Body mounted coupler issues

vince p Apr 3, 2020

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Metro Red Line

    Metro Red Line TrainBoard Member

    2,335
    219
    39

    Here's the thing with many N scale cars with body mounts - the coupler sits on the underside of the body, which may or may not affect the height of the car. On the prototype, the coupler doesn't actually sit on the underside of the body (though it might look that way) -- it sits at the ends of the structural spine of the car.

    Take a look at where the coupler pocket sits at the end of this flatcar:

    [​IMG]

    There's not much body thickness between the deck and the coupler pocket, because the coupler sits within the structural spine of the car. Most N scale cars are manufactured with a body, a weight that goes under it, and the underbody, by which the coupler pocket sits on the underside of the underbody. This is the reason we have unprototypical underslung couplers to make up for that height differential. So a lot of this has to do with the inherent design of how N scale rolling stock is designed.
     
  2. vince p

    vince p TrainBoard Member

    1,225
    892
    23
    Well as a final thoughts in this as for you calling my trackwork crappy think again as I'm anal about smooth track work.

    Think before you shoot your mouth off worked for BN mechanized tie gang 6 laid miles and miles of proto rail.

    So as for the model rail I take my frigging time making sure it's smooth with levels, Sanding it and making adjustments as needed.

    Again if all you can do is knock a person or beeotch without knowing that person then.

    Quit Frigging posting to my posts.

    I did nothing to deserve your attitude or mouth totally uncalled for.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2020
    Mo-Pac likes this.
  3. bremner

    bremner Staff Member

    5,781
    4,328
    98
    Go back and look at the images....it is an Atlas car where an MTL body mount is causing the issue. There is no sign of bad track or cheap equipment.
    That being said, have you thought about trying out a Z Scale coupler on this car? They are a lot thinner in height and are compatible with the MTL N Scale coupler.
     
    Mo-Pac likes this.
  4. vince p

    vince p TrainBoard Member

    1,225
    892
    23
    Thanks Bremner but I'm taking break from this for now maybe forever not sure yet.

    Thanks though Mate.
     
  5. John Moore

    John Moore TrainBoard Supporter

    10,338
    4,697
    149
    One solution that nobody has brought up. MT has washers designed to raise the car off the truck when there are clearance issues. That may solve the problem for you.
     
  6. ns737

    ns737 TrainBoard Supporter

    665
    103
    23
    have you looked at the 1025? it has a thinner box
     
  7. ns737

    ns737 TrainBoard Supporter

    665
    103
    23
    I can put a pair together and send them to you.ED
     
  8. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    3,796
    484
    62
    But he is not using standard MTL couplers. Look at his photos. Compare the size of the couplers in his last photo with the coupler height gauge. The coupler on the car is smaller than the one in the height gauge. He is using the MTL Tru Scale couplers which MTL admits will not couple with their other couplers. No where have I seen anything that says they will couple with their Z scale couplers. He has to convert everything to these Tru Scale couplers for them to operate. Now I don't know how many cars and locomotives he has but every single one has to be converted. One more thing that I and apparently everyone else missed is that the OP stated that the car was an Atlas Car with STOCK trucks. To me that says he cut off the Accumate coupler from the Atlas truck to mount the Tru Scale coupler. Unlike MT trucks, Atlas trucks were not designed to have the coupler box above the axle but rather in front of the axle. That is what gave the 10 foot coupling distance between cars. If it were an MT truck then it would probably fit with no problem.
     
    MK likes this.
  9. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,932
    287
    36
    Yeah, just as I suggested; crappy trackwork is what causes derailments. Did you properly isolate your track from the wooden base with foam, etc? Or, are you one of those folks who thinks they need to glue/nail their track down for whatever reason? Fix the trackwork and there is no need for this body mount nonsense. Also, I absolutely do not believe that switching to body mounts solved anything in the scenario you've described. "Down dramatically" suggests that you were still having derailments. There is absolutely no reason to ever have any derailments in N scale if the trackwork is of high quality. If folks can't handle code 55, they should just stick with UniTrack. I've used both and.... ZERO derailments ever. Anybody sending a message that reliable operation in N scale requires a massive conversion to body mount couplers is doing a disservice to our hobby. It simple is not true.
     
  10. bremner

    bremner Staff Member

    5,781
    4,328
    98
    Drop the tude before this gets ugly....
     
    cjm413 and Mo-Pac like this.
  11. vince p

    vince p TrainBoard Member

    1,225
    892
    23
    No big Bremner

    I'm done listening to him.

    As my mother said if you can't say anything nice

    Then say nothing at all.

    Moving on God Bless Everyone.
     
    Mo-Pac likes this.
  12. Jim Wiggin

    Jim Wiggin Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    4,724
    1,411
    82
    Once again Jack, your way is not the definitive way to model N scale and your belittling of the OP's track work and those who prefer body mounting over truck mounting is unwarranted and rude. Please take step back and realize those who model N scale model it for different reasons. Many in the scale do model the freight car and when you have a small operation such as mine, those freight cars take on more meaning. Realize that you enjoy N scale for different reasons then the OP and unless you have something constructive to add, move on.
     
    Mo-Pac and bremner like this.
  13. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    61,565
    6,851
    651
    Model railroading is a hobby of the individual. How that person chooses to pursue their pleasure is just great news. Whatever makes them happy. And it keeps them as active participants in our favorite pastime.... (y)(y)(y)
     
  14. bill pearce

    bill pearce TrainBoard Member

    585
    233
    18
    We all, myself included, need to remember that there are a variety of reasons that we model trains. There are some of us that simply want to return to the good days of their youth and play with train. They find that relaxing and takes them away from the pains of everyday life. There's nothing wrong with that. Others want to model a specific prototype in the utmost of detail, and appreciate the advantages of N scale, where the scenery is proportional to the trains, something that is impossible for most HO modelers. Those modelers are willing to spend a lot of time with a magnifier carefully detailing their models. Some of that means lowering cars to prototypical ride height and changing the mounting of couplers to a more accurate appearance. (No , prototype couplers aren't mounted to the cars body, they are mounted to the cars UNDERFRAME. Visually it's often the same thing appearance wise, but mounting overscale MT couplers to underframes is unrealistic at the least.) For those of us that do all that, it's just fine too. For those of you who say you can't detail N scale like HO, you need to understand that what you are saying is that YOU can't, not everyone. For those of you who play with trains, don't expect me to do it, just don't demand that I am wrong in wanting to do something different from you.

    So we need to bring this foolishness to an end. I will understand that what is right for me isn't right for Jack, but in return Jack needs to understand that what's right for him isn't necessary right for everyone. Be careful, our hobby is in danger to deteriorating to the level of our politics.
     
    jpwisc, cjm413 and Mo-Pac like this.
  15. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    8,428
    1,708
    115
    How about that I point to someone I respect and he shoot's me down. I don't know if I should LOL or kind of LOL. But it is funny!

    I learned not to name drop years ago but went right back to old habits. Sigh!

    Early on with my HO layout I soon learned I could not back-up my trains with those "Big Bear Dam-med," NMRA, X2F (and the F stands for what you think it does) flipping truck mounted couplers. Of course I had tight radius curves, #4 switches and Atlas Snap Track. I mean what else was there in the 60's. Nothing and I mean nothing would stay together with wear over time.

    What it gave us early toy train enthusiast was a way to run and operate trains despite the frustrations. Oh and those frustrations are still here today. As is evident here by some of you who are on that dratted, inalienable, infamous, unavoidable learning curve and frustrated, to say the least.

    Now getting back to the OP's question. Excuse us for getting off subject. I've struggled with the same issues. How do you body mount hopper cars when there's nothing to attach to? How about tank cars? I've frustrated over this and had to build something to attach the coupler box to. After several cars I almost threw the whole project out the "Window, the window the seventh story window, with a might heave and a might HO" I threw HO out the window. I did do that and now operate with N Scale and it's frustrations. Frustrate, frustrate, frustrate.

    Now how far does my hypocrisy go? Along ways, I'm afraid to say. I won't frustrate with the hopper cars or tank cars other then to remove the old trucks and convert to MTL's, coupler mounted trucks and knuckle couplers. Gone is the Rapido Couplers. well, almost. I still have some original Atlas, Arnold, Rivarossi, Model Power, Lima, PMI passenger car's with the truck mounted Rapido Couplers. For how long is the question? How long will I tolerate them? And what can Unimate Couplers do for me in such an occasion?

    Now where do I find steps? For all these oldies and not so goldies. All thanks to! Thanks Micro-Train for your contributions in the passenger car business. Those unique HW passenger cars. I do mean Thanks! A lot of my early stuff is finding or has found it's way to E-pay.

    You aren't going to like this. Oh, I don't have it yet but wait until I receive a B&O Baggage car with metal wheels. When it gets here I want you to see the dirt it's collected on it's wheels. You aren't going to like this, I promise. Another myth busted.

    Rule #1, BarstowRick's Version: It's your railroad, you make the rules, you set the standard and you build it to your way and only for you. Have fun.

    Another way of saying this: Don't live in Denali (denial) face your problems down and don't be afraid to call them what they are. Yes we can make mistakes and you'll know it when you do. Don't allow others to tell you what to do, how to think and/or what to believe.

    Now, you all take care of yourself. Stay safe, healthy and survive. I need some one here to rattle my cage and someone to whom I can return the favor.

    Oh and you can have those screechy guitars, wang, wang, wang. I'll stick with the drums. LOL
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2020
  16. DCESharkman

    DCESharkman TrainBoard Member

    3,709
    625
    55
    One thing you might want to try, change to metal wheelsets. I was having some issues with weird derailing and moving to FVM metal wheels and it seemed to greatly reduce the derailments with the body mounted coupler cars. I can say my track work is pretty good but no where near excellent. I am thinking the meatal wheels hold the rail better due to the metal on metal friction in the curves. At least that is my theory.
     
  17. bremner

    bremner Staff Member

    5,781
    4,328
    98
    I have had good luck with the plastic MTL wheelsets
     
    Mo-Pac likes this.
  18. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,932
    287
    36
    Let's add a bit of clarity to this. I never belittled anything of the OP's. I made a general statement:

    Perhaps the OP read "you're" to mean him specifically. For that I'll apologize. It was meant in the generic sense, as in "any N scaler who is having these problems." A few folks told me I was wrong and, well, that's their opinion and they're entitled to express it. Apparently the same isn't true for me. I get it that this body mount thing has approached a cult level of engagement for many, but I think there are newer N scalers who need to understand that this hobby can easily be enjoyed with RTR equipment without living in fear of these massive, frequent derailments that seem to be plaguing some. I offered the simple recipe, good trackwork and high quality RTR equipment. Are we approaching an elitist level where the simple, reliable approach to the hobby may no longer be embraced?

    I will also add, in my own defense, that the "offensive post" did receive four likes (so far), so apparently at least some appreciated my opinion and found it "constructive."
     
  19. rschaffter

    rschaffter TrainBoard Member

    240
    2
    21
    Me too; I use 00-80 flathead screws that I got from Walthers years ago...
     
  20. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    3,796
    484
    62
    My last post on this topic (#48) I think had the solution to the OP's problem. He is trying to use the MT Tru Scale coupler along with its coupler box and mounting screw in conjunction with an Atlas truck. I don't think the two are compatible. What he needs to do is obtain a Micro Trains truck without couplers and try that.
     
    MK and bremner like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page