There ya go, genuine Kadee underframe from 1983/84 with body mounted couplers. Like the Moon landings, we had the ability once, but.....
I work in a shop and the last 4-5 layouts I have helped customers with were small, coffee table type layouts. They were pushing the limits of small radius. We sell a lot more 9 3/4" and 11" radius sectional track than any other, including Kato. Very few people are ready for body mounted couplers. They are still struggling with keeping the radius above 9" when using flex. At least once a month, I have to explain to someone why the lead car derails behind their brand new SD70 and then add weight or put a long shank coupler on the engine to solve their problem because they won't take the time to fix their track. The quote is "My $40 Life Like GP20 makes it around the layout without derailing cars, why won't this $100 Kato engine do the same." The manufactures understand this even though many on this board do not. For those of you that want body mounts, it is a lot easier to put body mount couplers on a car with talgo trucks than it is to file off a coupler box to put talgo trucks back on a car that had body mounts. They are satisfying the greater number of customers in the easiest way. It also costs more to put body mounts on a car. Instead of sticking on a truck assembly to complete the build, you have to install a coupler and seprate truck assembly. More steps cost more. I have nothing against bodymounts but there are many new modelers and that it would present more problems than it would solve.
I think that as long as MT still ships their cars with pizza cutters that we are a long way from having body-mount couplers. As long as those are acceptable I think most people won't care one way or the other whether their couplers are body- or truck-mounted. The only advantage I see is that the coupling is perhaps a little more "solid" between cars, but I'm not sure if the extra care that would be required to get body mounts the same height is worth the effort on N scale cars - putting a set of MT's or Accumates on anything, almost guarantees that the couplers are the same height. I would rather spend my time running trains than constantly fine-tuning my rolling stock. I've got over 300 cars - I want to see them go, not sit on my workbench. If I was more interested in extreme detail, etc I would be modeling in HO or O, not N. I'm in N scale because of how much I can do in a small space (or how much more I can do in a big space.) I'm happy that we are finally getting away from the thick roof walks and stirrup steps, and have much finer detail on our rolling stock. I have to admit that body- or truck-mount doesn't matter that much to me. Just my two pesos.
If cars started coming with body mount couplers as standard I don't think anyone would want to file them off to fit truck mounted ones. Not meaning to be disrespectful to newcomers, (I was one myself once), but I have nothing against small radius curves except they also present more problems than they solve if used with inappropriate rolling stock. The problem is not the cars but the SD70 they try to pull them around the 9" curve with, though if the cars also had body mounted couplers there would be less of a problem. If people keep insisting on doing this of course the manufacturers are going to accommodate them with toy train like coupler and wheel standards, but then I don't see the majority of HO equipment on the LHS's shelves catering to similar standards, I guess N scale is somehow different. Maybe Kato will read this thread and do the next run of SD70's with truck mounted couplers and a big hole in the pilot. I think we should just move better wheel and coupler standards to the outrageous suggestions thread and get on with our modeling.
------------ All to sadly there's a lot of truth to that..Heaven forbid N Scale moving out of the dark ages. Maybe the manufacturers should return to the gaping pilot holes and truck mounted couplers on all locomotives and let's see the return of the thick roof walk and steps..Scrap the LP wheels and C55 track as well. Let's return to the dark ages-------just like our cars. Folks,It's past time we start setting real standards instead of putting the cart ahead of the mule by preaching the gospel of LP wheels and C55 track while our freight cars lag decades behind.
I am not pro or con on the body mounts. I can see the arguments both pro and con and that is why I proposed a "Proto160" standard be established for manufacturers to follow. A similar Proto87" was established for HO back in the late '70's or so and it lead to many of its proposals being adopted by manufacturers. The same can happen in N gauge. Look at the benefits to a manufacturer like Microtrains [you listening, Joe?] MTL currently stocks trucks with and without couplers. For the trucks with couplers they have a short, medium and long shank coupler. Going to a body mount coupler eliminates three of those products from inventory. But if "Proto160" is to be viable it must have some standards and those standards have to endure. No temporary standards. I propose the following: 1. finescale wheels capable of operating on code 40 track. [Code 55 trak that we have now is the equivalent to code 100 in HO. HO has gone to a code 83 track which was the proto 87 standard. That equates to a code 45 in N gauge.] 2. Body mounting of couplers 3. Minimum radius of 16 inches with mainline radius recommendation at 24 inches. 4. Minimun of #6 turnouts for yards with #8 or higher for mainline. 5. Code 40 track [I know getting manufactured track this small is problematical but there are people who can and do handlay code forty track.] But we need a target for the manufacturers to shoot for. Code 40 in N gauge equates to code 72-3 in HO] 6. Other areas to be addressed include wheel tread and wheel profile, standard height for trucks and bolsters Feel free to add to the list or propose changes. Bear in mind that this is not for everybody and certainly not for the new guys. But it is a target that can be held up and people can strive for. The more it is promoted and people can actually see what can be done then more people will want to join in and at some point the manufacturers will begin to notice.
A small quibble about terms; as I understand the NMRA uses them in other scales.... X Scale = Normal models. X Fine Scale = Tighter tolerance models, but still based on manufacturing limits, physics, etc. ProtoXSIZE = Prototype dimensions divided by scale for EVERYTHING. I firmly support a "Fine Scale" standard for N, and think it's way overdue. Your list is an excellent start. At the same time I think Proto is at best premature, and at worst boarderline impossible with current technology. I think we need a small group of people to take a serious look at Fine Scale standards for N. They should include a few interested modelers, a couple of different manufacturer reps, perhaps someone from the 2mm group in the UK, and a standards junkie to write proposed standards in NMRA language and then take them to the NMRA. We need to get agreement on a direction, and I'm willing to do some work to make that happen. Lastly, on 9 3/4" curves. I think the manufacturers are doing a disservice to the entry modeler by making 9 3/4" sectional track. I know it may be a big seller, but a great way to drive people away from the hobby is by making stuff that doesn't work so good. At a minimum, some cars (autoracks, maybe the SD70MAC referenced earlier) need to say in CLEAR TYPE on the FRONT of the box, "minimum 12" raidus" or similar. Don't make people buy a $100 worth of stuff and get it home only to find out its crap. Believe it or not, you're better off losing that sale. A pissed customer telling all his friends your N Scale stuff doesn't work costs more money long term.
While I think "Proto160" is a good idea and much like the Proto87 its not for the casual or average modeler and I fully believe it would be wrong headed to force such tight "standards" on everybody..I feel we need standards/Recommended Practices for the average modeler to follow including new modelers. However... Since I made my last post I been rethinking this over my morning cup of coffee (and not to sound like I am doing a political type flip flop on this issue) but,since we have CHOICES of wheel and track size perhaps as other stated we should have a choice of body or truck mounted couplers.This could be done by offering a replacement frame or have a mounting pad with starter holes. However,since our cars are becoming more finely detailed maybe,just maybe,body mounting couplers isn't a bad idea after all once we set certain modeling standards. One way for minimum curve standards is for manufacturers to use 11" curves in train sets..At least this will get the new modeler pointed in the right direction instead of depending on those 9 3/4 radius curves. Then "experience" modelers also should rethink their layout designs and not over track the layout and use widest curves possible instead of falling back to those sharp 9 3/4 curves because they can squeeze in a extra track or mountain if the use those sharp curves. See how easy it would be if we had basic standards/Recommended Practices to follow?
Speaking as an owner and operator of a hollow-core-door layout with minimum radius of 10 1'2 inches, I don't run anything bigger than four-axle diesels and cars no bigger than 55-60 feet. All my locomotives have body-mounted couplers, with all my cars truck-mounted. The diesels move around the curves just fine, thanks. And on code 55 track. Obviously the truck-mounted-coupler-equipped cars work just fine-my only beef with them is the distance between couplered cars, but that;s another thread. I was in HO for a long time, and yes, I had 18" radius curves upon which I ran trains with 4-axle diesels and 40-50-foot cars with no problem. I can't see how cars with body-mounted couplers cannot, say, negotiate those nasty ol' 9 3'4 curves. Common sense would also tell me that large rolling stock on small-radius curves looks more toylike than the truck-mounted couplers do. Might I suggest this- mount some couplers directly on the bottom of some of our cars, and try 'em out. I'd be willing to do that on a couple of my Atlas cars, or even a Bachmann junker, just to see what would happen.
No, there's always flex. My point is that sectional track, I think, appeals to the entry level modeler. It's successor, in Unitrak, EZ-Trak, etc is also what appeals to an entry level modeler. These people expect to buy a box for $150, take it home, run the four car train in it, and later buy a new loco and run it. That's where you run into problems. That person goes out and buys the SD70 because they hear "Kay-to" is a good name, and it's what they see going by their house each day. They get it home, cars start falling off a simple loop of track, not even any switches on it. They throw the whole mess in a box in the attic and give up. Yes, if you build a real train set box it will cost $200 not $150, and it will have 12 inch curves (or 14) not 9 3/4. Yes, you will sell 2,000 units, not 10,000 of them. But you have a far greater chance, I think, of turning those 2,000 units into lifelong revenue streams because they got something that worked. If you want tight curves on your layout, more power to you. They can be prototypical (logging roads, streetcar lines) or just compression. An experienced modeler can model the CNJ bronx terminal and realize his boxcab and 50' boxes are all that will work. I don't want to take choice away in the general case, I want manufacturers to help direct new people to bulletproof things that work so they can help pull more people into the hobby. [Edit: While those things appeal to an entry level modeler the reverse is not true, because you use Unitrak, EZ-Trak, or Sectional Track does not make you an entry level modeler. I hope that was obvious, but perhaps not.]
Ok...now that I've had some coffee...let me see if I can express myself better. #1...I am NOT against progress, improvements, or in any way negative on N Scale. I just want to make that perfectly clear...thnxs. #2...Lets not forget the reason N scale came about....for the person who didn't/doesn't have room for a large layout. #3...I am all for manufactures improving the detail work on locos and rolling stock. Good looking stuff is awesome. #4...I am dead set against making body mounted couplers and getting rid of tighter radius curves in N Scale an "Industry Standard". You can call it "Living in the dark ages"....I prefer to call it "Reality" ( see #2 above) Now...You can run either truck mounted or body mounted couplers on bigger, longer sweeping curves with most anything...thats a given. You CANNOT however run body mounted couplers on real tight curves with anything ! (see # 2 and # 4 above). I think manufactures offering rolling stock with 'pockets' for body mounted couplers is a good thing. Those who WANT to change em...can. I believe I read somewhere Kato is already doing this. Dont make a guy or gal who only has room for a coffetable setup regret he or she got into N Scale. I run GP 20's, 40's and 38's on a 32 inch HC door. I run max 50' box cars. They run just fine (truck mounted couplers). I KNOW I can't run some of the bigger stuff...and dont really want to. * Leo got that one right...Manufactures...mark your stuff with minimum radius requirements* I dont have room (even with moving everything into the den) for anything much wider then 32 inches. Plus...I am NOT going to (even if I could) trash my original 32 inch layout just to be able to run a NEW 'Industry Standard' 50' freight car with body mounted couplers on a 48 inch wide piece of plywood with 22 inch radius curves. IMHO...asking people to HAVE to do that is rather self serving. Truck mounted couplers have always been the "Industry Standard" and thus NOT self serving and should stay that way. Manufactures however, could/should give an easier OPTION to change em to body mounted couplers if people want to. But..please, let's not 'demand' truck mounted couplers on everything new and in the box. Improve N scale by all means...just don't forget the little guy. See #1..2..3...4 above...ty
George/Mtntrainman, Me thinks they have us on "Ignore". I've tried to reason with the hard core body mounters from the same perspective. Point being, if they want such (as I do) they can perform this minor surgery without much to do about nothing. "News Flash" We interrupt this most important discussion for a news bulletin. "News Flash!" Glenn and all concerned, I just finished body mounting MTL knuckle couplers on a older Kato - ConCor, bay window caboose. I took my dremel tool with a medium cutting disc and cut away the older metal diecast coupler pocket. A little clean up with a round sanding...thing. Drilled a hole and installed the coupler pocket. No need to swap out the diecast floor. I also performed this same stunt on a Bachmann wide vision. Simple actually...when you know how. This information should help out someone...out there in N scale land. Now back to the program in progress. We return you back to the discussion on "Body Mounts" and "How to get the job done". What did you say? Are we still on the air? Someone cut the mike they're talking weird in there. Silence! GRIN!
Hey Rick...hows it going? It don't matter if people here ignore us...as long as the manufactures are reading, paying attention...and understand what we are talking about... ;-) BTW...I found this while doing a little 'research'... "...on the prototype, an SD40-2 can negotiate a 193' radius curve by it self. If my calculations are correct, that works out to 14.475" radius for the equivilent N-scale curve. Similarly, two units coupled can negotiate a 230' radius curve (this would be 17.25"), and a unit coupled to a single 50' car can negotiate a 359' radius curve (26.925")..." That all would equate to an N scale with BODY MOUNTED couplers...just like the prototype. I assure you that with truck mounted couplers that N Scale SD40-2 with a single 50' box car with truck mounted couplers behind it WILL negotiate a curve with a heck of a lot smaller radius then 26.925" and look pretty decent doing it to...ty. Manufatures...don't forget the 'little guy'...thnxs
George, That's a fact. The other point is: We body mounters are still in the minority...that is regarding coupler pockets. Grin! To all concerned: One other thought. My train cars with the body mounted coupler pockets interact very well with the truck mounted ones. No problems operating them together...during the transition, conversion time period. In my case that may be years! The plus with the N Scale, truck mounted MTL coupler pockets is; you can operate them with various wheel sets Ie., Atlas, FVM, Kato and etc. I have the "Cookie Cutter" style of flanged wheels Ie., Bachmann, early Atlas, along with the MTL Low Profiles and MT's "Pizza Cutters". If the above is true (and it is) one has to wonder..."What's the point of this discussion"? For myself the answer is because, I like the prototypical look I get with body mounted coupler pockets. The performance I get when performing a reverse move. Less derailments. And, believe it or not they do operate well over my eleven inch radius curves. Any tighter and they pull each other off the track. Thus the argument for widening the curves. Which is fine for some of us but not the majority...least we forget. I need to get back to work here. Cats want food and my mother Hubbard's Cupboards are looking bear...oops... bare. Someone stopped by to deliver an electric razor...is that a hint? I need to do some more work on the layout. AND, the good news is I'm getting ready to install a new turntable. How about that? Have fun!
If tthe HO manufacturers can make rolling stock that can run on small HO layouts, it stands to reason that N manufacturers should be able to do the same. As one of the "little guys" I know I can't run SD70MACs with doublestacks on my layout without it looking clownish.......which is OK, since I'm not interested in either. I model a fictitious Frisco line in southwestern Arkansas, which doesn't take cars bigger than 55 to 60 feet. I have no fear of being left at the station, as it were, nor do I fear change. I embrace code 55 and 40 and lo-pro wheels and MT couplers, and would surely run cars with body-mounted couplers. As for Proto160, that;s well and good but the standards would have to be far more exacting than what is currently used. As in O and HO, the Proto folks are a small bunch, and while I have no beef with how they approach the hobby (room at the table for all, you understand), I don't see their standards overtaking all of N scale. As long as we move from the toylike times of the early days (I dabbled in N in the '70s, and was appalled at the J-class locomotives on the market) that's OK with me. As mentioned earlier, I wonder if a test run of cars with body mounts would allay the fears. As it is, I'm happy with what I have now on my layout, but wouldn't mind trying out some body-mounted couplers.
friscobob...just so everyone understands...I am NOT against body mounted couplers...just not as an "Industry Standard". IMHO I think the reason HO size curves and rolling stock work out ok and NOT in N Scale...may be the weight differences. Heavier HO stuff will theoritically 'stick' to the track. Our N Scale stuff is light in comparision. This all goes back to that 'Physics' thread a little while ago...with gravity, enertia, and the forces working agianst an object turning. My thoughts anyway. Don't forget the 'little guy'...thnxs
I would be happy to know if Rick's experience with combining coupler box styles can be duplicated, and so will look forward to Friscobob's test. I'm uncomfortable with much of the discussion on this thread, though, because it seems elitist to me. Talk of "Industry Standards," manufacturers no longer offering 9-3/4" radius sections (even though they work just fine), minimum radiuses of 16", nasty old truck couplers that need to all be replaced, no matter how much expense the modeler went to put them on there in the first place, and demanding that modelers who already have layouts "re-think" and get rid of their "sharp curves" that they use to "squeeze" in mountains and "over track" their layouts--not to mention accusing those who disagree of being Troglodytes against progress. As distasteful to me as all of these remarks are, I'm repeating them here to make my point: comments like these frankly seem elitist, and may serve only to discourage entry-level modelers, modelers with very small spaces to model in, or, like myself, modelers who plan to use compression and short rolling stock to help give the feeling of older times. I've always liked Trainboard because it is a lot like many other institutions that heartily promote model railroading: Model Railroader, hobby shops, local clubs, NTrak, NMRA, and so forth. Trainboard has a proud tradition of being supportive and friendly to all its members, no matter the level of expertise, the amount of equipment, or the size of the layout. I'd like to see that continue. I've said my piece. :tb-err:
Chaya and all tuned in, A couple of posts back you deleted your message. I was looking forward to reading it as I do all your posts. Your point on elitist is well taken. You can refer to me as an elitist. That's not really something I'm afraid of. You see I set my own standards and I don't depend on NMRA to do that for me. Nor do I want them setting any Industrial standards for manufacturers. I want the freedom to set my own standards as to what track or curves I use, what equipment I buy, how my train couples and etc. I encourage others to do the same. Not that I haven't adopted some of the certain applications as using the NMRA gauges. I do approve of NMRA putting out Recommendations, Guidelines or Supportive Information. However, setting an Industrial Standard, which translates to telling the manufacturers...how to. I don't think so. That concept of them setting manufacturing standards, just sets my jaw a flapp-in. Generally the consumers set the standard by what they buy. This is what your manufacturers look at most. You bought it didn't you? Is the response I got when I purchased something that didn't measure up to my standards and I complained about it. I think you can call me, stand alone-ish. Quite frankly those of us who want the coupler pockets mounted on our train cars, pigeon holes us as prototypers. If you are wondering about what I've said "Body mount working well with truck mounted couplers", you don't have to believe me. You can put your faith in someone else. That's actually ok by me. To see proof of what I'm referring to; you can visit a picture of empty flat cars with body mounts, mixed in with the truck mounted couplers on a 40 car train. Believe me (oh I forgot...you don't have to) I've experienced no problems...at all, in the pull mode. Keep in mind that the wheel mix is everything from large flange to low profile. Just click on my RailImages invite. To do a test under the conditions I've described you would need to duplicate it. Making sure it's apples to apples. That means... you are welcome to stop by and see for yourself. A point I need to make is: During the time your in transition from one style of coupler to the other you will still be able to run your trains, with minimal to little or no problems. There is one negative; if you try to back them through a curve tighter then a 15" radius, you may drop some of them on the ground. Now don't delete the last post you shared here. You put your thoughts together very well and I don't have to agree with you but I can also disagree without being disagreeable. Looking forward to future posts. I will be waiting to see what Friscobob has to say. Have fun! See what I mean about my jaw a flapp-in! Grin!
