I read in Model Railroader August 2010 page 27 that Micro-Trains model of the PS2 High Side 3-Bay Hopper will have BODY MOUNTED couplers for, and I quote, "close coupling and proper car height above the rails". Also etched metal roof walk.
The heavyweights don't exactly close couple though, but admittedly that's a minor complaint because I can't find anything else wrong with them. I think all the manufacturers, even Bachmann, are starting to realise it's 2010 and the standards from the 1970's are getting a bit tired.
They don't close couple. You are right, but at least the couplers aren't on the trucks. I have considered building up the diaphragms to give more of a close coupling appearance, or moving the couplers back slightly. I haven't come up with a definitive solution.
We had another recent topic here about body mounts. It's time for this to happen from the manufacturers. I've been doing conversions successfully for many long years now. Boxcab E50
It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out from MT, as many, if not almost all of the new diesels and steamers have 1016 body mount couplers and we all sort of know that a truck mount and body mount coupler is not the best combo, so something had to give so it looks like MT 1000's will be in the minority. I only have about 10% of my rolling stock with body mounts, and a few transition cars, body mount on one end, truck mount on the other, and making do. MicroTrains if this trend is to continue, please start manufacturing oodles of the 1015, 1016 and other body mounts so we don't get disappointed in the supply when we decide to do it. Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman
It's a good move and I'm glad to see it. I'm in favor of body mounted couplers. The equipment will handle a reverse move and perform better overall. What surprised me is when they handled the sharper 11 1/2" curves on my spur lines. The sharper curves are pretty much a bust. I'm thinking... in N scale we need to outlaw 9 3/4" radius curves.
HaHawHa, Give yourself time and be patient with yourself. You'll learn better. Experience will be your teacher. :mnerd:
I think it's more about how MicroTrains has been unable to produce a coupler box with a thin enough profile to lower the car to the correct height. Their competitors are busting MT's chops with cars that will roll with trucks supplied with truck mounted couplers that are flush on top.
It's less about the mechanics as it is about the economics of doing a body mount coupler. We live and die by time to manufacture so taking the extra couple of steps to put body mounts on all our trains was difficult to work out. On some of our longer cars they won't work. I got around it with the passenger cars by off setting the bolster hole. In the years since I've been here we've been able to streamline some of our processes giving us the ability to pivot and do body mounts and underframes designed specifically for those. The PS2 will have the draft gear box as part of the underframe. As you can guess, this presents some assembly issues as it's easier to do a coupler by itself then to assemble one on a finished chassis...the part becomes a bit more difficult to handle during assembly and I suspect our rejection rates will go up a bit as we move through this. I suspect I will get the usual emails from folks who think truck mounts are best and want to convert these to that system. Feel like a juggler sometimes ) Cheers Joe MTL
Gotta jump in here. OUTLAW 9 3/4" radius__NEVER_NEVER_NEVER!!!!!:tb-mad: For people with small spaces, its one of the resons they choose N. T'aint nuttin wrong with 9 3/4" radius. I like it just like I like truck mounted couples.:msmile: STOP TRYING TO WRECK N SCALE.arghh: Leave well enough alone.:we2-policeman:
I have to agree. If someone doesnt like 9 3/4 radius...its a simple solution...dont use the &^%$&^%$% things !! The arguements against some tried and true things in N scale smacks of elitism !! "Money talks...all others walk !" Truck mounted couplers...just read the MT post above yours. The vocal minority has the BIG $$$ so the manufactures bent to their will. If the truck mounted group had BIG $$$$$ we would still be able to get what we want new too. This "HOBBY" is becoming the survival of the Elite. I am just glad I got what I got before the prices for some of this NEW rolling stock stuff passes the cost of the Locomotives I purchased NEW just 2 years ago *sigh*:tb-wacky: Joe...ya wont get an email from me...I said my peace here...thnxs .
Okay, folks. Calm down. If you want to run 9 3/4" curves or use truck mounted couplers you still have lots of options. Most of the manufacturers still release truck mounted couplers, so you're still free to have all the running characteristics problems inherent in a truck-mounted design, and if you like watching passenger cars go around tight curves you still have that, too. Why is it that whenever someone talks about wanting to improve the appearance of their own trains we have someone get all upset that we're making N scale the realm of elitists. Do I need to call the NMRA Ninjas?
I have NO problem with someone wanting to improve THEIR OWN Trains. It's called "MODELING". But why take away what most came to N scale for. If ya want body mounted couplers...buy em...drill some holes and mount em. Yes...there are still options for 9 3/4....but if some get their way there wont be as many for long !! Throwing the rest of the group to the curb for ones self indulgence is the definition of elitism. Just sayin. Now...I am going to go out to THE Train Trailer and "MODEL" some....before I get in trouble :tb-tongue: .
George, If I have a choice of two cars and one has body mounts and the other has truck mounts I buy the body mount car, and yes, I DO convert cars to body mounts. I have never released the ninjas on anyone else for not converting, but it is certainly in my interests to communicate to manufacturers and say I'd love to see more body mounted couplers. How is that screwing up your trains? It's not. Go look at your average MTL rack of supplies at a store and there are tons of options for trucks with couplers. You've got options. I've got some options, too, and the very act of me asking for a few additional options does not mean they're going to get rid of your options. Nobody is honestly suggesting we get rid of 9 3/4" track. I don't generally go that tight, but I am not going to stop someone else from doing the same on their own pike. If Atlas ever stops making those pieces you can get flex track and make a pretzel out of it if that's to your liking. If you feel I am throwing you to the curb because I don't like running cartoonishly tight curves and I convert most of my cars to body mounted couplers, then I guess you are going to feel thrown to the curb. In my workshop, I just call it model railroading. There's not elitism here. :tb-confused: Adam
Adam..."Nobody is honestly suggesting we get rid of 9 3/4" track." At the risk of provoking my friend Ricks wrath...I quote "The sharper curves are pretty much a bust. I'm thinking... in N scale we need to outlaw 9 3/4" radius curves." These are the type statements that continually raises my hackles. "...but it is certainly in my interests to communicate to manufacturers and say I'd love to see more body mounted couplers. How is that screwing up your trains?" No one is saying dont sell cars with body mounted couplers. I ask for the sale of both body mounted and truck mounted. Is the cost factor to do both prohibitive...maybe. There are those however who advocate the complete discontinuation of truck mounted couplers. That what will screw up someones (maybe not mine) trains...whether the 'body mount' coalition agrees or not. "If you feel I am throwing you to the curb because I don't like running cartoonishly tight curves." Some modelers have NO choice but to run what you consider "cartoonishly tight curves." I dont...I have the room. But I just cant see forgetting those in the hobby who do it out of necessity. I dont see anyone per se throwing me to the curb. I just know when I am looking defeat in the face. Like I said " Money talks...all others walk." Just because the battle looks lost and may in fact be...doesnt mean I wont keep kicking till its over for sure ;-) I am not pointing fingers at one in particular...least of all you. Adam...You have a good tendency to see both sides of the fence...even if the view is skewed. ;-). If my remarks came off as an attack on you personally...I assure you that was not my intent. * Now...call of the Ninjas !!!...LOL
I've said before, When I was in N scale, I moved to it to fit more railroad in the same space as my HO scale trains, not half the size of the layout. As I always say in these threads, In HO, you have body mounts and you have absolute junk, but if you are using 18" radius in HO, then you can't run everything. Such is life, get over it. why N-scalers can't get over it is beyond me. Why did you get into N when you really wanted Z? Or, if you went to Z would you half the size of your pike again? Anyways, I realize I'm stirring the pot here, but it just seems like a dumb argument. Plus, someone somewhere will make truck mounts for you.
Seeings as THIS is the N scale forum...I could care less if HOers cant run on 18 or even 48 inch radius...means nada to me ;-) I went to N and not Z because with basketball players sized hands...'N' fits just fine. 'Z' is WAY to small. If a modeler wants to run 4 axle diesels with 40 foot boxcars on 9 3/4 radius track...why does that concern anyone...especially an HOer...hmmmmm. Just wondering :tb-wacky: .
