As far as 'some' not agreeing with me...and needing a few more facts. I had a few minutes to spare...and did some checking: There are currently 159 replies There are only 30 different posters 10 are pro BM from manufactures 11 are against that idea 9 are split on their thoughts results have an accuracy of + - 2 % You are right though...some do disagree with my thoughts....but at least 1 more disagrees with BM from the manufacturer then agrees... :tb-wink: I dont think any of us is into mudslinging. I know this debate can get heated. I still contend there are more 'novice' and 'intermediate' n scalers out there that would prefer that rolling stock DONT come 'out of the box' with body mounted couplers then there are "experts" that do...ty:tb-biggrin::tb-cool:
Like I said before, sharing information about body-mount couplers is necessary to understanding why one would or would not want to use them. For instance, we've gathered the remarks of several who say their own 9-3/4" curves do great with body mounts as long as the car isn't too long--which is how one should operate on those curves anyway because longer cars look weird. A lot of the other things that you believe are off-subject are actually valuable parts of gathering information. This discussion has been very productive for me personally and probably for a lot of other people, too. Thanks to everyone for their valuable input! :tb-smile:
westfalen? I DID have one car with body mounts. It derailed no mater where in my consist I ran it. always on a curve. ALL my other cars have truck mounted MT's. My locos still have Rapido...the first car back is a 'conversion car'. NONE of my truck mounted coupled cars EVER derail because of coupler problems. I did say in an earlier reply...and I know ya said ya missed it ;-)...that I would (as soon as finances are available) convert a cpl more cars to body mount...and post my results. My intent is NOT to ruffle feathers. My intent is to let manufactures know that not everyone...nor the majority of everyone here at Trainboard at least is in favor of body mounted couplers straight from the factory...thnxs
My train of thought is that if N scale didn't have the toy train look of sharp curves and truck mounted couplers there would be more 'novices' out there. You don't need to be an expert with a large layout to run body mounted couplers.
Chaya? We have also heard some condemn anyone running 9 3/4 radius turns. Novice, intermediate, and even some expert n scalers run tight curves. I still say all the negative about truck mounted (which the majority of N scalers run)...could well run a few out of the hobby. I have no beef with body mounted couplers at all. Serious... i have stated this already ! If someone wants to run BM...more power to em! Just IMHO...demanding manufactures make it a 'standard' at the point of orgin is a bit selfserving and a move we really dont need is all. If ya have the time...read all my replies as to why. As far as off topic replies...all the tecno info on Body Mount Couplers is...and could be...overwhelming to a newcommer...heck...even the intermediate modeler. Once again...IMHO...the tecno of body mounts might well be better served on a seperate post. Why confuse those who may already be confused by the whole subject of BM vs TM more...ty :tb-wink:
This debate looks like going on and on (and on) and getting nowhere until MTL or Atlas bring out a car with body mount couplers and everyone says, "Wow, these are great, what have we been missing out on for the last thirty years."
Somewhere in the back of my head is a lecture by my 9th grade science teacher about the scientific method...... Unfortunately one car is not a good test. Why? It leaves too many questions: 1) Did the car have an undiagnosed problem? (Including but not limited to bad truck or wheel, improperly weighted, warped frame, etc). 2) Did the problem have something to do with mixing body mounts and truck mounts? 3) Were the body mounts properly mounted? It's easy to get them the wrong height, too loose so they spin, too tight so the coupler doesn't work right, especially when retrofitting. I would ask that if anyone is going to try body mounts on their layout to see if there is an issue that you try at least 5 cars. Borrow them from a friend if you don't want to convert some of your cars. 5 is enough to see if it is a problem that affects all body mounts, or just one oddball car. 5 is enough to have a string of body mounts and see if the problem is really in the transition from body mount to truck mount. To be a scientific test it must be repeatable. Different cars, different days, different positions in the train. Other factors have to be ruled out. Fortunately unlike many things in model railroading this one is easy to try, locate someone in your club with body mount cars and invite them over for an afternoon. I suspect most would be quite happy to bring 5 (or more) cars and give them a go on your layout
All sounds good Leo...but: 1) Although it was only one car...it was hooked to other MT couplers...although truck mounted (see 4 below) 2) I live in a small town...pop. 6000. There is a RR club here...mostly HO...some O and I was told one N scaler...but he hasnt been seen for awhile 3) Finances are scarce right now. 4) I WILL however refit some cars to BM...as soon as I can. I will do 4-5....and test run em. Lke I said earlier...I think this would only be fair to the discussion/debate...as I am so adamantly against BM from the manufacturer on new cars. :tb-cool:
Drat it...and I thought I was through with this discussion. Mtntrainman and all tuned in, Confused...yeah well that could easily be the case. We should share with you hear that Leo Bicknell, Jagged Ben, Al Hoop, Westfalen, Chaya, Grandpa Joe aka Cal Zephyr, Powersteamguy 1790, R.I.Straw and perhaps BNSF The Leader (a first name would be easier...grin) are all guys who've had a considerable amount of experience with model railroading. They know their way around a train table. The discussion we've had here wasn't meant to be argumentative. Fun maybe. Still the facts needed to be weighed. Each of us have shared a considerable amount of information. Although, it may be hard to follow all the thoughts shared...you need to blend it all in and boil it all down. Then you will have the equivalent of some of the best advice available. During this discussion and behind the scenes... I made up two different trains. All with MTL wheel sets and couplers. One train was made up with truck mounted train couplers and the other with body mounted couplers. Both trains sported everything from 40' to 85' freight cars. I put the trains through their paces. Both trains operated exceptionally well in both the forward moves/pull or in the reverse moves. Both handled my 11" radius curves that can be found in the industrial spurs. However, when I mixed the two trains body mount with truck mount, is when the trouble started. Typically the truck mounted couplers will push the body mounted train cars off the track... in a reverse move. And, that's not a lot of fun. Layout News Update: I used to sport that I didn't have any 9" radius curves on my layout. Well, as of today that's no longer true. It's worse then I thought 7.50" radius curves. Yikes! I just got a trolley line up and running. This from a layout I inherited. However, you won't find anything this tight on my mainline. Incidentally, it took me years to get to a point where I eliminated all the tight radius curves, off my mainline. I kept trying to put as much track into... as small a space as possible. Ok, so you looked at my pictures on RailImages. You caught me...Yep, I'm still trying to do that but this time my minimum radius on the mainline is 16.5". And, yes that helps considerably when it comes to smooth operations. Ok, that's enough about me. The point is you need to try things out for yourself. Make your own decisions as to what you want. You make the rules, you set the standard and you decide what is best for your layout. ***Seriously. I don't think we will be seeing body mounted couplers produced by the big three model rail providers... Kato, Atlas and Micro-trains...anytime soon. I'm not sure I want them to make that switch. We'd end up with three different types of body mounted couplers and most of us would be right back to square one...doing it ourselves.*** Did I not say this happened with HO body mounts? BHastings has started another thread with regards to questions about Body Mounts. I would suggest taking any questions you have... over to that thread. I leave you to decide for yourself and thanks to all... for being a part of this discussion. Now...Now...Now...I'm done.
Any chance you can get a top down and side view video of this happening? I have a theory, but I want to see if it really is the way it happens. Basically, a body mount is limited in its side to side movement by the coupler swing, typically not very far. By comparison, when backing truck mounts the trucks tend to twist due to the pressure, riding on the opposite two flanges hard against the rail. That small amount of twist translates into a lever action moving the coupler sideways. If the coupler itself flopped to the same side as the truck then it will try and exceed the play in the body mount its connected to. If my theory is right, a short extension truck to a body mount should almost never have the problem, and a long extension truck to a body mount should show the problem most severely. The opposite happens in forward, I know. The body mount pulls the truck mount sideways, more force with a longer extension truck mount, or with a long car body mount (e.g. 86') followed by a short extension. It should be no surprise, at the end of the day the key is the distance from the bolster pin to the coupler face. As that distance gets larger the coupler swing gets further side to side; and thus is more likely to have issues, forward or reverse, of the opposite side doesn't have the same swing. A number of old timers use transition cars, much like you might make a car with a rapido and a MT coupler, they make one end body mount one end truck mount. Add it between a pilot mounted locomotive (body mount to body mount) and truck mounted cars and they swear it reduces derailments. I've always been a bit skeptical, but your results may indicate the old wisdom holds true.....
Fair enough, look forward to hearing your results, as Leo says, it may be something more to do with other factors than the BM couplers themselves. I think it will be some time before everything comes with factory mounted couplers, if it ever does, so N scale railroading won't be turned upside down overnight. I'd add 4)To eliminate track as a fault (we all have bad days laying track), where on the layout does it happen? You didn't mention if it was always the same curve where the derailment occurred or if it was all curves. If it's just one curve that could point to something amiss with the track at that spot that the things in 1, 2 and 3 highlighted. As it was the body mount car that derailed rather than it's coupler overhang pulling the body mount car off the track I'd have a look at point No.1 for starters. I've had cars with truck mounted couplers out of the box that derailed every time they come to a curve due to the items in point one. Factory mounted body mounts by a manufacturer we could rely on to get it right like MTL, maybe Atlas or Athearn would overcome point three as well and make body mounts less of a problem for novices.
I have learned not to put my Kato Maxi-IVs, the only truck mounted cars I currently run, right behind the loco. And this is at the club where we have an 18" minimum radius. Makes me feel like a "novice." I think much of the problem is due to the stiffness of the Kato couplers, which are put together in the old Rapido style way. If the prospect of body-mounting these cars weren't rather uniquely baffling, I'd have done it a long time ago.
Well of course I have been one of those who has been unemployed this week and thus contributed to the this thread dragging on forever. But at this point I am ready to let it go. This thread has been really good for laying out the issues, but we're not settling the argument. Somehow the last few posts seem to have evolved into some of us suggesting to mtntrainman that he do more tests. (?) Doesn't seem really appropriate to me. :tb-wacky: No, those of us arguing that there are no technical reasons why body mounts couldn't be offered on more RTR products ought to be the ones doing the testing and offering the evidence. So I look forward to letting this thread die and having someone come back in a few weeks with the "Proof that Body-mounts work fine" thread. BarstowRick has contributed a little to this, but it properly requires more time away for thorough testing, followed by a fresh discussion when results are in. Of course, to be really impressive, the tests would be done on 9 3/4" sectional code 80 track like "novices" use. And/or Unitrak. There would be tests through S curves. The tests would include as many sizes of rolling stock as possible, in mixed use... It would be good to try to establish a minimum radius where mixed trains run reliably both pushed pulled, and also a maximum car length/wheelbase/bolster-couplerface-difference, where body-mount vs. truck-mount makes no difference. I am being optimistic, obviously. I'm sure the manufacturers have done all this testing, but it would be nice for us in the public who want BMs to know what the facts are, so we can make an informed case for change if there is one to be made.
Hey Rick... Et Al... I realize there is more talent on this forum then one could ever need. I value the years of knowledge you all so freely share. I save a ton of the stuff you guys post. I am in awe of some of the stuff I see all of you do. I just honestly believe there are more novice and intermediate modelers out there. Yes...we should all 'bite the bullet' and jump in there and do some of the things being discussed throughout these pages. I even did a 'kitbash' after reading about them. No pics...to embarassed...LOL. But to the present. I know when we all started in model railroading we all had reservations. Some may even have freaked...and there n scale stuff is tucked in a cardboard box and stuffed in a corner of the attic...all because they became overwhelmed. In my never to be humbled opinion...truck mounted couplers will go pretty much over anything....forwards. I KNOW that backing may cause a problem. BUT...Your 'average' railroader will most often stick to all forward manuveurs...thus avoiding any real problems. If he does back up...he may turn blue from not breathing...hoping for no derailments. Most of the experts can make somethin outta nothing. In fact I was just cruising thru O.C. Engineers post on his AFT kitbash...Holy Tamales Batman...now that is TALENT! Sigh...I digress... If the "BIG 3" make all different BM couplers...yadda...yadda...yadda. How will the new guys feel? Overwhelmed again. You guys can change them truck mounted couplers to BM's in minutes. Why make it where a novice, or intermediate who has problems with BM's have to pull his hair out...when simply leaving the old way...truck mounted...stay the norm. They work in amost all situations. The are reliable...to a point (pun intended). AS we progress in our experience...should we leave the new people following in our footsteps...face down in the dust? Change is good...yes. But some 'fundemental' things should be left to the modelers discression on how he sees fit to 'fix' it...or again...to leave alone. I think (there I go again) that couplers is an area best left to individual taste and talent...JMO...thnxs
I agree with what jagged ben says. We also shouldn't lose sight of the principle of model railroading that most other hobbies don't have, that is that its your hobby and if what you're doing works for you, then go for it. One day BM couplers may well become standard as they have in HO and as knuckle couplers and other things have in N, but I've been thinking, I'll still have to swap them out for Z scale couplers, so I guess I'll still be complaining.
I'd like to drive us in a slightly different direction; what body mounts are available today from various manufacturers? It seems to me virtually all new locomotives are body mount today, off the top of my head I can't think of a release in the last 2 years or so that wasn't. I think more than a few recent Atlas cabooses were body mount. The Intermountain flat cars we saw in this thread. Athearn's announcement of the Husky Stacks with body mounts. Micro-Train's teeny scale test car. What else? Does anyone have any problems with any of them?
This is pointless and your arguing a point which you have no background on, it's pretty arrogant. you state that you'll keep replying untill blah, blah, blah, well how can you be pro or con to either or when you have not the experieance or means to experiment? Talk about beating a dead horse, your trying to make it as truck mounts are the only way............ " 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 " Man I'm going to close my standing on this thread cause now your Speaking for the manufactures. Boy, I am sure am dissipointed that no one has made BM cars, what shall I do with the new Athearn Wells?? I guess I better start thinking........ I don't think anyone here said they need to retool ALL their existing tooling but in the future make it more acceptable i.e. the mounting pad. or simply blocking off a section for a pad in the original mold. With most of the cars being older than dirt it's time to play catch up anyway. I refuse to buy most of anything other than MT and a few select newer run Atlas and some concor. Like the atlas "Master Line" I truly thought they where moving to a new age of operating parts like the reefers, Coalveyors and the EV cabooses (which where great) but the rest was lowered crap that is so un realistic the name should not be applied to the car. The Master Line should represent that a "Master or proto modeler" Ahh screw it! it's pointless and I've got painting to do. To each his own and to mine is fine.
DI Maxi-IIIs come with 1023s. And the Maxi-IVs will as well. That's all I can think of right now. Not surprising that well cars are leading the way, since if you remove their thin or skeletal end platforms to make room for truck-mounts, you frequently don't have anything left that resembles the prototype. And because raising the height unrealistically is both much uglier (since the cars are supposed to barely clear the track) and causes clearance issues above.
"Ahh screw it?" BNSFTW declared. Yep, that's exactly what you need to body mount your own couplers. A MTL tap, drill and screw. Grin! And, I thought I was finished with this discussion. What did you guys do, stay up all night...again!???? History lesson: See if this sounds familiar? Looking at HO with 20/20 vision hind sight: I watched HO make the changes from truck mounted to body mounted and as I listened to the guys and gals with experience they just about went besserk. Height was a problem and then came the cheap Kadee knuckle coupler copies. A shout went up... that they were all over sized and many called for an accurately sized coupler. Cars were to high or to low and the HO Pizza cutters had to be tamed down. RP25 had been on the scene for a while however, the headaches it caused left the newbies totally disgusted . Did any of the above sound familiar? Quite frankly many of the experienced gray heads (of which I'm now one) went back to installing their preferred coupler and coupler pocket. Installing their preferred freight trucks. Me thinks we N scalers are going to end up doing the same thing. I appreciate Leo Bicknell's approach to this. I respect Jagged Ben's comments...even about myself. Look I'm no scientist, just a practical guy. If it works and works well, it's a keeper. I come from a family of rails. In my life's work, I ended up working a lot of train versus auto/truck types of accidents. I've talked to the investigators about various fundamental problems with the construction of railroad cars. The answer you heard most often with regard to derailments, "We don't really know what's at play with most derailments," going on to say that there are all kinds of studies being made and test tracks where cameras are watching every move...as they attempt to replicate the accidents. I have a video "Working the Santa Fe" where you can see a replication... as they study the evidence. Is there any wonder why we have such a tough time? As Leo B. asked me "Do I have a video?" Sorry, Leo I don't but, I can try to replicate the derailment on camera and see what it shows. To all my good friends here. I have a model railroad to work on and time is a premium. Me thinks we've worn out this discussion. To a conclusion...heck no...that isn't going to happen here or anywhere else. There are two many variants in this picture to bring this to a resolution let alone a conclusion. Seriously, I'm done. I really don't have any thing else to share. In the meantime I will body mount my own couplers with MTL products. Is that ok with the rest of you? OOPS that may just restart things here..grin. Mtntrainman, quit agitating these fine folks here!!! grrrr...LMAO. Well, shoot somebody needs to stir the pot...every now and then. I don't think it hurts to ask a question or two and you aren't rattling anybodies cages. Actually you've presented some interesting challenges. You are correct there are those who don't want to see changes made... where providers transition over to BM couplers. This I would agree with. I prefer to do my own body mounts...if you gets my drift. If anyone is going make the switch over... I can only hope it will be MTL. I needs to give it a rest. Back to you folks in the booth. See you on the next round-up! Now to cart this old dead horse over to the glue factory. Anyone got a fork lift?
I find it interesting that there's this idea that N scale is mostly small layouts - are HO layouts mostly large layouts? 18 pages and running I don't think this thread is solving anything. Some manufacturers are moving to body mounts in some applications - I think the new Rapido passenger cars are body mount. But this doesn't mean we're on the brink of a huge migration to body mounts. Heck, some folks are still duking it out over rail codes! Change seems to come slowly. Mark
