I agree. 11" radius ought to be the minimum for "manufactured" track; that still allows you to do a half-circle in a 24" space (and still is a huge space saver over even an 18" HO radius). The 9" track is another holdover from "toy train" days, when engines also had truck-mounted (Rapido) couplers. No N-scale locomotive made with modern tooling has truck-mounts any more, and I've got to believe that very few "serious" N-scalers today use 9" curves for anything other than modeling industrial trackage. In those cases, moreover (e.g., industrial trackage), I'll bet that using short-wheelbase switchers or geeps with very short consists (which would be prototypical: a switcher or GP9 with a half-dozen cars) that are limited to 50' cars or shorter would be fine with body-mounted couplers. The real problem is "train sets" sold with 9" curves; Atlas, Bachmann and Kato could easily end that tomorrow by simply phasing out 9.75" curves in their sectional track and using 11" minimums. At the very least, couldn't manufacturers provide a pre-made pad at the correct height with a pre-drilled hole exactly on the car centerline (my biggest problem in body-mounting is drilling the mounting hole exactly on the car centerline!) to body-mount a coupler for those of us who want to body mount? MT cars (well, at least the box cars and gons) at least provide this; drill out and tap the hole, screw in a 1027, and you're done. As someone noted above, I'm talking here about new tooling, not going back and redesigning everything made to date. If the manufacturers at least started taking body-mounting seriously now, then maybe in 10 years we will have shed this last vestige of "toy-train" in N-scale! John C.
If you think about it...N scale came along for those who didnt have the BIG rooms to be able to put HO scale. Some of us didnt/dont have the luxury of big wide sweeping curves. HOers who found they could fit twice as much in the same 12x12 room they where running their big (H)orribly (O)versized stuff in...went to N scale when N scale started offering more of everything to complete a layout. Now there are ex HOers who are now n scalers who seem to want to say "The heck with those who dont have the room...let em go to Z scale!" And there are n scalers who even demand Z knuckle couplers be the norm on N. I run my N on a 32 inch HC door because thats all I have room for! Believe it or not...some 9 3/4 radius curves are STILL the NORM in n scale. I will agree that the manufactures could/should/do give the OPTION to change things...like changing truck mounted couplers to frame mounted...for those who want and can afford them. But leave the truck mounted as the standard. I do change out those big ugly rapido couplers...but I have to do that when I can horde enough of my "allowance" to buy em. There are those out there who cant even do that. Not everyone has the room for layout sizes to run rolling stock with frame mounted couplers. Some of us dont have the BIG $$$$ to afford 500.00 locos or 45.00 freight cars. If you have the room...and you have the $$$...YOU have the OPTION to change your stuff over...some of us dont! This hobby isnt just for the 'rich'...its for everyone to enjoy. I applaude companies like Atlas and Bachmann who dont cater to the few but rememeber where their roots started. Please dont demand industry wide changes that most of us in n scale simply cant afford...in space or $$$...ty
While I can see and understand that there is an interest in body mounted couplers I do think it falls in the same category as track and wheel selections but carries the onus of costing more for the manufacturers to implement.
Yes,I recall your often spoken and very popular and "standard' argument against any improvements in HO or N from LP wheels to locomotives with body mounted couplers. I doubt if any of us is truely rich but,many of us wants to see hobby improvements..We talk about "pizza cutter" wheels and oversize rail like its the most terrible thing since Cod's Liver Oil and yet with the same breath accept truck mounted couplers.What is wrong with that picture? Are we putting the cart ahead of the mule? I think so. Manufacturers:Come out of the dark ages and start body mounting the couplers on freight cars!
Brakie? I am NOT against improvements in the hobby. Truthfully...I could care less what HO does...I dont model in HO. Let me ask...how large is your N scale trainroom? There are more 'small' scale modelers out there then people give credit too. I think its time WE stand up for ourselves. I still say...if you want body mounte couplers...buy em...install em. N scale is and has been meant for those who DONT have the space for the big layouts...that would preclude frame mounted couplers. Manufactures: Dont froget the 'small guys'...stay with truck mounted couplers ...but...offer the option to change em to body mounted...ty
I'm not sure why it should cost more in the long run. You are a manufacturer. So you design your mold to include a coupler pocket at the right height to accept an MT, or Accumate, or Kato, or whatever coupler you choose. No additional expense here - it's just part of the design process. No additional expense in molding - same amount of plastic. True, you have to buy or manufacture a coupler. But you can now buy or manufacture a truck WITHOUT a coupler, so you save the cost of having a truck mounted coupler and spend it on a body-mounted coupler. Look, when Atlas first introduced cars with accumate truck-mounted couplers, would it really have cost them any more to design a body-mounted accumate and manufacture the trucks without couplers? I have serious trouble believing truck-mounted couplers are a huge cost savings for a manufacturer. I honestly don't think the issue is cost; I think it is just inertia, and maybe some lingering concern about how body-mounts will deal with 9"-radius curves. John C.
I agree completely with Mtntrainman in all his points. N scale was invented to fit into small spaces. My layout, when finished, will be 13' x 7'. It's not huge, but for N scale, it's a little empire. Nearly all my curves will be 12" or over because I can afford the space. The branch representing the old Chili Line between Santa Fe and Otowi, however, will have curves down to 10". Why? Because that's the way the Chili Line looked through there. I could straighten everything out and shoot right to Santa Fe, but that's not what the Chili Line did. It wound slowly and carefully through canyons and around hills. I want to give the impression of this on my layout. I'll cultivate that impression by running B-B engines and 40' cars. Additionally, the tight curves will allow me to put in a realistically long bridge over the Rio Grande. Otherwise, I'd have to use a sadly unprototypical 6" bridge. Even if I weren't including the Chile Line in my layout, though, I would still vote for truck-mounted couplers--in consideration of the many tens of thousands of people who buy little trains for the first time, for Christmas or birthdays, to run on door-sized or smaller layouts and wouldn't have a clue how to replace the body-mounted couplers with truck-mounted so their new trains would actually run without derailing. Small radius curves are part of the tradition of N scale. There's no reason to change it. What on earth is wrong with installing your own body-mounted couplers? It used to be a mark of pride and craftsmanship. I see in the ads that those with disposable income can already buy pre-weathered cars. Shall we now demand sunshades, free-standing MU cables and connectors, air hoses, antennae, and so forth installed according to the prototype along with free-standing grab-irons and metal stirrups? What are we going to model then? It all seems kind of silly to me. Cristi
Train room? What's that????? LOL! My layout will be a 2x5 footer since that's all the room I have and I will need to take the layout down and store it between operating sessions. Perhaps the manufacturers can sell replacement floors for those of us that wants to move out of the dark ages with body mounted couplers or add mounting pads. For the record I am slowly but,surely body mounting my couplers on my freight cars.
Thats what I suggested...make the frames with areas ready for or predrilled for body mounts...for those who want to change em....just dont make body mounted couplers in N Scale...an industry standard. BTW..that inside loop looks to be 11 or under in radius. Do your cars track allright on that...with body mounts? Just curious. I have a few curves in the 10-11 radius...and I had the 'joy' of running a few cars with body mounted couplers throgh them. The train definately let me know what it thought of that...:tb-wacky:
It doesn't hurt to ask! But Whine? Naw... This I would agree with. Write your favorite provider and tell them what you'd like to see. It can't hurt to ask. But whine? Naw...I don't think so. Certain factors are against those of us who would like to see upgrades in the industry. Most of the N scalers out there are hobbyist, who want to have a layout that is small in size, simple to operate and prefer the tighter radius curves. If you have followed the threads here with regards to layout help...the most common request is "What is the minimum radius or tightest curve I can use?". Most newbies or even experienced model rails don't have the space for something elaborate. I don't. My 10 X10 shed (outside measurements) is simply to small for the railroad I desire. I wanted more then my space allows for and ended up with a good old fashioned spaghetti bowl. This isn't a layout I would build again but it gives me staging for train operation, switching puzzles...just for the fun of switching. Rule #101...Nine inch radii is not allowed. I do get down to 11 inch radius in a few of the industrial spurs or yards. Most of the mainline curves are 16.5 minimum...up to 18 with one at 24 inch radii. The trains look quite good and the 24 inch curve, is to die for. I have no idea how I'm going to scenic it. Yikes! Wedding cake came to mind. I'm getting away from the basic point here. Mtntrainman and others here have clearly stated the position of the majority of N Scalers. And, WE need to listen as do the providers. Personally, I would like to see the 9 inch radius curves abolished. The problem our providers confronts... the majority of N Scale layouts are built with the 9 inch radius curves. The question is: To what standard do you want to provide equipment and who is your customer? Or who is most likely to purchase the run of equipment now in production. Think about it...9 inch is the HO approximate equivalent to the 18 inch radius. There is a growing number of prototypical N Scalers that want the wider curves and equipment designed to suit. True'r wheel sets, scale track, body mounted couplers, detail parts and etc. Nothing wrong with that but we need to keep in mind we are still in the minority, as purchasers. My crystal ball... actually common sense tells me, we will be there for a long time to come...shucks! I got to get busy. My layout is calling, as is the pharmacy, bill collectors and good friends. And, the house needs a good sweeping out. Till later! Have fun...said with a determined grin!
All the while this debate on couplers has been carried on, I have been conducting a real world test with what I consider the worst case scenario of body mount couplers, low profile wheels, tight radius curves, and long cars. My test subject is a MT 89' flat car with MT low profile wheels, and body mount couplers with NO LOAD on the test car placed at the head of a 20 car intermodal being pulled by 2 Kato engines with stock Kato couplers. Trackage is Atlas Code 80 and Kato Unitrack. Results: Pulling forward, absolutely no problems down to 12.5" radius. Backing 5 cars (89' flats) in a 12.5" radius - no derailments even negotiating the dreaded "S" curve backing through 2 turnouts and the 12.5" radius. Main line running 14" radius or more - perfect. My personal conclusion, BRING ON THE BODY MOUNTS! I was really skeptical when I started reading the previous posts. The philosophy behind comments is one thing but the real world performance is what really matters. Granted, shorter length cars will operate on virtually any radius but the longer modern equipment require a more generous radius if for no other reason than cosmetics. An 98' flat on a 12.5" radius looks too toy like, just my opinion. I have to agree with those of you that feel the manufacturer's should jump on this subject and give us the option by modifying their frames to accept body mounts. Too many of us are at the age where accurately measuring, drilling and tapping the frame is more difficult than our younger years. It may cause the mfger. to absorb a little extra cost but how much more would you pay for the "body mount ready" cars? (As noted by others) On the up side what sets one manufacturer apart from the rest of the herd? Features. Flip over about any MT car you have and look under the truck mounted coupler. Viola, pre-cast indents for body mounting couplers. Maybe it's time for the rest of the mfger's to play a little more catch-up.
I'm somewhat on the fence on this issue, as I have very broad curves and am only now adding #10 turnouts (minimum). In that scenario, I don't see much of an operational issue either way. My only complaint with body mounting, is if it is poorly executed from a cosmetic standpoint (re: IMR F3 and F7 units with the superwide spacing).
Very intriguing thread. I can't say I totally agree with all points, but each one does have merits. If no one minds, I will take my cabeese to make some points. I could have used truck mount couplers, but the addition of a body mounted coupler pocket DID interfere with reliable operations. The two physical entities could not occupy the same space. One had to be removed, but which one ? ? ? ? OK, thinking out aloud here (pardon the smoke)... Although I did body mount the couplers, I could have built for the masses and used truck mounted couplers. Pros: Readily available, widely used, less building time, no conversions. Cons: That would have made the caboose just like any other and would have negated all of the other model fidelities. It would have negated the primary objective of producing a car that pushed the norms to a higher point. It did not look good... at all. So a manufacturer must first make the choice of where in the scheme of things he wants the finished product to "fit in". That will push the design more than anything else. He must also weigh the costs of each additional feature on the model. Each feature will have a design time cost, a tooling time cost, a production time cost and an assembly time cost. The total production cost will directly affect the retail price and that must be reflected in the final product. IMHO, I don't think that masses are ready and willing to pay the extra costs just yet. I DO see it comming. It is inevitable, they will be assimilated. The very vocal minority are usually the ones pushing for better items. As the noise gets louder, and is heard more often, manufacturers will see the point of necessary change. It happened with Rapidos/Knuckle couples, It's happening with molded details/Applied details. And it will happen with coupler location. Ask often and ask loadly. Manufacturers do listen, but the large ones react conservatively. My thunking anyway.
George said:BTW..that inside loop looks to be 11 or under in radius. Do your cars track allright on that...with body mounts? Just curious. I have a few curves in the 10-11 radius...and I had the 'joy' of running a few cars with body mounted couplers throgh them. The train definately let me know what it thought of that... -------------------------- I haven't started track construction yet..I am awaiting the 3 large industries to arrive so I can get them built and then lay the track to the buildings..I figure the curves on the right side will be 11".The fella that help redesign the layout said he used 10" curves on the left side.At any rate this layout will use sectional track instead of the common flex track. I really don't foresee any problems with body mounts on these curves..Of course Murphy's law may intervene but,I have a backup plan.
I have quite a few pieces of rolling stock, all knuckle couplers of diffferent brands, but all compatible. Some of my cars are body mount, some truck mounted, and some are combos. Considering today's state of the hobby, I think I sort of lucked in to having this array. First, I read in years past that N scale had truck mounted couplers because most of the layouts back then were of narrow curves with tight radius track turns. I am not sure if that is really why, but I accumulated the majority of my rolling stock in the eighties and nineties when the MT1000 were state of the art, and most of my stuff had them installed, because they were easy and simple and worked a whole bunch better than the old Atlas and other mfg trucks. But along the way, I got a few of the body mount cars and combos, why, because the newer issues from the manufacturers now have body mounts, and now most cabooses have body mounts. To match a truck mount coupler increases the incidence of uncoupling or derailing. So, I keep my body mounts and combos isolated in their own storage box, and when I am putting together a consist, I make it so that my trains are coupled. body mount to body mount, truck mount to truck mount. So far, it has worked terrific, no derailments, no cave ins, and no unscheduled uncouples. I wouldn't object to the change to body mount couplers overall and industry wide. It would certainly be less expensive in the long run. For example, when a coupler breaks on a MT1000 it pretty much takes the entire truck out of commission, and the most expedient replacement is to replace the entire unit. Using body mounts would require to simply change out the coupler and leave the truck intact. Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman
Am I to understand that if the 'coupler' portion fails on an MT1000...the coupler portion itself can NOT be torn down and repaired? The whole truck/coupler assembly needs to be scrapped? I am confused. :tb-wacky::tb-err:
I can remember the bad old days of Nscale when ConCor sold their bay window caboose with body mount Rapidos. It could be the poor couplers of the time where the body mounts did not work well with truck mounts. IIRC the best solution for the Bachmann caboose was to swap a MTL caboose floor. I wonder how many modelers with ConCor, LL, Bachmann, cheapie cars would like to get new diecast frames to go under some of the older rolling stock. I see no reason why MTL & the rest can't have a predrilled hole where the coupler should go. Sure would save a lot of time & make it so much easier to convert. Does anyone remember we had to go thru the same bit to convert locomotives? You had to cut the coupler box off of the truck then drill your hole in the locomotive. Hope you don't break your 00-90 drill bit. I can also remember the tight Trix track that was sold in 7" radius curves. IIRC the critters could be made to negotiate a 5" curve. That may have been fine for the toylike early days of Nscale. Time to leave those days behind. If you want 5" track, go with Zscale.
See, in HO we have a pretty standard box molded into the body...that box has been there on quality cars since the 70s.
There has been mention made of not being able to afford $45 freight cars and $500 engines, I'm not sure any of us could, but I can't see any way in the wide world that body mount couplers would increase the cost of cars by anywhere near that much if at all, and practically all U.S. prototype diesels already have fine scale wheels and body mounted couplers and nobody complains about them and they certainly don't cost $500. I say start making cars with body mounted couplers and prototypically low riding trucks w/fine scale flanges, and if those 89ft auto parts boxcars won't go around those 9 inch curves, well duh! If you want to run big stuff in HO you don't go with 18 inch curves. As I've said, I have a module with 9 inch curves but I'm realistic about what I run on it and fine scale flanges and mixed truck and body mount couplers are no problem, even the Z scale variety.
I think the point he's trying to make is that if you drop it or what ever, All you have to do is grab the box of MT parts grab a BM, take the broken one off and screw new back in. Opposed to having to take the truck off, take the wheels off rebuild the coupler box with spare parts and finagle with rebuilding it and having springs bouncing in your eye. Some of the older modelers here wouldn't have the stability or vision to deal with that sort of rebuild so anything short of cutting the coupler box off and using it as a replacement for an Articulated car it would be useless for them and they would still have to replace the truck. ( Ken, correct me if I'm wrong)
