Why Don't Manufacturers Body-mount Couplers?

Man Im way off in left field (excuse me as I should be in bed).

In your situation the short of the long is How long you want your train to be regardless of mounting type, just remember the longer the train the heavyier and the tighter the curve the higher resistance and a the higher chance of rolling off. if it rolls in towards the inside of the curve their is to much weight, add a helper to push the cars and it will eliminate the roll. If your train jumps the rail (this is one of the cons to using TM's) it is hard to diagnose the problem cause it could be that you picked a bad spot in the track, the TM's are forcing themselves off or you could have a car way to light in the front of the train?????????

How many cars do you plan on running and about what weight? (if using mt's than weight is known already)????????????

Hey bob I seen the Underslung's you where refering to, They do swing greatly.

I don't know what I'm doing but I think I'm reading backwards (I am dislectsic but DAMN)

I'm going to the thing they call bed I think now that it's time to wake up in ?? 2 hours

 

The point is, many new people don't know this is a problem and don't know to ask questions. I didn't say these people bought the product from me. Most of the time I don't see them till they have a problem. They have been buying from some internet seller or Ebay what they thought "looked cool" with no regards to if it would actually work. At least with truck mount they have half a chance of making it work.

BTW - the images you posted are not accuarate for the problems newbies will experience. You created your example with flex track. Flex track will naturally give some bit of easement which makes life a lot easier for any coupler. The biggest problem for bodymounts is as you mentioned, the transition from straight to curve, which will be pretty drastic using sectional track. Once the cars are in the curve, they will be fine.

Also, for you guys that wonder about how tight you can go....



This layout runs in our display case daily with no derailments using a combination of truck and body mount cars with rapidos. No need to replace something that works fine. The inner radius is 6 1/2". The trick to the layout is nice generous easments. Even though the radius is tight, most people, even experienced model railroaders don't realize it because it transitions so smoothly from curve to curve.

Truck mount couplers will help those that are new and don't know the nuances of laying perfect track IE: No reverse S curves, no 90' cars on 9 3/4R, etc. etc. There are a lot of people out there that want to try this hobby but are clueless and have no mechanical ability what-so-ever. Should they at least not have a fighting chance at getting a layout to run?

I had a gentleman come in the other day that was totally baffled at how to join track together, until I showed him the rail joiners that he had thrown away because he didn't know what they were. He is certainly not going to understand that he can't run a 89' Autorack and a 33' hopper back to back on his 9 3/4" radius track, till he runs across the problem for himself and comes back to us going "Help!". There is a learning curve, let's not make it steeper than it already is for some.

 

I realize the term comes with a lot of baggage from what happened in HO, but I believe this is why I think we need agreement from the manufacturers (via an NMRA standard?) for something like "Fine Scale" N scale, or similar. Part of helping new people is directing them to easier to use products.

We see this all over, laser cut kits come in regular and "craftsman". Car accessories make sure they tell you if it is "Bolt On" or needs welding, cutting and the like. Serious computer programs come with low end and high end versions (Final Cut Express/Pro, Adobe Photoshop LE/CS3).

The flip side is also true, as much as the new person should have a fighting chance to get a working layout, the expert should not have to deal with 100% dumbed down products. I think that may be the real crux of where we are; N Scale is finally big enough that there are enough "experts" to make a real, separate market. While they can cut off truck couplers and do their own body mounts they are starting to ask why should I?

Product differentiation, backed up with product labeling.....

 

Actually these were available back in 1972 for 40 and 50 foot boxcars.

Mark

 

Wow...didnt know all "experts" ran BM couplers...interesting. And that all mid level and below run "dumbed down products"...again...interesting...thnxs.

And why should "experts" have to cut off trucks etc to body mount couplers? Because they are 'experts"...they have the "expertise" too do so. I understand the possible frustration of having to...but you guys know how...some of us dont. PLUS...once again...us "little guys"...like being able to run our stuff on 24, 32, or 36 inch HC doors.

I just hope this doesnt come down to a "He who has the most toys wins!" kinda thing. That would be a sad day for N scale...ty

 

I'm not "Bob" but yes these are the ones I was looking for. YES!

Thanks for sharing your images. I picked up some ideas for those broken stanchions on my cars. Those trips to the floor after trying to negotiate those tight radius curves... has taken it's tole.

Nice, quality work!

 

What Image we leave!

George and yes all tuned in,

I just now read Leo Bicknell's posting and realized where you are coming from. I'm not sure the descriptive verbage used best represents the hobby. It's his take on it and I can respect that. The following is my response to what you wrote... before going back and reading Leo's posts. No offense toward you or him intended...just my two cents.

What you say, man? Expert how dare you imply I'm an expert. I'm not a has been with just one spurt left. GRIN! I love these kinds of responses...humor...ahhh...that was tongue in cheek humor...right? Who's a dummy?

The way I see it, it took a long time for me to get to the point where I felt comfortable enough to pick up a train car and start detailing, changing out wheel sets and trucks and making the switch to knuckle couplers. None of this came easy and I haven't forgotten where I started and the frustrations that came with it.

Tony Hines, has touched on the beginners perspective and illustrates with a in house LHS train layout...the beginning. Most of us started with the tightest radius curves and the cheapest equipment. We learned over time how to improve our layouts and even made some big boo boo's along the way. The hobby needs to keep this provision AS IS! And yes...Bachmann...does play a big role for the beginner or entry level model railroader. Did I say that? Must be to early in the morning. Grin!

For those of us who are further down the road (not experts...let's not go there) with considerable experience are ready to move to a different level (higher level doesn't really work here). We want our layouts to be as prototypical as possible without derailing all the fun. Some like to freelance...and why not....I do! While others who have achieved their goals have pulled it all out to put in a S scale, anything but prototypical layout. Remembering, it's not about absolutes but about having fun.

The only dummy here is the one who can't work a computer? Shoot, I can't even lift a website posting and deliver it here. Now that's a computer geek-dummy!

This hobby is exclusive to no one and is beneficial to all, irregardless of who or where you are. This isn't about the one with the most toys winning. Every model rail is a WINNER! The number one rule is: #1. Have fun!

Take what you want, keep an eye on the rest and file away what you've already learned from the postings here. It's your railroad, you set the standard, you make the rules and when all else fails...remember rule #1.

.
.

 

Thanks for your clarifications, Rick! What does it mean, though, when a coupler is "underslung"?

Cristi

 

Okay, I understand both his and your points better now. I get a good feel for the first time of WHY (mechanically speaking) it it is that the longer the car, the worse the problem is with body mount couplers.

The branch with 10" radius curves will operate 40' cars and one passenger shorty. The rest of the layout will be 12.5" minimum.

BTW for By the Way? Do you think he would mind? :tb-biggrin:

Cristi

 

Jeez, hope you're okay today. I know it's hard spending nearly the entire night out in left field. Unless you have a pillow.

A typical run will have one GP-7 or 2-8-0, a shorty passenger car, one or two boxcars, a hopper, and a caboose. The little railroad company that will be operating on that leg really is a small potatoes operation.

The underslungs seem like a nice idea. I just wonder, how easy are they to assemble?

Cristi

 

Your quite welcome..I also apologize for using the strong words but,I am very passionate when it comes to N Scale and would like to see it advance and grow.Many that know me personally and on forums has grown accustom to my strong worded replies and thoughts pro or con..That's one of my Achilles heels.

 

Cristi,

You asked me for a defintion of "Underslung" it's basically synoymous with a body mounted coupler pocket.

Here is another resource for the MTL 2001 "Underslung".

MT2001 N Scale Underslung Body Mount - MTL2001

With a dremel tool, and other tools as already discussed it is easy to install a underslung coupler pocket. I prefer to buy the pre-assembled coupler pockets. I would encourage you to go back to BNSFTW's.....postings and the pictures along with the information shared. The pictures of the ones he shared are in my opinion the best.

I do hope we are not confusing you with our answers. We each have a slightly different spin, emphasis and/or take on the subject. However, the information does blend together and can be helpful to you.

On my layout the train that gives me the best performance... is the one with the "Underslung" body mounted couplers. It will negotiate any of the tight curves on my layout (see previous posts) in both forward and reverse moves. The excellent performance of this train convinced me to switch over to the body mounts.

For those of you who are beginners. Don't get discouraged with your layouts or the lack of the body mounted couplers. You'll get there soon enough. Besides my best memories are of the first layouts I built. I and my childhood friends had all kinds of fun.

If we can talk the providers into switching over to the "Underslung" body mount...you will get there sooner then you think. Grin!

I can only hope this helps.

Enjoy and remember Rule #1.

 

Reading the latest replies, I am puzzled. It seems as if the suggestion that manufacturers should offer something particular that appeals to some people results in everyone else being afraid their thing won't be made anymore.

Compare:

Manufacturers should make tank cars, no one makes the most common types.

Manufacturers should make cars with body mount couplers, no one makes cars with body mount couplers.

The first statement doesn't seem to draw tons of people saying "No, no tank cars. I like box cars, if they make tank cars they will have forgotten all of us who like box cars." However, the second pulls out just that "No, no body mounts. I like truck mounts, if they make body mounts they will forget all about people who like truck mounts."

Further, the most hippocritical bit is the "you can just change them" argument. Those who want body mount can cut off the truck mount and put on a body mount. Guess what, it works in reverse, if a car came with body mount you can cut off the body mount and pop on a truck with a coupler. Neither side should have to go to that effort.

N Scale is big enough we can have both. Manufacturers can have different lines. Heck, Atlas could come out with the "Body-Mounts are cool" line and the "Talgo or nogo" line for all I care. They could lump it in with existing differentiators (think Athearn "Blue Box", or Atlas Master/Trainman) or make new catagories.

So please, while I want more cars made with body mount from the factory so I don't have to take 15 minutes per car to install body mounts eating up my hobby time and budget I have never advocated them ceasing the manufacture talgo trucks. I think the market is big enough we can have both.

One of my biggest concerns is the amount of bad information out there. Many people have nothing but truck mounted couplers because 99.99% of the cars produced in the last 20 years have been delivered that way. Nothing wrong with that. However, many of these same people have been told "stories". Man, I love to hear the stories but I also think they are bad on the hobby. Raise your hand if you've ever been sitting around at a club meeting/show/socal event and heard someone say "I spent 4 hours one afternoon body mounting 5 cars, but them in a train and every single one derailed all over the place. I'm never doing that again."

Now pause, and ask yourself, is that due to body mounts? The answer is, no one knows. There was a thread recently on the Atlas forum where someone blamed pizza cutters wheels on derailments through Peco Double Slips. I don't think it has anything to do with pizza cutters, Peco Double Slips aren't built right (not like prototype double slips), and it's a well known issue where the track is lacking. In this case the person swapped out for lo-pro wheels which went through the switch for the next 2 hours he was on the NTrak module with no derailments. So really that was all random chance.

Absolute statements rarely work. "Body mounts don't work with 9 3/4" curves." Bunk. Total bunk. Bodymount 40' boxes, pull 'em with a GP-9, you'll never have an issue and they will back around those 9 3/4" better than truck mounts. Try autoracks, and well, see the picture back in this thread. "Truck mounts track better." Back a 50 car train up a yard latter without derailing with truck mounts. Please, I dare you. 10 times in a row, no derailments allowed. Didn't work, did it? Try that with body mounts, works good.

Truck mount couplers have as much to do with tracking as they do with:

* Rapidos were the norm when many of the trucks and underframes we use today were designed.
* N Scale cars ride "high" for a number of reasons, from clearing truck mount couplers, to casting and tolerances. This makes body mounts more difficult to get at the right level.
* Only one company makes after market body mounts. Competitors may not want to enable them to sell more product, and/or may have to design new parts to offer their own body mounts.

Lastly, I have a plea. If you own NO cars with body mounts please body mount 5 cars and try them on your layout before passing judgement. Mix them up, run them with truck mounts. Run them with cars of the same length. Run them with cars of different lengths. Back them up, run the forward. If you have derailments, look for the cause just like an accident investigator might; was the problem really a body mount or was it some bad track work, a damaged car next to it, or some other issue.

They may still not be for you; however everyone I have gotten to use body mount couplers has been very happy with their performance, even on tight curves. People are amazed how they back up. Many still did not convert more cars though, due to the time and expense involved. I'm advocating for some "off the shelf" options for these people (and myself).

So yes, I want body mounts. No, I don't want to take away your truck mounts.

 

Most manufacturers have usually gone with one or the other option... rather than providing both. When the groundswell of negativity towards Rapido couplers reached a certain point... one by one manufacturers began to offer the knuckle couplers. At first some of the manufacturers provided BOTH rapidos and a version of knuckle coupler... but eventually it was knuckle coupler as the standard. It is rare to find new items being offered with Rapido couplers now... perhaps only on beginners toy-train sets... an probably thats just because of old inventory. Bear in mind... there are still a lot of people who are sore about the changeover from Rapidos to knuckle couplers because they were quite content running their trains with Rapido couplers...and felt the changes have cost them money to convert knuckle couplers TO Rapidos.

It would be very difficult (and costly) for manufacturers to do BOTH body mounted and truck mounted variants to satisfy both factions. The easiest for them to do right away is to continue to do truck mounted couplers but add a pre-set body mounting indented pad on the underframe and a specially designed pocket to accept the coupler already in the truck mounted pocket. This means a new mold for the underframe and coupler pocket... which would be require reworking all existing molds... very costly. The problem is... this COST will be passed on to the modeler even if they never intend to do body mounted couplers. With the retail prices of model railroading items continually increasing without new molds... this could continue to price many existing and future modelers out of the market.

I realize that the N scale market is now far more diverse than it was even 10 years ago. Yet... the manufacturers probably won't see it as a way to make MORE sales. Instead they will be moving less of an existing product which has already been tooled... to another product which requires new tooling. Essentially splitting the market... not necessarily adding to the market.

I'm all for advances in the realism of N scale... and the truck mounted coupler is still one of those vestiges of "toy-train' non-prototypical accomodations we still have to deal with. I think most rolling stock models would look much more realistic right out of the box with the body mounted couplers. OF COURSE... we will have to admit that we've taken some more of the 'modeling' out of model railroading

 

Hey Leo.....

Hey Leo...

1st... I want to appologize for kinda gettin up in your face in my last reply. It was uncalled for...and unnecessary. You expressed your opinion...and I went off on ya...was a bad day on the layout.

2nd...We all have expresed our concerns on BM or TM couplers. I am sure the manufatures have digested it all...plus other comments from other consumers ...through various venues. The manufactures WILL do what they decide is best. Whether that be for the manufactures bottom line...or for the consumer.

3rd...Since I have only run one Body Mounted coupled car through my layout...and that doesnt seem like a fair evaluation. I will get some body mounts & some new trucks (when I can afford em) for a few more cars...and I will set em up. New trucks in case the body mounts dont work out...I can change em back...lol. I will run em through their paces...including switches. I will let ya know what I find out. That only seems fair...as you have pointed out.

Once again...my appologizes for my rant on ya earlier...:tb-embarrassed:

 

I'm sorry, but this is not the correct meaning of "underslung". The word refers to the height of the coupler compared to the coupler pocket. (The coupler pocket is properly known as a "draft gear box", incidentally.)

On an underslung coupler, the shank of the coupler connects to the knuckle at the bottom of the knuckle instead of the top, thus raising the height of the knuckle compared to most MT couplers, on which the shank connects to the knuckle at the top.

Thus, an "underslung coupler" (e.g. 2004) will be higher than an non-underslung coupler (e.g. 1015, 1023) if attached to the bottom of the same car with no other modifications.

On many models (Kato locos, autoracks) installing a 1015 or similar coupler at the correct hieght would require either raising the car unrealistically (or impossibly), or filing out a space for the coupler, which is difficult to do, or destroys the models resale value, or what have you. Hence the desirability of the underslung coupler for some models.

The 2000 series and the 1019 are underslung couplers. The 2000 series was created for Kato locomotives, and the 1019 is standard on MT autoracks, TOFC cars, and some other mfgrs cars (e.g. Red Caboose autoracks) that come with MT trucks.

So far, none of the pictures in this thread show an underslung coupler. For coupler diagrams that show the difference, look here. Note that the phrase "underset mounting" is also used, meaning the same as "underslung."

Personally, however, I would not like to see the style of current MT "underslung" couplers favored, because (like the 1015) they are pretty much guaranteed to swing to the side during push maneuvers. I much prefer the 1023 style coupler, because it is usually stays straight, at least on straight track. The 2001 and 1015 couplers were designed for locomotives, which usually don't have the space behind the couplers for the 1023 style draft gear. How the 1015 became many people's standard choice for body mounting is a little puzzling to me, although I guess the greater swing and the snap-together design work in its favor.

 

Leo, you clearly haven't spent enough time discussing Kato paint jobs on the Atlas forum!

 

WOWSERS! I downloaded that PDF. 69 different BM couplers...no wonder some of us feel overwhelmed by body mounts. :tb-confused::tb-err::tb-wacky:

 

And this is why I started this thread. Wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler if cars CAME with body mounts, instead of trying to figure out whether you need to mount a MicroTrains 1015, 1023, 1027, or some other variant?

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.

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.

We can do better, folks. And we should demand better, because that is how the hobby moves forward.

John C.