American Models DC scale couplers

The older AM products were designed before the Kadee S Scale 802 was available. 

 

If you're going to use the HO #5 coupler, no modification is needed.  If you're using the 802's, you'll have to drill new mounting holes.

Most of the freight cars will just need to have new holes drilled for the 802.  Passenger cars will need pads built up for body mounting.  Locomotive mounting varies from unit to unit.

 

Rusty

 

Hi Rusty,

 

I agree, I use Kadee #5s or a member of that family on AM products, generally without any modification.  I did have to play with the GG1 a little and IIRC the Budd cars need a shim.  Freights, heavyweights and streamlines all take the #5 without shims.

 

I'm not a fan of the 802 because of the space between coupled cars... it's just too big.  Not to mention the cost compared to the #5s.

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

 

My I point out another coupler with which I've had success.

Protomax by Walthers is a clone of the KD5 with a slightly bigger head.

I use them extensively without problems.  And...they are about $1 per car.

You can buy a 20 pack oftentimes for less than $20. 

20 pair, that is.

I despise the KD802.  Surely KD can do better than give us ancient technology.

I do have to wonder about the spacing issue: I have before me 2 boxcars,both with #802's; a PRS and an AM model. the spacing is real close (almost spot-on) to 7/16".

If I then measure a couple of #5 equipped cars (in this case an AM caboose and an SSA hopper) I get the same measurement-7/16". I also tried this with a few AF cars I've put "5's" on and I get the same results.

 

Hi Mark,

 

Not a problem.  To tell you the truth, I can only guess it is the internal spring that causes the 802 to stretch... I believe they call it 'slack action'.  A friend brought over some scale AM streamliners with 802s attached.  To me, they looked like Flyer link passenger cars converted to knuckle.  The space was terrible.  So it might only be noticeable when the train is in motion and the slack action stretches out.  This same friend later converted everything to the #5 family.

 

Also seems to me that I've seen the space with freight cars and definitly I have read about it on other lists.  I'm not a sclae guy so things like that shouldn't bother me, but it stuck out like a sore thumb. 

 

I will look into the Walters clone that John mentioned.  John, do they have the variations that the #5 family has?  How about uncoupling?  I've tried the new (to me) Kadee whisker design and liked them a lot.

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

I don't find the distance between car objectionable using the 802's.  It comes out to about 2.5 to 3 scale feet.  I don't recall the actual distance between two prototype cars, but 3' seems about right.  Gotta have some room to muscle in and hook up the air hoses, after all.

 

AM:

Pacific Rail Shops/Des Plaines Hobbies:

SHS:

Even with the slack taken out when running, the extra distance, isn't that noticeable, at least to me.  The "bouncing" however, is annoying.

 

I recently began to double up the 802's centering springs in the draft gear on new rolling stock.  Under most conditions, it's just about eliminated the bouncing and minimized the slack.

 

Rusty

Rusty, what's that silver thing?!
Tom, don't think there are variations but then I haven't checked in some time.

That thar great silver thing be a scale ruler.  It can be used for HO, O and S.  I have a dedicated plastic semi-transparent S Scale ruler, but I wasn't able to locate it quickly.

 

Rusty

32 years in the hobby and I just bought my first track gauge at Janesville from Roy!

Hi Rusty,

 

Thanks for the pictures, I am perplexed.  What I saw with the AM coaches was not subtle… as I said, I’m a Hi-railer and can overlook a lot, but the extra space was there and looked bad.  I’m also quite sure the coupling distance has been a topic of discussion on the S-scale list, however as you know couplers are not a good subject over there.

 

While I am not surprised by the coupling of the PRS/DPH example, I am by the AM and SHS examples.  They are what I have and the #5s yield about a 3’ space also.

 

Did you use the existing holes for mounting?  I am under the impression that the shank of the 802 is longer than the #5, but perhaps I’m misinformed about that.

 

Jerry P. built a Kalso caboose for me (he did a beautiful job, I might add).  He told me it was designed for 802s, but I had sent #5s so we went with them.  The #5s are way too short in the shank for this car.  Again, it is really obvious.

 

I like chicken and I have to imagine crow tastes about the same…

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

 

PS  John, you didn't mention how you uncouple the Protomax.  Thanks for the other part though.

Tom,

 

I can't judge on the skill of the person who's cars you saw.  AM used to have (maybe still does) a separate sale mounting pad for their Budd cars, but I've got no experience with them.  I just use the standard AM talgo Snap-Lok on my Budd's.  The distance seems fine that way.

 

For the older AM 85' smooth side cars and the heavyweights, I had to build up pads and use my judgment on those, in fact I might have my smooth sided cars a little too close.

 

As far as the freight cars go, As the SHS cars were already predrilled for 802's I used their mounting holes.

 

For AM, most of the time I just ran a 00-80 screw through the existing 2-56 hole and secured it with a nut on the inside, then drilled a small hole in the underframe so I could stick a piece of plastic rod through the 802 box's rear mounting hole so the coupler box wouldn't rotate.  Simple, but effective.

 

For PRS, I didn't use their coupler box, I mounted the 802's, using the PRS mounting hole as a locating guide.  Then three screws through the box's mounting holes.

 

The DesPlaines HiRail coupler box has the same "footprint" as an 802, so it's a one for one exchange.  I'll also reuse the DesPlaines' centering spring, it's stiffer than Kadee's.

 

Rusty

>> Jerry P. built a Kaslo caboose for me (he did a beautiful job, I might add).  He told me it was designed for 802s, but I had sent #5s so we went with them.  The #5s are way too short in the shank for this car.  Again, it is really obvious.

Tom Stoltz 

 

Tom....Please note that the #5 family of Kadee couplers comes with many different versions including long shank, short shank, etc., etc.  Using the correct coupler version will solve the problem.  No need to be "too short".

 

Please note that the #5 family of Kadee couplers comes with many different versions including long shank, short shank, etc., etc.  Using the correct coupler version will solve the problem.  No need to be "too short".

 

Hi Ed,

 

Yes, thank you.  That is my intent when train season rolls around again.  I was hoping you were here to help me in the ‘Great Coupler Debate’.  I plan on posting some pix of an 802 next to a #5… maybe even some dimensions.

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

I wonder if we could get one of the Walthers couplers included in that photo.

Someone...anyone?

 

Mark in Oregon

Finally got around to trying to photo the 802 and the #5s. IPhone camera is not too good, but I think you will be able to see the difference in coupling distance comparing the 802 and the #5.

 

The 802 is spring loaded, which is why it has the rectangular shape for a mounting hole.  When sitting still the spring will draw the cars together as in Rusty’s photo.  When the train is in motion (and depending on the drag of the rolling stock) the spring will compress and the space between the cars will increase.  This accounts for the large distance I mentioned with the AM 85’ streamliners.  They are heavy so they put a lot of compression on the springs.  Longer trains will also tend to stretch out the car spacing.

 

By centering the 802 on the line for the photo, I gave it the benefit on the doubt.  The spring can actually compress more (allowing of an even larger space between cars).  The line with the couplers centered is my attempt to show the difference between the 803 and the #5 if you would get using the mounting hole as the car comes form the factory.

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

The Kadee HO couplers are less expensive and easier to locate than their S scale couplers but the head scales out too small for S scale and almost looks silly.

 

If you watch the prototype start/stop a train or couple/uncouple, there is a small amount of "slack".  The directions included with the Kadee couplers, and online, provide options to minimize or eliminate slack. 

Tom, are you talking about the old AM 85's smooth sided Pullman Standard streamliners or the current 75' Budd cars? 

 

The P/S cars date from the 1980's and are featherweights.  The only metal on them are the wheels, axles and truck mounting screws.  Their underframes are fairly thin plastic, lack any detail and are somewhat annoyingly flexible. 

 

The Budd's have cast metal underframes and are relatively heavy.  Even my AM Northern (scale wheels, no "Gription" traction tires) will occasionally slip hauling 7 Budd cars.

 

Anyways, back to couplers...

 

As I mentioned before, around the last year or so I began to double up the 802's centering spring.  This helps to mitigate the slack and doesn't affect the coupler's operation.  It definitely stops the "bouncing" of cars that can occur.

 

Visually, I find the HO Kadee coupler too small for S.  Some say the 802's are too large, but to me they look just about right.  The best 1-to1 comparison I can come up with right now is on a pair of cars scratchbuilt by the late Jim Konas. (These have been getting knocked around the basement for 20 years or so, one of these days I'll paint them...)

 

The car on the left has a #4(I think) while the right car has the 802 I retrofitted.

The 802 is mounted pretty much where the #4 was, I used the flange on the top of the coupler box as a guide for positioning. 

 

I did have to cut back on the frame a little to compensate for the larger coupler box.

 

Admittedly, the 802 will increase the distance between cars, but not so much that I find it objectionable.

 

The "Great Coupler Debate" has been going on in S probably since before I got in and I'm used to fiddling around to mount couplers on some cars.  Most of the time, it's relatively easy to change or modify the coupler mounting if needed.

 

Rusty

Hi Rusty.  Yes it was the old 85’ smooth sides… I would imagine the Budds to be even worse because of their weight. 

 

I fully agree that one can modify the coupler mounting to their own personal tastes and skills.  And as you mention, you can modify the coupler itself to achieve any goal you wish.  I’m only looking at using the existing hole that seems to be pretty standard on AM and SHS rolling stock and the coupler as it comes right out of the box.

 

If I remember correctly, the ‘Great Size Debate’ is much ado about nothing.  The #5 is 1” too short in height while the 802 is a little more than 1” too tall.  We’re talking about 1/64s on an inch.  I’ve been told the 802 might have greater ‘gathering’ range, but I don’t know what that really translates into.

 

For me, I think it came down mostly to cost and when I did try the 802 (why I had some to take the picture) the extra complexity in assembly not to mention the extra space between cars led me to the #5 family of couplers.  Then I started mounting Kadees on AM Flyer engines and cars, the greater variety in lengths of shank and placement of the knuckle relative to the shank made the task much easier.  Now there is the new Whisker couplers that make it even easier.

 

The 802 and #5 are fully compatible so which one you use doesn’t matter too much.  And I’m sure there will never be an answer as to which one is ‘true’ for S.  After all, one was designed for H0 while the other for 0n3 (or was it 0n30?) so neither is correct for S anyway.  Use the one you like and can afford.

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine, were it's snowing

I have a couple of "estate cars" that have HO Kadee's mounted and as you've mentioned, they work fine with the 802's.  I'm not going to bother to change them out.

 

The only time I consciously used an HO Kadee was the #27(as I recall) offset shank coupler on the tenders of my Southwind Harriman 2-8-0's.  They came with 802's mounted, but they sat too low.  Shimming the tender up would have made them look awkward and top heavy, plus I wasn't up to milling the frame in order to raise the 802.  

So, the #27 to the rescue...

 

It's all a matter of preference and I'm used to dealing with the 802's.  I imagine that if I ever move and clear out the basement, I'm going to find a pile of 802 centering springs lurking in a dark corner.

 

Rusty

Again I mention the Walther's Protomax coupler.  The head is slightly smaller than the 802s and slightly larger than KD 5, which they cloned.  My only regrets are two, that they use the old 5 centering spring , and their coupler spring itself is weak. 
I use 802's on all my locos cuz they just look heavier and I like that.  I hate their ""@##= centering spring!

I just purchased some of the Walthers couplers because of this thread.I don't see that they're (much) larger than the KD#5's; not enough for me to consider a wholesale change-over to them.I do like the looks of the 802's,and don't hate the spring system,it seems, as much as some.... They are actually just like the KD O scale couplers,with the coiled centering spring.I personally like the "slack action".

 

Mark in (now wet) Oregon

Are the DC scale American Models locomotives different in any way coupler-mounting-wise from a high-rail or AC model other than the non-operating scale sized coupler?

I haven't noticed any difference.

So we can use Kadees and the like on AC high-rail models just like the 3 Rail Scale crowd, right? The DC in the posts title hints at a difference.

One word of caution to those tempted to use Kadee clones. Those manufacturers who use a nylon or Delrin centering springs; if cars are stored on curves with the couplers off center, or put in the box where the coupler is not centered, they will take a set, and are a pain to get them to recenter correctly if at all.

A lot of European manufacturers have turned to these centering springs and I have a few "problem cars" that I bought second hand that were jammed into their boxes with the couplers way off center. (I also do Marklin 3 rail AC HO)

Even HO American prototype modelers have echoed this using Kadee clones with the plastic centering springs.

Sure, I don't think it matters whether you use AC or DC, the coupler mounting height is all that counts; as long as everything lines up, you should be good to go.

You're right, those with the plastic "cat's whiskers" type of springs are pretty useless after being stored. The Walthers couplers I just got have the same separate brass spring like the KD 5's, (and that's a good thing) but I still find them a shade on the "small" side for my eyes...

 

Mark in Oregon