Old Athearn coupler pocket clips have a bad habit of falling off at inopportune times. One thing I do to them is squeeze the sides so that they're truly perpendicular, or even a bit beyond. That way they fit more securely. I've also been known to twist the little bit that actually grabs the catches on the side of the coupler pocket, so that they'll bite into the plastic a bit and grip a little better.
Ya they can be a problem if you don't make sure they are secure. It's not to often I have a problem with new ones but I do make sure they are perpendicular before I install them.
@@jonedwards7064 - Seems like 18-inch radius would be too tight and 22-inch radius would be questionable. I had ruled out these cars, but they would be within the era I am intending to model.
Defiantly the bigger the better! Right now on my layout the tightest corner is around 24 - 26-inch radius and they have no problem with that. I think 22-inch would be ok. The tighter the corner they do start to look funny because they hang out over the track alot.
This is one of Athearn's more accurate "old" models - a Thrall 86' auto parts 4-door boxcar. Built in 1964, the prototypes were originally built with roofwalks, the one major discrepancy they have. Even after they were removed in later years, many of the cars that still survived into the 21st century had the old roofwalk brackets still on them. The swinging coupler bracket was originally designed back in the day when most layouts featured 18 or 22 inch radius curves and is IMO the weakest part of the construction. As these cars were all built with cushion underframes and/or draft gear, I'd cut off the ears and permanently mount the couplers to the body, adding a "wide-mouth" cushion coupler pocket (Details West #1024 or similar) and long shank coupler.
Oh yes, modifications. Because there are soooooo many modifications that can be made to any model, I will not be covering modifications. Instead I will be focusing on the original design for two reasons. #1 Modifications are a preference and everyone's preference is different, #2 is resale. for the people who are going to want to sell it later on and buy something else it will be easiest to sell it in the original configuration.
@@jonedwards7064 Suggestion then ... if you're going to retain the swing arm coupler mount, consider coating the top of the arm with Grease-em, the same thing you use on the couplers. Use a small scrap piece of paper to burnish the surface of the plastic with the graphite to insure minimum resistance if the arm contacts the underside of the floor.
People forget that those trip pins on knuckle couplers are part of the mechanics of using uncoupling tools - either track magnet or Rix H-tool. If using the magnet, you want the trip pin to ride over the height plate and barely touch it. That way, the magnet has good grab action. Too high and it won't work properly.
Yes this is important, however I see so many people that just cut them off. Then there are people like scale trains that package their product with a coupler that doesn't even have a trip pin.
@@jonedwards7064 With the expense and fragile details with today's cars, its best to limit and handling. Yeah, I was one of those that just cut off the "air hoses". However, after 30+ years I've learned that the way to uncouple is to use such tools and to ensure coupler height. Such good times learning about model railroad...
The #27 reveals that the car design is too low. Adding a washer between the truck bolsters and replacing those 70-ton trucks 33-inch wheel sets with 70-ton or 100-ton trucks 36-inch wheel sets will help correct this problem.
@@jonedwards7064 My preference is to install the prototypically correct diameter wheelsets & then take other actions to raise or lower coupler height to match the KD coupler height gage. 1st thing I do on the Athearn BB 86' box cars is body-mount the coupler draft gear pockets, this 1 step gets rid of most of the coupler-too-low problemm. It also requires wider radius curves for reliable operation & I know the model RR mfrs made & designed HO rolling stock to go around 18" curves. Each modeler has to decide for him or herself what's more important- small radius curves or being able to run the more modern longer cars.
You didn’t check for adequate weighting. Athearn cars never had proper NMRA standard weighting for the size of the cars. They were always too light and needed more weight. This was a real problem for adding and disguising weigh on open top and flat cars. But, whatever. This video is two years old so folks must not have cared to much.
No I did not address the weighting issue. When I build these kits for video's I try to keep them unmodified unless it is absolutely necessary. For example, it is necessary to upgrade the couplers so that they will work with other rolling stock. It is not necessary to upgrade to metal wheels, so I don't do it even though there are a lot of benefits.
Great idea using the offset coupler. Mine were sagging as well but I ended up body mounting the coupler boxes using kadee #451 extended mounts.
Ya the couples on these things are just way too low.
Excellent presentation. Good camera angle. You have a great narration voice and style.
I bought several of these in the 1970's (I'm old).
Glad you like them!
@@jonedwards7064 As did I & I'm very old............ 75 to be specific.........
Old Athearn coupler pocket clips have a bad habit of falling off at inopportune times. One thing I do to them is squeeze the sides so that they're truly perpendicular, or even a bit beyond. That way they fit more securely. I've also been known to twist the little bit that actually grabs the catches on the side of the coupler pocket, so that they'll bite into the plastic a bit and grip a little better.
Ya they can be a problem if you don't make sure they are secure. It's not to often I have a problem with new ones but I do make sure they are perpendicular before I install them.
What is the minimum track radius for these cars?
To be honest I am not sure exactly. However, I have never had a problem and I have used these on a pretty small layout.
@@jonedwards7064 - Seems like 18-inch radius would be too tight and 22-inch radius would be questionable. I had ruled out these cars, but they would be within the era I am intending to model.
Defiantly the bigger the better! Right now on my layout the tightest corner is around 24 - 26-inch radius and they have no problem with that. I think 22-inch would be ok. The tighter the corner they do start to look funny because they hang out over the track alot.
24in is minimum
@@jonedwards7064 the rule is any car over 60ft length needs at least 22-inch radius and larger.
This is one of Athearn's more accurate "old" models - a Thrall 86' auto parts 4-door boxcar. Built in 1964, the prototypes were originally built with roofwalks, the one major discrepancy they have. Even after they were removed in later years, many of the cars that still survived into the 21st century had the old roofwalk brackets still on them.
The swinging coupler bracket was originally designed back in the day when most layouts featured 18 or 22 inch radius curves and is IMO the weakest part of the construction. As these cars were all built with cushion underframes and/or draft gear, I'd cut off the ears and permanently mount the couplers to the body, adding a "wide-mouth" cushion coupler pocket (Details West #1024 or similar) and long shank coupler.
Oh yes, modifications. Because there are soooooo many modifications that can be made to any model, I will not be covering modifications. Instead I will be focusing on the original design for two reasons. #1 Modifications are a preference and everyone's preference is different, #2 is resale. for the people who are going to want to sell it later on and buy something else it will be easiest to sell it in the original configuration.
@@jonedwards7064 Suggestion then ... if you're going to retain the swing arm coupler mount, consider coating the top of the arm with Grease-em, the same thing you use on the couplers. Use a small scrap piece of paper to burnish the surface of the plastic with the graphite to insure minimum resistance if the arm contacts the underside of the floor.
This is a great Idea!
People forget that those trip pins on knuckle couplers are part of the mechanics of using uncoupling tools - either track magnet or Rix H-tool. If using the magnet, you want the trip pin to ride over the height plate and barely touch it. That way, the magnet has good grab action. Too high and it won't work properly.
Yes this is important, however I see so many people that just cut them off. Then there are people like scale trains that package their product with a coupler that doesn't even have a trip pin.
@@jonedwards7064 With the expense and fragile details with today's cars, its best to limit and handling. Yeah, I was one of those that just cut off the "air hoses". However, after 30+ years I've learned that the way to uncouple is to use such tools and to ensure coupler height. Such good times learning about model railroad...
The #27 reveals that the car design is too low. Adding a washer between the truck bolsters and replacing those 70-ton trucks 33-inch wheel sets with 70-ton or 100-ton trucks 36-inch wheel sets will help correct this problem.
Yes you could do any of those things.
@@jonedwards7064 My preference is to install the prototypically correct diameter wheelsets & then take other actions to raise or lower coupler height to match the KD coupler height gage. 1st thing I do on the Athearn BB 86' box cars is body-mount the coupler draft gear pockets, this 1 step gets rid of most of the coupler-too-low problemm. It also requires wider radius curves for reliable operation & I know the model RR mfrs made & designed HO rolling stock to go around 18" curves. Each modeler has to decide for him or herself what's more important- small radius curves or being able to run the more modern longer cars.
You didn’t check for adequate weighting. Athearn cars never had proper NMRA standard weighting for the size of the cars. They were always too light and needed more weight. This was a real problem for adding and disguising weigh on open top and flat cars. But, whatever. This video is two years old so folks must not have cared to much.
No I did not address the weighting issue. When I build these kits for video's I try to keep them unmodified unless it is absolutely necessary. For example, it is necessary to upgrade the couplers so that they will work with other rolling stock. It is not necessary to upgrade to metal wheels, so I don't do it even though there are a lot of benefits.