I bought a new Kato NW2 locomotive and its couplers don't work with MT couplers on my freight cars. Once in a while they hook up, but mostly they will not. The Katos don't seem to have a deep enough opening. Is there a workable solution to this? Thanks, Jim
Please don't take this as snarky, as I don't mean it so. But, really, I would just convert the Kato to MT's. Of all the couplers they make, there must be one that will fit. As far as inter-operability , I can't imagine that it's all that easy to make a coupler that mates well with MT without violating patents.
Bill is spot on. Factory Kato couplers are pretty useless. A MicroTrains conversion will make your life much easier.
y_c, Here is an option. MT Z scale 905's. Look better than normal MT's and work well and hold well........................... Just my 2 cents worth. However, remember to have fun, Carl
The drop in replacement in Kato NW2s is the Micro-Trains 2004. (I strongly suggest buying the assembled ones) Here is a nice YouTube video:
This usually attracts a bunch of comments, but I don't really care. I put Micro Trains couplers on both ends of EVERYTHING !!! All coupling problems solved !!!
I have not had any issues with Kato couplers not working with Micro-Trains couplers. I run like that a lot with no problems....
The real problem with Kato couplers isn't so much how they operate, but the fact that 90% of Kato locos and rolling stock has their couplers below Micro Trains standard coupler height, causing them to disconnect.
Is the patent still enforceable? The original KayDee HO coupler patent expired and alternatives were quickly available. Currently in the HO arena, there are six competitors (McHenry, Accumate, Bachmann, Sergent, Walthers and Intermountain) for the KayDee coupler. Already in N scale we have the McHenry, the Accumate, Kato and Bachmann. Not all work on the same principle as the MT coupler. I think the Accumate comes the closest. Most of these couplers will operate, or are reported to operate, with MT's. Then there is another question. Do we want another coupler like the MT's? The MT's have taken a lot of flak lately for their design incorporating a spring inline with the pull/push axis. Will another manufacturer want to jump into that controversy with a product that would be essentially viewed as a 'knock off'? I would think not. The McHenry couplers, when they came out, suffered from three flaws. First, they were oversized, even more so than the MT's. Second they did not offer a coupler box to mount them so one had to use an MT box or make one. Third, they did not offer a "T" shank version. Most people fault the McHenry's for the exposed knuckle spring which can disengage and fall out to be forever lost. But a little drop of epoxy on one end of the spring would prevent it. The N scale McHenry coupler, like its HO brother was based on the venerable KayDee No.5 which was the defacto standard for HO. Since its introduction in 2008 it remains the same size with no coupler box and no "T" shank version. Maybe there is some engineering problem with reducing the size but the other two problems are doable I would think.
I use the two piece Kato coupler in my DD-51s and that is about it and have no issues with connections. However the version that comes with a trip pin has always been problems. The version I use is a 11-707 which is a T shank box fit. 000_0588-3 by John Moore posted Dec 29, 2018 at 9:06 AM
Responding to requests from y_c and WM183 : Here are two images of one of my NW2's with MT 905's installed. I did this when I put decoders into the units so I had it apart. You can see that I used good brass .0090 screws instead of the plastic keeper, just my preference. This shot shows the relative size of the 905............. Here is the bottom showing application as well as truck clearances....................... Pretty straight forward install, this was just my way. Fifer also has the 905's, BTW ready made is a must. Best wishes to all for a safe and sane New Years, Carl
I would like to have been the fly on the wall in the conference room where the McHenry design was finalized. What were they thinking? "We can make this bigger than the car if we only try!" OTOH, there have been several other kinds of MT couplers that have dealt with the in-linespring replaced with plastic fingers on the shank. As best as I cantell, that works well. I suspect that MT hasn't done this because they feel they might "lose face."
This thread shows a great way to make a "coupler box" for McHenry couplers from some evergreen plastic channel: https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/21757
I have Kato, micro trains and accurate (found on Atlas rolling stock) couplers. What I found, as you did, is that MT will hardly couple to Kato. However, accumates couple fine to both MT and to Kato. For now, I just make sure I have an Atlas boxcar or tank car behind my Kato engine before adding any MT couplers. Just something that may help you out if you don't want to change couplers in the short term.
