the MRH Forum

Has anyone used an HO Coupler Assembly Fixture from Micro Mark? General discussion
Reply
Frequent poster 648 posts DougL Frequent poster 648 posts
DougL

This seems like  a good idea, especially after assembling and attaching many, many Kadee coupler boxes.

Anyone have actual experience with it?  Not too expensive at $7.50 from Micro Mark.  Woud not hold the semi-scale 158 but I could add a soft shim.

https://www.micromark.com/HO-Coupler-Assembly-Fixture

Blurb from Micro Mark: "Spring-loaded 'ram' holds coupler in place while the centering spring and mounting box are assembled around it. Works with all couplers that use a standard mounting box, such as Kadee nos. 4, 5, 9 and 14/148, plus others. Kadee no. 701. (Coupler not included.)"

--  Doug -- Modeling the Norwottuck Railroad, returning trails to rails.
Reply 2
Steve kleszyk Frequent poster 523 posts
Steve kleszyk

No, but what are you using for a coupler box?

If you are using something like the Kadee #234 gear boxes, or similar, you still need to get it to the car and screw that in.  When that is the case I found opposing tweezers work best for me like these https://www.micromark.com/Cross-Locking-Heat-Resistant-Tweezer

IMG_1348.jpg 

 
Reply 1
DougL Frequent poster 648 posts
DougL

good point @ the self closing tweezers

After my fat fingers manage to assemble the box, I need to hold it in alignment while installing it.  Those fine point tweezers would help!

--  Doug -- Modeling the Norwottuck Railroad, returning trails to rails.
Reply 1
UPWilly Prolific poster 1,964 posts
UPWilly

The listing is Kadee's ...

... standard #701. Also available from Kadee.

https://www.kadee.com/ho-scale-tools-and-accessories-c-274_282_316/701-ho-scale-coupler-assembly-fixture-for-4-5-9-58-couplers-p-424.htm

Bill D.

egendpic.jpg 

N Scale (1:160), not N Gauge. DC (analog), Stapleton PWM Throttle.

Proto-freelance Southwest U.S. 2nd half 20th Century.

Keep on trackin'
Reply 1
laming Super User 3,957 posts
laming

Kadee

I've pretty much switched over to the Kadee #148 whisker coupler (which negates the phosphor bronze spring stamping) and the #242 snap-together coupler box.

SO much less piddly with these items.

Andre
Kansas City & Gulf: Ozark Subdivision, Autumn of 1964
 
The "Mainline To The Gulf!"
Reply 2
Nelsonb111563 Moderator 2,265 posts
Nelsonb111563

Interesting

Can't say as I've ever had an issue assembling Kadee couplers especially the #5.   The #5 is my go to coupler (I have a large stash) that I use on almost everything.  I have used the #148 also but always with the draft gear that is supplied with the kit.  So I'm not sure what the assembly fixture really does!

Nelson Beaudry,  Principle/CEO

Kennebec, Penobscot and Northern RR Co.
Reply 2
jeffshultz MRH Staff 7,972 posts
jeffshultz

I suspect this was made for the #4 originally

I had to put #4's on my Athearn 1980s Blue Box SW-somethingorother (It claimed to be a 1500 but was really a 7 apparently?) and using what is effectively a knuckle spring as a centering spring was an exercise in sadism on Kadee's part. 

Which they happily appear to have recovered from. 

orange70.jpg
Jeff Shultz - MRH Technical Assistant
DCC Features Matrix/My blog index
Modeling a fictional GWI shortline combining three separate areas into one freelance-ish railroad.
Reply 1
Don Mitchell donm Super User 872 posts
Don Mitchell donm

Kadee #4's

Agree the 4's were a pain.  Eventually found that a little bit of glue on the square inside of the coupler helped with assembly.  Don't forget to put the little slug inside the spring first, though. 

IIRC, the slug was to limit slack action.  It still left too much slack for Tehachapi, so any of those that hadn't already been replaced with 5's were soon gone.  But, boy, it sure was fun to watch a foot or two slack roll out when a long train was started ... carefully! 

Rough handling usually resulted in a broken knuckle, but there were a couple of times when a shank got pulled apart.  Those were the days.  Now all gone with better car standards, better engines, and better control with DCC.

And, to get back to the original topic, whisker couplers and associated boxes are the way to go.  No assembly fixture needed.

Don Mitchell

R%20logo.jpg
Read my blog
Reply 1
Russ Bellinis Prolific poster 3,335 posts
Russ Bellinis

I miss the #4

I never used them as intended, but would cut off the shank behind the small hole and used a small screw to mount them to steam pilots that were not intended to have a front coupler installed.

 
Reply 2
packnrat Frequent poster 758 posts
packnrat

even with my bad eye

even with my bad eye sight, fat shaky fingers i mudded through with my choice of good ol number 5 couplers.

but a jig might be worth it. but for now only if free. i see no reason to add in more steps to (for now)  a simple job.
Reply 0
jwcraftca New member 9 posts
jwcraftca
The couplers for the passenger cars I have are attached to the body, not the truck. The video shows Rivarossi cars for which the couplers are truck-mounted. What is the motivation for truck-mounted vs. body-mounted? My freight cars have body-mounted couplers, as do my locomotives.
Reply 0
Prof_Klyzlr Moderator 7,950 posts
Prof_Klyzlr
Dear jwcraft,

There are a number of reasons, not all of them "from the prototype", why a given model may have talgo (truck mounted) couplers VS body mounted. For many models, it's a legacy/historical design issue from waaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the 19x0s, particularly pre-Kadee when plastic "X2f" or "hornhook" couplers were common on US outline models. European-manuf'd models tended to hold onto talgo coupling mounts longer than US-manuf'd models, which goes some way to explaining the Rivarossi (originally Italian, now owned by Hornby?) talgo-mounting observed.

NB it was interesting in the late 1980s/1990s, to observe an Athearn (US) VS Marklin (GER) US-outline PS-1-type boxcar side by side. The body castings may have been visually similar, but a glance below the sidesills to the trucks/wheels/couplers gave the game away almost instantly ;-)

Body-mounting works great when the cars in a coupled-train are reasonably common in length... but couple a shorter car to a longer car, and the longer-car's body-mounted coupler will tend to swing further away from track centreline, in extreme cases dragging the shorter car sideways off the track!!!

Now-a-days, particularly in HO, body-mount is the most common design choice. It provides visual improvement, allowing for more-detailed draftgear and underframe, and mechanically arguably provides better push/pull switching performance on "fits the equipment" sized curves. (That N scale seemingly "got away with" talgo-mounts in active switching service, while reliably sticking to the track has always been a point of "exception which proves rule" curiosity...)

Where passenger (and longer freight cars like autoracks and 89' boxcars) kick in is that their excess length means "fits the equipment" curves are much larger than many modellers wish or have the room for. Equally, these cars are less-frequently found in heavy "pull/shove/pull/shove" switching situations, but rather kept in "keeps rolling forward" manifest freight duties. These common use-case factors, combined with the truck-mounted-coupler geometry that keeps the coupler closer to the track centreline (see above), means truck-mounted or "swinging extended draftgear" couplings are more-commonly found on such longer cars, even on today's (20x0-era) models...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr
Reply 1
Boudreaux Regular poster 315 posts
Boudreaux
Just one pair,  but the self closing tweezers are a third hand when I have needed them.
"Reminder to Memory Banks"
Need more of these in my inventory of tools.
Boudreaux,  B. C. E.  R.R. 


Reply 0
Reply