Body mounted coupler issues

vince p Apr 3, 2020

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SOO MILW CNW

    SOO MILW CNW TrainBoard Supporter

    763
    57
    25
    Has any thought about using the trainworx adapters?
    I have some saved " rainy day projects"

    Am i really going to be able body mount 1400+ cars!!!!!. I really need to cull the herd.

    Wyatt
     
  2. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,928
    285
    36
    Is this a serious question? LOL. Obviously, we all realize that the car is unusable as pictured, but we're assuming that the OP will figure out how to provide clearance through different screws, filing, etc. The radii questions stem from somebody trying to use a tru-scale coupler between cars. They are extremely inflexible and require huge radii to even function. (que comment from somebody claiming that for "him," they function flawlessly on 15" radius curves....)
     
  3. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    3,796
    484
    62
    Correct. It has to do with track curvature, car length and coupler gathering angle.
     
  4. bill pearce

    bill pearce TrainBoard Member

    584
    233
    18
    As I reread this I realize the big problem for the OP is this: the place he wants to mount the coupler is too high. And I realize the answer is, "well of course it is. It's that way with all N cars, and it's the result of the original MT truck mounted coupler design that happened for reasons unknown. All N scale cars sit too high off the rails, as they must sit high to allow room for the truck mounted coupler to move. All N cars appear as if on stilts, but I suspect that when Kadee first came out with the N coupler, N cars were so far from accurate they didn't even think about it.

    But the answer is simple: Lower the car. It's not that hard, doesn't take that much time and the trains look so much better without all the air underneath.
     
    Mo-Pac and gmorider like this.
  5. NtheBasement

    NtheBasement TrainBoard Member

    228
    171
    14
    OK, thought @vince p was using normal MTLs. Do True-Scale boxes have less height than standard MTLs?
     
  6. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,928
    285
    36
    Are we reading the same thread??
     
  7. vince p

    vince p TrainBoard Member

    1,225
    892
    23
    It not the car that's to high it's the couplers box is to tall.

    As it forces the lead truck axle downward which forces the inboard axle up.

    Can't run the car like this.
     
  8. vince p

    vince p TrainBoard Member

    1,225
    892
    23
    At this stage I've just about worn my patience out with trying to work with N and seriously considering going back to HO.
     
  9. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,928
    285
    36
    Well, I think you were asking for it when you started drinking the "body mount Kool-Aid." It's all very silly. N scale is about modeling trains, not individual equipment. When we have a nice long train running, nobody notices if the couplers are body mounted or truck mounted.
     
    MK likes this.
  10. vince p

    vince p TrainBoard Member

    1,225
    892
    23
    It isn't that I body mount as I myself have less derailment issue's with body mount couplers.

    So I'll close this thread here and make a decision in the next several days.

    Unless this covid decides to kick our butts.

    Thanks for the replies everyone.

    End of thread
     
  11. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    3,796
    484
    62
    All I can tell you is that there is a learning curve to climb in anything and n scale is no exception. But I have visited large N scale layouts where I watched trains of over 100 cars operate for 4-4 1/2 hours with no derailments or false uncouplings. All with truck mounted couplers and plastic wheelsets. There are viodeos on You Tube such as:



    or

     
    Mo-Pac, BarstowRick and MK like this.
  12. porkypine52

    porkypine52 TrainBoard Member

    1,021
    95
    33
    And take your HANDS outta yer pockets!! A FRIENDLY wave to train crews never hurt ANYBODY.
     
  13. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    8,421
    1,685
    114
    Once again a day late and dollar short.

    I'm currently in the process of converting my train equipment and layout to the following:

    When talking about Body Mounted Couplers and the radius they like working with. The difference here is experience. You want to listen to the voice of experience, as in what Inkaneer said. Otherwise it's one newbie helping another newbie to make the same mistakes. I prefer the wide curves, body mounted couplers, and I'll throw something else in here #6 Switches.

    You'll hear me say "Wide Curves are the best curves," and "Body mounted Couplers are the best mounted couplers".

    You will also hear me say #4 (turnouts) are out and #6 Switches are in. By the way they are called switches not turnouts by the Rails. I never once heard my family of Rails and their associates ever call a Switch a turnout. Didn't happen.

    Okay that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

    Beating this drum until I can't beat it anymore.

    From the reefer Pullman. I played percussion in the highschool band. Loads of fun.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
    Mo-Pac likes this.
  14. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    3,796
    484
    62
    Whenever the discussion of body mount vs truck mounted couplers comes up I am always reminded of the PRR locomotive Number 3931. It was an electric locomotive built min 1917 and designed to pull trains over the mountains once electrification was completed. Wikipedia has this to say about it:
    "The Pennsylvania Railroad's class FF1 was an American electric locomotive, a prototype numbered #3931 and nicknamed "Big Liz". It was built in 1917 to haul freight trains across the Allegheny Mountains where the PRR planned to electrify. "Big Liz" proved workable but too powerful for the freight cars of the time with its 4600 available horsepower and astonishing 140,000 lbf (620 kN) of tractive effort. Pulling the train it regularly snapped couplers and when moved to the rear as a pusher its force was sufficient to pop cars in the middle of the train off the tracks." Those cars had body mounted couplers. So body mounts did not save Big Liz from derailments when pushing a train and are not the panacea for N scale as some may think. I tried going with body mounts as well as the MT Tru Scale couplers but I had to conclude that for me the effort was just not worth the return. But others can and will disagree. Model Railroad Rule #1 applies.
     
    Mo-Pac and MK like this.
  15. NtheBasement

    NtheBasement TrainBoard Member

    228
    171
    14
    I have to say I'm happy with truck mounted couplers, zero reliability issues with them. The other 3 N scalers in my local NMRA use them too, maybe we are the silent majority and prefer acoustic guitar over drums. :)

    I have to agree with @NorsemanJack, N scale has a lot of strengths but highly detailed cars not one of them. Having said that, here is a shot of an engine facility on Ken Chick's N scale Danforth, Hadley and Northern; I don't think it would fit in my layout room if it were O scale. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Q_8WHXQqjjnpupJNFVfuRXmmPNacgR2S
     
    Mo-Pac likes this.
  16. bill pearce

    bill pearce TrainBoard Member

    584
    233
    18
    There are still people that use pizza cutters. I find it disgusting, but it's their business. There's a lot of this kind of thing in modeling. I know someone that won't use uncoupling picks because he finds the "Giant hand/telephone pole" too unprototypical but the silly back and forth dance of KD's and the magnet to be just like the real thing. It's your toy to play with as you see it.
     
  17. MK

    MK TrainBoard Member

    2,246
    1,054
    48
    Digusting??? o_O. It's only a hobby Bill.
     
    NorsemanJack likes this.
  18. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,928
    285
    36
    I don't understand these derailment concerns. I've ran 100+ car trains with the stock truck mounted couplers with zero problems. In fact, I don't ever remember a derailment. I've used UniTrack layouts and a code 55 based modular shelf layout (some may remember my thread). Never a derailment. If you're having derailments, it's likely due to a) crappy track work and/or b) low quality equipment. I'm 99.9% Kato and Micro-trains, and nothing derails....EVER!!

    That said, if you leave N scale because you desire more super-detailing, etc. than that may be the right decision for you. If you leave N scale because of these phantom problems caused by truck mounted couplers, than you're likely making a stupid mistake.
     
    MK, NtheBasement and vince p like this.
  19. bill pearce

    bill pearce TrainBoard Member

    584
    233
    18
    But that's no excuse o be sloppy.
     
  20. bill pearce

    bill pearce TrainBoard Member

    584
    233
    18

    Sorry jack, but from my point of view, your're wrong. Really wrong. When I had my Cajon layout, there were two return loops on one end, each over 36" radius, and when I was still running truck mounted couplers, a derailment on the loop was quite common. The track laying wasn't perfect but ir was good, but there were issues with humidity extremes causing the 2x's and the plywood to shrink ans swell. I converted to body mounts, and problem solved. My derailments went down dramatically. So we have two examples, totally opposite, but that's what's wrong with anecdotal evidence.
     
    cjm413 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page