Couplers for GGD Plastic 80' Heavyweight Passenger Cars?

Protocraft if you want an accurate coupler.

Simon

I use 805s

Kadee 805s have worked just fine for me.    I have 52 inch minimum radius and the cars with standard 805s have no problems on the curves.     And the couplers are compatible with my other equipment.

Simon Winter posted:

Protocraft if you want an accurate coupler.

Simon

Is it compatible with all other couplers?

I have a set with 805s on them and another with 740s. Both are fine. They need to be shimmed down from the floor of the car (3 micromark shims?) to get the couplers to meet the height gauge. 

Hey Ed:

A couple of questions that might help better answer your question.

Do you have any back-to-back switches or S curve anyplace on your layout?

What is your tightest curve?

If you have any "choke" points like that those listed above, I would opt for the 746, Long shank coupler, but you will also need to purchase the 818 metal gear box if you don't like plastic.

If you have plenty of space, wide curves and no choke points, then either the 805 (less expensive and generally mates with other couplers) or the 740 (more expensive, newer, better looking design).

Regarding the Protocraft couplers, they are a scale coupler and look great. I use them on the rear of every observation car and some lead engines that have the coupler showing. I do not use the Protocraft couplers where they will need to be coupled to another car/engine and they generally do not work with other couplers. But again, they do look great.

Hope this help.

Charlie 

Kadees are standard.  I find that Kadees work with most dummy scale couplers and Protocraft.  I open the dummies with a #38 drill.

There was an article on couplers in a past issue (sorry don't have the issue number) and the Protocraft and Kadees tested were all compatible. Pretty sure Protocraft offered some shank length variations for various scenarios. What is standard is what you choose to be standard.  If you're delusional enough to think the Kadee trip pin looks like an air hose, be my guest.

Simon

There was an article on couplers in a past issue of OST (sorry I don't have the issue number handy) and the Protocraft and Kadees tested were all compatible. Pretty sure Protocraft offered some shank length variations for various scenarios. What is standard is what you choose to be standard.  If you're delusional enough to think the Kadee trip pin looks like an air hose, be my guest.

Simon

Simon Winter posted:

There was an article on couplers in a past issue of OST (sorry I don't have the issue number handy) and the Protocraft and Kadees tested were all compatible.

That would have been No. 77, Jan/Feb 2015

Pretty sure Protocraft offered some shank length variations for various scenarios. What is standard is what you choose to be standard.  If you're delusional enough to think the Kadee trip pin looks like an air hose, be my guest.

Distinctly probable that the majority doesn't care about the Kadee trip pin and just wants reliability.

I put Kadee long shank couplers on this Golden Gate Depot Pullman, when I changed the trucks to get a pair better matching the prototype's  Pullman 242 trucks.  These are Lobaugh top equalized trucks, to which I added outboard side bearing supports made from resin castings.

Kadee long shanks are being put on my older passenger car models which were equipped with Central Loco Works Deklin couplers. They have longer shanks than Kadee 805's and match well.

Kadee O scale couplers were not available when these cars were built.  Replacing the couplers also provides a chance to upgrade interior lighting with LED's.

S. Islander

Ed, I have a bunch of heavy weights,  columbian and Cincinatian.  All have 805s on 56 min radius.  I had one point back in storage where a train came out of a curved #6 and into a reverse curve of another #6 and that was an occasional problem.  Changed the second switch to a #7.5 and all is well.

I am with Simon to a point.  I use Protocraft on the pilots of my locomotives, and on cabooses and rear passenger cars.  I mostly use dummies everywhere else, but Kadees occur on the majority of my tenders and back end of Diesels, ugly trip pin and all.  

Looking down one’s nose at a trip pin is a lot like looking down one’s nose at our too wide gauge (guilty) or glancing at a perfectly done layout with a center rail with some feeling of misbelief (yes, still guilty).

We should strive for tolerance, while recognizing those who strive for absolute fidelity.

bob2 posted:

I am with Simon to a point.  I use Protocraft on the pilots of my locomotives, and on cabooses and rear passenger cars.  I mostly use dummies everywhere else, but Kadees occur on the majority of my tenders and back end of Diesels, ugly trip pin and all.  

Looking down one’s nose at a trip pin is a lot like looking down one’s nose at our too wide gauge (guilty) or glancing at a perfectly done layout with a center rail with some feeling of misbelief (yes, still guilty).

We should strive for tolerance, while recognizing those who strive for absolute fidelity.

I can replace a Kadee and sell it, so it's pretty much a push. Cost me a bunch to convert to P48.......naaaaaaah!

Simon

Hi All,

Thanks for the information.  My chief concern was that I may need the long shank version.

My minimum radius is 69" and the worst reverse curve is a #8 crossover on 4" centers so I will be OK with the  805's.

Thanks again,

Ed

Call me a stone age cretin but I find Kadee 805's to be quite acceptable.  The trip pins don't bother me all that much yet. 

I can turn my P70 fleet on a 40" radius and even have got them through a 36" radius on my 3 rail modular test track although anything a hair less than that has them jump the track. 

When I have space for that recommended 54" minimum radius one day in my life I would like to go the Protocraft coupler, but then again I have 100s of pairs of Kadees. 

While the protcraft  couplers do look more prototypical, I can't mix them in on my layout.

I operate my layout with switchlists that require operators to sometime do facing point moves.   So all locos must have fully compatible couplers on the front as well as the tender.    The couplers have to work the same way and uncouple as easily as couple.   

Runarounds at the end of the run to return to the yard require going around the train, and moving the caboose to the other end.   Then coupling the loco and caboose to the train to move in the opposite direction.    That means cabooses must have the same use and compatibility of couplers on both ends.

And there are times when passenger trains have to pulled off by the rear to clear the engine, requiring again suitable couplers.

In the past I have had a variety of couplers on various cars and locos, and sometimes had problems.   I slowly replaced non-kadees with kadees.    I do have some of the new 700 series to take advantage of the variety shanks, but the rest are all 805/804.     And to be honest, the 700 series do couple tighter than the 805s, and some of the guys have trouble doing uncoupling with these cars.   So I am thinking about this issue.

Yes the trip pin is not the greatest representation of the air hose.    However, from 3 feet away looking between cars, it fills the space and looks OK.   

So there are two issues, if you have more of a display layout and a lot of super detailed pieces to show, then a more prototypical coupler than the Kadee 800s may be what you want.    On the other hand if you have  layout aimed at operation such as switching cars uniquely with some sort of operator independent system, you may want a reliable coupler that is both easy to couple and uncouple.    As someone mention, your standard is your standard, and rule number one also applies, that is "it is my railroad, and if you don't like it, there's the door".