Sergents

Here's TwinStar's latest reply from the thread above for some context:

I very much appreciate your kind words about my modeling, and also the additional information you provided.  I love the looks of the Sergents and the idea of uncoupling a car without making physical contact with it.  However, my main concerns come down to the following:

1. Low speed coupling.  I've heard consistently that Sergents can be finicky when coupling, sometimes requiring the operator to try several times, and at unrealistic speeds, in order to get the ball bearing to drop.  That's a deal-killer for me.  Kadee semi-scale couplers work consistently well, even at a crawl.  Yes, the prototype sometimes has to make multiple attempts to get a good joint also, but coupling at 10-15 mph isn't an option there, and that seems to be the common "fix" for Sergents when those problems arise.
2. Operational reliability.  The numbers you mentioned would mean dozens of additional failures that I'm not experiencing today with Kadees.  From day 1 on my layout, I've tried to make operations as reliable, consistent, and low-maintenance as possible by standardizing on high-reliability items like Intermountain wheelsets, solderless switch point attachments, and Kadee semi-scale couplers.  Sergents would be a move in the opposite direction for me, and I just don't see enough of a difference in appearance to merit the pain.
3. Alignment.  I actually like having to occasionally align couplers.  Completely prototypical.  However, my combination of layout height and the depth of some scenes makes it impossible for operators to look down on joints made closer to the backdrop, and with the more limited gathering area of the Sergents, that becomes problematic.

Some other thoughts:

1. I agree on stretching a train.  Good idea regardless of coupler.
2. I keep seeing "meat skewer" references, but Micro Mark uncoupling tools are actually smaller than the Sergent wand.
3. You may stand by your Tyco comment, but that doesn't mean it's productive for these types of discussions.  I think it's clear that you mean it as an insult to those of us who prefer Kadees, and I've personally found it to be difficult to win anyone to my point of view while insulting their current position.  Realism can mean different things at different levels.  Sergents win in that department if you're simply looking at the coupler itself.  Perfect for contest models.  However, the primary "model" I'm building is the layout as a whole, including prototypical operation, and if some part of that impedes operational accuracy, then it's not a good fit for me.

I'll be the first to admit I've never tried Sergents personally.  However, I've also never tried smoking.  At some point, when you hear enough negatives about something, you can form a reasonable opinion without having to actually experience it firsthand.   The typical response I see regarding Sergent reliability issues is that the assembler/installer wasn't careful enough.  However, if your product has developed this consistent reputation for that level of precision being necessary in order for it to function properly, it seems you would eventually have to question if the fault lies with the product design rather than the user.

I have no doubt that Sergents are the perfect coupler for you and your priorities.  However, as you've illustrated by your preference for RailPro over DCC, what's perfect for one person may be a step backward for another...and that's okay!  Personally, I'd never for one moment want to give up my Loksound decoders and DCC for RailPro, but if you're happy with your choice, then it's a great fit for you.

Finally, I think it's unfair to position Kadee users as being "resistant to change" simply because we haven't jumped at Sergents.  "Newer" does not make a product or technology superior in its ability to meet the needs of each individual.  When I see a technology that IS an improvement for my needs, I'm not a bit afraid of jumping in with both feet, as evidenced by my wholesale conversion from Tsunamis to Loksounds a year or so ago.  I believe a Kadee-to-Sergent conversion would be easier, and I'd do it in a heartbeat if the benefit was there.

Also, off-topic, but to avoid confusion for anyone else who might happen to check out my blog, my turnouts were all hand-laid the old-fashioned way, pre-FastTracks.  Too many short, stubby walls in our old basement to hope to use any stock turnout sizes, but I was determined to match my prototype's schematic exactly (with the exception of having one too few yard and RIP tracks in my primary yard), so all were custom-built in place to fit the situation.

Wow, Joe. Very well stated. I

Wow, Joe. Very well stated. I completely agree with your position as it is my position too on this subject. The primary driving force for me using Kadee #153 semi-scale couplers as my freight car standard is both availability and reliability. These are two factors that I cannot give up. I buy my Kadee couplers for less than half what a Sergent coupler would cost me. That is another factor.

All of you points are well stated. Thank you for explaining it all to us.

Not Interested Either

Jim

Thanks very much Jim.  I appreciate your encouragement.

I was planning on switching

I was planning on switching to Sergents but now I'm on the fence. I have a small bag of them I had bought to test them out and they are somewhat ideal for me because I run coal cars with loose coal loads in them and the cars empty at a facility on the layout. With Kadees if a coal car derails it sometimes falls completely over spilling the coal all over the layout. However with sergents it seems that for a car to tip all the way over, it would have to flip the entire train over. Which doesn't seem likely that it could. I want to go to Sergents for if something does go wrong I don't have catastrophic derailments, but coupling them in the first place is difficult.

The look of the Sergent couplers is great, but it's the solid coupling I like. This is a tricky topic and I'm looking forward to hearing everyones experiences. I would love for users on both sides to post more pros and cons rather than bicker what looks better.

Also..

I also stand with the Kadees..Joe and Jim, you have hit the reasons I also use. If I were to build a contest quality shelf model.. I prob would use the Sergents.. But I am more interested in the trains operating than shelf sitting..so there it is.. (And yes, I have tried the Sergents). Bottom line on detail..we do what makes us happy.. If it is Tyco or what have you ..so be it.. nothing wrong with it if it provides that happy we look for in a hobby  

Lastly.. maybe a little grin while we count those rivets..(Photo ..Compliments of my friend Randall)

Remember John Allen?

Switching

I have been experimenting with S scale Sargent’s for my On30 equipment. The hard coupling seems to be less of a problem in this size/scale with adequate weight in the car - sometimes called over weighting. Besides the better coupling I like the mass of pulling out the slack, less slinky motions, and more stable rolling without wobbles.

There are a lot of spots that I cannot reach well on my layout so centering the coupler can be a bit of a challenge but see that now someone has created a Shapeways printed coupler box that will allow a centering spring to be added. Maybe not quite as prototypical but would be a nice compromise for me to get the appearance and performance as well. 

Couplers

Dead on, Joe A. and Joe F.!

Joe A., I think you've covered just about every possible aspect of the pluses/minuses, and differences as there are to cover. In which direction could one go and not find a niche (or two) to comfortably rest in and catch one's breath to use in agreeing or disagreeing with some or all of the various views therein? Although I also am among those who have not yet tried the Sergents, I am able to discern some of the pros & cons which seem to loom over the choice between the two brands.

When I first began to modify my rolling stock by tossing the horn-hooks and installing Kadees (so many years ago, DCC was still a bit in the future!), I just loved the idea that the couplers looked like, well, couplers -and they worked remotely, too! Of course, they worked remotely when they shouldn't once in a while, too, but that's another story... The point I'm making is - we seem to be at the same discussion point we modelers always seem to arrive at - which (read "any model railroad product invented since the pull-toy on the floor") is better??  And THAT, I think, is what generates the spark which has ignited the truly inventive thinking that has produced everything that has, for the most part, promoted this hobby forward over time into an age where such discussions are possible about so many wonderful (and yes, maybe not-so-wonderful sometimes!) things, that no one really need worry too much about the merits of these products; there are new thoughts and views about them every day! And you can bet that someone will put them forth.

Joe F., I do indeed remember (also many years ago!) reading about John Allen and his famous "G&D" . In a particularly interesting article I recall one phrase that stuck  with me - "uses Baker couplers, is happy with them"-. Not even knowing at that time what a Baker coupler even looked like, I figured if John liked them, for whatever reason, they must be OK. I was surprised later when I actually saw them, but not that he used them; after all, look what else he was doing at the time.

So, thanks for your input, Joe A. and Joe F. - I'm really happy with my Kadees, and hope everyone who is using Sergents or anything else, for that matter, is happy with their choice too.

And I think we all CAN get along...

                                                      Fred B.

From my experience...

At one point, I had Sergent couplers on about 80% of my equipment. I loved how they looked and they functioned prototypically. I assembled over 300 by hand, had a total of 12 failures (too much glue, too little glue).

A friend of mine also uses Sergents exclusively, but his layout is designed to "run" and involves very little switching. My layout is opposite, there is a decent length of run, but a lot of switching, which I enjoy. Sergents weren't the best choice for me. Sometimes they wouldn't couple or uncouple (but the knuckle would open and close by hand), and making a coupling at 20 scale mph so the doggone ball will drop was a kill joy.

I am reasonably confident that I assembled all of mine correctly and even reamed out the holes the ball rests in to help performance (which worked). But I cannot get the performance out of them that I need. Not a criticism of Sergent Engineering, I think it is a wonderful product, but not for a switching layout.

Honey I shrunk the coupler

I tell my staff all the time "Perfection is the enemy of good".  Each of us has our own viewpoint on good vs perfection; and the fact that a lot of us use Kadee #5 for our own good reasons is a proof point of "..to each his own".

Suggestion:  carefully painting the #5 with a mixture of rail brown/grimy black shrinks the perceived size of the coupler.  I also trim back the trip pin about 3 mm, paint it flat black and a dab of gray on the very tip to represent the gladhand.   From 3 feet it does not look as prominent and "eye catching".

"I am reasonably confident

   I wouldn't expect to get prototype performance from Sergents.Folks forget that the physics of mass/weight/gravity don't scale down the same rate as the size does. The knuckle design coupler that works well on a prototype shouldn't be expected to work well when scaled down to one eightyseventh of it's size. Kadee knew this when they designed their couplers so they optimized their design for model characteristics not prototype characteristics. Kadees perform better than Sergents because they were designed to perform, not to look like a scaled down prototype coupler. That's why we also have DCC and electric motors in our models instead of little robots pushing and pulling tiny levers controlling tiny diesel prime movers. A model is not a prototype object, a model is designed for a different job, and a different purpose, something that some hobbyists tend to forget. My experiments with Sergents confirmed that they can be made to work but not without significant  sacrifice in installation cost and ease, ,maintenance effort, and operational reliability. Where one draws the line between practicality and perception of prototype fidelity  makes a big difference in their opinion of both brands of couplers. Sergents have been around for a decade or more with little progress winning over the great mass of model railroaders which tells a lot on it's own.......DaveB

@bobmorning

That's a great improvement Bob!  With the trip pin cut in that way, it really does a nice job of suggesting an air hose on the other side.

@Skeleton

Personally, I think it'd be far cheaper and easier to address the source of your derailments rather than convert your entire roster to Sergents just to minimize the mess caused by those derailments.  And you'll enjoy the layout a lot more in the end.

It's in the puddin'

Great topic Joe! Firstly I'd like to say I like the looks of the Sergent coupler, this came about when I joined the Rustbucket forum @ TWS/TRB. Looking at photos posted by Gary Christiansen(and others) they were always full of realism, one of the things that helped were the Sergent scale couplers. I adopted the practice of using them myself, they are certainly great looking in photographs. Rather than change the couplers back to KD, I figured I would just use them on the layout as they were. As it has already been said they were not problematic in a long train on a continuous loop, however switching was a different story. Without the uncoupling tool you have to hand uncouple by lifting the car clear of the opposing coupler, thankfully I purchased the tool. Having the tool in didn't always guarantee that the knuckle would open, that in it's self became irritating. Then there was the mating of rolling stock, this too became a real pain. There were times when I would slam 2 cars together by hand and they still wouldn't couple, I pull the car off the layout and work the coupler with my finger nail and it would operate flawlessly. I have hand built 50 sets using Sergents coupler jig, boy does that make it a lot easier to assemble the buggers. I did have a number of failures that were assembly error, too much ca the ball bearing gets stuck, too little they fall apart and the most irritating of all is when the knuckle pulls out. That one may not have been my fault. 

So short story long, I switched back to KD's..... loosing a spring isn't a pain?  Will we ever be satisfied? I say run what is appropriate for what you are asking your SCALE coupler to do or look like. I still like the Sergent scale coupler In my photos but as soon as it has done the job KD's go in the box! 'Nuff said...

Switching back

As stated on the other thread. I have used Sergents for years and decided to switch back to Kadees. Price had nothing to do with it. For me it was all about the operational functionality. I want to enjoy my modeling without having to make 5 or 6 attempts at making a tie. I am going to stick with Joe on this one. 

I use Sergents and am happy

But I don't think that was the point of this post. There are lots of posts about Sergents. But what we had here was condescension and arrogance in the original post. Why do some modelers feel the need to deride other people's methods of enjoying the hobby? I have nothing against Kadee users, I don't feel you are beneath me. In fact not too long ago I ran a string of Sergent cars on the end of a train with Kadee scale couplers. A fun time was had by all. As a Sergent user I'll offer to tell you about my experience, I'll provide insight and advice if asked. But nothing more. 

P.S. From the tone I think I know who wrote the original piece attacking IAISfan and if it's who I think, we've exchanged words before. 

I tried Sargents and

found them to look extremely realistic.  That's the main reason anyone would ever consider switching over.  They are very time consuming to assemble compared to KDs and are pretty frustrating until you design a jig to hold them and figure out a technique that works for you.  I have a shelf switching layout with some high end rolling stock which number around ten, so for me the change to Sargent's seemed doable.  If you have a hundred cars and use them in ops sessions, I would advise against it.  The assembly time and overall frustration factor is way too high.

My suggestion to you would be, buy the starter pack as mentioned above, and just do one coupler on each of two cars.  This way you can play with them and make your own decision.  One thing I will strongly suggest is to inspect each piece of the coupler before starting the assembly.  Look for casting flaws and parting marks.  I was extremely impressed as to the quality of these little castings.  Clean up any surface that moves against another with some 600 grit paper.  Look down into that little hole that contains the BB.  There's most always some roughness in there that will hang up the BB's operation.  Find a drill bit THE SIZE OF THE HOLE and turn it with your FINGERS to clean it up.  DO NOT enlarge it even a little or it will become junk.  Take the point of a pencil and stick it down there and rotate it so as to deposit some graphite on the sides of the hole. When it comes to gluing the lid on this thing. I placed the lid on and got it into position.  Then I applied ACC to the edges where they met.  This way the glue does not run down inside necessitating the disassembly and starting all over.  I hope these tips help you.

In the end, I chose not to use Sargent Couplers and went back to the new KD scale size ones.  They sure look better than their old #5 version and I love the self centering whiskers.  Give Sargent's a try.  If you don't like 'em, you're only out a few bucks.  How many times have we all done this with other products ?

Clueless

I have to admit I was clueless about Sergent Couplers until the post. My curiosity was piqued and so I decided to do a bit of research and reading. They do look nice and much more prototypical than the Kadee's, that is a given. I was all set to order the trial 6-pack until I then ventured up on YouTube to check for reviews and  information. I found a nice video that explained the couplers, how to construct them, and then to crash them together to get them to couple. The reviewers first couple attempt was a failure so he literally had to crash them together. I am all for looking good. However having to use the force shown in the video to couple cars absolutely turned me off. I have no need to add any more frustration to my train hobby and the springs on the Kadee couplers isn't all that bad looking compared to broken or dislodged couplers from a mounting box as I would strongly suspect might happen using the Sergents couplers. I am not going to throw rocks at any users of these couplers..be blessed and happy in whatever you use...but I just cannot see me converting any stock to using them.

The video shows the coupling at around the 5 minute mark.

Slamming Cars

I watched that video at the mark you posted and cringed. I've never had to do that. I have a few that stuck on me until I FOLLOWED DIRECTIONS. All Sergent couplers I've used since I assembled them by FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS have worked fine. Absolutely no need to ram the cars together. They couple so well that I have a bigger issue failing to have the coupler centered and when I go to couple cars the knuckle(s) close on one or both cars. User error, not defective product. 

You don't need anyone to give you reasons for or against. If they hold enough appeal that you were considering it; then try a small batch. If you don't like using them; place them on display models, use on the layout as detail parts, dismantle one and put the knuckle into a holder on the front of a diesel... That way it's not loss. But above all. Have fun. 

Shapeways?? and plans

Neil;  Who at shapeways has "S" boxes.  I didnt know about that project.  I am aware of John D's design being produced by Jim King.  However that is not Shapeways.  Jim King is also doing H0 ones since the narrow Accurail boxes are hard to find for some.  No connection, just a satisfied customer.
http://www.smokymountainmodelworks.com/S_draft_gear+cplrs.html
/> http://www.smokymountainmodelworks.com/HO_draft_gear+cplrs.html

I plan to use the "S" Sergents on my standard gauge.  I will only have about 20 cars max.  And the track is right out front.  For the 42" stuff, that is the majority of the layout, I will use the almost scale H0 to represent S scale 3/4 size couplers.  The British investors in the 2' tram have imported choppers and spoked wheels.  But that track is unidirectional anyway.  Kinda like L&B.  

I chose to do this cause the KDs are just easier for me to use from a wheelchair.  Rather than reaching that far with my eyeballs or also filing that many knuckles to get type D couplers.  The chopper couplers and spoked wheels are just to be onry  Gona have odd ball locos too)

TCC:}

Tried them, using Kadee

I really like the look of Sergent's couplers when I switched to HO a few years ago.  I bought quite a few and tried some of them out, along with the Magnetic air hoses.  The combination looks pretty good in a photo, but when it came to operation, they were frustrating at times and I don't want to be frustrated while I'm switching cars.  Kadees may not look as good, but they can look fine as someone posted earlier by painting them.  Nip the trip pin and they look better, too.  

These are good discussions as you can see some people use them and enjoy them and that's great.  The more options we have as modelers, the better for all of us.  What was unacceptable about the critique was not the original Tyco comment, but the doubling down and standing by that if you have a Kadee you make your models look like Tyco.  It's a needless comment that only serves to get a strong response.  Why can't you just say that to you, the Kadees just don't look as good and leave it at that?

Other uses

That's a good point Matt.  Another option is on grounded equipment, such as these old boxcars my prototype uses for storing parts near the Bluffs enginehouse.

So it wasn't 100% accurate to say I'd never tried Sergents. 

Remembering John Allen

Joe, IIRC the couplers John was talking about, and resisted changing to where those "new fangled" KayDee couplers.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

George