Welcome to Trainboard! I think the correct number is 2001 and 2004, some one will correct me if i am wrong. kevin
I have very tight radius curves...would the 2001 be better? I am a "micro-trains newbie" and have never instaled them. I have bought some locos and cars with them preinstalled, but my Kato Dash 9s keep pulling my cars off the track with the Kato knuckle couplers. Ski
Ski - the 2004-1 is the correct coupler. The 2001 height comes out wrong. BUT, I don't think new couplers will eliminate your problem with derailments. With sharp curves, a long locomotive equipped with body-mounted couplers WILL derail cars coupled to it that have truck mounted couplers. I have sharp curves and am limited to four axle power with truck mounted couplers, except for SW9's.
Gregg, I have two used Dash-9s with microtrains couplers, and they seem to do okay on 11 inch radius. Plus, the Dash 9s I have with the rapido couplers do okay also (Gee, those rapidos are ugly!). It's just the ones with the Kato coupler (two new release H2 BNSFs). Aaron
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gregg Mahlkov: Ski - the 2004-1 is the correct coupler. The 2001 height comes out wrong. BUT, I don't think new couplers will eliminate your problem with derailments. With sharp curves, a long locomotive equipped with body-mounted couplers WILL derail cars coupled to it that have truck mounted couplers. I have sharp curves and am limited to four axle power with truck mounted couplers, except for SW9's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The 2001 height doesn't come out wrong. They are the same as the 2004 just that the 2001 has a longer shank.
I use my C44's on 11" min. curves, fitted with 2004 couplers with no problems. But the new Kato couplers do give problems, as they are too stiff sideways, and throw the car truck off. MT couplers are more lightly sideways sprung, and work fine.
