Sharing findings on MT coupler conversion for Kato engines. In looking at all the threads on this subject found much helpful information. Now after converting all my Kato engines to MT couplers would like to share a finding that may or may not have been mentioned elsewhere. One objection I had to converting engines that did not use an "under slung shank" coupler was the need to enlarge (file) the opening on the engine body to clear the MT1015 coupler gear box due to its size. Then you have to cut down the screw and be careful not to strip out the hole when assembling to the engine. You would also have to file on the front plow or the coupler will sit at a slight upward angle. Discovered that I could use the MT1015 coupler and assemble it in the MT2001 gear box and avoid the above issues altogether. Further, if needed on my SD90MAC could use the extended shank MT1016 coupler and assemble it in the MT2001 extended shank gear box for the rear engine coupler. In both cases I used the spring from the MT2001 conversion kit. The results allow for a perfect fit using the Kato coupler retaining clip and a correct measurement for the coupler height. At first the thought of using a soldering iron to "weld" the gear box together was scary. However after doing a couple it was easy. Hope this is helpful. Jerry
I'm in agreement that this (1015/16 shanks inside 2001/4 box) is the correct way to do many of the recent Kato locos. Applies to AC4400CW, SD70MAC, SD70M, and others. Not sure this has been documented by either Kato or MT, however. (Never bother with the "welding" though. Just have gotten practiced with hold the thing together with my squizzers while installing. One less step, and if a part breaks you can re-use the other parts.)
Very timely thread, for me. I just discovered that the 1015 won't work on the "new" Kato SD40/SD40-2, so I have ordered the MT2004. (Wonder how long it has been since the 1015 was dropped by Kato?) I expect it to work. The issue with the different size coupler boxes with the 1015 and the 2001 is new to me. I would probably have tried to file it down. I do "weld" the coupler boxes together with a soldering iron. I feel it helps when you have to change out the coupler at a later time. What is the difference between a MT2001 and a MT2004? I presume that a MT1015 will work on my new Atlas SD60? Thanks.
I'm pretty sure the change over to the 2004's was when Kato released the original version of the SD40-2's and everything since then has been supposedly 2004's. On MTL's site in the conversion they do call for a 2003 for the AC4400's. I did find in the beginning that the 2004's sat way to high so tried a 1015 and filing out the coupler pocket and found they sat low. Well after a discussion on the forum found out what a 2003 was which is a 2004/2001 coupler box and a 1015 coupler. Tried it on one engine and eureka it worked. So after testing I came to find the 2003 is for the AC4400's, SD70M's, and SD70MAC's, anything else works well with just a standard 2004 and those being the SD40-2's early and mid, C44's, SD90/80's, P42's, etc.... The difference between the 2001 and 2004 is the length of the coupler. 2001 is a long and 2004 just like the difference between a 1015 and 1016. Atlas still takes the standard 1015's with usual shim on top.
I liked it when Kato was tooling their locos to accept the 1015 ... Since they changed it certainly became a nightmare. The prescribed MT solution for the SD40-2 (2004) still results in way too much distance between locos. Do any of the above suggestions address this problem? Mark
The 2004 unassemble kits do come with a coupler box or as you refer to them a gear box. The way I do it is buy the 2004 unassembled kits as well as the 1015 bulk kits and that is how I build my 2003's. Now of course that leaves me with a bunch of 1015 coupler boxes, and 2004 knuckles but I've found uses for them. I've put 2004 couplers into 1015 boxes and used them on my couplermates for roadrailers. I've also used 2004's in replace of the 2001's that come with the 1019's to close couple MTL and RC autoracks and MTL 89' flatcars.
Your absolutely right! My mistake. :tb-err: Actually it is called a draft gear box. The 2004 would work great for all short shank under slung coupler needs. Chose the 2001 due to running an SD90/Mac and needing the medium shank length (under slung) coupler for the pulling end of the engine. This eliminated derailing of the first car when entering either of two run through yard tracks. One of the pit falls of using # 4 turnouts and low pro wheels, however this totally solved the problem. Jerry
I now have two Kato NW2s (could not resists the chance to get a 2nd at a moderate price from eBay ). The Kato couplers seem to be almost useless since they do not couple with MTL couplers. First I tried the 2004 which worked, but seems to be a bit high. Now I built my own 2003 and it looks good and works well, but is a bit low. What couplers have others used in the NW2? BTW, it seems to me that the coupler head of the 2004 is also thicker than that of the 1015, maybe to cover some variation in height? If you build your own 2003, is there also a way to combine the leftovers, i.e. the 2004 coupler shank and the 1015 draft gear box? What "secret MTL number" is this?
I'm pretty sure there's no "secret number". (The 2003 is actually not "secret" anymore it's just not well publicized.) What you will get by putting the 2004 coupler shank in the 1015 gear box is an "underslung" coupler that is every so slightly lower than the stock 2004; the difference is equal to the thickness of the 1015 box-lid minus the thickness of the thinner 2004 box-lid. Such a coupler may work fine on much of the rolling stock (e.g. autoracks) where you might normally mount a 2004. It might chance be suitable for other rolling stock whose bottoms were just the right height...or the rolling stock could be raised or lowered to make it work...or the coupler could be shimmed, etc. Or to put it another way, proper use of a coupler guage could illuminate situations where such a coupler would be appropriate. Someone with a mircometer (not me ;( ) could do the measurements and tell you the proper undersill height for mounting such a coupler.
Now I got 2 packs of the "official" 2003 coupler. I tried to put it into the Kato NW2. Big surprise: this coupler is not just the combination of 2004 and 1015!! The lid of the draft gear box is different!! It has no hole in it, and some ribs on top. It is not for mounting with screws, but for what else?? The Kato coupler holding clip has a longer pin that goes into a hole in the engine floor, so that 2003-lid was could not be used. So I had to "borrow" parts from a 2004 :thumbs_down:. I think that MTL should have offered both kinds of lids in the pack. What are other modeller's experiences with this coupler? What is it designed for?? The front of the Kato Mikado??
Sounds simply like a bad lid. I've picked up a couple of these packages now and everything is the way it is suppose to be.
I have checked again, the 2003 I got now and the 2002 I have in my stock. The front coupler of the set 2002 is the 2003, just readily assembled. The lid of the draft gear box has a special structure which holds it in the mounting plate delivered with the 2002. I did one Mikado conversion, but it has been some time ago. IIRC the Kato part that holds the front coupler is taken out and replaced by a flat MTL part, and the 2003 coupler is snug fit to the underside of this replacement part. This is exactly what was in my two packages of 2003 couplers. It even comes with a shorter replacement pin for the MTL mounting jig such that it will not collide with the closed upper lid. I think I will mail MTL and ask what the intention was. There definitely was an intention, but I don't see it. If they had both types of lids everything would be fine. The way it is now it is a strange surprise. Especially as the Kato NW2 needs exactly this kind of coupler, but the one with a hole. :tb-confused::tb-mad:
