1. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    The thread on Kato couplers got me to thinking about all the couplers we have in Nscale. I think, for the best interests of the hobby, the various manufacturers have to get together and settle on one coupler. Look how many there are, the Rapido, the Unimate, the Accumate, the Kato and the MTL come immediately to mind. None of them are perfect and they all have their plus and minus features. Just look how many MTL couplers there are to fit various locomotives and cars. There was a time when all N Gauge locomotives and rolling stock came with one coupler and that was the Rapido. Granted, the Rapido was not anything like a prototype coupler but it was designed originally for European model trains. European trains use a link and pin type of coupler which was impossible to model. So the Rapido was a simple solution in a time when prototypicality wasn't even on the radar screen. Now, however, things are different. We now have a push for body mounted couplers, small flange wheelsets and a lowering of the ride height of rolling stock. I think the time has come to eliminate the plethora of couplers and adopt a standard design much like what was done in HO. HO has apparently decided to go with a Kadee No.5 design which is simple and easy to design a body mount coupler box. N Gauge should do the same.

    Along the way we should eliminate the 9.75 inch "minimum" radius idea. This was nothing more than the standard 18 inch HO min radius reduced to 1:160 scale. A larger radius would be far better for coupling with body mounted couplers not to mention the aesthetics of it. Today 1:160 scale has a lot going for it as a modeler's scale but that is being eclipsed to a large degree by the toy-like appearance that we continue to maintain.
     
  2. Speed_man_17

    Speed_man_17 TrainBoard Member

    161
    0
    18
    I agree their needs to be one standered coupler, of high quality.
    and their is a lot of stuff out their thats merrily a toy. but for some of us thats all we can afford, the prices for a quality set of rolling stock is crazy, now and again i think when i see my cars rolling down the tracks 7 14 21 28 ect. and thats fairly a low average.
    Not that i always like it but i would argue that changing couplers, trucks and adding weight is part of the hobby much like weathering is.
     
  3. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    Well, I don't see a good reason why we can't start working toward just having one coupler. Yes, people have personal preferences. Change doesn't seem to be happening as natural evolution. Of course sales of aftermarket conversion kits would suffer.... Could that be the holdback?

    Boxcab E50
     
  4. Flash Blackman

    Flash Blackman TrainBoard Member

    13,326
    499
    149
    As a FWIW, Kadee failed to renew their patent on the coupler design so many manufacturers now use that design. Most H0 scale modelers do use the Kadee type, but not all use that type. I don't believe there was a manufacturers agreement to switch to the Kadee type.
     
  5. doofus

    doofus TrainBoard Supporter

    867
    107
    21
    If couplers had already evolved to their fullest potential, I would agree. However, with so much innovation out there such as the use of Z scale couplers on N scale equipment, I think it would be a mistake to name just one coupler as a standard. Just as soon as we think coupler perfection has almost been attained, something or new or a new twist on an existing product becomes available. Those innovators need to keep their thinking caps on.

    At least different makes of couplers are compatible with each other so our choices are not so limited. Making our own changes to our existing equipment is what modeling is all about in my opinion.
     
  6. ATSF5078

    ATSF5078 TrainBoard Member

    477
    0
    11
    N scale manufactures need to work towards BODY MOUNTED couplers! Nothing makes N scale seem more toylike then truck mounted couplers.
     
  7. DrifterNL

    DrifterNL TrainBoard Member

    317
    0
    15
    What I would really like to see is a true to scale (shelf) coupler come to N-Scale and maybe even a metal scale coupler.
     
  8. Kevin M

    Kevin M TrainBoard Member

    1,227
    0
    32
    I would like to see a smaller more scale coupler but not all body mounts. I think Body mounts might turn off some new guys ar those of us with bad track or tight curves.
    Kevin
     
  9. Flash Blackman

    Flash Blackman TrainBoard Member

    13,326
    499
    149
    I sure like that idea! :thumbs_up:
     
  10. mtntrainman

    mtntrainman TrainBoard Supporter

    9,982
    10,821
    143
    BUT...there are multitudes of reasons to still have truck mounted couplers. Not all modelers want or need body mounted. Just like 9 3/4 radius track...there is a time and place for everything. Its simple...if people DONT want truck mounted couplers or 9 3/4 radius track...dont use them. Excluding those who need them...it reeks of HOers who always said "If you dont like it...go to N scale" Are people now suggesting that those who dont have massive amounts of space to run trains in N scale go to "Z" ? I dont think we need to go down that road. Lots of HOers switched to N because they could get almost twice the amount of track into the same space...and n scale has come a long way in recent years. I just hope ex HOers left their HO mentality with the rest of the HOers. There is room for everyone in N scale. Lets not make it "elitist" TYVM

    .
     
  11. Metro Red Line

    Metro Red Line TrainBoard Member

    2,494
    696
    46
    If you want to run 9 3/4" radius track, then you should be running shorter locos and rolling stock that can operate on such a radius even WITH a body-mount.

    I agree with the body-mount movement! It's time for a REVOLUTION!
     
  12. SteamDonkey74

    SteamDonkey74 TrainBoard Supporter

    7,160
    171
    90
    At my club, we have gotten around this a bit by specifying that cars for interchange and locomotives intended to switch them need to be equipped with knuckle couplers that are compatible with the MTL coupler gauge. That way, if someone wants to use a different coupler, they have at least some criteria to meet. There are some very good reasons to not use MTL all the time, especially when there are no MTLs that fit your particular application, such as replacing the Bachmann 44-tonner coupler. I use MTLs for most everything, and nearly every time I have had a coupler problem with a non-MTL coupler I have tossed the coupler and replaced it with a compatible MTL, EXCEPT in the case of that Bachmann 44-tonner.

    Rapidos are allowed but only on unit trains, and those using Rapidos should provide a conversion car with a Rapido on one side and a knuckle coupler on the other. Generally, they are discouraged.
     
  13. Westfalen

    Westfalen TrainBoard Member

    4,094
    32
    55
    Going with body mount couplers and getting away from the toy train look hasn't hurt HO at all, and IMHO we should be working towards the same in N scale. The only HO cars with body mount couplers these days seem to be in the toy train sets at K-mart/Walmart and the like at Christmas time.

    But we are digressing a bit here, the original question was about standard couplers. If we can't decide on a coupler then we at least need a standard coupler mounting to make fitting your choice easier than a night at the workbench filing, carving, shimming and drilling. The Europeans and British have the NEM coupler mount on just about everything made these days, you just unclip the coupler and clip in the one you want. I'm slowly coming round to thinking that the McHenry coupler is the way to go, if it were produced in a variety of styles.
     
  14. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    I agree. I am starting to like the McHenry more as I hear more reports on it. As for body mounting couplers what we need first is a standard coupler box. Once that is done then manufacturers could then make retrofit frames for their cars with the coupler box molded on. This could also be done by after market companies if the manudfacturer's choose not to do it..
     
  15. mtntrainman

    mtntrainman TrainBoard Supporter

    9,982
    10,821
    143
    Oh...dont get me wrong...I dont run 9 3/4 radii. I run 17 and 15. I just dont believe in kicking the guys who run tighter radii to the curb! Like I said..there is room for everyone in N scale...irregardless of radii. Why punish those who have to run smaller curves due to space limitations...by demanding the manufactures eradicate 9 3/4 rudius? Or for that matter demanding manufactures quit making ALL truck mounted couplers? It just simply doesnt make sense...and I am sure the manufactures will think the same...TY

    .
     
  16. Metro Red Line

    Metro Red Line TrainBoard Member

    2,494
    696
    46
    The word "irregardless" is not a real word. It's a double-negative, so it really means you are regarding something :)

    But grammar policing aside, truck-mounted couplers are not necessary to run on 9 3/4" curves if the car lenghts are reasonable. Besides, you're forgetting the real reason for body-mounted couplers -- not just appearance but operational reliability. Backing up a train of truck-mounted couplers results in derailments. Running a train with truck-mounted couplers results in the accordion effect. The technology exists to do it, the time is now.

    Sure, let the cheapo Bachmann Wal-Mart toy train sets keep the truck-mounts, that's fine with me. But for intermediate and beyond modelers, they deserve better.
     
  17. mtntrainman

    mtntrainman TrainBoard Supporter

    9,982
    10,821
    143
    That's why it's called "modeling"...if intermediate and beyond modelers want em...you can install them yourself on existing equipment...as someone else already alluded to. That has no affect on whats already out there. Intermediate and beyond modelers are getting things they want.

    BUT...why should manufactures drop the lower end stuff? You still havent addressed that question...TY

    .
     
  18. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    The lower end stuff need not be dropped. The manufacturers could still make it. All the intermediate and beyond models would need from the original car would be the decorated body. Imagine what would happen in the industry if someone would come along and make new frames [floors] for Atlas and MTL cars and these frames included a coupler box designed for a McHenry coupler? Let's go all out and say this frame was metal so it had some weight to it [much like the fish belly and offset side hoppers made by Atlas. Lets also say this frame would allow the car to ride at the correct height as long as low pro wheelsets are used. A retro frame would not cost that much plus they could be sold in bulk packs to keep the packaging costs down and 'intermediate and beyond' modelers could convert all of their current 'legacy' collection.
     
  19. Leo Bicknell

    Leo Bicknell TrainBoard Member

    569
    30
    27
    I don't think we need one coupler across all manufacturers. Rather I think we need them to all get together than update the NRMA standards for couplers, and then each can design their own to meet the new, refined, better standard. We would be assured they will all work together, and there is still room for different types and innovation.
     
  20. mtntrainman

    mtntrainman TrainBoard Supporter

    9,982
    10,821
    143
    Now see...this I agree with 100% !! :thumbs_up:

    My debate is with those who demand (say) manufactures need to do away with 9 3/4 radius track and to do away with truck mounted couplers. I just dont see how those two items being sold out there in the marketplace and being used by modelers of any level affect 'intermediate and beyond' modelers whatsover. I would like someone to explain...thnxs

    .
     

Share This Page