So I have a question about couplers (This again, right?) I have been converting all of my rolling stock and locomotives to body mount MTs if they came without MTs. If they did (Micro trains cars, truck mounted) I have just been leaving them alone... will this come back to haunt me? Or will it likely be no issue for me? Everything seems just fine (save some of that fun slinky effect when I move trains) but is just body mounting all safest or "best"? Amanda
I've been running MT truck mounted couplers almost exclusively since the mid-80s with never a problem, both factory and with all sorts of conversions, and with 11" Radius curves. It may be important to note that most of my freight cars are limited to 50', but my passenger cars are typical long length. Perhaps body mount may be best for long lengths of 86' TTX equipment; I wouldn't know. My guess is that you'll be fine with your truck mounts.
Hi Amanda, This can be one of those double edged sword type questions. Like Hard Coaler's answer above, all of my cars are equipped with Micro Trains trucks mounted couplers with low profile wheels. My rolling stock consists of 50' or shorter cars and my train lengths never exceed 10 cars. My layout is a small Hollow Core door layout One of my curve sections is 9.75" and the other is an 11" curve. I can back my 10 car train around my layout without any issues and because of my 9.75" curve I do have problems with body mounted couplers. Having said that, if you plan on running long trains and have 11" or wider curves, you are better off body mounting all of your couplers. With body mounted couplers, especially when backing, the forces within the train are being applied to the bodies of the cars and the trucks are free to follow the track without any outside force. With truck mounted couplers, the forces within the train when backing are being applied to the trucks, which can cause derailments. In my case since I run short trains with tight radius curves, truck mounted couplers work in my benefit, but for longer trains they become a hindrance.
I've never appreciated the zeal for body mounting in N scale. If the trackwork is good, and the equipment rolls freely, I've just never seen any operational benefits.
I agree with that. Probably the biggest risk of body mounts is tight radius curves. Sometimes if two cars with enough difference in the length between coupler and truck can pull each other right off the rails on the tighter curves. I will admit it does look good.
Me three. Agree with BNSF and Norseman Jack. Truck mounts are more reliable. Body mounts look better, but you only ever notice them on the lead engine and last car. And body mounts are especially unreliable when you set them to a realistically close coupling distance. To answer WM183's question: No, retaining truck mounted couplers will not come back to haunt you. At least in my experience running long trains on large curves. Rick
I agree and will add that proper weighting of the rolling stock is essential for reliability. Typically cars as they come from the manufacturer are lighter than the NMRA specs. Adding some weight to bring them up to the NMRA recommendations is a good thing. NMRA specs for N scale are .5 oz +.15 oz for every inch of car length. So a forty foot box car which is three inches long in N scale should weigh a total of .95 oz. A fifty foot car should weigh 1.06 oz. I usually use the NMRA recommended weight as a minimum so I don't mind if I am over a tad.
Oh thanks all! I had read that truck mounts were bad news for backing strings of cars up, particularly through turnouts, but I will be sure to weight all of my cars right and I am using Peco code 80 track, which is somewhat bomb (and newbie) proof. That's actually a relief, as some of these things are a huge pain in the butt to body mount (Red Caboose X29s and their weight made of a 1/4" sheet of armor plate or whatever's in there comes to mind). I suppose I'll body mount those that I can, or which require it, and the truck mounted ones on the MT cars can stay provided they cause no harm.
I'm going to be "that guy" in the room and disagree with 90% of you, but keep in mind, you're not wrong. Why? Simply because on a layout like my City Job which is 100% point to point operations, body mount is the only way to go. When I had truck mount or talgo style trucks and couplers, switching moves were interesting to say the least. With all the equipment on the City Job now having the correct height, low profile wheels and body mounted couplers, operations are much more enjoyable. Also, personally, I dislike the toy like look of truck mounted couplers. That said, if your layout is more around the room with some small switching spots, you won't have any real problems with truck mounted couplers and mixing the two rarely gives any problems. The biggest things to keep in mind with cars is what has been said. keep in mind this is based on my experience on my layouts which are not really the norm for 90% of the N scale crowd.
My layout will be a shelf layout with a focus on industrial switching and mine runs. Suppose I best be safe and just body mount them? My minimum radius will be 14" or so, and 18" anywhere I can get away with it.
I don't dare sound off here. I would end up being the bad guy. Consider somethings I've said before. ""You'll never go wrong with Micro-Trains or Kadee Products. Wide curves are the best curves. Body mounted couplers are the best mount. Quit playing around with tight radius curves they are the scourge of model railroading."" Unless you don't want to. Grin! Okay, running and ducking for cover.
I have a mix of truck mount and body mounts. But I don't fit the norm on my layout. A standard gauge with a narrow gauge flavor and curvatures in some areas that are 8.5 and 8.0 inch radius and lot of small radius Peco turnouts. The vast majority of my cars are 30, 36, and 40 foot cars and all the locomotives are body mount couplers. The body mounts on some of my freight cars are no issue on the tight radiuses mainly due to the shortness of the cars and the fact that all the body mounts are MT 1015/16s which have a pretty decent side to side swing. The 1016 is the same as a 1015 but with a coupler box that allows a wider swing action.
LOL Okay but I got you beat. I have a trolley line with 7.0 radius (and I hate it). LOL Figure it would be better to wrap it around my little finger...what the heck. One other thing I've said. "It's your railroad." You build it to please you. AND "Every train layout is a teaching layout." That's today's headlines. What? What? What did he say? Have fun!
Most of the better quality diesels today come with factory body mounts. And work just fine that way. I ran the Kadee/MT truck mounts for many long years. Then tried converting a few to body mounts. Had NO troubles, so converted more. And finally went all the way. Not one single moment of regret.
I have converted 80% of all my rolling stock to body mounts. That includes all sorts of box cars, flatcars gondolas, cabooses and even autoracks. My mainline has 36 inch min radius, branch line is 24 inch min radius and yard and industrial is 19 inch min radius. There are few areas that are less like the caboose track and a few areas where switchers are cutting cars for destination tracks. I have no issues at all using body mounts. All that is left are all my passenger cars. I am not sure it is worth the effort since that are a pretty much fixed set at all times running on ther mains.
Then my opinion is to go 100% body mount couplers based on my opinion of having a similar switching layout. 1. As stated earlier, switch moves performance wise are much easier and less prone to derailments. This even more true if you stay away from ridiculous radius curves or unrealistic track laying. 2. A shelf layout is usually higher than your standard N scale layout, NTrak layout and most definitely T-Trak layout. It is also smaller and will or should force you to concentrate on the finer details of the layout. Unfortunately because N scalers can get in more than their HO and larger modeling brethren, there seems to be a “more is better” attitude, be it freight cars or track arrangement. Either way this attitude can make N scale look like a miniature 027. In my opinion, one nicely detailed freight car that has a purpose is worth more than four cheap freight cars. 3. When you abandon the more in less attitude, you can focus on actual trains. When I started the City Job, most of the cars were early Atlas or Micro Trains. Detail was lacking, paint schemes were wrong, the Micro Trains cars sat too high and the performance was marginal at best for switching. When I first set down an Atlas PS-1 boxcar next to a similar Micro Trains, the difference in both detail and performance were day and night. 4. Finally, think about your layout and what it is you want to achieve. At a recent N scale show, I had an old timer from a neighboring NTrak set up come over and told me the City Job was pointless and a waste of time. Naturally I took offense at this as I have spent years researching the prototype and taking great pains in making my layout authentic. Rather than argue with him, I just realized he was an old school NTrak guy and was perfectly content running his old pizza cutter wheel, talgo coupler, equipped train on his unprototypical three main line modules at an unrealistic speed. It’s like debating NASCAR versus Rally. They both use a car in a race but the disciplines are night and day. I encourage you to listen to those of us who enjoy modeling switching and or prototype modeling as it seams that is the direction you are going. The knowledge base from those who enjoy switching will be a better fit for you then those who enjoy A racetrack type of layout, NTrak and T-Trak. Not a bash to the the non prototype guys, just and observation.
Well said Jim, but I for one, build in switching and yard services on NTrak modules. For example, I have a 28 foot module set that sets up to either bypass or enter a 4 track passenger station with locomotive storage as well as tracks for extra passenger cars and cargo loading of REA cars. The mains are only two tracks and a passing siding. And because of the layout design and the trackwork, I can backup the 85 foot passenger trains with no issues. The passing siding is long enough to hold a good sized freight train while the crew changes or stops for a meal at the dinner next to the station. So not all Ntrak is a race track, some are built for true operations too.
Jin and DCESharkman, thanks much for the replies! I am (I hope) focusing on quality over quantity here; I went back and forth between N and HO for some time, as model making and detailing is my favorite part of the hobby, so anything that can up reliability while running is a godsend. I'll just go for body mounts - I expect I'll have maybe 30 pieces of rolling stock and 3 or 4 locos, so it's easy enough to upgrade that many.
Two statements in your post stick out. The first is, "...old school NTrak guy and was perfectly content running his old pizza cutter wheel, talgo coupler, equipped train on his unprototypical three main line modules at an unrealistic speed. " and the second one is, "Not a bash to the the(sic) non prototype guys, just and(sic) observation." Regarding the first statement, I am willing to bet that that Ntrak guy (not all of them are old you know) would say to you that running a hundred and 110 car unit train behind four modern diesels is as prototypical as it gets. Now maybe that old guy is not as anal retentive as others about ride height, body mounts and Lo Pro flanges but he might also point out that three track main lines are indeed prototypical. Your second statement which I understand was intended to be a disclaimer is anything but that. I mean calling others "...the non prototype guys..." just because they choose to model an different aspect of the hobby is very parochial, don't you think? I think Model RR Rule #1 applies here. As far as Ntrak goes, Ntrak has taken more beatings than a rented mule but modelers today owe a lot to Ntrak. Ntrak is what got N scale out of the obscurity of basements and into the public arena. Ntrak was the impetus for Model Railroader Magazine to do the Clinchfield N scale layout and created the demand for better locomotives and rolling stock. Those lo pro wheels body mount couplers and detailed rolling stock would never have happened if Ntrak didn't expand the market to make all of that economically possible. Furthermore Ntrak give us all the opportunity to expand our horizon beyond the confines of our own little world whether it be a small point to point or a roundy-round layout in a basement, attic or spare room and run on a big layout. Lots of Ntrak guys do both. Its like using your car to go to work or run errands and then taking it out to the interstate and open it up. Ntrak pioneered the concept of the modular layout which is now global. Almost 50 years old now, Ntrak layouts still command attention at train shows and remain the best promotional tool that N scale has. The kids like it because the trains, like them are small; the women like it because the trains are "cute"; the men are impressed that a locomotive that small can pull all those cars. And there is nothing that compares with watching the excitement of a small kid when you hand them the throttle and ask them if they want to take a train for a spin around the layout. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with point to point switching layouts but Nscale is bigger than that and we should be grateful that there are these other N scale aficionados who share our interests because without them we might be running point to point in (HORRORS!!!) HO.
Can't help but appreciate Inkaneer's remarks. As for me. I build to please myself. Otherwise I'm a member of the DGAS committee. Build it for you and do the things you want to do. Now back to wiring in the 110 wiring for a local churches sound system. You want to know the definition of not fun. You got it!
