Are any of the members aware of what manufacturers make N scale rolling stock with body mounted couplers installed? I am surprised that I cannot find any yet.Please advise.Thanks
I have a GN extended vision caboose in N scale with the couplers mounted on the frame, and that's the reason it never leaves my car repair shop's track #5 (blue flagged permanently). There's not nearly enough horizontal play allowed and it constantly caused derailments. I believe it was a Con Cor make but I can't recall for sure. Not sure why you'd want such a design.
What radius curves are you using? You didn't mention and I think that may be a problem. If you can't rip up track to use bigger curves look at using a longer shanked coupler. My thoughts is maybe the curves are a little tight and with the body mount couplers the edges of the trailers are knocking each other. Just my thought, not saying I know 10000% that's what it is.
Most of the newer Atlas caboose models come with body mounts, and ESM has introduced a 65' mill gondola with a very cleverly designed body mount pocket. It's actually integrated into the floor of the car, rather than hanging below it. It allows the car to ride a lot lower, and more prototypically.
I'd look for this to be the next big transition in N scale.
In the meantime, MT offers a variety of body mount conversions, so you can begin drilling holes and installing them to your cars any time you like.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
All of my locomotives have body mounted couplers along with a few cabooses from Atlas. I have no frieght cars with body mounts. I have body mounted micro trains couplers on some of my passenger cars.
Truck mounted couplers will couple and uncouple on curves but they do not like to be pushed in long (15 to 20 cars) trains. The only good N gauge couplers are made by micro trains. using a rixpic to uncouple will make accumates to stick open then you have to squeeze them closed.
If you want to body mount your couplers think of using Z gauge couplers. They will look better in scale size and will give the look of closer coupling. The also work with N gauge couplers.
WIAR I have a GN extended vision caboose in N scale with the couplers mounted on the frame, and that's the reason it never leaves my car repair shop's track #5 (blue flagged permanently). There's not nearly enough horizontal play allowed and it constantly caused derailments. I believe it was a Con Cor make but I can't recall for sure. Not sure why you'd want such a design.
In my experience truck-mounted couplers and body-mounted couplers do not play well together. You pretty much need to go all one way or all the other. It has something to do with sideways stress that is caused by the different angles that the different sets of couplers line up with when going through sharp curves. That's possibly the issue with your caboose. Though practically all of my cabeese have body mounts.
Many years ago I converted all of my rolling stock to body mounts. Ultimately it became a pain in the tailbone, having to convert every new piece of rolling stock that I purchased. Plus certain cars, like hoppers and coal cars, may require additional modifications to mount the coupler pockets. Eventually I just gave up and switched everything back to truck mounts.
I have figured out what is wrong with my brain! On the left side nothing works right, and on the right side there is nothing left!
Go to This link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7EPYtBGAPDwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0
Getting body mounts to work right in not as easy as the article implys. The main issue is getting the couplers to line up correctly on the centerline of the car.
As stated broader radius curves are required for body mounts. Reusing the MicroTrains truck mount couplers can really restrict minimum radius.
Hopper cars and tank cars ousually require modification to the frame to create a mounting point. Conversion kits have been made for some of them, but I do not know of current avability.
If you do deside to convert using MicroTrains Z couplers is probably the best way to go. They look good and those who have used them appear to have good operating layouts.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
I am an ardent proponent of body mounted couplers in N-Scale; right now I have much of my freight car fleet equipped with KDs/MTs. I don't know how body mounted couplers perform on radii less than 10" -- my minimum for industrial trackage; I do know how truck mounted couplers perform during shoving operations on any radius curve: NOT WORTH A (EXPLATIVE DELETED)! I suppose that one of these days I will get around to body mounting couplers onto my passenger fleet but, since (my) passenger cars don't get shoved very often I don't assign them that high a priority.
MILW-RODR What radius curves are you using? You didn't mention and I think that may be a problem. If you can't rip up track to use bigger curves look at using a longer shanked coupler. My thoughts is maybe the curves are a little tight and with the body mount couplers the edges of the trailers are knocking each other. Just my thought, not saying I know 10000% that's what it is.
I was a fixin' to ask the same question regarding WIARs curve radius. I don't recall any crummies, GN or otherwise, that came with coupler boxes cast on but they may be out there. Possibly this unit has had body mounted couplers affixed as an aftermarket modification. Possibly some obstruction within the box is inhibiting the swing of the shank; removing the cover and scraping the inside surfaces with a sharp modelers caniffy might help.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Hi from Belgium,
As the advice of MT say, they are the "Cadillac" of the car and certainly the best of all for couplers like their sister Kadee for HO.
I beleive body mounted couplers are the best way for coupling car.
Second in Nscale, the scale I model, for me only MT couplers are good and sweet to uncouple or coupling.
When pushing long string of car, body mounted couplers are the only way to avoid derailments and the second rule is weighting the car following the NMRA data for Nscale car.
95% of my car fleet (300 cars) are MT.
I reuse the truck mounted coupler and fix it on the carbody; only the hopper car and tank car receive a 1025 couplers for easiest mounting. All the MT cars receive a 33" metal wheel set with a low flange for better look.
As a rule all my curve are a minimum radius of 34".
All the other manufactured car are all converted to MT body mounted coupler.
No other brand of delayed coupler are used on my railroad. It's important to unified the type of coupler when you run big trains.
Most of the loco fleet are steam (bachmann walthers concor kato and a very few brass) and all have tender body mounted MT coupler. On the pilot when mounting is possible I often use Z scale coupler because of the facility of mounting; I put a Nscale pin in these coupler.
When mounting MT couplers they need to be all at the same height and centered on the body car.
Delayed action is made with my homemade magnetic uncoupler; I have no permanent magnet on the layout.
See my layout at www.Nscale.org click "personnal album",click letter"M", choice album "Marc Magnus".
Marc
rudywa Are any of the members aware of what manufacturers make N scale rolling stock with body mounted couplers installed? I am surprised that I cannot find any yet.Please advise.Thanks
I don't know of any, but I always found it interesting that my old Delaware Valley cars each have a pilot hole to install MT body mounts. I don't have a big fleet of rolling stock, so I don't know if any other manufacturer that does (did) this.
I imagine (as others have already stated) that compatibility issues are likely keeping body mounted couplers from being the standard in N-scale.
Gentlemen..
One thing that has been a thorn my side is truck mounted couplers..
It seems like after 40 years the N Scale manufacturers should have taken the next step and body mounted the couplers like they did on quality locomotives and some cabooses but,they maintain the old ways.
Why is this?
From the information I obtain from 2 manufacturers(via e-mail) there are 2 reasons.The first reason is the flooring would need to be redesigned and would require new tooling which would cause a sufficient price increase and the second reason is many N Scalers is contended with the current truck mounts.
While I have no problems switching cars in short or long cuts I would still be willing to pay a tad more for cars with body mounted couplers.
But wait Larry,Aren't you forgetting those of us that uses 9 3/4" curves because of space limitations?
Excellent question with a workable answer..
Why can't cars come both ways?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE It seems like after 40 years the N Scale manufacturers should have taken the next step and body mounted the couplers like they did on quality locomotives and some cabooses but,they maintain the old ways.
The first time I viewed N-Scale with the prospect of future modeling was in 1968; I eventually decided to stay with HO-Scale and assemble a fleet of locomotive kits. Thirteen or so years down the road my situation had solidified -- I had, in the meantime, exchanged my blue suit for civvies -- and I opted to bolt HO-Scale and don N-Scale as my scale preference.
I'm not sure but I don't think that Kadee had even introduced their N-Scale trucks-and-couplers line in 1968; if you were an N-Scaler you had no choice but to accept Rapido-style couplers. Con-Cor was, to the best of my knowledge, the only manufacturer having their models done in Japan -- European manufacturers had settled on truck mounted couplers because of the tight radius curves involved -- remember, N-Scale's original forte was a scale that could be fitted into a space half the size of HO-Scale; that iconic 4 X 8 only required a 2 X 4 space to build the same layout in N-Scale. Except for Atlas' 19" radius track all(?) the track sections offered were 10" or less which scaled out to about an HO-Scale radius of 18", a sharp curve. Operation -- at least "let's-see-how-many-cars-we-can-shove-into-a-siding-today" operation -- was all but impossible with those Rapido couplers without maintaining one of those good ol' 0-5-0 switcher. To a large extent "operation" in those heady days of yesteryear consisted of chasing one's caboose around a loop of track.
It wasn't until Kadee introduced their N-Scale trucks-and-coupler line that it became possible to get rid of that notorious 0-5-0 switcher -- except for rerailing of course -- but Kadee maintained the truck-mounted coupler tradition, to a large extent, I suppose, because most modelers were still building layouts with those less-than-10" radius curves. Even today PECO manufactures track with 9" radius while Atlas, Model Power, and Kato manufactures track with 9 3/4" radius.
I have no idea how body mounted couplers perform on track radii less than 10" -- that is my minimum for industrial trackage and that is always negotiated at very low speed. I maintain two things: 1) where space is at a premium we are likely to continue to encounter sharp curves -- 9 3/4 inch; and 2) prognostications to the contrary, truck-mounted couplers, both Kadee and Rapido, are going to be with us into the indefinite future. And as long as that is true keep that 0-5-0 switcher handy because derailments in shoving operations are a written-in-blood fact of life!
both Kadee and Rapido, are going to be with us into the indefinite future. And as long as that is true keep that 0-5-0 switcher handy because derailments in shoving operations are a written-in-blood fact of life!
--------------
Sorry but,I must disagree..I been shoving 20-25 car cuts through #6 switches with zero derailments at scale switching speed at the club and 7-10 cuts on my temporary switching layout..
I use to shove 12-15 car cuts when I used Rapidos back in the 80s.
So,you see and understand why I don' buy " because derailments in shoving operations are a written-in-blood fact of life! " for one second..
BRAKIE both Kadee and Rapido, are going to be with us into the indefinite future. And as long as that is true keep that 0-5-0 switcher handy because derailments in shoving operations are a written-in-blood fact of life! -------------- Sorry but,I must disagree..I been shoving 20-25 car cuts through #6 switches with zero derailments at scale switching speed at the club and 7-10 cuts on my temporary switching layout.. I use to shove 12-15 car cuts when I used Rapidos back in the 80s. So,you see and understand why I don' buy " because derailments in shoving operations are a written-in-blood fact of life! " for one second..
You don't say? That is absolutely FAN-N-N-N-N-TASTIC! Absolutely FAN-N-N-N-N-TASTIC!
The coupling on a curve issue don't enter into it... If all you're couplers are body mounted they should all be at the centerline of the car, and should more or less align for easy coupling. The only time this is a problem is if you're coupling a significantly short car to a significantly long car on a curve. It's another one of those things that if you put a little thought into your track plan, you can pretty much avoid the situation... Or, if you have really tight curves, you probably should re-think your fleet of 89' flat cars...
I'm so glad that part of my planning also took into consideration my era----and the area my planning took place.
Being in the 1970's and 80's and being in the plains/prairies does have its advantages----no 89' flatcars here----and broad turns without those urban squashed turnouts helps in the derail part---
But seriously, I agree with LEE here. The idea might not be the couplers so much as the layout itself. Look into the era/area/and rolling stock connections.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinder I'm so glad that part of my planning also took into consideration my era----and the area my planning took place. Being in the 1970's and 80's and being in the plains/prairies does have its advantages----no 89' flatcars here----and broad turns without those urban squashed turnouts helps in the derail part--- But seriously, I agree with LEE here. The idea might not be the couplers so much as the layout itself. Look into the era/area/and rolling stock connections.
Absolutely..Smooth track work with #6 and above switches,equipment with properly gauge wheels and trip pins also plays a part.
There should be NO issues in making a reverse move regardless of body or truck mounted couplers even with long wheel base cars at scale yard speed through #6 and above switches..Anything above scale yard speed....
Of course long wheel base cars on tight curves not good and reverse moves with long wheel base cars through #4 switches isn't a bright idea except in small cuts at scale yard speed.
I suppose there should be a "old saw" about small layouts with tight curves:
Small Layout/tight curves=Think Small..
I'm wondering if anyone has body mounted couplers on a Kato Maxi Stack1 and if so,how did you remove the trucks with truck mounted couplers?