Body mounted coupler issues

vince p Apr 3, 2020

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mo-Pac

    Mo-Pac TrainBoard Member

    479
    363
    8
    Well this thread went south.:oops:
     
  2. vince p

    vince p TrainBoard Member

    1,225
    892
    23
    Thanks looks like my rail rat days of the past are still derailing topics even my own.

    All I asked if there was a way to body mount the couplers so that they didn't cause the trucks to be cocked.

    In such a way as not to prevent the truck from working properly.

    Oh one last thing consider your cage rattled left and rattled right hehehehehehe lol.
     
    BarstowRick likes this.
  3. Ike the BN Freak

    Ike the BN Freak TrainBoard Member

    1,325
    51
    25
    If you are using Tru-Scale couplers, there is a 3D printed coupler box on shapeways that has a thinner profile, could use that as an option too
     
  4. vince p

    vince p TrainBoard Member

    1,225
    892
    23
    @Ike the BN Freak

    Thanks Ike do you know the sellers name.

    As this might be what I need as I'm in the process of trying something that may or may not work.

    We'll see
     
  5. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,928
    284
    36
    Careful who you associate with there brother. You're likely on the verge of being told to "drop the tude" or to "move on." And, this by "staff members." LOL. Apparently, any opinion is welcomed here as long as it doesn't question the religion of body mounting couplers. To suggest that derailments are instead caused by bad track work or low quality equipment is blasphemy. We are apparently open to any and all opinions that these staff members agree with. Otherwise, you're at risk of a public spanking.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  6. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,928
    284
    36
    Thanks Bill. I couldn't agree more. It's about different opinions, with each having an opportunity to express their own without being told to "drop the tude" or "move on" by "staff members." If you never hear from me again, assume I've been banned and whatever opinions I may share will be lost forever. This happens on the internet. I've contributed a lot to this forum over 16 years (six more than one of these guys correcting me), but this new crap from staff members who I'm not familiar with is a challenge..
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  7. bremner

    bremner Staff Member

    5,780
    4,325
    98
    sorry about the drop the tude comment.
     
  8. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,928
    284
    36
    Thanks Bremner. I really appreciate that.
     
  9. vince p

    vince p TrainBoard Member

    1,225
    892
    23
    @NorsemanJack

    This is about couplers and mounting them not track work.

    I've been modeling in all scales since 1970.

    So please drop it's the track issue otherwise please move on from my thread.

    Call me an A-hole all you want but please put Mister in front of it.

    I don't do this or that in your posts and try not to cause problems and really wish you wouldn't in mine.

    Thanks.
     
    cjm413 likes this.
  10. John Moore

    John Moore TrainBoard Supporter

    10,302
    4,672
    149
    Having followed this thread from the start, and even contributing my 2 cents worth, it has been interesting to say the least. I have been in N scale since the dark days of N when there was not much selection except European based models. And early on I chose to go with MTs on all my equipment. I even have some body mounted couplers the 1015/16 being my coupler of choice for most of them. The 1 to 1 railroads do not have truck mounts but I have found over the years that due to the design of N scale equipment that not all cars can take body mounts and some could not even take the MT truck mounts without modifications to the cars because of the design of most MT truck mounted couplers. And lets face it some cars were designed to take truck mount couplers whether Rapido type or MTs. And when converting to MT Trucks on some I have still had to modify the car some either by raising the car with the provided washers or filing away some of the outer frame sill on the bottom, and sometimes both.

    I have found that it is near to impossible to fit body mounts to hopper cars when the trucks are mounted close to the ends. Just not enough frame to mount them and the problem of having enough swing for the trucks. Sometimes the answer may be to laminate a strip of styrene to the end frame so one has enough material to mount the coupler box. And at times the end sill projects downward enough that it interferes with the truck axles canting the truck because of interference with the coupler box. Then the solution is to use a washer to raise the car body slightly and maybe file the end sill thinner.

    Some N scale cars because of the design nothing will work except truck mounted couplers, my ore cars are an example of those. They look just fine with them. I do not lay my head on the layout to watch cars go by. So after exhausting all possibilities the best solution may be to accept that one has to use truck mounts. Few people will notice it when a train is running if any.

    With all my experience I still had issues with the new layout until I finally took the plunge and converted almost all the layout to unitrack which solved most of my running issues, which were mainly electrical. Do I still have derailments? Yes I do but they are usually when a truck axle is not seated correctly in the side frame or a piece of debris gets on the track. Once in a rare while they are caused by the coupler hanging up and not swinging.
     
  11. Jim Wiggin

    Jim Wiggin Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    4,722
    1,385
    81
    Jack, take a deep breath. We are talking about toy trains. There is no "cult" or "religion" that you speak of. Would it shock you to know I too have non-body mount coupler cars on my my layout? Why? Well for one reason they are painted and lettered for the fine railroad both you and I enjoy and the average person who looks at my layout isn't going to notice, or care. They might just enjoy seeing that bright red CB&Q car. I have more body mount cars now that many manufactures have started producing them. Let us remember WHY we do this hobby. It pleases us. Since my layout is at virtually eye level and I am a self professed rivet counting nerd, I enjoy the looks of the body mounted equipment. That's it. No one need come to my way of thinking.

    The OP is at the point of wanting to do an upgrade, challenge his model skills, do something for his hobby, was having difficulty on said task and asked for input on specifically body mounting the coupler to the freight car. No opinions were asked for other then equipment and skill to make the task successful. Unless one has something to add to the OP's question, there is really no reason to pontificate on a different coupling system and why it is better when that is what he is specifically trying to get away from. And as moderators, we are only trying to keep the conversations on point. If you want threads that turn into endless bickering of why "I'm right and your wrong" try the full scale 4X4 forums or better yet, Radio Control forums, they have perfected that. We, (the moderators) are not picking on you, just pointing out your input is not what the OP is looking for.

    If my response seamed like I was attacking you, I apologize as it was not my intent and I do value what you have posted in the past here on Trainboard. Let's move on and help each other out.
     
  12. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,928
    284
    36
    Thanks for weighing in John. I think you've reinforced the theory that if the trackwork is high quality, it will be equipment issues that cause the problems (not truck mounted couplers). That was the point I was trying to make. I wish more folks who struggle with trackwork would just consider UniTrack. If I still had room (and motivation) for a large, permanent layout, I would be using Atlas code 55. I used that on my modular shelf layout (previous Trainboard thread) and it served me well for over 15 years. That said, all of us are getting older and many are in situations where we may not have the right home for a permanent layout in the near or mid-term future. We downsized from a five bedroom home to an apartment last year (hard work, but best decision in a long time). UniTrack provides many options to still easily and reliably run trains, and when I move on it is easily dismantled and liquidated.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  13. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    1,928
    284
    36
    (n)

    I quite honestly couldn't figure out what the OP was looking for. Obviously, he had gotten himself into some trouble when he cut the truck mounted coupler off that car and then attempted to mount a Tru-Scale coupler in its place. I'm guessing his path forward at this point will be to just replace the original Atlas trucks with high quality Micro-trains trucks with couplers. I used to do that with all non-Micro-trains equipment back when I owned them. There used to be folks who wanted to go the other way to remove the "slinky" with MTs. We even had a healthy exchange program going at one point where I send you three of my accumate trucks and you send me two of your MTs. Another prototype vs. reliable discussion.

    I appreciate that Jim. Agreed. (y)
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2020
  14. cjm413

    cjm413 TrainBoard Member

    112
    40
    11
    These particular cars, along with several other Atlas cars that still come with yuck-mounted, I mean truck-mounted couplers are already at the right height. They just need a thinner coupler box since the mounting surface is already at the right height.

    Also, the True Scale couplers boxes have the same profile as the 1015 and will also interfere with the axles. As I mentioned in a prior post, 1015 couplers will fit in the thinner 2004 box. I haven't switched over to True Scale Couplers, but I understand there are thinner boxes available on Shapeways.

    Sent from my LM-X410(FG) using Tapatalk
     
  15. cjm413

    cjm413 TrainBoard Member

    112
    40
    11
    FYI - The Trainworx adaptors are for cars that lack any sort of surface whatsoever to attach a coupler box, e.g. Atlas 90T triple hopper, Precision Masters/Red Caboose covered hoppers, etc.

    Sent from my LM-X410(FG) using Tapatalk
     
  16. cjm413

    cjm413 TrainBoard Member

    112
    40
    11
    For whoever was asking about frame-mounted couplers on tank cars, MTL 1017 couplers (as in the new ones that are sold separately from the trucks) will work on some tank car models - the "arm" that connects to the truck can be shortened and mounted to the bottom of the tank, which negates the need to mount to coupler to the less-stable end platform.

    Sent from my LM-X410(FG) using Tapatalk
     
  17. cjm413

    cjm413 TrainBoard Member

    112
    40
    11
    FYI - MDC/Roundhouse tank with 1017 couplers (redesigned version) and BLMA trucks to lower the ride height

    Note that the couplers themselves are underslung in the 1st pic.

    The second pic is admittedly , but that bright silver dot is a stock MTL screw that mounts coupler to the bottom of the tank, which negates the need to drill through the end platform and additionally, doesn't interfere with the axles.

    The old 1017 couplers will not work, the box is too large and will interfere with the trucks.



    20200411_151122.jpg 20200411_151204.jpg

    Sent from my LM-X410(FG) using Tapatalk
     
  18. cjm413

    cjm413 TrainBoard Member

    112
    40
    11
  19. vince p

    vince p TrainBoard Member

    1,225
    892
    23
    Thanks all.

    Plotting on how to modify or destroy this coupler box to get this car going.

    Been looking it over and might leave the lid off and trim the ears off to gain that ever so slight and much needed clearance room on the axle.
     
  20. cjm413

    cjm413 TrainBoard Member

    112
    40
    11
    Put the 1015 couplers in a 2004 coupler box.

    Sent from my LM-X410(FG) using Tapatalk
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page