Lance McCold wrote: > The messages below regarding couplers were posted ted on the S-trains list, > but they are perhaps of more interest to the S-scale list. > > Like Tom, I find the #5 couplers a better choice than #802s. > > I would like to hear some perspectives from this group.
All -- I use the 802/808 and the #5 interchangeably. I also use the HO #4, #6, and #8. They couple and uncouple properly, even with each other. What makes me decide is the particular installation "opportunity" (problem). Where space is restricted, or where using more than one screw is impossible, I use either the #4, #5, or #6. Other situations are specifically designed for a particular coupler -- e.g., the Ace conversion bolsters require a #5. The PRS cars are designed for an 802/808. The #4 doesn't require -- in fact cannot accept -- a center screw. The #6 and #8 have provision for a center screw only. Kadee also offers HO couplers with heads that're offset both up and down. The upward-offset model is a #7, I believe. These can be useful for installation in steam loco pilots. Everyone fusses about the excess longitudinal springiness of the 802/808, and no one seems to pay any attention to advice to substitute knuckle springs for the centering springs to eliminate this problem. Users of the #4 already know this -- The #4 uses a knuckle spring for a centering spring. I've been using these combinations for decades with no problem. I do replace the HO uncoupling pins with soft iron wire replacements, thus enabling reliable uncoupling over both between-the-rails magnets and under-the-track magnets. Dick Karnes Change your membership, change your message settings, use our CALENDAR, view shared files or photos, view the list archives, GO TO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
