Different couple heights?

Trainguy64 Jun 1, 2022

  1. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    Looking at it again, maybe it doesn't... The shadows underneath make it hard to tell. Oh wellllllll................................
     
  2. CSX Robert

    CSX Robert TrainBoard Member

    1,502
    638
    41
    I've had slight variations, but never that much. Again, there is an NMRA standard, there is no reason for that much variation.
     
  3. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    No law has been passed let alone proposed mandating truck mounted couplers so if you want to body mount couplers then do so. But in the land of 9 3/4" radii, body mounts don't do so good and that, unfortunately, is where the majority of N scale layouts reside.

    I don't want to derail this thread into another body vs truck mount debate so that will be my last post in that regard.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2022
    MK likes this.
  4. tehachapifan

    tehachapifan TrainBoard Member

    1,859
    859
    46
    You don't want this to derail into a debate and yet you come back with response like that??

    With regards to manufacturers going with truck-mounts, I believe the car ends have to be modified quite a bit if the overall car ride height is to be lower. They either have to notch the end sills and lose detail, or they have to scrunch/distort the ends so that the bottom sills are higher than the side sills, leaving room for truck mounted coupler swing.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2022
  5. Trainguy64

    Trainguy64 TrainBoard Member

    71
    145
    5
    Just got home and had a closer look and to clarify couplers are body mounted.
    I'm going to try putting a spacer between the body and coupler housing to move it down.
    Plus the trucks do have a single spacer which I will remove and use that spacer to move the couplings down.
    Not sure if I will need a thicker spacer but will try that first.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2022
    mtntrainman likes this.
  6. Doug Gosha

    Doug Gosha TrainBoard Member

    3,595
    7,664
    80
    Body mount is superior, just like with any other scale

    Doug
     
    BoxcabE50 and CSX Robert like this.
  7. freddy_fo

    freddy_fo TrainBoard Member

    1,091
    4,329
    47
    @TrainGuy I have a bunch of MTL 1015 spacers left over from all the kits I built if you need any. The whisker on the Intermountain car looks a little thicker than the other car though and make me wonder how different they are compared to MTL.
     
    Doug Gosha likes this.
  8. Trainguy64

    Trainguy64 TrainBoard Member

    71
    145
    5
    freddy,
    That is very generous of you and yes I will take some of those spacers off your hands.
    They will work much better than little round metal washers.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2022
  9. freddy_fo

    freddy_fo TrainBoard Member

    1,091
    4,329
    47
    These are some of the shims. If they look like what you need just PM me your mailing address and I'll get them out to you.

    20220601_175922.jpg
     
    Doug Gosha likes this.
  10. Trainguy64

    Trainguy64 TrainBoard Member

    71
    145
    5
    Yes those are the ones.
    Not sure if you realize but I'm in Canada.
     
  11. freddy_fo

    freddy_fo TrainBoard Member

    1,091
    4,329
    47
    Sent you a PM.
     
  12. C&O_MountainMan

    C&O_MountainMan TrainBoard Member

    265
    682
    12
    Noting your updated comment, but being unable to quote it for some reason:

    Yeah, the Intermountain car is their item #66802. Their website is short on description, but they have some product pictures. Item #66812 is in the same car series, and with the slightly different angle of the shot, the details of the photos suggest body mounted.
     
  13. Kisatchie

    Kisatchie TrainBoard Member

    1,031
    1,322
    44
    I'd say they were clearly body mounted couplers.
     
  14. CSX Robert

    CSX Robert TrainBoard Member

    1,502
    638
    41
    I agree 100%, if done right, which apparently the were not here.

    Looking at that series on Intermountain's website (about 3/4 of the way down this page), it looks like they were originally designed for truck mount couplers and then switched to body mount.

    Here's a picture of the OP's body mounted coupler car from the website: https://www.intermountain-railway.com/n/html/66802.htm
    and a picture of a truck mounted coupler car from the same series: https://www.intermountain-railway.com/n/html/66815.htm

    Two things stand out to me: 1)There is a gap between the coupler box and the bottom of the boxcar with the truck mounted coupler, but the body mounted coupler is mounted directly to the body with no shim, which, of course, would raise the coupler even if everything else stayed the same. 2) If you look at where the frame crosses the wheels, on the body mount coupler car it is clearly slightly higher than it is on the other, I assume because of the washer. I don't know what the purpose of that washer is, unless there were some clearance issues, but I would find that odd given that they didn't need it with the truck mounted coupler, which I would think would be more likely to have clearance issues. Not only does that shim raise the coupler, but honestly to me it just plain looks silly.
     
    Doug Gosha likes this.
  15. brokemoto

    brokemoto TrainBoard Member

    1,685
    748
    45
    That IM box car is riding far too high. None of my IM boxcars or gondolas ride that high.
     
  16. C&O_MountainMan

    C&O_MountainMan TrainBoard Member

    265
    682
    12
    Yyyyesss, I would too, but I was going to offer him a chance to state his case before crushing him in the iron grip of reason, before he ended up changing his mind.
    ;)
     
  17. Doug Gosha

    Doug Gosha TrainBoard Member

    3,595
    7,664
    80
    Both cars linked in CSX Robert's post look pretty ridiculous. There must be about a scale foot or two between the top of the wheels and the carbody. They are as bad as some the very early N scale cars from, say, Bachmann (although most of Bachmann's early cars were very nice), AHM, and Lima.

    It's too bad because the cars have nice detail, otherwise.

    Doug
     
  18. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    Yes.
     
  19. mtntrainman

    mtntrainman TrainBoard Supporter

    9,982
    10,821
    143
    Because of all that frame detail the trucks are going to look silly whether they are truck mounted couplers or body mounted couplers. I don't see how one could lower the car without the end of the frame hitting the truck. Hmmmmmmmm. :eek::cautious::whistle:
     
  20. freddy_fo

    freddy_fo TrainBoard Member

    1,091
    4,329
    47
    Previously I mentioned I've built a dozen of the intermountain AAR cars which have the same ride-height and look as my MTL cars. In the pic below the deck of the Intermountain car (right) appears to be a little higher than the MTL on the left but the couplers mate perfectly where the MTL is truck mounted and the IM is mounted to the body (MTL 1015) and no shims. If IM is now using their own body mount couplers that use a wider draft box then that may explain why they shimmed the trucks as they would need that clearance in the turns? Then maybe the deck is a different design than mine being made of metal instead of plastic for weight? I had to use sticky weights like they use for the pinewood derby cars and place them in the ends to keep them hidden when the doors are open as the floor on mine are plastic. I guess we'll have to wait for what trainguy finds out when he goes through correcting his issues.


    20220602_115822.jpg
     

Share This Page