The document makes things seem worse than they are, but things are still bad. Page 1 and page 18 cover 98% of all freight cars with 11 coupler types (several shown twice, assembled or not, shim or not). The rest are mostly special couplers for various locomotives and the like; and a few specialty cars. I suspect that for cars that already have a body mount pad designed (the small flat area with a dimple for the screw) that a 1015/1016/2004 covers 90% of those, so if you're stocking parts for conversions three of them get you most of the way there. Also, if you don't want to guess/measure, they have guides for many popular items: Micro-Trains Line Company
This would be a huge step forward. I'm sure part of the problem is not wanting to recommend a competitors product; but I just realized there is an easy way out of that. Publish the dimensions. On the insert with the car could be: Body mount pad located 0.226" above the rails, screw hole .141" back from end of car. Bingo, a 2001 works great (happened to be what I was looking at right now), and you didn't have to say use a "Micro-Trains" part. Maybe Athearn/McHenry will save us. :tb-biggrin:
John C wrote:Again, it would be a great improvement if manufacturers would AT LEAST provide a pad at the correct height, with a dimple to drill the hole, AND tell us what body-mount coupler we should use. MT already does this on most of their rolling stock; there is a pad, a hole to drill out and tap, and they tell you to use the 1027 (on most stuff like boxcars or hoppers) or which coupler is needed for the conversion. But try to figure out which coupler is best for an Intermountain tank car, or reefer (I use a 1015 on the tank; a 1023 on the reefer). And then there is the height issue; I keep a stack of sheet styrene from .005 to .020 to help with this, because it seems that no two car styles are built at the same height. And if the coupler is too low??? Well . . . that's a problem. ----------------------------------- We have a coupler standard height of .216"..However,this is for truck mounts AFAIK.We have no such standard for body mounts because neither the NMRA or modelers have requested body mount standards and you noted the results.This IMHO is a travesty seeing that N Scale has been around for 40 years! IHMO we need standards so every car is at the correct scale height from the rails.Even different brands of boxcars ride at different heights..Why is this? IMHO its because the manufacturers can tweak the different heights with truck mounted couplers where the couplers still come out at the required .216" regardless of truck/coupler brand.No wonder the manufacturers gets nervous reading these types of discussions.. KD has a coupler conversion chart in HO..Why doesn't MT have one? ----------------------------------- I think the hobby can do better. We can have more prototypical-looking rolling stock with body mounts that operates JUST AS WELL IF NOT BETTER than truck mounts. It's not a cost issue (at least not if manufacturers go this route for NEW MOLDS ONLY); it's not a reliability or operations issue (at least if folks are told "No, you can't run that 89' flat on 9" curves; sorry. Here's some 15" Unitrack that will work great, though!"). It's just inertia; there's no pressure for change, so the manufacturers keep using truck mounts. ------------------------------------ See my above comment..Why should they change? Of course we continue to howl,bark and raise a fuss they just might listen and add coupler box pads as a compromise. ------------------------------------ We can do better, folks. And we should demand better, because that is how the hobby moves forward. ------------------------------------ I agree but,past experience shows that the majority of the modelers resist changes.Even today DC vs DCC is a very hot and temperamental discussion. I can still recall the old X2F KD coupler debates of the 60s!
Lets see if we can get a manufactuerer to bite! I agree with you on this... and that is how we got to knuckle couplers as standard equipment. Back in 2000 most of the manufacturers were still using Rapido couplers and the outcry from the modeling community evoked an industry wide change. I really think the FIRST manufacturer to do this SHOULD be Micro-trains. They have the couplers already available and have frames which can be used 'as-is' to do body mounted couplers. If Micro-trains went to this standard... it is very likely that other manufacturers would follow along. The question still lingers... are there enough N scalers who care enough about body mounted versus truck mounted couplers to create the groundswell of protest to evoke the change in this scale. It happened in HO a long time ago... and now you wouldn't know that they used to have truck mounted couplers unless you have some of the older 'train set' rolling stock. I'm sure there were debates years ago when HO finally went to body mounted couplers as standard... and I don't believe they are looking to go back to truck mounted couplers. So... getting back to Micro-Trains... Joe D'Amato... if you happen to be looking into this thread... What are the chances that Micro-Trains will do a MONTH of body mounted releases? :~)
I just created a poll to get some idea of how many N scalers even care about the body mounted versus truck mounted standard. Here's a link to the poll: http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=100796
While this debate has been raging on my father had been having trouble with his WoT Harrimans uncoupling, and when backing up, derailing. His layout is the width of a single bed and not endowed with large radius curves and uses Peco code 55 medium turnouts. After he body mounted MTL 1015's and fitted FVM wheelsets the Harrimans now run without any problems, even backing through a particularly severe reverse curve into his yard. Just another example of body mounts at work. I honestly don't understand what those who are pleading that manufacturers don't produce cars with body mount couplers are worried about.
Anybody here purchase any InterMountain flat cars? I bought half-a-dozen and every one of them had problems with the body mounted couplers. When the assembly of our rolling stock is by the lowest bidder I personally would rather have a MT truck with coupler made to a standard I know in advance will work. Until our cars have a lot better factory QC, I’ll stick with truck mounted couplers.
Change is difficult, because in our modern world we are constantly inundated by change, most of which we never asked for, and most of it has harmful consequences to us (increased expense, loss of aesthetics, lowered quality, poorer function, health risks, poorer function, you name it). There are too many darned people in the world, and they loudly, angrily want too many things that the rest of us don't want at all. Many of us are happy as clams just sitting in our one little unchanging habitat--whether train room, home, or backyard--and finding a measure of stability. I know I am. In my little train room, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We may be Luddites (at least in our little safe-places)--or the others may be the ones with adjustment disorders. But an adequate supply of information is helpful. For instance, now you've got me feeling all woeful and sad because my cars didn't come with body-mount couplers--especially after reading enough versions of what coupler to use where and which does what (here and in other Trainboard threads I searched). I was a mechanic in the Army and I think I'm unusually talented at understanding instructions, explanations and diagrams. Though I was (before this thread began) delighted with my wonderful new MT knuckle couplers mounted on trucks, I am finally reduced to begging manufacturers to help out. Thanks a whole lot. :tb-mad: Cristi
Sadly that is a problem child the manufacturers can fix by using coupler mounts.This is why we need stronger manufacturing standards and RPs.
Cristi said:But an adequate supply of information is helpful. For instance, now you've got me feeling all woeful and sad because my cars didn't come with body-mount couplers--especially after reading enough versions of what coupler to use where and which does what (here and in other Trainboard threads I searched). I was a mechanic in the Army and I think I'm unusually talented at understanding instructions, explanations and diagrams. Though I was (before this thread began) delighted with my wonderful new MT knuckle couplers mounted on trucks, I am finally reduced to begging manufacturers to help out. --------------------------- Interesting..Didn't know I had that much influence..LOL! Remember,I am but one of many voices crying in the wildness for change-you can be among the voices crying for stability with standardization of coupler mounts..See how it works? NEVER forget manufacturers will listen to you as well as us noise makers..The end results will be those that cry the loudest...Its the American way. Seriouly there are ways to please both camps-sell cars with/without body mounts.Those of us that wants body mounts can fork over the extra cash those that don't buys the truck mounted cars.It should be as simple as that.On the other hand perhaps MT could sell replacement floors with body mounted couplers like they tried years ago..
Who Der Pickin On Me? Jagged Ben, Is that you pickin on me? Grin! You need to remember what a disclaimer is. I said, "Basically, (the disclaimer) synonymous with body mount". You need to know that I did appreciate your come back along with the detailed information. And worth repeating. Now I did provide a internet website with a picture of a "Underslung"...says so on the package....grrrr! "Underslung", "Underset" and "Body Mounted" aren't "Basically" synonymous? If you ignored this before you need to give a read.
What's a going on here? We got a bunch of night owls? You guys must have stayed up all night to keep this going...grin! I thought Saturday night was enough. Welcome to Saturday night live and holding over the TrainBoard gang for a repeat performance on Sunday night. Coming to you live from all over America and other distant lands. Sheez! There is a passion for model railroading after all! As far as the argument for or against body mount and truck mounted. Whether there should be a governing body to set a manufacturers standard. AND who is right and who is wrong. Don't ask me to sort it out. Remember, I'm the one who sets my own standards. If you have me on ignore you've missed my take on all of this. You can go back and read what I've already said...if you want. I could do a history lesson on HO and knuckle couplers. Unless you were there you have no idea what a mess we HO'er's went through. Ever hear of a horn hook coupler? Similar to a Rapido and as ugly or uglier . Lousy horn hook's. Kadee was making an effort to put out knuckle couplers but they were rough't to start with and a bit oversized and a lof of the prototypers thumbed their noses at them. Today, Kadee (in my not so humble opinion) is number one in the industry. AND, They did it without a lot of input on behalf of NMRA. The same is true of N Scale and Kadee's little brother MicroTrains. Still the finest products available and again done without alot of direction from NMRA. You see NMRA is not the standard bearer... for most of us. It is a private club or organization that sets "Guidelines" for it's own membership. Has provided direction to those manufacturers and modelers...who will listen and or is willing and able to abide by such. Over the years the infighting amongest themselves deterred much of the progress. Our discussions here resembles much of the same kind of verbal scrimmaging going on in NMRA. We each have one voice and would like to know it can be heard...we hope...above the others. It takes a general consensus or majority vote to determine the action NMRA as a body of model rails...will take. If you aren't a member and want a voice in what happens in the ranks of NMRA...then JOIN. Manufacturers on the other hand are looking at the easiest way to produce a train car. What sells, what are they buying and the question comes up within their own ranks "Why Change". If they do body mounting it won't be the quality of what we can get from MicroTrains. Requiring most of us to remove the pocket, underslung, underset, or whatever we decide to call it. To install the quality we desire. Why is it every time society wants to make a change we look to the government to do it for us? And/or a private governing body to...I think you get my drift. Why can't we start whatever change we desire, one person at a time, one model rail community at a time and enjoy the benefits of what's here today? I've started the changes...I want... on my private layout. In time I will have the Rapido Couplers removed and replaced with MTL (that includes all the other cheap copies of knuckle couplers). Did I say the same thing happened, in HO? More on this later, now back to N scale. In time...I will body mount, all the couplers...by my own doing. If you want change...start with yourself. Start your own band wagon and invite others to join you. If that's being hypocritical...so be it. Seems to me that's what most of us here, are doing. How about that? Well, I'm on board. Let's make sure we ask for the right changes and we are able to take everyone from the newbie to the experienced modeler with us. And, let's be flexible enough to allow for truck mounted or body mounted and leave room for "CHOICE". Anyone got a Diet Dr. Pepper? Have fun!
Thanks for the appreciation. I'm not picking on you, just making sure there's correct info here. "Underslung" and "underset" are (basically) synonymous. However, neither of those are synonymous with "body-mount", not even "basically." For example, the 1015 is a body-mounted coupler that is NOT underslung. And the 1019 coupler is a truck-mounted coupler that IS underslung.
Yes.... and what kind of problems did you have? I have eight of them, and three of them are on the tail of this long autorack, centerbeam consist at our trainclub. The autoracks and centerbeams have truck mounted couplers. There were no incidents involving any of these cars. The track is Kato Unitrack code 80... there are several turnouts and a double crossover. Even though this is Kato Unitrack... it is not laid particularly well and NOT affixed to the layout. There are areas where the curves are 13.75" radius and one spot were a couple of 11" radius curved sections are used. The picture shows the centerbeams and flatcars about to cross a turnout followed by the double crossover. Just to give you an idea of how bad autoracks look even on 13.75" radius... and a very wicked "S" curve which this consist traveled over without incident... I'm guessing that your cars may have been poorly assembled based on your comments. I don't know what track you're running them on... which may pose some problems I'm not experiencing on Unitrack.
This is being pedantic, but I'm going to argue no. I see your point, and I understand what you're saying but this is one of those cases where being pedantic is important I'm afraid. Here's a link to the pictures again: http://micro-trains.com/Coupler%20diagrams.pdf When I think "body mount" I think any coupler that is mounted to the floor of the car. 1015, 1016, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1025, 1026, 1027, and so on. It is a generic term for couplers that mount in this way. "Underslung" and "Underset" refer to a very specific type of body mount, in this case a 2001. The box is shifted down and the shank comes into the bottom of a coupler. So, it's sort of like saying a "Corvette" and "Chevrolet" are the same thing. One is a specific form of the other. Depending on the context they may well be the same thing, or be something quite different. It's also important to note that there are underslung truck mount couplers (see a 1019), so not all underslung couplers are body mounts as well. I hate to make a big deal out of such things, because I feel like I am being a nit-picker. However when it comes to 'controvercial' subjects I am always on the look out for imprecise terms which seem to add pages to the discussion because people argue over them. The more controvercial the topic the more I feel we need to be extremely precise with terms....
Having none of the Intermountain cars.... Are the coupler pockets integrated, or like a standard 1015 or 2001 screwed on? Are they MT couplers, Accumates, or another brand? Can someone provide some close up photos and more info?
Very interesting. Just looking at them the first thing that pops into my mind is how are the coupler pockets going to stay snapped shut. Looks like they are the only thing to hold the end of a long underframe section on, so there's likely to be a lot of leverage on them if the parts don't fit just perfectly. That may not be the problem, but these have me really curious.... FWIW, I would have molded the top half of the box in, but still had the lower box as a separate bit that snaps on. That would have been one more part though....
Isn't that a fact! LOL It sure does...doesn't it. LOL Keep me and the rest of us on the straight and narrow Jagged Ben, Leo Bicknell and Cal Zephyr. I ain't arguing with yous. And I ain't pantin very much either...grin! Short of breath now and then. What was it you said? Pandemic? Nice to know you can get a edumacation right here on TrainBoard. Gosh, Cal Zephyr do you really like running that tight a curve? You certainly proved your point. Just keep pickin on me! That's how I knows you likes me...Grin! You guys can keep this going...I mean if you want to. Signing off: Now back to my regularly scheduled work on the layout. Adios! .
