Micro trains requested inputs will there be changes??

It has been reported that Joe D. was last seen Thursday eve. in the board room at MT headquarters picking at the last slice of thick & crispy pan pizza, Rambing the pharse RCWS,RCWS RCWS,RCWS, From what co-workers have arrived at, the initails stand for what has been a burden on Joe D's mind,stating that his life has no meaning until he can bring to the model train market "Rob's compliant wheels sets"(RCWS) only than can he leave this world a better place.

 

Brokemoto, You mean a 10 wheeler like this? Cheers, Jim CCRR

 

Wow route 66 that was really productive!

For Joe, our Micro train representitive:

May I suggest that you get some N scale model railroader guru, to search out all the articles on lowering the body and body mounting couplers.

There got to be at least 8 or so articles published in the big three magazines, N scale, model railroader, the other N scale rag. These articles will give you ideas on how to approach the lowering of bodies, and mounting body mount couplers. I would say for a successful outcome they are a necessity to have. Otherwise you'll be spinning wheels trying to figure out from ground zero ways to accomplish the task. The articles would be a big advantage for developing approaches to the problems you'll face in revising tooling, utilizing and or modifying current products.

I would also suggest looking into reducing the size of the coupler, and perhaps using an off set head, to reduce any detail removal from the end of the body. You need to keep in mind that the flange height is going to be an issue when reducing body height.

Of the articles I've read, all used the low profile wheels when reducing body height. You may get around to it to some degree using by using an offset head that puts the coupler somewhat higher on the shank past the body. That way a wheel with a flange depth of .022 might be used.
another idea it to recess the area over the wheel arc to allow clearance for the truck to pivot and rotate.

If you could manage to do all that this is what it give you.

1. The cars would be scale height,
2 The couplers would be closer to scale
3. The cars would track better (aka lower center of gravity)
4. Body mounting would eliminate backing move problems.
5. All of the above would be like a trump card, it would immediately put Micro trains back in front of the pack on detail, performance. appearance and NMRA requirements on wheel standards.
I don't believe anyone is offering body mounted couplers at this time. (although there might be one company)
Using a magnetic coupler the size of the z scale coupler would be a big jump on the competition. The appearance of the cars would be so improved, there would be little competition in that regard. Even now another company came out with magnetic couplers but they are actually bulker than the current N scale couplers on the market.

Rob

 

flange size and car ride height?

Yep, That's what the "spacey" thing is for. If Rob had ever seen a Weaver car or a SHS car he'd understand the concept. As he said to run large flanges the car needs to be raised too high to look good. The "spacey" thing is just a spacer that lets a car be designed at correct height for small flange use with body mounted couplers and then with the "spacey" thing in place be suitable for large flange use. The "spacey" thing also includes a truck mounted coupler since guys who run large flanges usually have too tight of curves to use body mounted couplers. It 's a very well proven concept and lets Weaver and SHS make some nice multiple use cars for two types of users.
Since N scale cars are so small it would probably be easier to design two types of trucks, one for scale height use with body mounted couplers and another for large flange use with truck mounted couplers molded on. The car body could be designed to ride at correct height with the truck number one option and the truck number two option could be designed to raise the car a bit and include truck mounted couplers much like the current MTH trucks......dave

 

Rod,While I admire and appreciate your stand on this matter I wonder at what price this "advancement" will come? Will that price be one can't shove a cut of cars while doing terminal work without derailments? How about derailments while switching out a industry?

I am not advocating keeping the so called "pizza cutter" wheels I am advocating a smaller workable flange.

I am all for body mounted couplers but,that must become a industry wide standard.I recall Paul Graf(Atlas forum) once stated that would require new tooling and I believe there where other issues involved as well...Sadly I don't think we will see that any time soon as a industry wide standard.

The only vested interest I have calls for smooth and derailment free operation.No more no less on C80 track.

 

Assuming your curves are not too tight for body mounts they will do more for switching than any wheel changes ever could. I'd venture with body mounts you could shove a 100 car train around your layout all day long with no tracking problems. Body mounts remove virtually all torque from the truck which is what causes them to pick points and frogs when backing; so much so smaller flanges start to work just fine.

Speaking of, I think you just gave me the idea for a brief video segment on the next reality reduced....

The biggest issue, they limit turning radius. Not so much on a 40 box car to 40 box car, but imagine an auto-rack coupled to a 40 foot box going around a 12" curve! Surefire derailments. Now, if you have 12" curves perhaps auto-racks aren't the best choice in any event...but I think you see the problem.

Derailments when backing in N scale are due to two factors: 60% talgo trucks, 40% couplers that slam sideways when backing. Eliminate those two and you can back as reliably as the prototype....

Most of the other things really don't come into play. Lowered cars do have a lower center of gravity and should track better...but I'm not sure a 0.010 lowering is going to make enough difference you could measure the derailment changes.

 

Thanks JOE!!!
By the way I have never had an problem with any MT products,I'am in "N" scale and allmost all my rolling stock has MT wheels,truck,and couplers,soon they will be all MT1
MT is reliable and dependable never a worry!you can tip an car over and not have to worry about the truck falling off!!
Jim

 

Leo,Again I am a BIG SUPPORTER of body mounted couplers but,I doubt if that will be come a industry standard any time soon.

I also advocate using the largest curve and switches possible in the available space.

As far as making reverse moves...I fully understand what you are saying and agree but,a small sliver of a flange won't help either due to that sideway movement..

Come to think of it perhaps we should be lobbying for body mounted couplers instead of wee size flanges?

Of course I said that for years.LOL!

 

Folks,

This is a second warning from me about sniping at each other. Overall this has been an informative thread, and perhaps helpful to MT. A third incident of sniping will cause one of two actions. If I have time, I'll "cleanse" the thread. If I don't have time, I'll just lock it.

Please play nice. I know that I'm the one who poured gasoline on the fire. I've admitted my mistake, apologized to Joe and MT and TB at large, and urged everyone to move on. I admit that my decisions as an admin are not always correct, and that my postings reveal that I am sometimes a flaming idiot. But someone has to do the job.

So, let's move on. What does MT need to hear from us?

 

Larry when you read my posts READ the posts, I'm not suggesting that Microtrains go low profile only, I'm suggesting they use the 022 flange size which is what Atlas is using now. That in itself will get Micro trains in the NMRA specs. The body height issue is going to have to researched with regards to flange size, because in lowering the body the flange is going to interfere with the underbody. Thats why on my last post I suggested to Joe he acquire all the articles on lowering the microtrains body.

See? understand? A few are having conniptions over my suggestions and they are not reading the posts in their entirety. Flanges the same size as the Fox valley models or Atlas's current wheels shouldn't be an issue, as NO ONE COMPLAINS about Atlas, or FVM, or Intermountain. All they complain about is when someone suggests replacing the Current MIcrotrain pizza cutter with something within the NMRA specs.

Rob

 

I guess no one reads my posts. I've had it with the sniping, and I don't have any time to edit this thread. So I'm using my second alternative, which is to lock. I think MT (Joe) has probably seen enough. I have.