Why Don't More N Scalers Body Mount Couplers?
Dennis Rockwell
>Reading the thread on N scale scratchbuilding has raised an interesting point
>for me. Most everyone recommends replacing the stock rapido coupler with a
>Micro-Trains coupler, and most everyone recommends changing the trucks to do
>this, using MT trucks with attached couplers. Why don't more N scalers body
>mount their couplers?
There are lots of reasons, mostly having to do with
operating style, if any. I'm a member of an active NTrak
club, and usually NTrak layouts just run trains around
forever. When you're circling endlessly, Rapido couplers
work just fine. In fact, one member emeritus ran trains
long enough to pop Microtrains couplers; there's enough give
in the plastic that they just let go.
I switched to body-mounting when I started to want to *do*
something with the trains other than just run them around.
This took me several years.
>And, while I'm asking cosmic questions, why don't N scale manufacturers all
>switch to lo-profile RP25 wheel flanges?
Larger flanges and broad treads tolerate poorer trackwork
(there's a large difference between your club's imperfect
track and a child's snap-track assembly on a tabletop), and
are easier to rerail. The grade crossing and ramp-style
rerailers don't work very well with tiny flanges. I can see
why the manufacturers resist.
--
Dennis Rockwell
Open Software Foundation -- Research Institute
den...@osf.org
Chris Vernell
In a previous article, den...@snoid.osf.org (Dennis Rockwell) says:
>In article <jcolombo.1...@law.uiuc.edu> jcol...@law.uiuc.edu (John Colombo) writes:
>>Reading the thread on N scale scratchbuilding has raised an interesting point
>>for me. Most everyone recommends replacing the stock rapido coupler with a
>>Micro-Trains coupler, and most everyone recommends changing the trucks to do
>>this, using MT trucks with attached couplers. Why don't more N scalers body
>>mount their couplers?
>
>There are lots of reasons, mostly having to do with
>operating style, if any. I'm a member of an active NTrak
>club, and usually NTrak layouts just run trains around
>forever. When you're circling endlessly, Rapido couplers
>work just fine. In fact, one member emeritus ran trains
>long enough to pop Microtrains couplers; there's enough give
>in the plastic that they just let go.>
>--
>Dennis Rockwell
>Open Software Foundation -- Research Institute
>den...@osf.org
>
My experience with N-Trak layouts is similar to Dennis's. Micro-Trains
couplers are excellent for switching work, but for simply running trains
they are a) unnecessary, b) very finicky about uneven trackwork, such as
commonly occurs at module intersections, c) they don't handle the strain of
long trains very well.
They also, of course, cost money.
As for why most people who do convert to Micro-Trains simply use
truck-mounted couplers: it's easier to pop on a new truck than to drill,
tap and shim for body mounts.
None of this should be taken as a downer on Micro-Trains couplers: they are
excellent for switching, have a nice appearance, and one of these days
I'll have to stop spending my money on cars, locos and all those other
goodies and get around to coupler conversion (probably body-mount).
--
Chris Vernell | Brunel was right
| but I like monorails too
John Colombo
for me. Most everyone recommends replacing the stock rapido coupler with a
Micro-Trains coupler, and most everyone recommends changing the trucks to do
this, using MT trucks with attached couplers. Why don't more N scalers body
mount their couplers?
Admittedly, this takes a bit more work than popping off the old truck and
popping on a MT1000. But body mounted couplers look a lot better, and track
through turnouts a whole lot better. HO scalers have known this for years,
and virtually all quality HO rolling stock has body-mounted couplers. In N
scale, the MT1023/1025 is not that hard to install, although you often do
have to shim up the underbody of a car with some .030 styrene.
The reason I find this interesting is that I have been body-mounting the
couplers on my rolling stock for over three years now, but even the guys in my
local N scale club, many of whom are far more experienced (and better)
modelers than I am still use the MT 1000 trucks (or the 1030 rollerbearing
trucks for modern stuff). More interesting still is the fact that Atlas
appears to be moving toward body mounts, since their new PS-2 2-bay hopper not
only has the underbody at the right height for body mounts, but also has the
body mounting hole marked (you just drill through with a #61 drill, mount the
1023/1025 with its screw and maybe a dab of CA, and off you go).
And, while I'm asking cosmic questions, why don't N scale manufacturers all
switch to lo-profile RP25 wheel flanges? They work (all my rolling stock has
them and I have no derailment problems, even on the club layout that has less
than perfect trackwork), they roll better, and they look terrific in
comparison to the stock wheels. Again, Atlas appears to be using wheelsets
with smaller flanges in their most recent releases, but not yet true RP25
profile.
Comments?
John Colombo
Tim Rumph
: Reading the thread on N scale scratchbuilding has raised an interesting point
: Micro-Trains coupler, and most everyone recommends changing the trucks to do
: this, using MT trucks with attached couplers. Why don't more N scalers body
: mount their couplers?
I have also been body mounting couplers for some time. The Microtrains cars
have provisions for body mounting, sometimes with the addition of adapter
plates (gons and flats). It is a little more work than just changing trucks,
but not that much trouble, and a little cheaper.
: And, while I'm asking cosmic questions, why don't N scale manufacturers all
: switch to lo-profile RP25 wheel flanges? They work (all my rolling stock has
: them and I have no derailment problems, even on the club layout that has less
: than perfect trackwork), they roll better, and they look terrific in
: comparison to the stock wheels. Again, Atlas appears to be using wheelsets
: with smaller flanges in their most recent releases, but not yet true RP25
: profile.
I've been switching to the Northwest Shortline wheel sets. These look very
good, and are metal, which is important since I will be using current
sensing track detectors. They fit in most trucks without trouble.
My standard procedure is to remove the coupler from the truck, body mount
the appropriat microtrains couplers, and replace the wheels. This applies
to MT cars as well as others.
--
Tim Rumph Concord, NC
tar...@cybernetics.net tar...@mosaic.uncc.edu (until May, FINALLY)
kd4ows@wb4kdf.#gas.nc.usa.na (non-hams: don't try to use this on the
Internet)
C Martin
Colombo) writes:
>... Why don't more N scalers body mount their couplers?
I've been doing more body mount's lately myself. I just got the Con-Cor
Autorack which I mounted MT1025 couplers to. One reason not to of course is
some cars don't have any place to mount them. Roundhouse tank cars being one
example. They only have a narrow strip there. But look at all of the MT
engine conversion kits. Most of those are body mount. There is one advantage
John Colombo didn't mention is cost. Body mount couplers run half the price of
truck sets or less.
You still need to replace the trucks on some cars such as most Con-Cor as the
trucks wobble alot. I've used the left over wheelsets from Atlas cars with the
Rapido coupler cut off for this purpose.
I am definetly going to be doing more body mounted couplers in the future.
Eric Coryell
while it has been mentioned that body mount's can affect
operation in small radius curves, I haven't seen many
numbers. What's the minimym radius curve I can expect
good operation on with body mounted couplers?
ArtPapa
writes:
I don't have the paitience I used to, or the time to fiddle with body
mounting MT couplers. Now that my home layout is progressing to the point I'll
be doing mor switching, I might do up a batch of cars with body mounts, but the
bulk of my operating equipment runs on NTrak layouts- usually a 40 car or
longer freight, little switching but staying together is critical. I use the
talgos (fast, and improve tracking at the same time) or Kato couplers
(cheepest way to MT compatability)
Art P
DC&W RR
Johannes Stille
>In article <jcolombo.1...@law.uiuc.edu>, jcol...@law.uiuc.edu (John Colombo) writes:
>> for me. Most everyone recommends replacing the stock rapido coupler with a
>> Micro-Trains coupler, and most everyone recommends changing the trucks to do
>> this, using MT trucks with attached couplers. Why don't more N scalers body
>> mount their couplers?
>
> Even more likely than all of that, I think, is the curve radius
> limits you have with body mount couplers. Lots of people still
> run their N-Scale trains around 10" radius curves (or even less!)
> and body mounts have a tough time with these. Yes, yes I know,
[...]
Most European manufacturers are now converting at least the modern
passenger cars to body-mounted couplers, and almost all N scale stock
over here is built for a minimum radius of 192 mm. It seems that at
least Fleischmann is going to convert the freight cars as well. (convert
= change their production, not already built stuff)
But this is really just a side effect:
The "tight couplers" are becoming popular. This means that the distance
between cars is as short as possible on straight track. Now for curves,
the distance must increase. This needs:
(a) a special mechanism to make the coupler move away from the car when
it is moved sideways,
(b) body-mounted couplers, so that the mechanism can get this sideways
motion of the coupler (with truck mounted couplers, the whole truck does
turn, but the coupler remains nearly straight in relation to the truck),
(c) for really tight coupling, special couplers, so that the two
couplers when coupled form a stiff bar, so that the angle between two
cars results in a sideways motion between each coupler and its car and
not in an angle between the couplers.
Two questions to the American readers:
(1) Do you have such "tight couplers" as well? If so, what is the
correct English word for it - I never saw anyone mentioning them in this
group. Or is it that you have neither the thing nor a word for it? Are
they perhaps not necessary (because American cars don't have buffers)?
(2) What is the advantage of body-mounted couplers without this
mechanism? I'd imagine they can make reliable operation difficult e.g.
when pushing a train trough a S curve.
Johannes
Dennis Rockwell
> [ ... ]
>Two questions to the American readers:
>
>(1) Do you have such "tight couplers" as well? If so, what is the
>correct English word for it - I never saw anyone mentioning them in this
>group. Or is it that you have neither the thing nor a word for it? Are
>they perhaps not necessary (because American cars don't have buffers)?
The American term is "close coupling", and refers to the
distance between the cars. I don't know of any commonly
available active system like you describe in your message.
I've seen scratchbuilt versions (including between the units
of a Pennsy twin-unit diner in HO scale), but they aren't
common.
>(2) What is the advantage of body-mounted couplers without this
>mechanism? I'd imagine they can make reliable operation difficult e.g.
>when pushing a train trough a S curve.
Well, my solution is not to run long passenger cars through
tight curves or switches of number less than 6.
Body-mounted couplers *do* increase reliability when pushing
cars in any circumstances, although truck-mounted couplers
on well-weighted cars that roll freely can be pushed in
most circumstances.
un10...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
> popping on a MT1000. But body mounted couplers look a lot better, and track
> through turnouts a whole lot better. HO scalers have known this for years,
> and virtually all quality HO rolling stock has body-mounted couplers.
Well, I don't think it makes much difference on turnouts while going forward
but it can make a difference while pushing the cars through in reverse. In
HO, it is suicide to push a long consist of truck mounted cars through a
turnout, but because of weight of the N-guage, it can be done much better.
All of my HO is body mounted, and none of my N-guage. I have backed a 60 car
drag through all kinds of turnouts (Atlas, Peco, hand-made in code 50) and have
rarely had a problem. I think operation is not that big a problem in N-guage.
Now as far as looks; I agree it looks better, but it is not nearly as quick as
dropping a KayDee #5 in the box on an HO model. Also, since many people want
to replace the N-guage trucks anyhow, it is an easy way to kill two birds
with one stone.
Bruce
un10...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
>> [ ... ]
>>Two questions to the American readers:
>>
>>(1) Do you have such "tight couplers" as well? If so, what is the
>>correct English word for it - I never saw anyone mentioning them in this
>>group. Or is it that you have neither the thing nor a word for it? Are
>>they perhaps not necessary (because American cars don't have buffers)?
>
do use this, so an English modeler should be able to tell us the English
name for it. I have heard the buffers called bumpers and snubbers, but I
don't know if that is correct, and don't know what the couplers are called.
(For American modelers who don't know what he is talking about, European
rolling stock have twin "bumpers" on the end of each car. A slow train on bad
track would have the couplers fairly loose, so that the bumpers were relatively
far apart, while a fast train on good track would pull the couplers in
tight so that the bumpers were in proximity to each other).
Bruce
Tilman Spokert
>I've never seen a european train being made up, but I assume that the
>train is pushed against a barrier or against a string of cars with their
>brakes set, so that the buffers are compressed, and then the links are
>connected and snugged up.
Nope. That would not be very practical.
You just get all the cars sitting there with the buffers just touching,
and then you tigthen down the link. It has kind of fold out handles on the
link, and by turning it, you tighten it down (there is a thread one one part
of the link). Freight trains in Germany commonly have some slight slack.
When connecting the engine, the engineer often helps buy moving the engine
a little bit against the cars (with the brakes set), so that the other guy
has a much easier job getting the link on or off.
--
Tilman Sporkert til...@netcom.com
J.R. Stoner
: Reading the thread on N scale scratchbuilding has raised an interesting point
: for me. Most everyone recommends replacing the stock rapido coupler with a
: Micro-Trains coupler, and most everyone recommends changing the trucks to do
: this, using MT trucks with attached couplers. Why don't more N scalers body
: mount their couplers?
: Admittedly, this takes a bit more work than popping off the old truck and
: popping on a MT1000. But body mounted couplers look a lot better, and track
: through turnouts a whole lot better. HO scalers have known this for years,
: and virtually all quality HO rolling stock has body-mounted couplers. In N
: scale, the MT1023/1025 is not that hard to install, although you often do
: have to shim up the underbody of a car with some .030 styrene.
It is a fact of life (and physics) that a body-mounted coupler is more
difficult to operate than a truck-mounted coupler, especially when moving in
reverse direction. The main goodness of truck-mounting, you see, is the
centering spring tends to make the coupler shank track more in line with the
wheel flange direction when moving through curves. This is really noticable
when moving in reverse through poorly laid S-curves. Body-mounted couplers
have the the moment arm of the train forces moving the coupler shank strongly
opposite (and non-parallel) with the tangent line of the wheel flanges. Since
reverse motion is a compressive motion, and provides a real lever action to
lift the wheels right over the rail and on the ground. Live steamers and HO
models see the same effects with prototypical body-mount couplers, just less
so, as the flangeways are larger and require much more lever action to derail
than does N-scale equipment.
: The reason I find this interesting is that I have been body-mounting the
: couplers on my rolling stock for over three years now, but even the guys in
: my local N scale club, many of whom are far more experienced (and better)
: modelers than I am still use the MT 1000 trucks (or the 1030 rollerbearing
: trucks for modern stuff). More interesting still is the fact that Atlas
: appears to be moving toward body mounts, since their new PS-2 2-bay hopper
: not only has the underbody at the right height for body mounts, but also has
: the body mounting hole marked (you just drill through with a #61 drill, mount
: the 1023/1025 with its screw and maybe a dab of CA, and off you go).
: And, while I'm asking cosmic questions, why don't N scale manufacturers all
: switch to lo-profile RP25 wheel flanges? They work (all my rolling stock has
: them and I have no derailment problems, even on the club layout that has less
: than perfect trackwork), they roll better, and they look terrific in
: comparison to the stock wheels.
I don't disagree with you. The RP-25 flanges look (and are more) prototypical,
and just look better, as the higher care taken with their manufacture makes
them look more detailed. The main problem is that there has not been such
attention to this kind of quality in N-scale until recently (I especially
prefer these days, rolling stock from MicroTrains and Aztec, even if they cost
a whole bunch more) especially in track/wheel design as grotesques like
code-70 N-scale track, brass track, and AHM wheel flange design slowly die the
death they deserve. You see, there has not been incentive until recently, as
the oversize track was prevalent and everybody assumed it would be here
forever.
: Again, Atlas appears to be using wheelsets
: with smaller flanges in their most recent releases, but not yet true RP25
: profile.
I guess I should check it out, as I have not bought Atlas rolling stock for a
while. Do you think the newer Atlas wheel could be purchased in quantity and
popped right into the older Atlas truck? This would save a lotta $$ on wheel
sets (I would have to buy about 400 wheel pairs to replace all my
non-MicroTrains rolling stock).
--
In 1911/and strident voices raised high/Votes! Votes for women, was the cry.
Titanic was sinking/and death was nigh/Boats! Boats for women, was the cry.
.
J.R. Stoner, Ferroequinologist - asg...@plx.com - sun.com!plx!plxsun!asgard
Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879
by un10...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu:
>
> (For American modelers who don't know what he is talking about,
> European rolling stock have twin "bumpers" on the end of each car.
They're always known as buffers, as far as I know, and they're designed
to take all of the compression loading on the coupling, while the
hook and link or screw-link coupler itself only handles tension. In
contrast, the american style knuckle coupler is designed to take both
tension and compression, with the draft gear behind the coupler shank
containing springs and whatnot to adsorb both tension and compression.
> A slow train on bad track would have the couplers fairly loose, so
> that the bumpers were relatively far apart ...
And risk pulling out a drawbar! I've never seen space between the faces
of the buffers on european trains I've watched. The buffers are under
spring tension, always pushing the cars apart against the tension of the
hook and screw-link couplers. Loose coupling would give you a train with
lots of slack, making start-up after a reverse move very risky, and it
would raise the risk of accidental uncoupling when a slack link bounces
out of its hook.
I suppose that the old non-adjustable hook and link couplers might have
been loose enough to let you see daylight between the buffers, but these
were risky indeed, and never really suitable for any but the shortest of
trains.
I've never seen a european train being made up, but I assume that the
train is pushed against a barrier or against a string of cars with their
brakes set, so that the buffers are compressed, and then the links are
connected and snugged up.
Doug Jones
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
John Colombo
I have had no trouble pushing or pulling cars with body-mounts around 11"
radius curves, although I admit to having very few of these on my layout (my
mainline radius minimum is 18", but I have a few tight curves in industrial
areas). The major problem with body mounts on such tight curves is not
negotiating the curve, but coupling cars on it. Body mounts will couple
fairly reliably on curves 15" radius or greater, but below that, the angle
mismatch between couplers is too great. Be warned that I do not use the
"automatic" feature of the MT couplers on my layout (I uncouple cars by hand
after spotting them using a RIX uncoupling tool or something similar).
John Colombo
C Martin
how much the preload them nor how (pushing with the engine or tighting the
turnbuckle).
Some European models use what's called close coupling (variety of terms)
for passenger cars. This keeps the cars very close while straight, but allows
them to seperate on curves. It works in conjuction with the model buffers
which normally are unprototypically seperated. Thus there isn't the meter long
gap between cars for model passengers to leap across.
ps If you think US railroading is dangerous, consider European where they must
stand between the buffers and coupler to first physically connect the cars,
then couple air lines etc. Getting squished between buffers is not unknown.
And they must do this for coupling and un-coupling. Compare to american trains
where they only need to connect the airlines after the couplers have mated and
uncouple from the side of the car.
Richard F. Weyand
>It is a fact of life (and physics) that a body-mounted coupler is more
>difficult to operate than a truck-mounted coupler, especially when moving in
>reverse direction. The main goodness of truck-mounting, you see, is the
>centering spring tends to make the coupler shank track more in line with the
>wheel flange direction when moving through curves. This is really noticable
>when moving in reverse through poorly laid S-curves. Body-mounted couplers
>have the the moment arm of the train forces moving the coupler shank strongly
>opposite (and non-parallel) with the tangent line of the wheel flanges. Since
>reverse motion is a compressive motion, and provides a real lever action to
>lift the wheels right over the rail and on the ground. Live steamers and HO
>models see the same effects with prototypical body-mount couplers, just less
>so, as the flangeways are larger and require much more lever action to derail
>than does N-scale equipment.
While this is true, one should also note that the truck-mounted couplers
tend to jam the truck sideways when backing large trains, or backing trains
uphill. This is a real bugger when backing over switches, as in yards,
because the truck isn't square in the rail, and wants to make up its own
mind which way it will take through the frog. When making up large trains
(50+ cars) we have to make sure we don't make reverse moves over about
30 cars to keep this from happening. Properly weighted cars and reduced
flangeway widths on turnout frogs helps too.
>I don't disagree with you. The RP-25 flanges look (and are more) prototypical,
>and just look better, as the higher care taken with their manufacture makes
>them look more detailed. The main problem is that there has not been such
>attention to this kind of quality in N-scale until recently (I especially
>prefer these days, rolling stock from MicroTrains and Aztec, even if they cost
>a whole bunch more) especially in track/wheel design as grotesques like
>code-70 N-scale track, brass track, and AHM wheel flange design slowly die the
>death they deserve. You see, there has not been incentive until recently, as
>the oversize track was prevalent and everybody assumed it would be here
>forever.
We use Peco code _80_ track! The beefier rail is easier to work with and
stays where it's put. The rail is not a prototype cross-section, with
the rail head narrower than it should be for its height. This results in
a rail head narrower than Shinny 55. As the polished bright width of the
rail head is what you see, properly weathered Peco 80 looks real good.
We standardized on the Micro-Trains wheels with their large flanges for
operational reliability and because we don't like to spend a lot of time
on coupler mounting etc. This results in very reliable operation. We have
3+ hour operating sessions in our round-robin group, and it's unusual to
have _any_ derailments whatsoever. We think that's worth the taller rail
and bigger flanges.
P.S. for pictures which are close-ups, we swap out the wheel sets for
prototype wheel contours, then switch back after the photo session is over.
--
Rich Weyand | ~~~~*****MMMMMM) |Rich Weyand
Weyand Associates| _______ ___,---. ---+_______:_ |TracTronics
Comm Consultants | |_N_&_W_| |_N_&_W_| |__|________|_ |Model RR Electronics
wey...@mcs.com | ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o\ |wey...@mcs.com
William Steve Shepard
asg...@sparky.plx.com (J.R. Stoner) writes:
>It is a fact of life (and physics) that a body-mounted coupler is more
>difficult to operate than a truck-mounted coupler, especially when moving in
>reverse direction. The main goodness of truck-mounting, you see, is the
I believe that body-mounted couplers tend to track better than truck-
mounted couplers. Although when I was in N Scale I used truck-mounted
(KD) exclusively and never had any probems.
>centering spring tends to make the coupler shank track more in line with the
>wheel flange direction when moving through curves. This is really noticable
>when moving in reverse through poorly laid S-curves. Body-mounted couplers
>have the the moment arm of the train forces moving the coupler shank strongly
>opposite (and non-parallel) with the tangent line of the wheel flanges. Since
>reverse motion is a compressive motion, and provides a real lever action to
>lift the wheels right over the rail and on the ground. Live steamers and HO
I disagree. A reverse compression does tend to push the wheels over the
rails on a curve. However, the body-mounted coupler will track better.
Consider the physics, if you like. It is impossible for a body-mounted
(BM) coupler to exert a resultant moment on a truck through a bolster.
This is due to the fact that you cannont create a resultant moment via a
pin connection, that is, a truck bolster. (Assuming no friction!)
As a result, both outer wheels will push EQUALLY on the rails - or the
truck will rotate such that the forces equalize. The flanges will
be parallel to the track - for large radius anyway.
For the case of a truck-mounted (TM) coupler, however, the moment
about the bolster must still be zero. So, one set of wheels is pushed
to the inside rail and the other wheels are pushed to the outside rail.
The harder you push, the more the truck turns - the more the wheels
deviate from tangency of the rail. (Note that this is not a
problem if the TM coupler force is straight at the bolster.
Unfortunately this is impossible on a curve.).
The Bottom Line ---
Body-mounted couplers allow the trucks to rotate
freely to properly track curves. Truck-mounted couplers tend to
misalign the trucks such that they don't track as well.
--
*********************************************************
Steve Shepard she...@lab11.me.gatech.edu
A Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech
And a Helluva Engineer
Johannes Stille
>
>> A slow train on bad track would have the couplers fairly loose, so
>> that the bumpers were relatively far apart ...
>
>And risk pulling out a drawbar! I've never seen space between the faces
>of the buffers on european trains I've watched. The buffers are under
>spring tension, always pushing the cars apart against the tension of the
>hook and screw-link couplers. Loose coupling would give you a train with
>lots of slack, making start-up after a reverse move very risky, and it
>would raise the risk of accidental uncoupling when a slack link bounces
>out of its hook.
While I've never seen this on a train either, it seems common practice
when switching. Probably it's just not worth the trouble of tightening
the screw-link. The heavy chain links don't bounce up.
>I suppose that the old non-adjustable hook and link couplers might have
>been loose enough to let you see daylight between the buffers, but these
>were risky indeed, and never really suitable for any but the shortest of
>trains.
When and where were such couplers used? It would have to have been ages
ago.
[...]
> Doug Jones
> jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
(I'm moving this thread to rec.railroad, as it doesn't have anything to
do with modelling any more.)
Johannes
Jonathan T Grout
The reason *I* don't body mount my couplers is basically that I am
SCARED TO DEATH of attempting it. I KNOW I don't have either the knowledge OR
the tooling to do the job properly, and have never SEEN it done (yet...still
fairly new to the hobby), and so have NO IDEA where to begin. Besides, I am
still learning how to work with things in such a small scale - 1:160 is
rather tiny to me still. I have rather large hands, and find doing such small
work both physically and mentally demanding. Although I enjoy doing demanding
things, it's tough to do after working 12-16 hours each weekday. This is NOT
something I want to tackle while already tired.
DeckApe
Dec...@cup.portal.com
Dennis Rockwell
>
> The reason *I* don't body mount my couplers is basically that I am
>SCARED TO DEATH of attempting it.
Same here. It took me years of thinking about it before I
really started doing it. I joined an operating HO club
(yes, I model in N scale), and that really sold me on the
value of it. *That* is what finally pushed me over to
actually doing it.
I went through all this within the last year, so I'll be
glad to help out.
>I KNOW I don't have either the knowledge OR
>the tooling to do the job properly, and have never SEEN it done (yet...still
>fairly new to the hobby), and so have NO IDEA where to begin.
The knowledge is included in the info sheets included in the
coupler envelopes (at least, the dimensional bits of
knowledge). The skills are mostly folklore, but some of the
Microtrains data sheets have important hints and tricks.
Beginning: start small. Buy the Microtrains drill and tap
set, a standards gauge (I use the one that sits on the track
and has a coupler built in), pin vise, tweezers, tiny
screwdrivers, tiny files, superglue, rubber cement, foam
loco cradle, 00-90 screws (from the Walthers tiny parts
rack), couplerless Microtrains trucks (they are coming in
large economy sizes now), pre-assembled couplers (worth the
$$$ until you get comfortable building them), conversion
kits for your best-running locomotives.
For some cars, go truck-mounted for a while, turn some of
your favorite cars into adapters, and convert your
locomotives. Start with the switchers. Some of the loco
conversions will be new pilots (which are generally
body-mounts) and some will be those awful Rapido pocket
adaptors, which I never managed to get to work really right
(skip these until later). The drill and tap are required
for the pilot conversions. The pilot conversions require
less manual dexterity and no measuring accuracy. However,
the pilot conversions are generally irreversible.
Start with cars that are already marked and drilled for
body-mounting: Microtrains freight cars. Remove the truck,
tap the hole, screw on the coupler, attach a couplerless
truck.
Ta-daa! You're on your way!
Stop here and run your trains for a while, doing switching
and backup moves to encourage yourself to continue. Note
that the car conversions done so far are completely
reversible.
Convert more cars as the spirit moves you.
For non-Microtrains cars, things take a wee bit more work.
Look at the diagrams on the data sheet. The standards gauge
has a flange (opposite the coupler) at the right height for
no-shim coupler mounting. Use that to see if your cars have
the right floor height. If they're too high, go buy some
plastic sheet stock that it at least as thick as the
difference (I keep a couple of different thicknesses on
hand, for different car manufacturers). Use your Dremel to
grind down the sheet if it's too thick. If they're too low,
go convert some other cars first.
Put your car in the foam cradle (this helps more than it
sounds!). Glue the shim onto the car floor at the end.
Use just enough glue to tack this in place; we don't need a
structural bond here, and you may have have to tear it off
later. Line up one edge of the plastic with the end of the
car floor. Let this dry.
Lay the coupler on the plastic, with the flange hooked over
the end of the plastic (hence the lining up above), being
careful to center the coupler (this is the hardest part -- I
use my finest ruler, splitting the distance between the
sides of the car floor). Use the clearance bit to *start*
the hole, locating it through the mounting hole in the
coupler (the clearance bit just fits this hole, so there's
less slop in the hole location). Remove the coupler, switch
to the other bit (not the tap, I forget what they call it)
and drill through the plastic and the car floor. Keeping
the drill perpendicular to the floor is important. Switch
to the tap and tap the hole. Screw on the coupler. Check
it against the standard gauge.
If you mess up, pry off the shim plastic (hence the minimal
glue) and start again. Somebody on the net proposed using
rubber cement for the tryout stages; this makes sense to me,
if you can make a really thin layer. The screw is really
what's holding everything together anyway; the glue it to
keep it together while you drill, tap, and screw on the
coupler, and to help keep everything from rotating around
the screw.
This gets easier than it sounds, believe me.
When I started converting a single-manufacturer car fleet, I
made lots of shim pieces without the cars, pre-drilling the
holes. This means less fiddling on the underside of the
car, and batch manufacturing of things like this is often
easier than doing eighteen different things in a row. I'm
really lazy, and I always look for ways to keep my interest
up and for improvements to my own manufacturing processes.
As you get more comfortable with this process, you'll find
that different coupler models have different mounting
heights, shank lengths, and spring arrangements. Don't rush
it. Do the easy ones first.
For low-floor cars, you need a different coupler model,
which will require hand-assembly.
I've built some coupler assembly jigs to aid that work;
generally, they are a piece of scrap wood, a track nail with
the head nipped off, and a groove in the wood for the trip
pin, all arranged to hold the pieces in place.
You may want to experiment with close-coupling for that
passenger car fleet; you may want to do this with other
coupler models, without the flange, and with the spring in
the other direction (changes the slack action); this means
more care taken in lining up and centering.
>Besides, I am
>still learning how to work with things in such a small scale - 1:160 is
>rather tiny to me still. I have rather large hands, and find doing such small
>work both physically and mentally demanding. Although I enjoy doing demanding
>things, it's tough to do after working 12-16 hours each weekday. This is NOT
>something I want to tackle while already tired.
Right -- steady hands are required. Othersize, frustration
sets in, that that's not the idea at all. Go read Trains or
MR.
I scavenged a circle lamp with a lens -- my last job was
downsizing and they sold off some office furniture. That
helps quite a bit, but you notice even more how HUGE and
CLUMSY your fingers are, that scar where you soldered your
fingertip to the track last year, the grime under your
fingernails, etc...
Good luck! I hope this helps!
Dennis
--
Dennis Rockwell den...@osf.org
Open Software Foundation Voice: +1-617-621-7268
Research Institute Fax: +1-617-621-8696
Jonathan T Grout
r
>ites:
>>
>> The reason *I* don't body mount my couplers is basically that I am
>>SCARED TO DEATH of attempting it.
>
>Same here. It took me years of thinking about it before I
>really started doing it. I joined an operating HO club
>(yes, I model in N scale), and that really sold me on the
>value of it. *That* is what finally pushed me over to
>actually doing it.
>
>I went through all this within the last year, so I'll be
>glad to help out.
>
>>I KNOW I don't have either the knowledge OR
>>the tooling to do the job properly, and have never SEEN it done (yet...still
>
[One HULLUVASET (WOW!) of directions deleted to save virtual space]
>
>>Besides, I am
>>still learning how to work with things in such a small scale - 1:160 is
>>rather tiny to me still. I have rather large hands, and find doing such small
>>work both physically and mentally demanding. Although I enjoy doing demanding
>>things, it's tough to do after working 12-16 hours each weekday. This is NOT
>>something I want to tackle while already tired.
>
>Right -- steady hands are required. Othersize, frustration
>sets in, that that's not the idea at all. Go read Trains or
>MR.
>
>I scavenged a circle lamp with a lens -- my last job was
>downsizing and they sold off some office furniture. That
>helps quite a bit, but you notice even more how HUGE and
>CLUMSY your fingers are, that scar where you soldered your
>fingertip to the track last year, the grime under your
>fingernails, etc...
>
>Good luck! I hope this helps!
Well, it has ALREADY made it into the "DON'T EVER DELETE THIS FILE"
category! With the way the FAQ has become fragmented (no slam on the current
maintainer of the FAQ intended - I *think* the problem lies at MY end!) I
have given up hope of ever getting a coherent copy of it again, so this will
fill in quite nicely. Thank you, Dennis. Oh, and thanks for the tip about
MicroTrains cars...I only have one (so far) and haven't even had a chance to
RUN it yet. (see the Help! I have DMRS! collection of articles if you're
curious why).
>
>Dennis
>--
>Dennis Rockwell den...@osf.org
>Open Software Foundation Voice: +1-617-621-7268
>Research Institute Fax: +1-617-621-8696
>
____ __ ____
/ __ \ / /__ / __ \
/ / / /______ ______ / // / / /_/ /______ ______
/ / / // ____// ____// _ / / __ // __ // ____/
/ /_/ // __/_ / /___ / /| | / / / // /_/ // __/_
/_____//_____//_____//_/ |_|/_/ /_// ____//_____/
/ /
/_/
John Colombo
[stuff deleted]
A couple of very helpful sources on body mounting are the Micro Trains coupler
conversion handbook, just recently published. It has information on all the
available MT couplers, loco conversions, and how to convert different
manufacturer's rolling stock. Available at hobby shops that stock MT stuff,
or directly from them for $15 or so.
Second, Railmodel Journal has just published a soft-cover book on N scale
modeling techniques. I got this just yesterday, and it contains a number of
articles from RMJ on body-mounting MT couplers (beware, however, that some of
the information is not entirely correct. For example, one article shows using
the cut-off coupler pocket from an MT 1000 truck on an MT boxcar; while
this will work, the recommended coupler for MT rolling stock is the #1027;
this article also talks about using a 1023 (assembled)/1025 (kit) on MT cars,
but this coupler does not produce the proper coupler height on MT rolling
stock). With these few exceptions, the articles are well-written and
excellently illustrated, showing virtually all the necessary techniques.
The only really difficult part of the process is ensuring that you mount the
coupler dead on the center line of the carbody. The best way I've found to
help with this is to paint the underside of the body where you will mount the
coupler some color (say, blue); after the color dries, use a hobby knife to
draw a line through the painted color at the carbody centerline. The hobby
knife will cut through the paint, producing a black (or, if you have used a
styrene shim, white) line at the centerline of the underbody. Another way to
do it, if you are in less of a hurry, is to put the coupler on with a thin
(emphasis on the thin) coat of rubber cement such as Walthers GOO (keep the
cement toward the back end of the coupler to avoid getting it in the coupler
mechanism). This cement stays pliable long enough for you to get the coupler
perfectly aligned. Then let it dry overnight, and the next day you can drill
your mounting hole through the coupler hole into the underbody, drive your
screw, and you're home. BTW, I have found it unnecessary (in fact, useless)
to tap plastic underbodies; just use the # 61 drill to drill a hole, and let
the 00-90 screw self tap through the plastic. Don't overtighten, or you'll
strip the plastic.
John Colombo
Eric Jacobsen
>In article <2ppcnd$h...@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> wad...@faraday.ece.cmu.edu (William Adams) writes:
>>
>Kadee makes special adaptor parts to fit #5-type couplers to Life Like/Tyco/
>Bachmann trains. I believe the #28 coupler includes these parts.
>
>Elson
Is #28 the coupler that has that I-shaped talgo adapter thing that you place
over the little pin on the truck-mounted coupler? If not, which number is
that. Also, what would be best to use to mount Kadee's on:
1) Old (1977?) Bachman "F7"
2) Old (1977?) AHM "FM Locomotive" -- Couplers mount WAY too low in
the trucks
3) Athearn Locomotives: What is the best way to elevate the
couplers if they are too low? Should I
try to mount the Kadee Draft Gear Box on
the Athearn coupler mounting peg?
Thanks!
Eric J.
--
***************************************************************************
* Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they will be called Sons of God *
* --Matthew 5:9 *
*************************** jaco...@mc.edu *******************************
William Adams
Stop that laughing. :-) As a first-ever attempt at engine detailing/painting,
I'm using an old LifeLike E-unit that I had no other use for. I am painting
it in our club's livery, and will be running it with Kaydee equipped stock
for a while (it will probably be permanently parked in a yard when/if the
power shortage ends).
The point: I cannot find a way to mount a Kaydee on the rear (having the
engine pointing forwards is greatly preferred). Frame, shell, and truck
mounting all appear hopeless.
Has anyone tried this or should I just trim the horn hook to mate with
Kadees and declare stalemate?
Elson R. Trinidad
>I'm using an old LifeLike E-unit that I had no other use for. I am painting
>it in our club's livery, and will be running it with Kaydee equipped stock
>for a while (it will probably be permanently parked in a yard when/if the
>power shortage ends).
>Has anyone tried this or should I just trim the horn hook to mate with
>Kadees and declare stalemate?
Kadee makes special adaptor parts to fit #5-type couplers to Life Like/Tyco/
Bachmann trains. I believe the #28 coupler includes these parts.
I used to have (well still have, just out of commission and its coupler
salvaged) a Life Like F40PH and successfully used these couplers on the
loco. Worked fine. The loco's motor was another story. :)
Elson
-- 30 --
etri...@scf.usc.edu
Elson Trinidad * University of Southern California, Los Angeles CA
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
____________________________________________________ Metro Blue Line
________ ______________________>__ Los Angeles Metrolink
[]_[]||[| |]||[]_[]_[]|||[]_[]_[]||[| Metro Rail Metro Red Line
===o-o==/_\==o-o======o-o======o-o==/______(M)_______ Metro Green Line (1994)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::