I have been noticing that although much emphasis has been put on delivering some high quality models. A particular but important part has become more or less over looked. That is the coupler. I was pleased and surprised by the detail quality in the recent release of cabooses. An Athearn and a Microtrains SP style bay window type. Both are of remarkable quality and very pleasing to the eye. Today I received a Intermountain Santa Fe Caboose beautiful job. Next I couple it up with some cars and oh wow. Look at the space in between. All three of these Athearn Microtrains and Intermountain cabooses have varying over length issues. Besides the fact that the coupler is to large (a subject in itself) it sticks out way to far. In considering some of the more popular reasons I am told why the coupler needs the extra length. I am still not convinced that this is kept to some kind of standard. I am talking about the tightest radius argument. I don't buy it. Has anyone acutaly tested this? Anyway I would like to see an effort by one of the manufacturers to improve or offer solutions. I remember once upon a time when Microtrains offered some great alternatives with couplers. JoeW
JoeW, Some of those old MT coupler solutions are available in NOS--New-Old-Stock--at some etailers. Darn, it takes a lot of research to match the couplers up, but I think MT still has Excel spreadsheets detailing what goes with what. I do a lot of cutting and fitting of 2004s and the like to reduce coupler length between cars. Not the best solution, but it does work. And I've used Z-scale couplers, again with a lot of grinding and fitting, to achieve the same results.
Several months ago I purchased several packages of Micro Trains Z gauge couplers with the idea of closer coupling of some of my passenger cars. I haven't done it yet, but last week I bought a Bachmann 2-8-0 with a rapido on the rear and a dummy up front. I installed one of the Z scale body mount couplers on the rear replacing the rapido and it looks good and works with other Micro Trains couplers. It looks more to scale too.
I am with you Pete, but what I am hoping for is that someone will pickup where Micro trains left off in the coupler development area. I mean here we are going through cutting and adapting. When the current capability exist to provide something better. Even if the manufacturers thought they really needed to provide a model with an oversized and longer coupler why won't they sell or refer us to an option that meets a closer prototypical length? JoeW
You can always go with Z scale couplers... In my experience, there are enough problems with N scale couplers coming uncoupled due to height mismatches. Making the knuckle coupler smaller just makes the task that much more difficult. Sometimes vertical mismatches only manifest themselves when the couplers are under load. I've seen plenty of couplers that matched each other perfectly when coupled in a yard, but then slipped apart vertically when under load on a grade. It's no small engineering task to design a coupler that stands up to the demands some N-scalers put on them. (Speaking for myself, 40 car trains up 3% grades, sometimes over bad track joints.) How much work do we all want to do just to make scale couplers function on our layouts? Add to this problem that any new coupler needs to be reasonably compatible with what's already on the market, because most folks aren't going to be able to switch their whole fleets at once. AND of course, you need to have working magnetic uncoupling for those who want that... That said, I have said in the past that somebody could probably design an N-scale coupler knuckle with some kind of ribs or shelf to prevent vertical dis-alignment. I really don't think it would be that hard, if one were starting from scratch.
Am I wrong in that both companies offer short shaft Couplers. The new Athearn Couplers come in at least to lengths. Long and standard. I purchased both. And MT offers them Short length that is. But you would think that they could offer up both as they once did with the Rapidos and Accumates
This discussion along with many others like it has me wondering if manufacturers only design for the worst case scenario. In this case make the coupler big enough to not uncouple when traversing extreme track variations. Same goes for pizza cutter wheels. In this case make the flanges big enough to prevent cars from derailing when pulling extremely long trains. As a result the precision modeler is left behind and so are any hopes of realism. This does not mean I am oblivious to the fact that sometimes extreme circumstances may warrant the use of such products; however why not produce that as an aftermarket product for those who truly need it. There is money to be made on high quality aftermarket parts to satisfy the more demanding modeler. The more we educate ourselves and fellow modelers pocket books will begin to speak loud and clear.:tb-cool: Jerry
Much of my rolling stock has been converted to MT Z scale # 905 couplers. If you mount them correctly running 30-40 car trains presents no problem. They mate well with N scale couplers. If you want to eliminate the slinky effect that is common in MT coupled cars, place a Atlas Accumate coupler in the MT coupler box. The combined MT/Accumate coupler will prevent the slinky effect from occuring and the Atlas coupler in the MT coupler box will not break down. On the JJJ&E I will not use Atlas Accumate couplers and trucks All Micro train couplers used on the JJJ&E are short shanked except for those on 50 foot boxcars. All pilots of my steam locomotives have Z scale # 905 couplers installed. Most tenders also have Z scale couplers body mounted on the frame. As for wheel sets that were just mentioned in the above post, almost 800 cars on the JJJ&E now have metal wheel sets, either Atlas metal wheel sets that I started using in 2004 or FVM metal wheel sets that I use now. I have boxes full of pizza cutters and MT plastic lo-pro wheels that I no longer use. The plastic wheel sets accumulate too much grime on the tread. This doesn't happen with metal wheel sets. The metal wheel sets also add needed weight to help each car "track" better. See the article I wrote about the use of Z scale couplers and metal wheel sets on my website below.
I may be wrong, but don't the couplers on the new IM ATSF cabooses represent cushioned underframes? That is why they extend out so far. gene maddox
Correct, the same possibly goes for the Athearn and MTL SP cabooses as they are also modern prototypes (modern for cabooses that is).
Gene, you are exactly correct. Yes, the MT coupler is huge, but the distance it sticks out is pretty darn close. Mike
Could the following two objectives be identified as primary objectives for coupler length? One being the minimal radius, two being the proper scale distance from the center coupling. On objective one: I understand the manufacturers point if they say they want their model to be operable on the minimum radius. On objective two: The manufactures go through a lot of research to come up with the kind of beautiful scale models that they make. Isn't there any information on the prototype showing coupling distance and if so couldn't they pass that information along? Maybe create an optional coupler to achieve prototypical scale distance? I would buy it. Wasn't Kadee (Microtrains) founded on the idea of scale couplers? What Happened? I think a lot of others like me would like to have a more realistic distance between cars with out having to go through, looking up the prototypes coupling distance, then trying to fabricate coupling boxes and modify couplers to meet the prototype specs. Thankfully groups like the one I am posting on here have been a great place to share ideas on how to do this. I can site an occasion where I benifited from this groups cumulative experience. It was the same subject coupler distance but specifically the Kato F units. What I learned was that I was not the only one that asked how to do this. I was graciously advised how to do the modification and also referenced to previous posts on the same subject. As much as I appreciated all the help I got from this group in the end I would have prefered the model company provide the proper distance and or the information on how to achieve it.
Micro-Trains offers two different length coupler shanks as well as underslung and center shank versions. Athearn (McHenry) and Atlas (Accumate) have only one size. The McHenry is the perfect coupler to make a short shank as the shank has nothing to do with how the auto uncoupling system works. If McHenry would come up with a short shank version of their coupler, I really think it would be a hit. It would be a drop in in 90% of the cars out there to cure the coupling distance with very little effort. As mentioned above, the coupler offset on the new SP cabooses from MT and Athearn and the SF caboose from IM is perfectly correct. The cabooses were equipped with cushion couplers that stuck out farther than normal. This has already been discussed over and over when the cars first came out.
Here is a good shot showing the cushioned underframe and just how far out it extends the coupler. The coupler in this case could stand to be changed out to something like a Microtrains or an Accumate.
I am sure I am NOT in the minority here...so here goes... I got back into N scale a short 4 years agao. Since then I have read all the ***chin an moanin about how N scale stuff should all be "prototypical" stuff right outta the box! Good luck with that! This is a HOBBY. It is NOT a life or death situation. This hobby is dominated by your AVERAGE modeler. People whos layouts average your HCD demensions. Few have room for 48 inch radii. Few have buildings the size of WalMart to run their stuff in. ALL this close coupling will not run on an AVERAGE layout with AVERAGE radii. Ya want stuff that when held under a microscope...looks like it is the real thing...hit with a shrink ray...then make it so. Its called MODELING. Enjoy it as such!! Model it...let others drool over your acomplishments if they so wish too. A prototypical sized coupler would simply explode under the stresses produce by our MODELS. The couplers are plastic...always will be. Not the metal real couplers are made of...gezzzzzzzzzz !!! I dont think manufactures ae drooling because they believe they can sell thousands of units of anything at 500.00 each. The more ya want..the more it costs. The manufcatures have the data...they know there is a limit. IMHO I dont believe all those deep pockets screaming out there for absolute perfection amounts to a hill of beans in the manufactures eyes versus thousands of modelers looking to either get in the hobby...or sustain it at a decent cost. JMO thnxs ! *steps off my soapbox and heads to bed...*sigh*
What is average radius? HO scale has had all the things we are starting to see in N scale, like scale wheels, body mount couplers and so on for years and it hasn't stopped more people getting into HO than N. We've only got 9" radius curves and other stuff today because, in the 60's the best selling point the manufacturers could come up with for the N scale of the day was that you could cram a layout onto a 4'x2' board. What is considered 'average' radius? I have 11" on my T-TRAK corners and consider that the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM that I would ever want to use on anything other than a traction or logging line.
mtntrainman has a point...... In order for couplers to get more prototypical, a serious materials issue needs to be solved. This would lead into a great deal of research and development and cost. The problem would still be that small deviations in track could cause decoupling, because remember, that the .100 inch bump in the track is equal to 16 inches on the prototype and that may be enough to decouple them. I would say that is may be a lot easier to look into fortified plastics or Carbon Fiber Resin for the coupler material to add strength, but very few of the manufacturers would spend the R&D funds on that. If your biggest worry is decoupling, you should be stacking up on all of the Unimates you can find. Other than that, we have to deal with what we have. And I have not been as lucky as some with Z scale couplers working with N scale couplers with pretty smooth track. At the end of the day, if it is about running trains, can you really see the coupling distance when the trains are moving?
I've been spending a lot of time with couplers lately, so I'mma chime in... An unspoken part of the problem is the fact that truck-mounted couplers are still the rule, rather than the exception. Good to see more recent models by BLMA, DeLuxe, Exactrail offer body-mounted couplers but this is part of the problem why us N scalers don't have the luxury that HO people still have with coupler choices. In HO, horn hook? No problem! Just open the existing body-mounted draft gear box and pop in a #5 or your coupler make/model of choice. Voila! Done. Oh wait, even low-end HO models don't even use horn hooks anymore? Okay then... In N, not only the pickins are slim, but you need to go through an entire installation process for not only the coupler but the draft gear box as well! Argh... I've been making some rivet-counter-leaning comments on this forum and others lately, but I will state that the size of MT N scale couplers don't bother me as much as their construction: As in, you can see the two horizontal halves of the coupler on side view, and that damn metal air hose sticks up above the knuckle most of the time. I like how the new McHenry couplers are built like Kadees - with a spring in the knuckle - but you rarely get the opportunity to just switch them out like an HO Kadee. I would love to see MT develop a new-era coupler (akin to the new Kadee whisker couplers in HO), and do away with truck-mounted couplers once and for all in their rolling stock. That's perhaps the only aspect of N scale I'm not fond of.
