trip pins = evil

You have discovered the Achilles Heel of Kadee couplers.  The trip pin is the thing that makes them hands-free when you use magnetic uncouplers, but it's also the thing that most makes them unrealistic.  The trip pins may on casual glance look like glad hands hanging between the cars, but they are grossly oversized for that; the real hoses are a lot shorter and hang higher, and much smaller diameter.  

The trip pins also cause all sorts of problems when mounting couplers, because of exactly the thing you found, the trip pin on the coupled car hits the pilot or plow, making it either impossible to couple, or causing accidental uncouplings as the pin deflects to the side when the coupler slack runs in, making the knuckle open.  On an F-unit like you have, the coupler should only protrude about half way out of the pilot slot, with the knuckle only slightly farther out than the buffer in front of the anticlimber.  The trip pin won't even allow you to mount it there; the coupler needs to protrude about 3 feet farther out than it should be just for the trip pin to clear the pilot opening.

If you have no need for magnetic uncoupling, I would recommend cutting them off everything.  Then you can use the semi-scale 58's and friends and put the couplers where they belong.  People will tell you that that will hurt the resale value, but I say that if you sell your stuff, you can let the guys that buy it put their own couplers on them, if they insist on using trip pins.  

I used to cut off the trip

I used to cut off the trip pins in the past, but I did miss the simulated look of the hose. I also had the issue of some locos not being able to couple even though I do not use F units, or getting caught in tighter radius curves, so I compromised. I now trim the pins at the bottom to be flush with the end of the coupler, so it looks like an incomplete "J", sort of. Typically the pins extend further horizontally after they reach their bottom point. When the cars are coupled, it looks like the hose is connected and it does not interfere with locomotive coupling. 

Steve

At least cut the pins of all couplers on the locomotive.

You can leave the pins alone on your cars in case you ever want to uncouple magnetically, but your only choices on an F unit is to cut the pilot, use a long shank coupler, or cut the pin off.

What about Sergents?

Since Sergents look so much more to scale than Kadee's anyway maybe they would be an improvement overall?

With the bulk pricing recently introduced converting a fleet is not out of the question, IMO.

A useful purpose

For my purposes, the only useful function of the pins is to be able to uncouple cars from the side using a skewer-like tool and pulling the pin sideways.  This is particularly important on passenger cars with diaphrams where there is no access from above.

For passenger trains, think of Sergents.

The problem with Sergent's for passenger trains is that the uncoupling tool from Sergents is designed to work vertically and the diaphragms interfere with it.  I think a fellow modular club member came up with a solution to the problem.  He took a hacksaw blade and ground one end down to about 1/4 inch thick.  He then glued a small rare earth magnet to the ground end, and made a handle out of half round wood molding for the other end.  The tool fits in from the side below the diaphragm and above the coupler to uncouple.   Sergents would definitely solve the pilot problem.

Uncoupling wands are coming!

Take a closer look at the Sergents home page:

I am very tempted to make the switch to Sergents, but that would make an other checkbox on my to do list which is to long anyway.

Hmmm...

But how well do those uncoupling wands work when the cars are fractions of an inch from the car next to it?  It seems like you would need to pull the consist out of the yard a bit in order to deactivate the coupler and then you would have to figure out what to do next.

Right?

Josh

Don't look back...

Snip the pins. I used magnetic uncoupling once, 30 years ago on my first layout. All layouts I've worked on the last 25 years have had no magnets in use. Skewer uncoupling has been the standard. This action encompasses the duties of a prototype switchman or brakeman on a train; the manual release of a coupler to spot a car.

I also add cut lever and air hose/angle cock detail to models. If you have a fleet of 300 cars this is a chore, but if you are focused on certain cars and building for the long term it becomes routine.

And I really like how the finished product looks when it rolls out of the car shops.

Eric

I still don't see anything

I still don't see anything about narrow gauge at sargents and their couplers are just too big for HOn3. even Kadee are almost to large or the box portion is and the monster sergents has com up with is way too fat and the knuckle is way too thick Il stick with Kadee and the Micro trains couplers considering the style of coupler sargents makes wasn't used by most narrow gauge lines in anerica at least not on the colorado lines because they all had chain actuators and release arms the the kadees look closer to.

For those of you that don't understand what Ive written !!

Yes I saw their HOn3 couplers -- elephants still too large they just are the wrong era for pre 1940 narrow gauge. couplers are way too fat in scale they are 9" thick and I don't like them.

Dan

Have you coidered N-Scale couplers?

I have heard that many are unsatisfied with Kadees because they are too large to look good with HO scale equipment. I wouldn't know since I am in N-Scale. I do know that soem HO-Scale modelers are using MIcroscale N-Scale couplers and that they are very happy with them. It may be worth a look.

Irv

Follow Eric's counsel

It is true what Eric's wrote.

"Snip the pins. I used magnetic uncoupling once, 30 years ago on my first layout. All layouts I've worked on the last 25 years have had no magnets in use. Skewer uncoupling has been the standard. This action encompasses the duties of a prototype switchman or brakeman on a train; the manual release of a coupler to spot a car."

This is simple and it works. I would take his advice, my experience is the same. I had magnets in one of my layouts and never had it again. BTW passenger cars rarely gets uncouple any way.

It seems to me...

I'm a rank amateur when compared to most of the folks on this forum but it seems to me that situating uncoupling magnets in places on the layout is about as unrealistic as it gets.  Just my greenhorn opinion of course. [grin]

...rather salty

Kevin, your opinion ismore like "old salt" than "greenhorn. You are right !!! 

Passenger switching operations ignored

Unfortunately for many modelers, they don't make use of the possibilities.  Is it so hard to plan for mail, express, dining car drop-offs and pick-ups, etc.?

Passenger car operation

I've thought of devoting a chunk of my layout just to passenger car operations.  After reading Andy Sperandeo's book about it and my own interest in passenger trains, I think you could have a tonne of fun doing that. 

Flat edge cutters needed

I snip the Kadee trip pins with a set of flat edge cutters. Xuron makes several and I've bought some through Micro-Mark.

http://www.xuron.com/industrial/shears.htm

Here's the Xuron micro shear on the Micro-Mark site:

http://www.micromark.com/XURON-MICRO-SHEAR,7463.html

These are also great for cutting plastic parts from sprues, cutting smaller code rail, cutting brass etched parts, and more. Wish I had the patent, but I don't.

Eric

different types

Make sure you use the proper tool for the job. There are a few different types of these cutters. I like the smaller blade version for cutting Kadee trip pins and cutting parts from a sprue. Using these to cut code 83 and code 100 rail may damage the cutting face. Use the ones marketed as rail nippers for trimming rail. And by all means, after trimming rail take the time to clean up the rail with a file. Square it off properly and make sure there isn't a bump on the top or bottom. By taking and extra step here you will get much smoother track. I am shocked at how many layouts feature shoddy rail joint work. Most of the time I can tell someone used rail nippers to cut the rail then did not bother to dress the rail ends with a file. This is a pet peeve of mine.

Eric

Different types

Yes.  I bought the Xuron track cutting pliers and the instructions clearly state that you should not use them to cut hard wire etc. or you will damage the blades.  I would be hesitant to use the track cutters for anything but track myself.

Just my 0 cents though...

I cut off my trip pins with a standard set of "dikes."

Diagonal cutters out of my garage worked great for cutting the trip pins off of the Kaddees on my F-units.  After cutting off the pins, I smoothed the edges out with a file just to get rid of any sharp edges.

I'm late to this discussion.

I'm late to this discussion.  I have both Genesis F units and Stewarts.  I haven't replaced my Genesis couplers as of yet, and they do come with KD compatible couplers.  I have converted my Stewarts using the KD#450 couples which have boxes that allow you to install close couplers between the units.  What I did was use the KD#450 close coupler on the back end and the B units, and used the KD#5 coupler on the front of the A's.  The normal KD#5 with the ears cut off of the draft gear box will fit just fine.  It won't be "close coupled" on the front, but the trip pin will clear the pilot.

I recently changed front

I recently changed front couplers on the Genesis F3 and F7 units. I used Kadee #36, as recomended on the http://www.kadee.com/conv/holist.pdf 

#36 are a little longer than normal #5 or #148, so the pin does not trip on the pilot.

I also changed front couplers on the two E-R (Roco) Baldwin Sharks, using Kadee #34 underset shank. It is a little more work than the Genesis engines, but it works and looks good.

Clarification

After reviewing the last two posts, let's clarify the situation here. As I understand the problem lies in coupling the nose of Proto, Stewart, or Genesis-series Athearn F-units to rolling stock. When attempting this action, the trip pin of the rolling stock is deflected by part of the loco pilot below the coupler. I have found similar problems when coupling with some steam loco pilots.

An easy fix is to hack off part of the pilot that interferes with the coupling, but that action brings the loco model down a notch. The other option is to snip the trip pins off of the rolling stock. If magnets are not used to uncouple, this is a possibility. Many people now use bamboo skewers to uncouple rolling stock when spotted at an industry or in a yard. With no magnets in use, the trip pins are a redundant feature. Snipping the trip pins off of locos and rolling stock creates an open look between cars. Many feel the trip pin represents the air hoses between cars, but checking prototype images will reveal the trip pins are not in a proper location, too long, too curved, and too hefty to properly represent an air hose. As another comparision, check the air hose on the RTR models offered by Kadee or Intermountain. Not the differences beteen the air hose and the trip pin on the coupler. A simple snip of the trip pin makes these models look much better. Be careful when you snip as it is easy to hit part of the air hose, too.

So snipping the trip pins will offer better coupling in some situations. Coupler height is still an important factor for reliable operation, but without trip pins you don't need to adjust the pin height anymore. That is also a big bonus in my modeling book.

If you are not sure, then snip the pins on a small portion of your freight car fleet and a few locos. Try it out for a while and see what you experience. If you the look and operation without the trip pins, then snip the remaining. If you miss the trip pins, then replace those couplers on the pin-less experimental set of rolling stock and locos. Don't throw those trip pin-less couplers away. Ask around with local modelers to see who could use them and trade for couplers with pins attached. I must say though, if you try it you may just like it.

Eric