HMmmmmmmmmm...we may be moving away from the original post...as we get deeper into this thread. I quote "... but rolling stock STILL comes with truck mounted couplers. Why? .." I don't think anyone is or has been condeming body mounted couplers...at least I know I wasnt...lol. What I and a few have replied is that manufactures shouldnt be required to send out all body mounted coupler cars. I still say that individuals can change to body mount if they so wish. We with smaller layouts may not be able to run even 50 footers on some tight curves. So I am gathering that those who want body mounted couplers on rolling stock think that should be the 'Industry Standard'. My complaint or observation if you must...is that that would hurt the majority of N Scalers. Whether they be newcomers or old hands with small layouts. The consensus from the original post is that ALL couplers should be body mounted from the manufacture...and if the majority want truck mounted...we can change em. Sooooooooo...does it come down to a fight on who has more pull? Who is right or wrong? NOOOOOOOooooooooooo !!! It comes down to what is BEST for the hobby. I still contend that if ALL manufactures went to body mount...right outta the box...we would lose a ton of past, present, and future N scalers ! If for no other reason then ...we simply dont have the room for massive curves. Plain and simple...thnxs Don't forget the 'little guy"...ty :tb-cool:
Body mounted couplers can do nothing to help improperly designed or installed track. I say that because I'm not 100% sure what 2" straight you're talking about. Micro-Mark sells a "Track Inspection Car", part 82120 (Tools and Supplies for Building Scale Models | Micro-Mark: The Small Tool Specialists) that is quite useful to see what happens. Place this with 10 or so cars on each side, and back it up through a switch very slowly. Observe the coupler and truck behavior. The coupler will swing all the way to one side, this will in turn pivot the truck in the track, and it will be riding with two of the flanges pressing hard against the edge of the track. If the lead edge hits a point or frog wrong bingo, derailment. You can body-mount to compare, but the forces are simple. The couplers still swing to the side (it would be nice to redesign the couplers so they don't, but that's another story), but that does not pivot the truck. Rather it provides a small lateral force distributed across the entire car. The truck is no longer riding hard on the flanges, and is much less likely to pick a switch point. Backing a 100 car train with truck mounted couplers through a yard lead, asking for trouble. With body mounts, it just works (modulo all the other things discussed, car length, radius, etc).
I think something most people have forgotten, the original reason for truck mounted couplers was due to limitations of the rapido couplers. The springs were much stiffer than what we use in current knuckle couplers. They did not swing side to side nearly as easily. This is where the idea that truck mounted couplers were needed. Do some of these tests mentioned earlier with a rapido equipped car and I would bet almost every one results in a derailment. I'm not ready to demand that all manufactures should body mount couplers. We have just gotten to the point where knuckles are the "standard" (even though some manufactures "Bachmann" can't get the height right yet). Nowthat the knuckle coupler is becoming prevalent, it would be nice if they did offer a coupler mounting pad for those that want to body mount. Some cars remaining truck mount are understandable, 60' and longer cars are still going to need to be truck mount to satisfy the masses. Even in HO many longer cars are still truck mount or at least some form of rotating coupler that ties to truck and turns with it. There are better than 50% of the people out there still using rapidos and are just warming up to the idea of knuckle couplers. Let's give them time to get knuckles figured out before we throw another curve at them and force body mounts on them.
I learned long ago, and I forget where--probably from a MR author, or maybe from a book--that making sure that all 3 entry tracks to a turnout have at least 2" of straight track before any curves are applied is good practice. Sure enough, it has provided me with completely error free running, including no problems at all with backing up rolling stock (even with truck-mounted couplers, knuckle as well the Rapido couplers of olden times, which was when I started doing this). Cristi
Late Response Chaya and of course all tuned in, I wasn't able to find the previous threads. Instead I went to Feather River Trains and found this connection: Feather River Train Shop :: Trucks, Couplers, Wheelsets & Parts The first page of couplers that pops-up are RDA Body Mounted couplers. If I can find the other coupler pockets I prefer to work with. I will post a picture or a connection to a resource...here. About the 2" lead on switches. I remember an article in one of the Model Railroad wig wags that discussed the need to add the 2" straight tracks to the #4 switches (turnouts). I don't recall that being for #7's or larger. At one time I added 2"s of track to some of my HO scale #4 switches but I found it took up more room then I wanted to give up. Resulting in one derailing disaster after the other. I'l be back with an updated edit and hopefully, those body mounted coupler pockets. Still searching for my favorites. Here's what I've found so far. First Picture: The first picture shows the passenger truck. Remove the coupler pocket and you can use it for body mounting on some locomotives. Kind of expensive to purchase it this way. I did hear that you can purchase the coupler pocket separately...just not able to confirm it at this time. Second Picture: Show the 00-90 Tap & Drill Set, order #988-00-121 for $6.60. You will need this to secure the coupler pocket to the floor of any freight car. Last Edit: MTL's #1025
Yep, I've got body-mount couplers with necessary tools including the tap and drill set. I had to install a number of them when converting all my locomotives and rolling stock to knuckle couplers. But buy passenger trucks just for the couplers? Yikes! I'll wait for your photo of the coupler you like to use. Cristi
So what's the point??? If your going to run Modern railroad equipment you have to make sure you have Trackage that will support it, Reefer to the post on page 1 about the physical test preformed. If you have 40' box than a 89' flat of coarse your going to have a problem weather BM or not. You as someone who helps make them should KNOW to tell the customer that if they want to run modern freight that no matter what you run it's going to require a certain length radios. an 89' flat for example with a long shank still has to wait for the truck (the Center of the Kingpin) to negotiate the turn before the coupler box starts to turn, Where's if they where BM you could leave them slightly loose and the box would actually turn before the car or truck so in that regard it's actually capable of negotiating the tighter radius. TM's are equal to BM's when it comes to turn radios since the pin is centered on the truck the coupler box WILL NOT move till the truck starts to move, furthermore if it where able to negotiate the turn without BM's than it would also do so with, as the couplers will swing. 18.25" One other thing to thing to think about is resistance, No matter your method, the train if to long will most likely fall off at the first car anyway.
I posted photos of one three days ago but yours is still in the package, wow. If MTL find out there are underframe collectors out there they might start making them again.:tb-biggrin: I don't think they would be the same price though, $1.65! I'd forgotten what I paid for mine.
Actually this is One of a few dozen I bought for my MDC Roundhouse Cars, eventhough their equiped with great tractive factor I favor the BM's so I cut the Stirrups off the MDC/RH's and replace them with the MT's and now that Athearn is not producing the original underframes anymore and do not have any in stock, I requested to MT that they may try to do a test on these now that the industry has changed so much since the late 70's early 80's and also informed them of my conversation with athearn about the problem with their UF's so they could also target the people who need UF's for their missing one's and people like me who just so choose to change them because of their superiority. I haven't herd anything sofar which is good (to me) because if they deny somthing it's within 24 hours and has now been about a week so they may have it on the drawling bord for future release. Why not? they already have the UF's, Packaging, all they would need to do is screw in a 1015/1016 reprint the cardboard blister backing and ship out? I even told them I would buy them by the hundreds (about 300 in reality) if they did cause it would make my life that much more simpler. I could use the old trucks from the MT cars cut the coupler box off, use them on my CC autoracks and use the on the same car or even one of my articulated's that I have neglected. That's how all of the Autoracks and Flats I have now where done (well! about 70% of them so far) I personally Would buy them again in bulk so I wouldn't have to worry about not having the ability to buy them again, I'm running short and have way tomany MDC/RH's to retrofit. The Mt's have a lower center of gravity thean the stock MDRH's so .....Well I'll post Pics to show what I mean.
A perfect illustration! Quoting BNSFtheLeader: "So what's the point???" "If your going to run Modern railroad equipment you have to make sure you have Trackage that will support it, Reefer to the post on page 1 about the physical test preformed." "18.25" I got up this morning and took a look at what I wrote last night. This has been edited to better reflect the points I intended to make. OOPs I horsed up the quote but I wanted to use this one image and the remarks made by BNSF The Leader, to further a point. Disclaimer: It may not be the one he intended to make. As illustrated by BNSF The Leader, a 9.12 radius curve is just to tight for these Auto Racks. The aesthetic appeal gets lost in the overhang. This will work to show you can couple the Body Mounted couplers. Downside, the Autoracks will stringline on a curve this tight. To support what I think... BNSF The Leader, is saying I agree...indeed you do need the "Trackage" to support this option. A wider curve would serve these racks better. Way to much overhang. Rule of thumb: It's important that we remember...Body Mounts work best on wide radius track. And, truck mounted couplers make it possible to operate on tighter radius curves. Ahh, that's my rule of thumb and you need not adopt it. I don't think it would be fair to all model railroad consumers if SOME OF US demanded the providers switch to BM's. I could see manufacturers providing both options. Downside is that would indeed drive up the price of the car almost two-fold. We BM'rs can do our own thing and operate our trains to our own pleasure. Ahh, BM'rs = Body Mounters...ok! I don't know about you... but this makes me dizzy just trying to read this stretched post. Back and forth, back and forth, back and me thinks I'm going to ...yuck... too late! Sheez! I hate motion sickness. Do have fun!
I did find a thread that shares some interesting ideas and may be worth a read. Need Advice on M-T Truck/Coupler Conversions...never mind this goes in a different direction. I was hoping this would work..you can't click on it. Gosh I hate being the worlds greatest computer geek... dummy! This should work. You can click on this Internet Website and it will take you to Fifer Hobby. Up should pop the pages with Micro-Train Conversions. http://www.fiferhobby.com/html/micro-trains__coupler_conversi.html Thanks to Fifer Hobby's website...I did find my favorite coupler the one with plenty of swing. See the thumbnail below. Thanks for your patience. Of course now that my secret is out I won't be able to find them and or purchase them...hrrruumph!
Okay, now I'm confused. I thought Westfalen and others (including you) were saying that BM couplers would negotiate tight curves just fine, even my 10" radius New Mexico Central (converted in the 30's from narrow to standard gauge). Your last post, though, made that sound doubtful to me. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, so maybe you could help me out here. Would BM couplers be okay for 10" radius? How about for my 12.5" radius track in other parts of the layout? Cristi
Here's the Pics, I jacked this one up real quick, no BM's or finnishing touches but just for refferance and the MT next to it is also undergoing surgury. [
I don't see any problems unless you have long cars like autoracks (all my autoracks are still truck mounted), maybe you could convert two or three cars and see how they go, keep the original trucks just in case so you can convert back if the body mounts don't work for you.
Chaya/Cristi, I got up this morning and read this and realized you would only be more confused. I've edited it somewhat and it should be an easier read. My apologies. It wasn't my intent to confuse you. Yes, it needs clarification. First off what Westfalen just said. I should quit right here. As a sort of rehash and summary, the following: The following reflects on my layout. On my wide radius curves I can run the BM'd equipment pictured in BNSF The Leader's post, with little to no derailment problems and only some minor overhang. Regarding the radius, BNSF The Leader illustrated (you know a name instead of a handle, would make this easier...grin) is BTW ok? BTW illustrated a 9.25 radius and in this setting with the auto racks it spells trouble... This is also true for any BM'd train car over 50' in scale length. I think I've said any curves starting at 9 to 11 inch radius will give body mounted train cars over 50 scale feet... problems. In my experiments I found out that by using a wider swing body mounted coupler helped to improve performance of BM'ds on the longer train cars. See previous postings. I've been able to operate body mounted and truck mounted cars mixed with little to no problems. The only real problem I have experienced is where I try a reverse move through the tighter curves. The cars will derail and I suspect it is because the truck mounted couplers push the body mounted train cars, off the track. I don't believe it's the other way around. The minimum radius I use is 11" on some industrial spurs. Simply, a 9" radius is not allowed. My mainline has a minimum curve of 16.5" and I do have a 15" radius curve on one of my hidden staging yard, run through tracks. Considering the era you are modeling, I suspect your longest train cars will be in the 40' to 50' scale foot range. Is this correct? If so your layout should do fine with the body mounted couplers. Although, 10" radius curves is kind of tight...but I wouldn't change it. Wowwa, when it gets this late I start to get punchy and words get jumbled. I do hope this helps. Have fun!
The Picture with the Autoracks are for reference, Just to show that they can be negotiated. I wish I still had the old dummy layout that was on a door cut in half as a joke for this kind of thread (please excuse me as here in FL is 1:30 and I'm way tired) and for pictures. It is possible for you to use 9" if you prefer but the length of the train (resistive drag) will depend on weather or not it'll stay together. I can push pull any of my BM AR or flats and hardly have a problem unless, I pull 180 safely but that's pushing it, around 200 and a line of the first 10 usually roll off at the Engines but that's because I have about (roughly) 27 lbs of weight going around a 12 foot horse shoe curve, but that's towards the end of the curve. about 100 cars will make it a little past halfway. But I can successfully Push/Pull over 400 cars with no problem cause the rear of the train is being relieved of the weight. Push Pull consisting of "Pull" 4 AC4400/C44's with the helpers in the rear consisting of only 2 SD40's on an 18.25" radius Horse shoe or 9.125" radius (which I would never do except for this kind of test) I'm lucky to pull 10 / 12 cars. The push back is pretty well the same result when making a drop shipment to the yard (Unless I miss throw a switch) their is never a mal function but than again I would have a yard switcher or a remote unit unload the cars at the drop point so the manifest can go about it's rout. It's really a poor debate their is no real difference in operation unless your using prototypical operation mainline cross country drags. But IMHO their is less of a chance of a malfunction when pulled by the car opposed to pulling the weight from the trucks cause the trucks are being forced in a direction where the track is not allowing it to go where's the BM is allowing the trucks to move freely at their will. Like I think is the third post down from the beginning I think it will become standard in the future but not the near future, my guess is that it will be about 10 years unless MT does do the trial and if it takes a smash hit and they implement it as a new standard than I would guarantee most would fallow suit, but you would still have Bachmann, Model Power and a few select others that will most likely never do it with the way their past upgrading has shown. finally, from a "Newbie" standpoint if their just getting in to the hobby and their body mounted, they wouldn't know the difference anyway. As History has shown I don't see any "Implementations" towards N Scale before the manufactures add or do what they do, Where's the implementation of BM Locos? Where's it say Atlas had to add all of the fine features on the Dash 8's ? They have been focusing on the loco industry and are still coming up with new and better add's but I really think their going to start to review if not already reviewing old rolling stock to further their line of the proto world. It is the mass majority of all of us if you really take all bias aside and think about it, how many of you would prefer a New Bachmann engine over an older Atlas/Kato? Not many if any at all, How many of you would rather have an old (runner) MT from say 1986 over a brand spanking new Model Power car?? why? Because it's a nicer product. It's the evolution of our industry and is hitting harder now more than ever and as long as Consumers request and the more manufactures try to meet that goal it'll keep on going weather or not you want it to. Bob, I'm not sure if these are the one's your looking for or not but from left to right 1015/1016 and the other is the standard BM which I use on the longer cars and the 1015/1016's I preffer to use on the 40' 50' even though they have the furthest swingpoint I use the standards on the long cars since their is more weight it gives me more support structure.
Man Im way off in left field (excuse me as I should be in bed). In your situation the short of the long is How long you want your train to be regardless of mounting type, just remember the longer the train the heavyier and the tighter the curve the higher resistance and a the higher chance of rolling off. if it rolls in towards the inside of the curve their is to much weight, add a helper to push the cars and it will eliminate the roll. If your train jumps the rail (this is one of the cons to using TM's) it is hard to diagnose the problem cause it could be that you picked a bad spot in the track, the TM's are forcing themselves off or you could have a car way to light in the front of the train????????? How many cars do you plan on running and about what weight? (if using mt's than weight is known already)????????????
