Why Don't Manufacturers Body-mount Couplers?

There is a fine line between elitist and contemporary; and the line is always moving.

There was a time rubber band drive was standard in N Scale. I'm sure at that time there were people pushing for gear drive, and were seen as elitists who wanted something that was simply too expensive. Compare with today, if Atlas or Kato came out with a rubber band drive loco today they would be the laughing stock of the industry.

Many posts don't address the time scale issue. The reality is, even if Atlas or Micro Trains decided to do body mount (and note, some new Athearn releases are body mount as of last month) it would be 10-20 years before they converted all of their old tooling. If a fine scale or proto NMRA standard would be developed it would be 5-10 years of standards development and product development before the first products came to market. Even if the products were on the market it would be years before modelers "swapped out" all of their old fleet.

So, times change. We need to keep everything in perspective, where the hobby has been, where it is now, and where it will be in the future. It's also related to other scales, 10 years ago Z scale was not an option for the space constrained. It's becoming one; and I could see in 10 or 20 years those who are space constrained moving. How many people moved from HO to N over the years as N became "viable"?

There are many sides to this puzzle....

 

Rick, I thought it was pretty obvious that I wasn't including you under the "elitist" label. You have never been anything but inclusive and supportive of each and every person who appears on this board, no matter what their expertise or tastes, and your posts in this thread were no different. That applies to a number of other people who posted in this thread, too, and I hope they see that as well.

I'm looking forward to Friscobob's test because as a scientist by training I want everything to be "duplicated" by testing before I go for it. Preferably more than once! I'm a cautious type, that way.

No criticism intended at all of your well thought-out and well-phrased comments.

Cristi

 

Chaya,

Oh shucks I was hoping for a good old fashioned verbal fist fight. KOC

Ok, so I'm not an elitist. Darn! I was hoping that came with a certificate of achievement. Like a diploma or something. LOL

Thanks for your kind words. As always, I look forward to and value your input.

Sheepish Grin!

 

Chaya,I am anything but,a elitist unless elitist means one that wants to see the hobby advance more then it is now.
We have seen much progress over the years from the nasty-and I been nasty early years when everybody including MR thought N Scale was a joke to the decent models we have today and each step was a battle won over great odds and yes those that was against any advancement with basically the same arguments seen in this topics-even yours is a old tune that we dance to years ago..I never could understand why those that want to see progress made are called "elitist.

Tell me Chaya,would you be please with these run don't hardly locomotives instead of the smooth locos we have today?



I urge you to read about the locomotives of the early years.

N-Scale Locomotive Encyclopedia

Then tell me how we that wanted change "hurt" the hobby.Even the newbie would throw their hands up in disgust in those days.

Would we have LP wheels and Code 55 track if we let things alone?Would the hobby be where its at today if we didn't bark,howl and kick for changes? I think not.

Elitist? No...We just want to see the hobby advance and it will be good for all.

 

Hi folks.

Well, when I started this thread, I had no idea of how much debate it would cause. But I've read several themes here and would like to summarize my reactions, at least as far as body-mount couplers go.

1. The most significant objection is that body mounts will result in poor performance on small-radius (e.g., 9") curves and that "lots of people" use these small radius curves, including in train sets that introduce new folks to the hobby. My reaction to this is that performance concerns are simply overblown, at least as long as one doesn't try to run an SD70 attached to a bunch of 89' flats on 9" curves. I regularly run 25-30 car trains with all body-mounted MTL couplers over a layout that has 11" curves and #4 switches without problems. I pull these trains with 3-unit GP9's or double-headed Berkshires and Mikes, all of which have body-mounted couplers from the factory. HO-scalers run cars with body mounts over 18" radius curves, roughly the equivalent of 9" in N. So I just don't buy the argument that body mounted couplers would be a performance disaster for small-radius curves. But there's one sure way to find out: someone with 9" curves could try a legitimate test and see how 40' - 50' cars with reasonably-sized motive power (GP30?) works. I have some Kato Unitrack in storage; maybe I'll pull it out and get some small-radius curved track to do a test on it.

2. Others have suggested that body mounts would be significantly more expensive. Again, I suspect this is simply not true. Manufacturers are already paying for the coupler; designing a new car to take a body-mount is no more labor or materials-intensive than not doing it. Again, HO has already done this, and their rolling stock is just as reasonably priced (proportionately) as N scale. I just don't buy the "it will cost significantly more" argument. The auto manufacturers said the same thing about air bags and anti-lock brakes years ago; now every car has them, they didn't cause the prices to go out of orbit, and everyone takes them for granted. Once manufacturing processes are adapted, it just isn't going to be a cost issue.

3. Still others have suggested that we leave truck mounts, and let the body-mounters do so at their option. Well, OK. I'd actually be fine with manufacturers providing a correct-height pad with a pre-drilled hole for conversion. But why not go whole-hog and shift to body mounts? Don't we want our models to be as prototypical as practical under the circumstances? The prototype doesn't use truck-mounted couplers, so shouldn't we want the hobby to progress towards more prototypical look? Why not do it the other way around: have body mounting "standard" -- since that is prototypical -- and let those who want truck mounts cut off the body mounted coupler and buy new trucks? The hobby isn't stagnant, it progresses. We no longer have truck mounted couplers on locomotives; why isn't that a big deal to the truck-mount fans? Well, I suspect its because they actually work fine, don't cost any more, and result in a far more prototypical look to N scale. So why resist doing the same with rolling stock??

I don't harbor any ill-will to truck-mount fans, and I'll continue to do my conversions to body mounts. But I honestly believe that the arguments made in favor of the status quo are specious at best.

John C.

 

Ken was not informing you well.

The truck mounted couplers on most if not all MT trucks are (inside the box) the same parts as those in the 1025 body-mount couplers (and some others). So #1025 coupler parts can serve as spare parts for MT truck-mount couplers, and four 1025 couplers can be bought at roughly a third of the cost of four new trucks w/ couplers.

I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but I have a couple comments...

1) If all locomotives sold these days are sold with body mount couplers (the longer ones with long shank replacements included), then I don't think there is any reason, from a technical standpoint (radii and all that) for cars not be sold that way too, at least for cars under 60 scale feet. For this reason I don't buy the argument that truck mounted couplers are needed to prevent discouraging the "entry level" hobbyist, at least not on smaller cars.

2) I can understand that there may be economic/logistical/quality control reasons why manufacturers would want to stick with truck-mounts. However, I think it would be comparatively easy for them to tool their new products to include mounting holes and/or pads for easy mounting of body mounts, as MT has done forever and FVM does, for example. Some past products (e.g. Athearn Automax) almost seem deliberately designed to prevent body-mounting. Enough of that. Atlas, you're on notice too!

3) Let's not forget to congratulate those mfrgs that have been offering some products with body mounts (e.g. DI, and now Athearn with the new Husky-Stack), and those that have been designing products with body mounting in mind (as mentioned, MT and FVM).

 

This has been a most interesting thread. I am as new to this hobby as new gets. a lot of you guys sound like you have been in this for quite some time, if not forever. My opinion probably isn't worth much, but I thought maybe someone would be interested in seeing this issue through newbie eyes. Just a few comments/observations:

1.) I'll be honest, I don't think the average newbie even knows what a body mount coupler is, let alone cares what it is. With that said, I like what MT does using truck mounted couplers that work well with those that either must use or choose to use small radius curves, yet from what I understand they have some sort of a "dimple" that makes it a slightly easier process should you decide to body mount.

2.) I thought the point of even doing N scale was either not having space to do HO, or for those that simply enjoy longer trains or more scenery. I have to believe that the majority falls into "lacks space for HO or bigger". For me personally, if I'm going to use huge curves and build a room filling layout, it kinda defeats my reason for going with N scale in the first place. Let me be clear I understand the merits of large radius curves and why someone would want to use them.

3.) With all do respect, I think sometimes some members confuse what they want, with what everyone else wants/needs. I think the majority of the most active members on this forum represent the best and most experienced modelers in N scale anywhere. I don't know if I believe these people I speak of could be considered typical or even what any of these big manufacturers target.

4.) I don't like the idea of doing away with anything that works because I like having choices, I think it's great we have many choices on how to do this hobby. However, I do like what was said about printing something on the box or listing on an e-tailers website as "warning, this model requires 11" radius minimum to function properly, 15" recommended" or something like that.

5.) Here's something some of you will find funny. I constantly read forums and how disgruntled people are with the detail or realism of certain locos, rolling stock, track, accessories, etc. in N scale. I will give you a total newbie perspective, or atleast this newbies perspective... Lets take a $6.99 Atlas Trainman 40' PS-1 box car as an example. I am blown away by the detail and quality for the price in an item so tiny. I don't think it's because I am retarded. I'm willing to bet it's newbie typical. I like that it looks good (to me), works well and is upgradable to some point if I ever desire. It's affordable and as a newbie who has to spend a fortune getting a layout together that is appreciated. Do I care that certain detail parts of the car are "too thick"? No, not in the least because to me they look great. This probably is one of those instances where ignorance is bliss.

So what does a newbie want? Well for me, I want affordable products that work well and DO NOT require tweaking unless I want to tweak them. I expect to have to do some research before I buy a product of any type and in fact kind of enjoy it. However, I don't want a surprise when I buy one of these items and if it has certain demands like minimum radius to operate properly, I think it is up to the manufacturer and merchants to provide that information clearly up front and not assume everyone is the research hog I am.

I think we are blessed to have such a variety of products, and I don't think it's wrong to want to improve them, but as some have said don't forget the guy with the door sized layout because chances are he's the typical N scaler and probably more advanced than typical. I bet that there are more than a few guys out there that don't even have a layout. They like to setup their track once in awhile on a table, and after a few hours or days take it down until next time. Those of us who have "train rooms" of any size are truly blessed.

Bill H.

 

Well Said!!!!!!!

 

Regarding the testing of body mounted couplers on sharp curves, I have a small Japanese prototype interurban layout with Kato 8 1/2 inch Unitrack curves, but admittedly with no grades. When the rivet counters aren't watching I run the odd U.S. train on it, nothing bigger than a GP and 50 ft cars because of close clearances in places (it wasn't meant for SD70's after all) with either all body mount or a mix of body and truck mount couplers and mostly FVM wheelsets, up to twenty or so cars, and guess what, they all stay on the track, forward or reverse, slow or fast. Maybe the laws of physics work differently in the southern hemisphere.:tb-biggrin:

 

The thing to remember about body mounts is the distance from truck bolster to coupler face.

Couple two 40' cars with body mounts and they will go around an 8" curve forwards and backwards. Make one of them talgo trucks and it's no problem.

Couple two 86' auto-racks with body mounts and they will go around an 8" curve (looking stupid, perhaps). Make one of them talgo and you're in for huge issues.

Couple a 40' box to an 86' auto-rack and try to go around anything under about a 15" curve and you'll have a derailment. Here again, if the 40' box is talgo, big issues, if the auto-parts car is talgo though that probably works fine with the body mount 40'.

A not often considered factor too is backing up. Body mounts back up an order of magnitude better, particularly through switches.

There's a lot of myth out there about body mounts in both directions.....

 

NMRA RP calls for 1/2 oz. plus .15 oz. per inch of car length. That works out to a little under an ounce for a 40' car and a little over for a 50'. In addition to body-mounting my couplers, I also try to weight them all to around an ounce or so. Most cars (MT's are an exception) come way too light from the factory. It's often a pain, especially with flats, gons and open hoppers. With flat cars, I end up building a new floor with 1/32" sheet lead. I pull off the old plastic floor, glue the new lead floor to the frame, use a hobby knife to scribe "wood" planks, paint the lead sheet, and everything looks pretty decent. With gons, I stick a 1/32 sheet of lead over the existing floor and paint it; the loss of side height usually isn't noticeable. With hoppers, I stuff some tungsten putty into the bottom of the car at the discharge chutes, but of course that looks a little weird if you look into the car and it's supposed to be empty.

But the additional weight does cut down pretty significantly on the number of cars an engine can pull, and if you later decide to add loads to the weighted cars, they can end up overweight.

John C.

 

I should have known this would happen. I did not call you elitist. Not once. I called some of the remarks that you made elitist, and I stand by that. My point was that I wanted to see a return to civility in this thread. Have I now been tarred, too, as "against progress"?

I am well aware of the problems with locomotives in those early years: I was there, and hardly need to read about them. I doubt, though, that "barking, kicking, and howling" was what led to improvements, but rather improvements in engineering, plastics, and other technologies, refitted plants, altered production methods, improved marketing, the dreams and visions of manufacturers, helpful input from the public (sent to the manufacturers so they can read it), competition, and of course what people were willing to fork over money to buy.

I simply didn't like the tone of the thread at the time. It injured some feelings, and I don't think that's appropriate on this board. As I said, I rely on this board for its supportive nature. People should feel safe here. I should feel safe here. As it is, I feel like I'll never want to post a photo of a car or an engine that I have detailed or painted, or photos of my layout, because I'll be inviting disgusted, horrified critics to sneer at its "toy-like" curves and "toy-like" couplers.

That's it for me. This is taking way too much of my energy away from modeling.

Cristi

 

That's all really interesting, Leo. Thanks for posting that info. I wonder if body-mount couplers would eliminate the need to add at least 2" of straight track to turnout legs.

Cristi

 

Body mount is best mount!

I see the mythbusters are at it again. How about that!

I'm forever surprised as to how well my booty mounted couplers work. Reverse moves are excellent and I can put my 50' flat cars anywhere in the train and they run superb. Wait, wait...did I say "booty"? Humm, could be starting something here. I think you know I mean body mounted. Ok, this isn't the time to be thinking about booty. Now, back to the flats.

Typically load less flats are the lightest train cars on a layout and the easiest ones to derail. What amazes me is the lack of derailments or string lining on curves. My flats run superb and very smooth! Did you know they are the results of a joint adventure of Kato and ConCor. Does that give you a hint as to how far back they go? The former owner is the one responsible for body mounting the couplers. Nice work!

I do have problems with the tighter radius curves. If I remember correctly I mentioned trouble with 9" and 11* curves. This may actually have more to do with the truck mounted couplers... making the push against the body mounted freight cars...into a tighter curve.

Here's the secret to moving through the tighter curves. I make a concerted effort to purchase MTL coupler pockets that have a wide range of movement. This allows the coupler to float back and forth without pulling the train car it's attached to... or other train cars off the track.

I'm of the opinion that body mount is best mount and is the way to go. However, I'm not one of those who thinks it should be the STANDARD! And/or that NMRA needs to get involved. I'm not waiting until every provider makes the switch over. Besides, I need something to do when the snow drifts, shut me out of my train shed. If I wait until the manufacturers make the switch over... it's possible... I won't be around when it actually happens.

Taking the initiative to get the job done.

Have fun!

 

Hey, I think I have one of those flats! Yes, never a problem. But how do you purchase MTL coupler pockets that have a wide range of movement? The Micro-Trains site doesn't seem to give the kind of information it used to about these things.

Cristi

 

Cristi,Post those pictures I will be the vary last person on this earth to criticize anybodies modeling.Goodness knows I criticize mine enough-of course that's my legal right.

The issue of body mount couplers isn't new-its a on going discussion and one that needs to be discuss both pro and con.How else will the manufacturers know the general consensus? We howled about a lot of things and the manufacturers listen.That's how change comes about or how requests goes down in defeat.That's why its important to have these type of discussions on public forums-the manufacturers do read the better forums like Trainboard and IMHO as a moderator on 3 forums I fully believe this discussion as been very civil-far more civil then it would be on another popular forum.Speaks well for the Trainboard members and moderators.Kudos!

Believe as you will about the past improvements that's your right and welcome.However less not fool ourselves in thinking change came about without the howling.A quick look at the standard Bachmann line will prove that-and oddly enough that GP40 still looks like the ones I had 22 years ago...Complete with truck mounted couplers.

As far as the Trainman cars most of those cars been around since the beginning-remember when these cars came in kit form? And I am quite happy they are still available as they are beautiful cars.

I don't know but,I will be honest..So far only 33% of my cars have body mounts-remember I said I was slowly but,surely converting to body mounts-and I also wonder especially on the 2x5 foot layout I am building if I will inherit any problems with body mounts on those 10" curves as many claim in this topic.

As for the newbie..I do my utmost to encourage the new modeler and also and without fail advise him/her to use the widest curve possible on their layouts and to buy the best locomotives they can afford...


Will the change to body mounts come? More then likely within the next few years just like Code 55 track and LP wheels did.

Will it be good,bad or ugly? That will depend on who you ask.-smile,twinkling eyes and smile.

 

No, it wouldn't equate, actually.
Ask any of us who have run their Kato SD40-2s around a 18" curve (or less) while coupled to a 50' boxcar with body mounts. Any assertions about what our models can do should be based on testing the models, not on figures for the prototypes. As for the reasons they are different...

Reason 1 is that the typical N-scale couplers have a greater angle swing than the real ones, and that's probably not the only way their different that helps. The wide mouth of an MT coupler box isn't very prototypical, but nobody is advocating changing THAT because then we would have real big problems.

Reason 2 is possibly more important. I'm willing to bet money that the figures you are quoting are for operating guidelines for an SD40-2, not for its actual physical limits. Remember, when you are operating a real SD40-2, you don't want to operate under conditions anywhere NEAR the actual physical limits, because the stakes are just too high (i.e. millions of dollars of damages or death) if the calculations are a wee bit off. Add to this that the track or equipment may be worn or otherwise in need of maintenance, and that makes you want to stay even farther away from the physical limits of the equipment in ideal conditions.

Just about ALL industrial equipment of any kind has "safety factors" of some sort built into its use. Sometimes these are very high. (e.g. Rope will be rated for a strength equal to a third of its actual breaking point in the lab, or a fifth, or a tenth.) Although I have no idea about how these things are calculated for railroad equipment, I would imagine that the 359' radius curve you quoted is at least 25% higher than the actual physical limits of a new SD40-2 coupled to a new 50' boxcar on track in good condition, if not more like 50% or even more.

Of course, in N scale we can push a lot closer to the limits of our equipment without risking killing 1:1 people.

 

Coupler pockets?

The coupler pockets that come on the passenger trucks are the ones I'm referring to. On another thread someone else said you can purchase them separately. Pete, also shared a coupler pocket that works well for Atlas locomotives and has a wider range of movement then most. I will try to find these threads. I may need help doing so.

The rest of my day is pretty much cut out for me. Hopefully, I can get this information back to you and others who might be interested before the weekend is up. Not stalling just busy.

As far as the pocket looking prototypical... and they don't. Sometimes, you have to give up something to improve the overall performance. I'm willing to do that...until something better comes along. Besides, as the train passes by it's kind of hard to pick up on this fact. Now, a picture of a train car in the team track...well...you might want to change to Z scale knuckle couplers for the picture...grin!

 

Whereas Plastic Man will always come through unscathed...

Cristi