In this most recent N scale insight, Mr. Kelly discusses body mounting couplers on N scale cars. I’ve been debating this, does it improve the performance of the rolling stock(by a lot) if the couplers are body mounted?
that being said, those atlas trash cars that had body mounts were very nitpicky about radius of tracks. much like my SP&S business car #99 and CB&Q heavyweight sleeper “pocomoke” neither would make it around a 9.75" curve but on a 19" curve they go around like butter on toast.
I run Nscale models from more than 40 years and adding MT couplers on all my equipment.
There is no doubt about body mount couplers are better than truck couplers.
The push force act on the frame of the car and not on the truck which could cause derailment in curves.
However body mount couplers need broad curves, nothing under 17"curves and more if feasable.
Anyway body munt couplers is better and prototypical.
Marc from Belgium
LION runs HO scale in push/pull service. Power cars are in the middle, so every trip has lead cars being pushed. Have to be body mounted.
ROAR
yeah, I’d really like to swap all of my stuff over to body mounts re-using some couplers and installing new MTL’s onto non MTL equipped cars.
N scale cars that are models of modern equipment are often longer than an HO 40 foot boxcar, so the trash cars probably aren’t designed for 9.75" radius turns. In addition, the overhang on longer cars can cause problems when coupled to shorter cars or cars with truck-mounted couplers. The difference in coupler positions on the curve can pull one of the two cars off of the track. I have had problems in HO with 40’ boxcars coupled to passenger cars when going around an 18" radius curve (comparable to 9.75" in N.) I don’t run modern equipment, but I can easily see a similar problem with the trash cars in N scale.
My recommendation would be to get body mounted couplers and increase the radius on which you operate your trains to at least 12".
S&S
yes, the radius for my cars on my next layout will atleast be 19" maybe bigger because a 4 foot distance would be a really big curve and a waste of space. my equipment is a mix of modern, transition, and 2/3rd generation of dieseldom. a majority of my fleet is passenger service(at the moment) once the layout starts I’ll get more freight cars as I go.
Another point of view…
When I was in N I started body mounting the couplers on my N Scale cars and did a whoa up after the first 15 or 16…I soon found out the MT coupler slinky action increase…[banghead] I then doubled checked and sure enough my FVM cars with their body mounts slinked just as bad.
So,I decided to leave things be since the slink was slightly less with the truck mounts…I had no issues(not counting the slinky action) switching cars on my dining room table yard switching layout…No worries I’m a bachelor and was using Kato Unitrack.
I’m an N scaler who converted a few years ago from HO due to the radius issue in that scale. I learned that to be happy in HO scale, you have no business having 18" radius curves on your layout unless you’re modeling narrow gauge or early steam era where every car was shorter than 40’.
Today I’m a happy N scaler with 18" radius curves. I can run anything with body-mounted couplers on my layout.
Similarly in N-scale, the absolute minimum radius you should have if you want to run body mounts and modern-era is 15". Any less and you’ll be hating life, or thinking about converting to Z scale.
Why the NMRA doesn’t make manufacturers list the minimum radius of rolling stock on the package is beyond me. But I’m glad I left HO scale and I’m never going back.
I notice that on short 5-6 car trains, I don’t mind it as much I look at it like a more realistic action. I agree about the NMRA having manufacturers out min. radii but don’t manufacturers do this?
For me that is a tad to much slack action.
I agree about the NMRA having manufacturers out min. radii but don’t manufacturers do this?
Yes,the manufacturers and NMRA members hash out the current standards years ago…
Oh boy…I’m stepping into hot water here.
The lesson I learned with my last 5 years in N scale is the problem with N Scale is N scalers…N Scale been around 50 years and we still don’t have that many standards and RP and the MT coupler leaves a lot to be desired due to the slinky action.Yet,when the subject comes up on the needed improvements-body mount couplers as a standard,a improved coupler etc - on N Scale forums mayhem breaks loose.As you may know C55 vs.C80 is still a hot topic as is pizza cutters vs. lowpros.
I still like N Scale but,the slinky action at slow switching was a deal breaker.
So there’s no doubts.
BRAKIE,
The problems with truck mounted couplers come up when running long mainline trains or pushing long (20 car) cuts. Your dining room layout sounds really neat. Wish I could get away with something like that…
METRO,
Thank you for your concern about 18" radius curves. My planned layout will use 22" radius, and my 18" experience comes from some sectional track that I’ve occasionally set up.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN.
The 19" radius curves sound great! The trains will run well around those curves and they will look very realistic.
S&S
The most I shoved was 18 cars through a Kato #6 switch and didn’t have any problems at slow switching speeds…
Anyway.
There’s gotta be a way to design a better “slinkless” coupler…I was hoping the McHenry with the knuckle spring would become a workable coupler but,it didn’t work out that way…I had one of those couplers on a Athearn boxcar that became distorted while shoving 8 or 9 cars.Terrible.
hmmmmm, I think I’d have to agree with you we’re holding ourselves back. I need to start pushing harder so manufacturers will start spitting out more models, that aren’t seen unless they are done custom. like the NCL, some SP&S, GP20D’s, etc. to be honest, I’m going to build my upcoming layout with C55 and hope to switch to lowpro style wheels. maybe I could talk about it in my next YT video, got lot’s of N scale subscribers. Nice Locomotives by the way!
As I reported I body mount all my couplers on my Nscale roster, use only MT couplers and weight all the cars following NMRA rules + 2% adding wheight where it’s possible to fit.
I am also in the way to really load my hoppers whith coal, See the WPF of this WE. I make many try these last times whith loaded cars to see how it perform before running them into operation.The wheight of this loaded cars is more than 30% of NMRA rules. At this point running them in scretch of 18 cars whith loco (my Yard minimal track lenght ) didn’t show any troubles when running in reverse and on curves.
I didn’t have trouble whith the slinky action, may be because of the use of 18" minimum radius whith a medium use of 22" and some over; this is one of the greatest asset of Nscale, the use of broad curves in small space. Another thing to mention, modeling in the years -1935-45 my cars are only 40 foot cars and 33foot hoppers.
I firmly beleive in the relation between broad curves and body mount couplers, to run train foward and reverse whithout problems. This include the use of a minimal n°8 turnout on mainline, you could accept n°6 in yard however but nothing smaller.(these are the size used on my layout).
I forget to mention perfect track and all wheels in perfect gauge are menbers of the relation mentionned upside.
Marc
What standard do you think is missing that is present in HO?
yeah, I want to switch but I gotta get the layout built first. passenger trains are definite for body mounts, my Con cor cars are very pick.
[^o)]
hold up I don’t remember saying that, I do believe that was brakie who said that.
LOL