If that's the case, the first thing the TS will do is replace any Accumate remaining on the Sub! Thanks!
My package from my favorite dealer in New Jersey got delivered, and of course I'm not home to assemble some and try them out.
I operate a point-to-point small layout and I use my magentic uncoupler in my yard before I shove my cars to their respective spur in the yard every day. If the cars don't uncouple then I will find which car is the cause and then adjust the coupling hose height accordingly. I don't think I have had to adjust a car more than once. And other than stopping the two cars to be uncoupled over the magnet, I don't see any impact to running prototypically. But to each his own.
Joe, does the Micro Mark #80972 uncoupling took work with these? It works great with N and Z couplers.
My 4 packages of 10 arrived today . And after trying to put the little air hose on the few that I put together , I've decided that they aren't for me . They look really great on the two cars that I converted , but I don't have the patience for assembly . So they are for sale 55 bucks including shipping .....Mike
Hansel, in my beginnings with N scale, I really tried to make magnetic uncoupling work, because I really wanted to use it. But, despite trying several types of magnets and adjusting the couplers' trip pins and lubing them, I still had two frustrting problems: (1) some just refused to uncouple, and (2) even when they did uncouple properly, the "slinky effect" when pushing them to the places they were to be spotted often recoupled them before I got them there. This was with a mixture of magnetic knuckle coupler types, not standardized to one type only. So, if you have great success with magnetic knuckle couplers in N scale, would you be so kind as to start another thread to share your secrets for success? I am willing to try things that I have not previously tried in the hopes that will bring success.
Well my favorite source of supply is sold out already. So I will have to wait a while longer. In the meantime can we get someone who has them installed to provide some sort of report? I am particularly interested in replacing the Unimate couplers between units in an ABBA lash up and the coupling distance between engines in such a lash up.
I am beginning to think about these on my ABBA lashups too. I am not sure what size I would use yet. Can some one who has done this shed some light on the size?
I converted a ABA set and a AA set of IM Fs last night. I used short shank to replace Unimates that I was using. I have a small layout with tight curves (9.5 in one spot) and 2% grades. Once complete I ran them through the sharpest curves, a crossover, up and down grades with no problems. I did have to lightly sand the sides of the coupler boxes to get them to fit, otherwise they did not sit level between the alignment tabs on the IM mounting pad. One side of the coupler box would ride up on this tab, once sanded a few thousandths, it would snap down flat between them. Propbably not describing it well, but I think you'll see what I mean when you do it. I also took a drill bit and beveled the screw hole on the coupler box, so that the screw head sat nearly flush. There is very little lateral play on these, so I was a little surprised they worked on the tight curves, but they did. Oh yeah, they look fantastic. They make normal couplers look huge by comparison. Tom L. Wellington CO
Hey Tom, thanks for the update. Guess I am going to give them a try on a few units and see how it turns out.
Not set up well for photos, but I'll give it a try with the iPad. The spacing seems about the same as with the Unimates. At normal operating distance, I can't really see any detail of them in the shadows between locos. The air hoses really are a nice touch. Tom L Wellington CO
The coupling distance looks too wide. Using short shank Unimates my FA/B 1's are coupled much closer, practically touching each other.
Yeah, I didn't think to check distance before and after, but yes, the distance between was not improved, maybe farther. I think because Unimates don't have any sort of coupler box, you can get them back towards the trucks farther. The MT coupler box cannot be mounted any farther back as it would impede the trucks from swiveling. Here is a quick shot of them between a couple of Atlas GP 9s. Tom L
Thanks for posting the photos Tom. Hopefully (?) the new MT couplers you used are the long shank and not the short shank. Would you please let us know which they are? (I also really like seeing the CGW original scheme F3's - do you have any "maroon dip" units?)
T Those are all short shank. No maroon dip, I wish I had one, but missed the boat when they were released. Tom L
Thanks Tom. I agree with the comments that the IMRC F units are still too widely spaced (although better than "as delivered"). This is not an indictment of MT or the tru scale couplers. IMRC's decision to go with body mounted couplers on the back of an F unit (where there simply isn't any space) brought this about. It looks like Red Caboose (now FVM) body mount dummies will still have an application. Those M&StL geeps do look very nicely spaced!
