Ok, I've tried to give Accumates the benefit of the doubt, but after repeated undesired uncouplings (w/ accumate cars in the middle of a consist as well as accumate equipped locomotives) I give up. Tonight I had an Accumate tunnel motor separate from it's mate (MT equipped) on the point of a train as well as a new IM hopper (again, Accumate equipped) cause a break-in-two twice. And that was just tonight. . . I have NEVER had an issue w/ MT couplers - I'll take the slinky effect anytime over the unreliability of Accumates. Opinions? [ 09. October 2004, 03:21: Message edited by: dave n ]
Dave: I change all my accumates to MT couplers. I also tried Kisatchie's Method of putting an accumate coupler in an MT coupler box and that works well also.. For some reason that combination didnot break down. Overall, I'll take the MT coupler. I have no uncouplings especially in undesirable locations. Stay cool and use MT couplers...
The only instances I have had with upcouplings with accu-mate couplers have been when the coupler assembly has fallen apart. My cure for this was to glue the lid of the coupler pocket to the pocket istelf with some acc. It has worked well for me
I'll compete with WolfWorks and also take all the Accumates you wish to discard. I'll even pay for the postage. Here's my experience and philosophy: I've had numerous (as in stopped counting) incidents of locomotives in an m.u. consist uncoupling with MT couplers when the lead unit hesitates and creates slack. So between locos I now only use Unimates (that's the "other mate" ) Those puppies will never uncouple and look much better, with a closer couple. The no-brainer choice between locomotives, in other words. As for freight cars, I run a switching layout at slow speeds and the slinky effect just kills the entire scene for me. So I've converted all my MT's to Accumates. I've had a few cases of coupler failure, but these couplers are a lot easier to fix and reassemble, and the benefit of the non-slinky is worth that little trouble, at least for me. I've actually done several trades with guys on TB and the Atlas forum, so I don't have too many MT's any more. I don't use the magentic uncoupling feature, so I've removed most of the Accumate trip pins for a more realistic look. In all, you could say I'm a happy Accumate user. Which all goes to show why there's room in the market for all kinds of prducts.
Interesting - I run MU consists of locomotives (3 or 4 locomotives per lashup, usually) and the only times I have had locomotives come apart were when they had either Accumates or the stock Kato couplers - never w/ MT's. Most of my running is mainline action, with grades & curves, and I get much better performance w/ MTs than anything else. What are 'unimates'?
You're kidding, right? Well, Red Caboose sells them. They will snap together sometimes but must be unhooked by lifting one over the other. I use them for A-B-B-A Kato F units and FA-FB Life Like units. They never uncouple in the roughest of NTRAK duty.
Unimates were originally developed and sold by Precision Masters. Red Caboose acquired the line and now is the seller. As previously noted, they are not made to easily uncouple. Many of us use them as Russell has outlined. But that's the only application where I've installed them. Otherwise, it's MT couplers! Boxcab E50
Great idea about the unimates between MU locos. Unfortunately I have had some undesired uncouplings between locos using MTs but I swear by them for rolling stock. Accumates are ok with short trains - less than 20 cars on a flat track plan but all bets are off with longer trains and grades. I also weight my rolling stock heavier than NMRA standards which may be a factor. It should be noted that there are several different releases of the accumate couplers and until all of the older models quit surfacing it will be hard to determine if the new ones are that much better than the older ones. Atlas says they are but this modeler can't confirm this. If the newer ones stay coupled and Atlas can redesign them so that they cut down the distance between the cars, they could really sweep the market as they look pretty realistic in appearance.
I don't have trouble with uncoupling, but I paint (weather) all of mine. Also, like William, no trip pins. BTW, bkloss, I didn't know there were two styles/versions of accumates out there!
Would they be a good idea between cars of long unit trains you don't intend to uncouple? I have in mind hopper cars and the like.
Flash et al: The Accumate has reportedly undergone three generations. Nothing was made public about the corrections. First correction was to the mold line flash keeping the box from popping open too quickly Second correction was to the trip pin mounting hole to make it deeper and keep the pin secure. Third correction was to the mold line flash which kept the knuckle from engaging properly with it's mate. Which was done first I have no idea. As to the coupler shank it is the same as a MTL. The issue is the pivot pin location which is too far forward in the box. It is in that location to clear the Rapido centering spring lug. My suggestion is to drop the rapido lug from the coupler box and move the accumate back further in the box which should resolve many of the uncoupling issues. If in fact Rapidos still sell more worldwide than any other coupler, then sell the car w/o trucks and let the modeler decide themseves. I am absolutely convinced that if these mounting location issues are corrected and the Accumate can be shown to work in "LONG TRAIN" & N-Trak applications there will be a viable less expensive alternative. Now for the wrinkle, there is another mfr. developing a new line of trucks & couplers which they claim will be dramatically less expensive yet just as reliable as the MTL. They are even applying for patents. I am curious if anyone can confirm that they have seen this and have put it to a test? No need to mention names. I'm very curious if it has seen field testing yet. The mfr. prefers to keep this quiet till the patent applications are in place. That is understandable. I am concerned that w/o field testing in actual applications we could see the next N-Scale Edsel (Anybody out there know what an Edsel was?).
That's an interesting rumor George. The "less expensive" part suggests to me that it is not Kato. Regarding this topic in general, I'm with those who prefer accumates (vs. Microtrains) on my locos, but use MT on all my freight rolling stock. Running long trains at slow speeds over a flat layout; I don't have any discernable "slink". OTOH, having three or four MT equipped locos used to bother me, as I would get the dreaded "pistoning" between locos as their speeds would vary. btw: I believe I have over 50 spare Atlas Bettendorf trucks w/accumates available for trade if anyone is in the market.
Hey, I take off the trip pins off.I think they hit & rip apart.I then replace them with MT's when I get time & money .
What I have seen is that sometimes the Accumates do not close completely. This led to uncouplings. I assume it has something to do with the springs, but it could be also a subject of flash somewhere. Another point I noted is that the coupler height varies, e.g. if I look at a number of cars with Atlas trucks. But MTL couplers sometimes refuse to couple easily, my impression is that they have done something against unwanted uncouplings and now the smootheness is gone. I should clearly state that these are my impressions and I have not made detailed investigations, so I might be wrong. I am currently struggling to locate uncouplung magnets, and this is another frustrating subject. Christoph
I've found that a small percentage of the Accumate couplers have a slight bend in the main coupler component right where the shaft meets the knuckle. I think this is a characteristic of the molding process. These are easily replaced, but that's the only solution. These have the "droop" appearance, and result in the trip pin extending too low.