I'll be interested in what you hear from Kato. I gave up on what's SUPPOSED to fit quite a while ago.........when it's time to do couplers on Katos, I grab a mix of them and keep trying till they match with my MT height gauge. On a side note, I never have this issue with Kato E and F units.......but with them you have the fun of the truck mounted couplers, which might be a worse pain .
I intend to post what response I get from Kato. All my other Kato locomotives take a 2004 (old number) MT coupler. On my E units and other such types of locomotives I always run them back-to-back in pairs. The front couplers are Kato but on the rear, I use Unimates as they provide very close coupling (I run on large curves of 24+ inch radius) and have had no false uncouplings. I also had all my passenger cars equipped with Unimates. However, recently, due to the hassle of coupling the Unimates, I have converted all of my passenger car fleet from Unimates to the Kato 11-702 couplers as these provide very close coupling and coupling is automatic not manual as with the Unimates.
I'm not overly concerned with the coupling distance on the E and F units, so I do the opposite of you.......I leave the original couplers between the units, but replace the fronts with MTs for better connections with the cars. I do a lot of switching and Kato couplers don't work for that very well although I DO leave the Kato couplers on locos that are passenger only since most of my passenger trains are Kato. I purposely built my layout with 90% 21.5 radius curves.......it saved me a lot of hassles since I only needed one template for the entire layout.
Cars on my passenger trains do not get switched. The trains run as a unit. Freight trains use MT short shank couplers and uncoupling is done manually with a skewer. I used to have a Rix Pic as well as the old Mickey D's coffee stirrers but they are apparently on an extended vacation in nofindthemland.
Same for me.....my passenger trains make visits to the layout from my staging yard, and then go back where they came from. My freight cars are "run what ya brung" in that I don't automatically put MTs on them......only if they cause problems, and then MTs are my standard replacement. I uncouple like you.......except my go to is a recycle....... I use a lot of Alpha Abrasives micro brushes for painting things like window frames on buildings and small detail parts, and one day it occurred to me that the handles were just like a skewer if you snipped the fuzzy little brush off the end .......and they work great. you can't really clean the brush, so after I use them ,I wipe them off, wait for the paint to dry and then snip the end off.
Well, as I said I would, I spoke with two people at Kato USA. According to their website you can only speak to someone between the hours of 2-4pm. I believe that is central time. One of the people told me they were aware of the problem. The other person told me that is the way they were manufactured. There was no mention of any attempt by Kato to correct the problem. Instead, I was directed to contact Microtrains and see if they could cobble up something to remedy the situation. I made the call a little after 3:00 pm eastern time and currently it is after 8:00pm and no call back yet. Maybe tomorrow??? I'm not holding my breath. As I see it this is not Microtrains problem.
MT is on the west coast, so they had probably gone home for the day since it would've been after 6 o clock when you called their time.
Actually, If I called after 3:00pm it would have been about 12:00 noon on the west coast. So, they would have had a whole afternoon to return my call. I'll see if they return my call today. Still, my position is that this issue is all Kato's and not MT's. Judging from the tone of my conversation with Kato, I am not optimistic that they will do anything about it. But we shall see.
oops!........brain fart on the time. And you are probably right about Kato......I went thru the Katos on my layout, and they are pretty consistently off when checked with an MT coupler height gauge. Fixing all those different models would be a significant job.........especially when 90% of the time the MT couplers work to fix the issue. And I'm sure Kato is primarily interested in the home market.......they make very few "American" freight cars, and the American passenger cars are usually accompanied by matching locos.
I suspect this is the dark side of Kato's intricate molding and engineering. Everything being designed to snap together with no glue and only in the correct orientation is great for initial quality, but the tiniest errors in putting things together compound into barely perceptible sill height issues.
Locos also have the most number of parts that determine coupler height. Thinking about tracing a imaginary path from the coupler to the rails. - car truck mounted couplers - wheels and trucks - car body mounted - wheels, trucks, body - loco - wheels, trucks, frame, shell Locos have the most number of interfaces so even a small variability can add up to be noticeable if they error compounds
I disagree. Look, this is not Kato's first attempt at making an N scale diesel hood unit. After encountering the problem, I did some research and found a Railwire thread with the following post from Charlie Vic who used to be with Kato USA and is now deceased. The post was as follows: ncbqguy Re: Replacing Kato couplers with MT couplers? « Reply #16 on: December 17, 2022, 12:08:47 AM » +2 I don't know if this is the first thread that addresses the change in Kato coupler mount height....but the problem reared its ugly head at the end of my tenure at Kato USA nearly 20 years ago! I provided full documentation on the M-T coupler dimensions and recall the meeting where I pointed out the factory error...leadership did not want to see that and kept on looking at different dimensions that were not a problem. I don't have copies of any of the documentation but the factory made dimensional errors in the coupler. Rather than admitting their mistake, they decided to change the coupler mount dimension on all subsequent loco and rolling stock releases. (Lower the river rather than raise the bridge). Micro-Trains was likely never informed of the change. Charlie Vlk Logged This is the url for the thread: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=55149.15
No response from MicroTrains and to be truthful, I really did not expect one as this is not their error. So, I will file down the pilots the required amount to allow the couplers to engage as they should.
Okay, I filed the pilots on the front of the two units to where the coupler is at an even height with other rolling stock couplers. In doing this I had to use the screw that MT provided as the Kato clips were too short. The rear of the units was not touched thus far. These units will be run as a consist and will be coupled back to back. Eventually they will be lowered also.
