that the tape will wear out over time, after which a complete pocket replacement may be in order. So far it's working, and working well.[...]

I've had this issue on Walthers well cars.  Here's a few other ideas:

- Leave off the spring completely, and tighten the box cover a tad more...

- Replace the cast on box with the EN87 installed in the Accumate P:87 box.

- Spend sime time with a file and blade, shaving out the ridges...

- Fill in the openings with styrene.

Could you use gap filling ca to fill in the box?

Chris

That was my first thought Chris, but I couldn't do it with a brand new Trueline caboose. I paid a lot less on eBay than the retail (about half), but for some reason I didn't want to muck it up.

Josh, I'm not a fan of overtightening, as it restricts coupler movement a lot more than the spring - or maybe I'm just not exact enough with my tightening?

I need to order some of the Sergent Boxes as Josh suggested. Having a couple around is probably a good idea.

True, over tightening can be a folly as its not very exact...

I had another thought driving home tonight - probably like you, Josh, I'm acquiring a lot of kadees - including the bronze centering springs. I could just cut the sides off of one, and put the Sergent, with friction spring, on top! Doh!

Ahhh, good thought!

I am new to this magazine, and tonight was my first read as i googled tips on sergent couplers.  I recieved mine today but installing the friction spring i find difficult.  I already lost a few lol.  does anyone have a video on how you do that or pics? 

Unfortunately, flying springs are too small and fast to be seen on video.  How about a view of a frustrated modeler jumping up and down without the audio portion?

The springs are a pain, no doubt about it.  I get mine in by doing the following.

1. set one end of the spring in the hole against the shaft or pin of the coupler box.

2. hold in place with my finger

3. Take a thin flat bladed tool, and slide it inbetween finger and spring. Push the spring down and back, and than roll the tool forward.

4. I leave my finger on the whole time, and only slowly remove it in case the spring didnt' set.

Using this method I've been able to get them in about 60% of the time, first time. It does depend on the coupler box, if the bottom isn't flat you will have real problems getting it in place (such as on the Trueline Cabooses)

i also loose springs constantly. I always buy an extra pack, and if you ask on your next order, they will send you free replacements for things you've lost.

hope this helps.