I keep reading these complaints about the Accumates but I haven't had a problem with them. Maybe it's because I don't have any grades on my small layout. My rolling stock is probably 60% Atlas, 30% MT, and 10% IM. I can't say I've had a problem with any of their couplers. Doug
I have had uncoupling between MU's with MT couplers and Flash showed me by putting unimate couplers between them that they tend to stay coupled? As others have suggested this does seem like a good idea.
I second the comments about problems with Accumates...George, your comment was interesting - I never bothered to determine the longer coupling length is due to a shallow pin mount, rather than a longer shank. Anyway, the noticeable difference in length bothers me, as do the 'exploding' nature of the original design. They do look better than the MTs. As much as I dislike their ovesize appearance and slinky-spring performance, I have found MTs to be much more reliable. I also use the Unimate short-shank couplers for MU between locomotives, which work great. Proof that the simple solutions are often best! Coupler conversions were my biggest headache when I was new to N, and 30 years later there's still no one 'killer' solution for low cost, good appearance and reliable performance. Maybe this new source, so mysteriously hinted at, will be the answer. Then again, it seems one size never fits all. Go figure!
W-F: The fact that nobody out here has seen them scares me. How many people have gotten frustrated by software that clearly has not had any field testing? Do you buy version 2? A new Truck & Coupler that can be produced, be priced significantly less than MTL, & be as reliable, w/o field testing before release? Field test with a select group of individual modelers or a club is in my opinion the only way to be certain you don't have problems on release. The worst thing a new supplier can have is a bad first impression. You can never replace that first impression or overcome that first dissappointment.
Not necessarily. It's not that hard to listen and know what is required for couplers. The trip pin shouldn't fall out, the box should stay together, the plastic should bend and spring back and not snap, and it should keep engines that are stuttering from being dirty securely coupled. In addition, the coupler should continue to function in long trains where buffer forces are within the strength of the plastic. Doesn't sound like you would be hard pressed to come up with a test layout. Any large home layout would do, and also an NTrak layout. Then again, they could be testing them at a public show and we'd never notice. Tony Burzio San Diego, CA
I agree that there should be field testing by a group with varied layouts and a standardized reporting system back to the manufacturer. From my own experiences as a beta version tester for certain software RTS games, it is important for the producer to be aware of problems and suggested refinements. It is akin to reading a review in Model Railroader. I.e.- MP Mikado or whatever pulls 24 free rolling cars on a straight level track. How many of us have ALL free rolling (which I assume to mean cars on recently manufactured trucks) and 26 car lengths of straight track? What happens on an 11 1/2 turn with the same 24 cars? God forbid you have several 9 3/4" turns? What about grades? What about grades with turns? For couplers- any problems with going over turnouts? As to the couplers and before reading this thread, I assumed it was me and not the couplers. I have stumbled through my own errors, which are being slowly corrected, and thought this was just another screw up by me. [ 14. October 2004, 19:57: Message edited by: Fotheringill ]
Athearn's announcement on the 53' bulkhead flats simply says 'knuckle coupler' but does not state what brand, as they have in the past. Could Athearn have their own coupler ?
I have to admit I've been converting all my 300+ freight cars to Accumates, with the exception of some with Kadee's. I've found the accumates work well, even on the 3+% grades with sharp curves on my line. I run 20 plus car trains on them with no problem. All of my log cars have Kadee's and it drives me nuts to watch a 15 cars log train slinking down grade from the coupler springs. I've had trouble with a few of the trip pins being to low, and derailing a thirty car grain train on a switch from this problem leaves me wondering if I actually really do enjoy this hobby With only about a 100 more cars to go, I can't wait until it's finally done. Anybody have any Accumate trucks they want to get rid of?
I'm really ambivalent about Accumates after a few years experience with them. I use Unimates for most MU's. But most recently released engines have either a 1015 or 2004 MT drop-in. And the Katos have their own couplers, which I like. As I sort through my roster and convert to DCC, I'll be using more Unimates. I have enough engines that I can make consists and leave them be. I converted about 150 cars to Accumates before MT announced bulk packs of low-profile wheels or Atlas announced replacement MT wheels. I was a lot irked at MT, as I'd converted all the cars previously from Rapidos to MT, believing MT was the standard. I felt deceived by MT, so I pledged allegiance to Accumates. All I can say now about Accumates is that they work pretty well if I pay a lot of attention to each and every truck and coupler. On some unit trains of about 40 cars, I've resorted to a tiny drop of ACC glue at the coupling point. Since it doesn't stick well to the acetal plastic of the couplers, I can break them apart when necessary. As I sort through the car rosters and make up trains, I'll probably continue this practice on through trains, while paying attention to cars that need to be switched. I really don't have time for this----------but it is a hobby, right? [ 14. October 2004, 23:18: Message edited by: Pete Nolan ]
Nice album, Bill! I've made a few comments. Did you scratchbuild that monster truck transporting the ditch digger?
Yeah, the Lowboy and geeps are scratchbuilt. I modified one of Atlas's Ford tractors to pull it. I love heavy equipment transporters.
Bill, I guess you don't have to worry about Accumates coupling it up. Great work. Back on Accumates--I've also used a thin-pencil soldering iron--just like MTs--to weld parts of the coupler box together. At least they are a little easier to put back together when they explode. If I can find the parts!
Hey, I'd like to know 1 thing,WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT? Don't we pay enough for products? Shouldn't these silly couplers been tested before we got them? I guess the "QC" dept. took the week off when these crappuMUTTS were released.
I'm with you, Mike! But when I think about the engineering and manufacturing challenges of either MTs or Accumates, my mind sort of boggles. I think it's lucky that they work as well as they do--and there's no aspersion meant to any company there, as I'm sure it took a lot of hard work to make them work as well as they do. I think the present designs are working just about at capacity for the average model railroad, and perhaps beyond. My WAG is that we need to increase the reliability (measured as the coupling bond?) by a factor of three to be successful. Laboratory pull tests don't reflect the environment on a typical model railroad. Perhaps acetal plastic (or any plastic) isn't the answer. Perhaps we need to look at silicon microsystems or some of the new composites. I'm willing to file for a Technical Assistance Grant from the DOE national labs, but I'd need some serious U.S. partners willing to carry it past the design assistance stage, as I have no intention of ever running a manufacturing company in the hobby industry or elsewhere. It might be an interesting endeavor.
I have a simple question. Of all the people who hate "crapumates", how many of you run really long trains? I'll leave it up to you to define how long your trains are.
Geeky - I don't "hate" Accumates, but I do convert them to Micro-trains for all of my freight cars. I typically run trains around 70 cars long, but have ran 100 car trains just for the heck of it.
Geeky, As I said before, I am ambivalent about Accumates. Sometimes I hate them. I usually run 40-car trains--not really long. We're too busy building right now to try longer trains regularly. We have run an 88-car train around the 20-scale-mile loop. It required a mid-train helper--not for head-end power, but to keep the couplers together.
Well, I don't "hate" Accumates. But I do swap them out for MTs. Possibly more of a habit than anything. MTs are tried and true. I like them. So I stick with them. My train lengths on previous layouts have not been all that long. Mostly in the twenty car range. Although a few ended up more like 35-40 cars. On past NTRAK layouts, trains have of course been much, much longer. In those instances, I had more troubles with MT wheelsets that were slightly out of gauge, or a little wobbly, than ever with their couplers. Boxcab E50
