IIRC, there is a post that comes down from the metal floor that is threaded on the inside. The whole thing is held together with a screw. Jason
I have a couple that have been running with no problems in a variety of operating scenarios. What is the particular problem you have been having with yours?
I hate to add to this thread and continue the debate but there is a distinct problem with bodymounts that nobody has touched on. While reading a similar thread on the Atlas form this point was brought up and it is very valid. The coupler box in N scale is nearly as wide was the axle spacing. If the coupler and the front axle on the car overlap, body mounting the coupler severly limits the amount the truck can pivot before it strikes the coupler box. For short wheelbase cars, again, this is not an issue but for 50', 60' and greater cars, it can be a problem. You are not limiting yourself operationaly but mechanically as to what the car can actually go around before the wheels hit and the car derails. The screw typically used to mount the coupler to the car protrudes below the coupler box which can interfere with the axle and hamper the way the truck pivots also. Especially when you are trying to move the coupler to shorten coupling distance or lowering the car ride height. I've run into this problem a few times when bashing cabooses. If the manufacture assisted conversion to body mounts is to happen, they will need to make sure that the coupler mounting pad is designed to accept a 1015 and still clear the axles. The bottom of an underslung coupler box is already very close to the axles on the truck and leaves no room for manufacturing variations such as flashing on an axle. If they tool to fit a 1015 on everything, then should you want to lower your cars to a more prototypical height, switching to a 2004 coupler can make up for the lower car body and hopefully still clear the axles of the truck.
I think the debate is (mostly) useful to help everybody figure out what works and perhaps generate ideas. At least I hope so...:tb-err: Another reason I like the 1023 coupler is that the coupler box isn't as wide as the others and thus the problem you refer to doesn't come up except for the smallest radii. And I can think of at least one case, the MDC HuskyStack, where a car had the opposite problem; there was no room for a truck-mounted MT coupler. Part of the car had to be cut away to accommodate an MT truck, and the tighter the radius, the more had to be cut away. To their great credit, Athearn has decided to retool the car to put a body-mount on their new release. They obviously had a choice between just plugging the part of the mold that would interfere with a standard truck mount, or going the no-doubt more expensive route of tooling a new body-mount draft gear. They made the right choice. Let's hope the new tooling works well.
I mentioned that the coupler pocket location needs to be 'indented' into the floor in order to allow clearance... or... the draft gear box needs to be VERY shallow with a similarly shallow coupler with short shank. The bolster would have to be lowered too... but that would help lower the height of the underframe... which is something many have complained about. So I looked a the design of the Intermountain 60' flatcar... and observed that the wheel are far enough away from the ends to NOT interfere with the body mounted coupler... BUT... this would NOT the case with the Micro-trains 50' flatcar if it were to have a body mounted coupler. The shorter cars... with the wheels closer to the end sills would have some problems unless the draft gear box design is small, shallow and pushed up into the body of the car. One other observation I noticed on both the Intermountain and Micro-trains flatcars is the wheels will only pivot on the bolster until they rub against the centerbeam of the underframe. Apparently this is enough room for either of these cars to smoothly negotiate a 9.75" radius curve. BTW... Intermountain kits used to provide a pre-drilled hole for locating the body mounted draft gear box they provided in the event the modeler did NOT want to use the truck mounted coupler.
Yes, but I'm not actually "barking and howling." More like quiet keening. :tb-biggrin: I think manufacturers listen to groundswell opinion, not who cries the loudest. It assures them that they have a market ready and waiting for them. Creating a groundswell requires a great deal of discussion and information exchange, just as this thread is doing. I think it's a really great thread, not only because it is addressing a problem, but also because a lot of really great information came out of it. Trainboard is as good a place as any other to spark a groundswell, no? The last few days I've been modifying a tender that Pete Nolan was kind enough to give me so I can use it with the snowplow I just built. It's a very old Atlas 0-8-0 tender, so I had a lot to do. Replacing the Rapido coupler was the hardest. The floor was made without any consideration whatsoever for the idea that someone might come along some day and want to install a body coupler. There was a pad of metal 2 mm too low, an empty space, then the tender wall. I needed to cut down, file, and install two pads of different heights side by side, assemble the coupler and glue it on, tap a hole, cut 1/8" off the coupler screw and install it, and add Squadron putty to fix the hole the tap made (since the coupler had to be installed out far enough to clear the wheels), and paint it. It looks really good (if I say so myself) and I confess I enjoyed the experience--but darn it, I did feel a little resentful that in building the tender no one ever even considered that someone might want to mount body couplers. And it took time away from other modeling I could have been doing. I think your solution of providing both truck-mount and body-mount models may be a good one. Atlas could keep their Trainman series with truck-mount, for instance. But I wouldn't mind a bit, in fact I would be quite happy, if manufacturers just agreed to provide a pad with a dimple. Cristi
As Jagged Ben noted above, the 1023 coupler box is narrower than the 1015 and considerably narrower than the coupler boxes on the truck-mounted couplers. Many years ago I tried cutting off the coupler box on an MT truck and then body mounting it (these boxes have holes in them for a screw). I ran into the "wheels rubbing the box" problem on 50' cars on narrow (below 11") curves. So I switched to MTL 1023's. Problem solved, at least for anything less than 60' (since I model the late 1950's, I don't have 89' flats or autoracks on my layout). The main problem with 1023's is assembly - if you buy them unassembled, assembly requires using a soldering iron to seal the top of the coupler box to the bottom. I can readily understand why folks wouldn't want to do this. It's a pain. My solution was to have a "coupler construction day" in which I spent several hours putting together 1023's. At the end of the day (well, OK - let's say end of a half-day or evening), I'd have a pile of assembled 1023's for future projects. John C.
I just hold the thing together while I screw it on. It's about as difficult as using the soldering iron, and if the coupler has a problem later it's easier to fix. OTOH, there's probably no reason that MT couldn't produce an updated version that snaps together like the 1015.
This is why I am dead set on MT reproducing the 1040's or even the 1040 with Truck added already. I also think it would be worthwhile for MT to have a pole listed on their website or even here, to not only help them with Railroaders input on wanted products but for "Us" all to see the consensus. I also think they should take a certain car of the month say, 2 months in advance, and see what the actual preorder stats return? How about the First Presidential car? I'm still waiting for them to come out. Another thing is I wouldn't be opposed to seeing MT offer it with just the pre drilled and tapped holes and the screws and couplers in a baggie for me to install myself if it meant cutting operating time down. Hell! the Flat cars don't come with the stakes in the pockets so I guess it wouldn't matter if I had to screw in the CB; Or if it's that big of a deal at least predrilled and tap the hole this alone would cut down the time in having to produce our own BM for those of us who do and would be an easy step for MT to implement, Sure it would probly mean having to employ two new employees but take for example: ( I'm using MT as an example for the reason that their my first choice in Rolling stock since if not for Kadee/Micro-Trains some would still be HO modelers or not even interested anymore; Thanks MT! ) In assembly, every blank could reasonably have one worker drilling and the other tapping, than put the standard TM proto truck as prescribed by what they so choose as normal and the Kingpin (Bolster or what ever you so choose to call it ) in a little baggie and when the modeler buys the car they can simply open the bag and do as they so choose with an instruction uni-fold (Like the 4700 series reefers had for "How to paint the door hardware") for correct way to cut the coupler box off. Basically making it ignorant proof for those who have no clue as to the difference between the two, and inadvertently would also promote people to the idea of prototype modeling. "WE" the one's who do like to BM what ever the reason, PROTO, Look, Operation Etc. Have to Disassemble the truck, take at least one wheel off, cut the CB off, break out the drill / Dremmel tool, drill the hole (MT's would be the dimple), meticulously tap the hole and hope you don't break the tap, (Oops! can't leave out removing the shell or cap), screwing it into place and hoping the BM was the correct height or you'll be looking for shims and to make it short, put it all back together. IMHO it would be cheaper and easier for MT to do as being a professional company they could have a mini drill press for the drilling and two low geared drill press’s for the taping and if the Driller was putting out 2:1 they could switch gears and help on the tapping. BTW, I Guess like my Political party, I'm Neutral Being that I have WAY to many cars to BM and probly 60% have TM's on them as from MT, Most of the one's that are, are because I was retrofitting them anyway and didn't want to do the process twice Hence the Autoracks shown having them. One last thing, I personally would buy the 1040's again just so I didn't have to go through all of the work to BM'ing, I would buy the 1040 rip out the old and slap in the new with coupler less trucks...
Been gone a few days...come back and wow I got this song buzzing in my ears... This is the song that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Someone started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because, (then repeat back at top) I read all about the pro and cons of 1015, 1023, 2001, 2004 even the BR549's and 60+ other BM couplers. I read about "Underslungs, "Underhungs, and maybe even a "Hungover" or two. How about we get back to "Why Don't Manufacturers Body-mount Couplers?" Plain and simple...the majority of "N" scalers cant run BM couplers. Layout size dictates that. And small layouts are the root of N scale. Progress and polls not withstanding...I am willing to bet the manufactures know their customers well enough to know that body mounting ALL couplers at the point of original would be shooting themselves in the foot. JMHO...ty
In general, It's like any new project if you really want to do it your going to stick with it. With the longer trains, more modern, longer their is no reason for it to even be a conversation since you would have to adjust you trackage, Layout sizing but it also is where most of us have started. I personaly started with my Grandfathers 36" X 27" layout and had enough sence to know that I couldn't get the "New" ConCor Flat cars to run on with out it looking dumd so I had to upgrade or do without and since than I've become a Prototypicalist. so you can have your cake and eat it to.
Sorry Rick! It was a late day and shouldn't have even stay'ed up that late but this is a thread that really peeked my intrest.
No I just had a rock but it was comfey you won't have any problem with that train. The assembly is really based on the person trying to assemble them, I use a Jig from MT that makes it very easy but some people can't seem to manage?? Like Rick said though, if you have that few amount cars just get the pre-assebled.
I think part of the reason that this thread has gone on so long is that some people here don't agree with you. Of course it would be helpful if there were more facts and less guessing. I think someone did show, however, that body mounted autoracks could negotiate a pretty small radius. Much smaller than I would have expected.
Ohhhh...they can disagree...no prob. Food for thought though...maybe the modelers happy with truck mounted couplers are just that...happy. And maybe...just maybe... they dont feel a need to post regarding something that is already standard. Me ...I will discuss and debate it as long as anyone else wants to...till this horse is dead and we stop beating it... I just think getting off the original question isnt really helping...well...maybe it is...hmmmm...carry on...thnxs
You CAN (sorry for raising my voice) run BM couplers on small layouts. We've heard from those who have tried and succeeded. Mtntrainman, have you tried cars with body mounted couplers on your layout? If you have, I'm sorry I may have missed a post, this thread has been going on a while and is pretty heavy reading at times. If you haven't why not do as I suggested to another poster and convert or borrow two or three and see how they go. As I've said, I can't see what those against manufacturers putting out cars with body mount couplers are concerned about. From my experience and without going off on a tangent and getting into long winded technicalities. They will run on sharp curves. (Extra long cars on extra tight curves excepted perhaps, but then things like autoracks will probably remain truck mounted anyway) Truck and body mounts will run together, so you don't have to convert your existing cars if you don't want to. (It's not like converting from Rapido to knuckle couplers) If MTL bought out a car with body mounts next month you wouldn't be excluded from buying it because you run truck mounts. I honestly don't go with the argument that the majority of N scalers can't run cars with body mounted couplers.
