Couplers used to be Micro trains mantra, (or Kaydee to be exact) why haven't they taken the lead????????? The cadillac of N scale, the inventor of the magnetic uncoupling system???? On the subject of min radius, 11 inches ought to set as the standard, its reasonable, workable, anything less is boarding on the reduculous. Of course if your doing one of the car ferry operations in New York, all bets are off (in any scale). R
lol, I think the NMRA should impose a stiff fine for any manufacturer to release a rolling stock product with a Rapido coupler on it. Those suckers should be banished for all eternity!
That should be easy but wouldn't bring in much revenue, apart from Model Power, what US manufacturer still uses Rapidos? There is Bachmann with their dummy knuckles but they will at least couple to other knuckle couplers until you get round to changing them.
I just bought three new-generation Bachmann Amfleets and they were Rapido-equipped, thus sending me on a weeklong mission to find MT 1019s in all the LHS in town.
To be fair, the fact that this is a HOBBY gives us all the more reason to demand exact prototypical standards. No, it's not a life or death situation, but it's also not a "TOY". A toy will have a working coupling device. A MODEL will have an accurate coupler. If your content running trains by today's current trends, by all means, enjoy it. But if it were not for demands like this, we'd still be running ridiculously unprototypical trains as discussed in this thread "Amazing just how far N Scale has Progressed".
One more quick point. What you said is true. However, the faster we get it, the faster it comes down in price, therefore the faster the "average" modeler can enjoy it. (BTW, I hate classifying a group of MRRs as "average". This is a hobby where everyone's accomplishments are celebrated by the population, no matter how differing when compared to others. And that's what makes this hobby so great!)
You have to admit - those old Rapidos sure were easy to connect and stayed connected. I prefer the look of the Atlas Accumate, and they work well on my layout. I have had lots of problems with Micro-Trains couplers, and what a pain to assemble - I buy them assembled. I don't like the looks of Micro-Trains couplers... I like the Unimate (now Red Caboose) couplers also - I keep a supply of short, medium, and long shanks on hand. Of course they sure are a pain to uncouple. I use them on passenger trains and coal trains since they normally don't get uncoupled. Haven't tried the McHenry couplers yet, but they work well on my HO equipment.
A friend and I tried them out yesterday in locomotives with atlas coupler boxes. They seem to work pretty good. Just wish I had a camera when we were working.
Needing more realistic couplers Not only do I agree with this threads title, I would further like to standardized couplers. So let’s kill two birds with one stone. I may be a dreamer, so be it. That is why I am building my dream layout. I have converted all my locos and rolling stock to M/T couplers and FVM fine scale metal wheels in order to achieve a standard look and feel on my layout and I am very pleased with the results.:tb-biggrin: So why wish for something better one might ask? The real question is why not wish for something better? Maybe your pocket book cannot handle change or you would rather not go through the process of converting all your equipment again.:tb-sad: This is very understandable; however as we well know these reasons will not stop new improvements from hitting the marketplace. I believe the next generation of couplers to hit the market will be more to the modelers liking due to our willingness to make our wishes known.:tb-cool: Jerry
Leaving the various knuckle designs aside for a moment (we now have designs from Kadee/MT, Accumate, McHenry, Kato, and now even Bachmann!) ... If I recall correctly N scale couplers (MT height standards too) are set well above proto height. If this is true, to get N scale couplers at scale height would involve a massive retooling at so many levels that I doubt it would happen any time soon. Imagine Atlas/Kato and other retooling all the coupler pockets on ALL their locos! If this happens at all, I think it would 1st happen in small "pockets" of n scalers, sort of like the fine scale movement in HO. Mark
I was wondering about that recently...I was using my MT height gauge and thinking I needed to invest in more underset couplers like the 1019 or the 2004. I noticed that the couplers of some Kato locos (i.e. P42) are a little on the low side.
Awesome prototype Russell, but the hand rails and grab irons are too small... and you need to "weather" that paint up, it's not shiny enough and doesn't look like plastic. Also, you might try removing the windows to give this that "cherry on top" look of a true model.
I think these were mentioned in a previous thread about couplers, but the October issue of the British magazine 'Model Rail' that I picked up today has a report on future models unveiled by Graham Farish (Bachmann) at a recent show over there. An interesting part reads as follows. "Perhaps the most significant items on the Farish stand were two small US-outline coaches, because they were fitted with prototypes of a new knuckle coupler system. This system offers more prototypical remote coupling and uncoupling, and allows wagons to be propelled without coupling. Bachmann designer Colin Allbright told Model Rail that the new units will be introduced to the UK market once they have been rolled out across the USA. The UK version will be designed to clip into NEM coupler pockets. He added that he expected the NEM-compatible version to be ready 'in about 12 months'."
It is hard to know how one of these threads is going to shape itself. It seems like a thread can take on a life of its own. Some of the responding posts seemed to perceive my original post as complaining. I worded it as carefully as I could to avoid that. Since witnessing the evolution of N scale from fairly early in its novel stage as tiny trains to its current stage as a valid model builders scale second only to HO scale. I can't help but to wonder where we would be hadn't it been for some of the coupler developments of Microtrains. With that perspective when I look at the exquisitely detailed models of today I am wowed. But when I couple them up in a train I am distracted by the distance between cars. I really hope that manufacturers keep improving couplers and maybe provide the relative information on proto type coupler distance. It is interesting because some seem willing to accept if not prefer the status quo "we have arrived". Others "you travelers" look forward to what’s in the future. In this case I am with the travelers. All in all I have enjoyed all the comments. I especially enjoyed the over sized coupler photo shopped by Russel Straw
I guess the only way to confirm this would be for someone to go out and actually measure from the middle of a coupler to the top of the rail on a 1:1 scale freight car (loaded and empty) or If anybody has a scale drawing of a freight car, measure that.
1:1 scale coupler height 1:1 scale coupler height "Drifting" through the nets I found this -> http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4059192/description.html It states that coupler height measured from top of rail to centerline of coupler: Empty cars -> min 32 1/2inch max 34 1/2 inch Loaded cars-> min 31 1/2inch max 33 1/2 inch N-scale (x/160) Empty cars -> min 0.203125 inch max 0.215625 inch (0.52 cm / 0.55 cm) Loaded cars-> min 0.196875 inch max 0.209375 inch (0.5 cm / 0.53 cm)
I just measured a few MT cars and an Atlas with Accumate. The middle of the couplers seem to be about 32 N scale inches.
