I have Bachmann Connie currently pulling two AMS Jackson Sharpe coaches. The issue I have is awhile back I changed to coupler on the Connie from the stock to a Kadee. The coaches seem to have a #1 size which is obviously larger. My current issue is the coach occasionally comes uncoupled.
My question is what do you prefer? The smaller Kadee or the #1. Should I reinstall the stock Bachman coupler or replace everything with Kadee or other.
Thanks,
Richard
You have them reversed… the #1 is the smaller of the two. I prefer the larger coupler even though I model in 1/29. I know many prefer the #1.
#1’s(820) are fine if they are lined up good with the gauge. If your layout has some ups and downs it may come un-coupled. The 830’s are bigger, so less likely to come undone.
Having grown up with Lionel 3 rail, the 820 just sees too small, but that’s just me. It is close to scale for 1:29 and 1:32, both. If you try to run the 820 with the 830, just make sure that the 820’s height is in the middle of the 830 to prevent accidental uncoupling.
I use the 906’s on my engines. They seem to mate up just fine for both the AMS couplers and the smaller Kadee’s.
Thanks for the suggestions…and John thanks for the correction of the coupler designation. As my garden grows I’m finding some interesting issues such as a broken portion of concrete roadbed due to a happy Chinese Pistach tree root. This is causing the rail there to lift slightly.
I know I’m pushing the envelope a bit in some sections with 8’ curves and I actually one switch are that needs to be totally reworked…the AMS cars come completely of the track due to the tight curve. Didn’t have that problem when I ran my Bachmann cars 
Is it possible to exchange the current wheel sets on the AMS cars to ones that have the coupler attached…I’ve heard that can help also.
Thanks,
Richard
I’m a big fan of the Kadee 906.
Finally finished converting my entire roster to these this summer. For some loco pilots and my Accucraft flanger I used a Kadee 901.
Richard Mynderup said:
Is it possible to exchange the current wheel sets on the AMS cars to ones that have the coupler attached…I’ve heard that can help also.
Thanks,
Richard
These are called truck mounted couplers. I started out using the truck mounted Kadee 831. They worked fine I guess. But I never liked the look of them. Plus I couldn’t add brake line air hoses with truck mounted couplers as they would hit the air hose. Now I prefer the Kadee 906. Looks so much better and operates better in reverse.
I have one fairly tight curve on the layout. But I haven’t noticed any problems since changing to body mounted couplers.
Richard Mynderup said:
I know I’m pushing the envelope a bit in some sections with 8’ curves and I actually one switch are that needs to be totally reworked…the AMS cars come completely of the track due to the tight curve. Didn’t have that problem when I ran my Bachmann cars
Richard, if you can lead into the 8 ft curve with a larger, say 10 ft, or even larger section of curve, you will eliminate most of your problem. The 1:1 guys do it with a spiral, but you don’t need to get that fancy, just ease into the curve. Start out with the first section of a 90 degree curve being a 10 ft diameter 22.5 degree section, followed by two 8 ft diameter 22.5 degree sections, and then finally another section of a 10 ft diameter curve. If your curve is less than 90 degrees, then you can use 10 ft, 8 ft, 10 ft. If you can, short the 8 ft sections to get the final radius of the curve. Just start each end of the curve with 10 ft (or larger) diameter sections. You will be surprised how much better your rolling stock looks going through the curve, as well as how much better behaved it is.
I guess I’m just too poor and too cheap…I Just use Bachmanns huge knuckles on my harbor stuff. Everything else is link pin on the narrow gauge stuff.
I’m with you, Vic. I’ve discovered that if you set the coupler at the same height, using the Kadee height gauge, it really doesn’t matter who made it, they all play together nicely.
My take is to make a decision first:
How good will you make (and maintain) your trackwork.
Do it well, then any coupler will work
Do it half-a** and you need to use the larger Kadees and maybe truck mount
Do it worse and get hook and loop or link and pin !!
Seriously, you need to make a decision on the quality level of your trackwork FIRST, then you can decide what couplers will work in that “envelope”
Picking a coupler and then going “sloppy” on trackwork will only result in frustration and wasted time and money.
Regards, Greg
Well said, Greg.
I agree with both Greg and Steve regarding excellent trackwork and couplers. I run all 1/20.3 D&RGW locomotives and rolling stock. All rolling stock is AMS. I pull three AMS J&S coaches with my “bashed” Bachmann Connie (I used Accucraft couplers to replace the Bachmann knuckles) and a Accucraft C-19. I only use Accucraft couplers on everything. My minimum radius is 90 inches and only use SVRR #6 turnouts (90" R.) I was told by George Konrad MMR (he designed the couplers for Accucraft) that those so-called oversize couplers are scale to what the D&RGW used on the prototype. They used standard gauge couplers on their NG equipment. I like "hands-on operation. Just my preference.
Greg has really hit on the the key. So many times people blame the equipment for derailing and uncoupling and misbehaving, when its the track work causing the issues. Good, solid, well maintained track work pays off in a reliable railroad.
Then comes making sure the wheels are properly gauged, and the couplers are all set to the same height and working properly. Its almost like we are running a railroad.
Back to the thread. I went with truck mounted couplers simply because most of what I owned, back when I started, didn’t have provisions for body mount couplers. I didn’t want to be spending a lot of time fabricating coupler mounting pads on my mix of equipment. Yes, the truck mounted couplers would let me use tighter radius curves. But they also don’t look as good as body mounted couplers, and they don’t work as well for backing moves through switches and curves. Almost all of my equipment has KaDee 831s on them.
Ken Brunt said:
I use the 906’s on my engines. They seem to mate up just fine for both the AMS couplers and the smaller Kadee’s.
Ken said : Mate!
Are AMS and AML using the same coupler?
The boy and I were kinda hoping to see you at Muddy Creek Forks today
Steve Featherkile said:
Having grown up with Lionel 3 rail, the 820 just sees too small, but that’s just me. It is close to scale for 1:29 and 1:32, both. If you try to run the 820 with the 830, just make sure that the 820’s height is in the middle of the 830 to prevent accidental uncoupling.
I wasn’t sneaking cigarettes behind the cliffs with Steve and the dinosaurs when he grew up with Lionel but I agree with him on the 820’s
Actually my first train was a Lionel and I wish I still had it, as when I grew up Lionel wasn’t popular so it was sorta considered rare by today’s standards
My “coupler of choice” is from AMS. It may be a bit oversized for 1:20.3 narrow gauge but it’s appearance and function more than makes up for that. It actually works (more-or-less) like the real deal, using a lifting pin attached to a breaker bar.
(http://freightsheds.largescalecentral.com/users/jack_thompson/jax_shack/OTB%20Coupler.jpg)
It does, however, need a little work before installation. Here’s how it looks right out of the box.
Nothing screams “MODEL” like parting lines and ejector marks in close-up photos like this. Removing them with a file, sanding and/or a #11 blade before painting is a good way to improve realism and doesn’t require any special skill - just patience.
David Russell said:
Ken Brunt said:
I use the 906’s on my engines. They seem to mate up just fine for both the AMS couplers and the smaller Kadee’s.
Ken said : Mate!
Are AMS and AML using the same coupler?
The boy and I were kinda hoping to see you at Muddy Creek Forks today
That I couldn’t tell ya. Both Bob and Bruce use the AMS couplers, so in order to use one of my engines at Bob’s I changed the couplers from the smaller 820’s to the slightly larger 906’s. I also like the looks of those. I may change out all my cars to those.
I didn’t find out about it till that morning when I met up with Dave M. If I’d had a bit sooner notice I’d have made plans to be there.
I am an AMS coupler fan as well. I go a little further than Jack in my “clean up” of stock couplers. Al Pomeroy taught me that by carefully filing the mating parts you can make the operation much smoother to the point where only one coupler needs to be opened to uncouple a car. I cleaned a bunch of them but have yet to get my fleet completely upgraded - still on my to-do list.
I’ve attempted reinstall the larger Bachmann coupler on the Connie tender. The issue is it sits a lot lower than the AMS coaches coupler. Does this mean I need to revamp the tender?
