A request to Micro-Trains As you may have noted on other threads here at TB, there are a number of us wanting close coupling locomotives and train cars. We are resorting to using Unimates, Short Shank and they do an awesome job. Gone however, is the bump and go or the ability to switch out the locomotives. We aren't part of the tight radius pro-fundo's, antagonist and advocates preferring instead to have realistic looking and smooth operating trains. I was changing out three Kato locomotives and noticed the MT #1015 is not short enough. I would respectfully request a shorter shank coupler, pre-fab that we can use on Life Like, Kato, Atlas and InterMountain locomotives. The specialized couplers that come in kit form...with more moving parts then a porcupine... are more then I want to handle. Gosh, I've seen more springs find new homes as they shot over my shoulder. I have no idea where they went or how to find them. I tried to feed them hoping that would attract them back but they don't get hungry. Sheez! By the way what's up with the new numbers? Knock that $#!+ off. Just about the time I get used to...and almost have them memorized and what do they do? Oh well there's got to be a horses rear end in every group...I guess. So, how about it Micro-Trains? And how soon can I get them? Is yesterday to soon? Thanks for hearing me out.cool:
A number of MTL conversions leave huge gaps between locomotives - this is especially horrendous on the Kato SD40-2 - a horrendous gap! I hope MTL begins to listen on this (I've written to them in the past specifically about couplers for the Intermountain F units and the Kato SD40-2) Thanks for bringing this up! Mark
In a recent thread I was following about close coupling passenger cars I learned some good ideas about what might be possible to improve the coupling distance between them. About a week or so after the last post had been made I happened upon a shot of some passenger units pulling a train, with about roughly 5 foot between the units. I will soon be working on some steam locomotives in regards to this idea myself but it would sure be nice if manufacturers would do this work for me so I won't have too... not that I believe it will actually happen.
I am trying Z scale couplers on a NYC MU passenger car project that i'm working on. Closer coupling, mates with N scale couplers, looks more to scale than N's. The only problem is the coupler box is interfereing with the rotation of the trucks because the box is longer. Any other ideas.
Jerry, thanks for your response. What I would like to see is the #1015 with an extra short version of the shank and knuckle coupler. Perhaps one in Z scale that we can use in N scale. Is there anything in Z scale I can use that accomplishes this purpose? Pre-fab? Andy, "Short Shank" and I'm repeating after you. Signal Maintainer, quoting you "Any other ideas?". Yep, that would include me. You also pointed out a problem I'm having. The boxes are to long rubbing against the power trucks. In an attempt to shorten the shank outside the loco, I attempted to position them farther into the body of the locomotive. Now I have to shorten the power truck. Oh boy! Did I say the shanks are toooooo long. Looking at yet another option: I don't like the offset couplers as they look odd when viewing Ie., a F7 from the side. Totally unrealistic. As is the version I used by placing a McHenry on the front of a F7. Looks like G##p! OVERSIZED! Any and all suggestions are welcome but may be turned down for reasons already stated. Grin! Notice as a courtesy to the management and other fellow model railroaders and model rail types I provided my own cindorship. LOL
Problem is that the industry is geared to the layouts using the 9 and 3/4 rad. and some even tighter. There are shorter shank MTs but with my old eyes trying to assemble them requires an optivisor not to mention three or four hands. Definetely would be nice to have a shorter option in the 1015/16 series already assembled. For those who use American Limited diaphragms between passenger cars and E and F units you need the slightly longer coupler, but if you don't use them, then again the shorter pre-assembled 1015 would fit the bill and give closer coupling.
I recond a 905 type coupler (Z scale) 'made' for the popular N scale coupler boxes (Kato,Atlas,IM,FMV etc) would be a great addition to this idea........
Don't you wish they'd stop that. RH Closer coupling is the key here. Funny and there again not so when I think of the frustration I have putting those parts together. Never mind keeping them together. It is what it is BUT in this case it can be changed.cute:
OOOH BOY! This is one of my pet peeve buttons. The best bet for a short shank operating coupler is the McHenry. Both the MT and the Accumate involve a pivoting action that takes place within the coupler box. That almost requires a longer shank to get the correct pivoting action. The McHenry, however has the pivot action confined to the head of the coupler. The shank is solid. However, the McHenry people made the shank the same length as the MT and the Accumate. Oportunity missed not only for close coupling diesels but for steam pilots also.
Seconded. The McHenry is oversize for sure, (like every 'N' scale MT coupler ever made), but its closer to prototype appearance than the MT balances that out for me. I'd love them to do a variety of shank lengths and styles but McHenry's main mission in life as far as N scale is concerned seems to be supplying parent Athearn with Accumate replacements.
MT as I'm sure you know we love your couplers and it's so nice that you offer so many conversions for the different manufacturers but could you please give us a short shank MT 1015? MT Joe can you hear me now??:tb-wink:
No Ammendments Sought Put me on the "Board" and I will second that motion. Till then according to Robert's Rules of Order we are still open for discussion. Grin!
You know you can take a modelers's saw and just saw off almost a quarter inch of the back of the Z coupler....well, maybe try 1/8th inch first. I've had good luck doing this. ....Tom
I want to go on record as saying that 1) close coupling of locos, passenger cars, and some other stuff is a key element in super-detailing and 2) 99% of the steamers, diesels and most coupler conversions are designed and built way too far apart. I often wondered why manufacturers take so much effort in putting in painstaking detail then put the tender miles behind the steamer. Remember the other guy's job in the steamer cab was to shovel over the coal from the tender and put it in the firebox. This goes the same for other scales and it seems although I used to single Rivarossi out, it goes for everyone who makes steamers, F unit diesels, AB sets and so on. Way too far. I have been told and considered it to be one of those facts you don't read anywhere, but the reason is because the manufacturers want to be "safe", that is, to have their product run around without binding together, considering a lot of Christmas loopers have tight radii track. So, we sort of pay for the few. I am a retired guy with plenty of time on my hands and my layout has 11" radius Unitrak so I tinkered with some locos to see how tight the radius and how close the locos could bear. I was totally surprised. I found that steamers and their tenders could very easily be within 1 or 2 scale feet apart without binding on an 11" turn. I also found that A/B diesels could also be closely coupled, which the Kato MicroTrains conversion allows with no problem. Instead of "resorting" to Unimates, I pro-actively chose them based on strength, durability and consistency and can be used to join other couplers with little or no problem. As for steamers, most older ones are easy, just drill a new hole and you are home free. As for the newer stuff since '96, with the Kato Mike, that poses a new problem. I haven't yet found the solution but it is still a work in progress, thanks to the several spare drawbars sent to me by Kato Customer Service years ago. Like their traction tires, which were designed, engineered, and manufactured by a cottage industry shortly after the Mike came out, then bought out entirely by Kato, a close coupled drawbar to me sounds like a winner, and hope that Kato buys you out.....lol. Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman
This isn't a coupler, They are drawbar equiped c-liners. They might even be a bit too close , but I like them. They will also go around a 13 inch radius curves (just barely)...Mike
LOL and still LOL Mike, that looks right...nice. Good one Mark. Right on Russell. And there you have, "The rest of the story," quoting who else...Paul Harvey. Oh, no wait the rest of the story needs to be written by Micro-Trains. I'm jumping the gun here.
