Is anybody having uncopling problems with the Kato couplers that come with Kato engines? I ran a SD 80 with a SD 90 at a train show and could not keep them coupled either to themselves or to the remaining train. These were run on an Ntrak set up so tight radius curves are not involved. Should I just switch to the MT 2004's
If your SD80 and SD90 are both Katos and are mismatched speed wise, that may be why they were uncoupling. I'm not familiar with those diesels but I assume the Kato couplers on them are the same as on the new Mikados. Are the couplers truck or body mounted? Stupid question probably as I doubt that any manufacturuer puts couplers on the trucks of diesels anymore. The Kato Mikado coupler has a smaller mass in the height and depth of its Pocket and its overall size, than the MT 2001, 2004, 1015, 1025 and the 1128. 29, and 30 couplers. The 2001 and 2004 ( same coupler different pkging ) have a larger mass than the 1015, 1025, and the 1128,29,and 30. Couple a 2004 coupler mounted on a car to the coupler on the MT coupler gauge and take a close look at it with your 4 power magnifiers on and you'll see the difference. The MT coupler gauge has a 1025 mounted in it. Allan has a copie of this photo and could post it for us. When my computer gets reprogramed ( after crashing ) I can send a closeup picture to the board showing this if someone will post it for me, if Allan can't. I found that it was preferable to have a large knuckle mass coupler on the pulling end (tender ) of my steamers and at both ends of my diesels, because with heavy loads I have found that the MT couplers rise up and pull out of the knuckle. The MT 2004 is the heavy boy of their coupler line up and that's what I prefer to put on the pulling end of all my engines, steam or diesel and all are body mount. The 2004 is about 25% larger mass wise than the 1015, 1025, and 1128,29,30 series and all of those have a larger mass and a deeper pocket than the new Kato coupler. I also believe that there is suspicion that body mount couplers coupled to truck mounted couplers on rolling stock or engines, can cause uncoupling problems or derailments on curves and going through switches. I don't have problems like that steamerwise using 2004s, so how about you diesel chaps with some data? To try to answer the question posted more directly, it just may be that the shorter pocket of the Kato coupler that is on these diesel engines, tends to pull out of the MT coupler pocket on the rolling stock on curves, even if the curves are of a large radius. Perhaps this is caused by the shorter radius of the inside curve of the knuckle in the kato coupler compared to the MT coupler. This actually could be proven mathatically, any Civil Engineering takers?
Alan, I can't resend the photo because my computer hard drive has been nuked and is still in the process of having another Miccrosoft operating system installed that will actually work. My files were saved to CDRWs. Trying to reinstall W98 it was discovered that all my Windows 98 installation disks are unusable, Tried Windows 2000 and discovered that it won't support some of my software, so I am unable to get anything off the disks, The newest Windows operating system will have to be tried next I have a very experienced MCSE working on it for me and as soon as he has time to get my system working , I will resend the photo to you.
Dude, MT 2004's are a snap to swap into a Kato SD80/90MAC. I have done 4 MACs, and 4 SD40-2's which also take 2004's. It's almost sacriligeous to use the stocker Kato knuckles, as unreliable as they are, much less the Rapidos!
In the above photo (photo posting thanks to Alan) is a Spectrum Consolodation with a 2004 coupler mounted in the pilot. The object on the left is a Micro Trains coupler gauge that comes with a 1025 coupler mounted in it. I think that that size difference is quite obvious. The realative size of all the couplers mentioned above was measured with a digital micrometer that measures down to 10ths of a millimeter. The photo was taken with a Toshiba PDR-M70 digital camera with its closeup lens on. I think the installation of a 2004 in my Consolodation was a bad move as it looks too massive, however that was what was recommended by the experts. This result was what prompted my evaluation of all the couplers mentioned above. The next Consolodation I get will have a Z coupler mounted in the pilot. A 1015 mechanism can be mounted inside of the 2004 and 2001 box ( same coupler different pkging) and it would look smaller, but the 1015 is straight shanked and the coupler knuckle would be lower than the 1025 of the MT gauge. As the picture shows, the 2004 mechanism shank kinks up. I think the arrangement of a 1015 in a 2004 box would still be good enough for light yard switching and to attach the engine to the back of a train as a pusher. The 2004 box is preferable to use in the Consolodation pilot because it is slimmer than the 1015 box and allows a smaller slot to be cut in the pilot. Interchanging 1015 mechanisms with the 2004 one gives flexibility in coupler height without having to use shims, but the price is a smaller coupler knuckle mass. Not a good idea on the tender of a steamer.
Ah HAH! I got out a micrometer, and compared a 2004 to a 1016. Exact same knuckle height. Compared that number to a 1021, and there is a difference. I hadn't ever noticed that before.
AHA......there's still a few problems here. Either your micrometer is faulty or you got a screwed up pkg of 1016s. If the 1016 you measured was out of a bulk pack, some assembly required, you probably got a pack that had a sprew full of 2004s put in by mistake. Mispackaging happens every once in a while. I bought seven packs of 2002 coupler conversions for the Kato Mikado and all were sealed, but four of them had pices missing. Talking coupler knuckle mass now, a 1016 is the same as a 1015 except it has a longer shank and both are supposed to be smaller than the 2004. The 2004 is the biggest coupler Microtrains makes and it was made that way for a very specific engineering reason. Why don't you Phone microtrains and ask them. Where did you get a 1021? I haven't seen one of those for a very long time. You should measure it also and you might find that it is even smaller than the 1025. It is a really old coupler, it might even be in a KADEE pkg. The last time I used one of those was about the time a Ridgerunner was being born.
Micrometer is fine, and it's definitely not a 2004. It could be an older 1016 tho, perhaps they changed the size more recently? It is definitely a longer than normal shank, knuckle centered on it. The 1021 is still made, is it not? I think I saw em at my local hobby shop recently, but these I bought for some resin & etched metal 34' flat car kits a couple years ago.
Do you still have the card or pkg that the 1021 couplers came in? Kadee called their couplers Kadee N Microtrains. Apparently, when the brothers split the company, one took the Name MIcrotrains and the other one Kadee. I believe Kadee only makes couplers for HO now. That's the story as I heard it. I'll bet Charlie Vik can tell us the whole story. I phoned MT today and they could not find an MT1021 in their data base. So I would assume your 1021s are old Kadee couplers. I have both a Kadee and an MT coupler gauge. The knuckle on the Kadee gauge is smaller than the 1025 on the MT gauge. About the same difference as there is between the MT2004 and the 1025 in the MT coupler gauge, like in the photo I posted. I'd bet that the Kadee gauge coupler is a the same as your 1021. I also have Kadee 1023 couplers and they also have smaller knuckles than the MT1025. If you like the small knuckles for better looks you shouild grab all the old 1021s you can get. The closest coupler to it now is the larger MT1025. Hopefully, Joe at MT will return my call and set this straight once and for all. And to make matters worse, we now have two more knuckle couplers to confuse the issue. The Kato knuckle coupler and the Atlas accumate. Don't despair and I'm glad your Micrometer is OK.
Actually, the pack for these 1021/1022's don't say Kadee anywhere on the package, and there's a 1996 copyright date on the pack too. Looking at the Walthers site, it looks to me like the #1022 has replaced what was the 1021. http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/489-1022 That coupler in the picture looks just like the picture of the 1021 on this package I have... but the 1022 on the package I have shows an adapter on it for the Con Cor 1500hp switcher.
The 1022 shown in the picture in the Walthers Cat. is just a specific duty coupler for situations described in the description, it doesn't replace anything and seeing as it is not a very good line drawn doesn't help matters either. I would suggest that you buy yourself a Mictrotrains coupler cat. and that would really help you in solving your coupler confusion. Then buy one of each coupler produced and put it in a little 2" sq. zip lock baggie and keep them all just for reference, when you're looking for a coupler to fit a particular installation. That's what I've done over the last 20 years and it has really helped me learn about coupler solutions. You can't tell anything from a poor line drawing of a coupler, you need to have the coupler in hand and have a good working micrometer and you're halfway there with that.
Well, I wasn't sure about that 1022... I agree, keeping some of each on hand is a good way to pick the right one for the right application, there's been times I wish I had some of each while trying to come up with a better solution for something. Anyways, I think we've drifted way the heck off the original topic... I wonder how tough Charlie is about thread 'jackers. Can't be too tough, as long as this has gone on.
Well, you did make me realize that not all MT couplers are the same size... I had no idea. Now I may have better ideas than using Z couplers in some applications. [ 13. August 2002, 00:04: Message edited by: RidgeRunner ]
