TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: tom mann on August 15, 2015, 06:54:12 PM
-
Is anyone else combining BLMA 100 ton trucks with 33" wheels? I've been doing this to quickly lower Microtrains boxcars.
-
Yes, I Am, does a great job of making the car look lowered without throwing off the overall look.
Does well on Autoracks too.
-
Interesting...so what are you doing with the wheels (36"?) from the 100-ton trucks?
-
Since BLMA makes 70 ton trucks, is there a reason for using the 100 ton?
-
Going from memory but I believe:
70-ton trucks have 33" wheels
100-ton trucks have 36" wheels
-
Ryan: You're right, but what I was wondering was "Why go to the trouble of putting 33 inch wheels in 100 ton trucks, instead of using 70 ton trucks that already have 33 inch wheels." I assume there is a reason, but can't figure out what it would be.
I made "100 ton" trucks by putting 36 inch wheels in old MDC 70 ton trucks, but that was because I didn't have proper 100 ton trucks. That shouldn't be a problem here, since BLMA makes both. In fact, my favorite dealer has the 70 ton trucks in stock, but not the 100 ton. I need a pair of those for a tank car, and haven't been able to find them. The Atlas, and my MDC, trucks have the "standard" bolster height, and I need the lower BLMA trucks. It's currently riding on a pair of 70 ton.
-
Yes normally 70t trucks would use 33" wheels and 100t would use 36" wheels, but for my purposes, I keep the trucks what they should be, per car type, but I want to give it a more lowered look ill use 33" in my 100t, trust me it doesn't look to bad under a autorack which makes the 100t look small already....
As for my 36" wheels that I swap, I put them in other trucks that might be under cars that use 36" wheels but are equipped with MT wheels.
-
Ah, so your reason is to lower the 100 ton trucks a little extra, not to make models of lower capacity trucks. That makes sense.
-
Lowering a scale 1.5" :D
That's about a quarter of a millimeter.
-
Lol yep! You'd be surprised but its noticeable standing still next to another car by the same manufacturer with stock trucks. :D
Or at least to me anyways... 8)
Also @nkalanaga yes, if I wanted lower cap. Trucks I would use the 70t... Thank goodness there's not a 85t truck... I'd go insane...
-
I'm doing it to get a different spring package (i.e., 3 outward springs).
-
I'm doing it to get a different spring package (i.e., 3 outward springs).
Keep in mind that 100T trucks are larger than 70T trucks. Having 3 outward springs may be one step forward, but it's at the expense of going two steps backward in having an oversized truck with wheels that are too small...
CJM
-
Tom: That also makes sense. My MDC trucks have the three springs, but they also have the "standard" bolster height, so wouldn't work for you. Maybe BLMA can be talked into making the 3-spring version of the 70 ton trucks? They weren't rare.
-
Is anyone else combining BLMA 100 ton trucks with 33" wheels? I've been doing this to quickly lower Microtrains boxcars.
I did that with the TrueLine newsprint boxcars, to lower them and to represent a config that closer resembled the prototype.
-
Keep in mind that 100T trucks are larger than 70T trucks. Having 3 outward springs may be one step forward, but it's at the expense of going two steps backward in having an oversized truck with wheels that are too small...
CJM
What he said. To my eye the truck would look a little "funny". That said, this hobby is full of compromises.
Mark
-
Here are the 100 ASF trucks with 33" wheels installed on the newsprint boxcar. Doesn't look out of place and the truck appearance now resembles the prototype.
(http://www.bbussey.net/rr/0811_np1.jpg)
-
Here are the 100 ASF trucks with 33" wheels installed on the newsprint boxcar. Doesn't look out of place and the truck appearance now resembles the prototype.
(http://www.bbussey.net/rr/0811_np1.jpg)
In fairness, a pair of MTL trucks would keep a load of newsprint dry if there was a flood :D
Given this car does have "flood proof" bolsters that force a compromise to be made, it's my personal opinion that the larger size of the 100T trucks is the best disguise for any "oversized" 36" wheelsets on a 70T car.
-
I've been using BLMA truck and Fox Valley wide tread wheels for all of my body mounting project. Lowers them nicely.
-
Yeah, there is a compromise with everything I guess. The advantage with BLMA trucks is you can lower your MT cars without filing the metal frame. Doing this puts the frame at a height that allows for a Z scale coupler to be mounted without modifications. But currently, you need the 100 ton truck to get the 3 visible spring option.
This is one that I did:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/Gallery/_DSC3879.jpg)
Maybe @Craig Martyn can chime in here and let us know when a 70 ton version will be available. :tommann:
-
This is one that I did:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/Gallery/_DSC3879.jpg)
Maybe @Craig Martyn can chime in here and let us know when a 70 ton version will be available. :tommann:
Per the Golden West numbering system, "764" = SP/SSW B-70-64, or FMC 5283 with a Hydra-Cushion underframe. Some were rebuilt with 12' plug doors, which means the MDC/Athearn model (Plate C, 12' door) is going to be a better starting point than the Microtrains car (Plate B, 10' door).
The person that makes the nice Hydra-Cushion underframes is on this list :)
-
And I have some of those very underframes...
-
Here are the 100 ASF trucks with 33" wheels installed on the newsprint boxcar. Doesn't look out of place and the truck appearance now resembles the prototype.
(http://www.bbussey.net/rr/0811_np1.jpg)
With the plain background & no track it's rather hard for me to discern the difference in the ride height. The finer flanges are a big plus, but the over-scale coupler jumps out more to my eye than a 1.5 scale inch difference in the wheels.
Ed
-
so, if I understand this correctly
a car riding on 70 ton trucks and 333" wheels
rides higher from the rail than one with
100 ton truck and 33" wheels?
I also noticed that 100 ton trucks are with the contemporary and diesel era
I guess that limits me on my early 50's era
interesting thread
hope I can find an alternative to lower the MTL box cars
sincerely--
Gary
-
With the plain background & no track it's rather hard for me to discern the difference in the ride height. The finer flanges are a big plus, but the over-scale coupler jumps out more to my eye than a 1.5 scale inch difference in the wheels.
It's not just the wheels. It's also the lower height of the bolster beam on the BLMA trucks juxtaposed with those on the MTL trucks.
With a fleet of close to 1,000 pieces of equipment with MTL or MTL-compatible N scale couplers, I'm not changing. I went through the roster upgrade in the 1980s, when I had far fewer in quantity, and it was still costly. Can't afford to attempt such a task in the present.
-
... interesting thread
hope I can find an alternative to lower the MTL box cars
BLMA's ASF A-3 friction-bearing 70-ton trucks and Atlas' Barber S-2A friction-bearing 50-ton trucks will lower MTL cars appropriately.
-
With a fleet of close to 1,000 pieces of equipment with MTL or MTL-compatible N scale couplers, I'm not changing.
Yep that would be a tall order, even for the Proto-Mates (presuming they ever come out and live up to expectations).
This particular photo with the plain background does sort of emphasize them, but the good news is that the couplers tend to be less noticeable in a running train on the layout.
(The slinky effect of that many MTs in a long train would be a deal-breaker for me. I would rather change over the couplers even if it means having way less than 1000 cars.... to each his own of course ;) )
Ed
-
And I have some of those very underframes...
They're great for the Fox Valley Models FMC 5283, and I've also used them on FVM 7 post cars decorated as cars built by PCF for GN (vs the similar cars built by Berwick for GN that would need the ESM Keystone underframe instead)
-
With the plain background & no track it's rather hard for me to discern the difference in the ride height. The finer flanges are a big plus, but the over-scale coupler jumps out more to my eye than a 1.5 scale inch difference in the wheels.
Ed
Here's the "flood proof" version (with MTL trucks):
http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/True-Line-Trains-p/tlt-600060.htm (http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/True-Line-Trains-p/tlt-600060.htm)
-
Here's the "flood proof" version (with MTL trucks):
Yow that thing could have kept Noah safe. :facepalm:
It just blows my mind some times to think that in this day & age and considering what some models cost, that modelers still have to replace trucks, change wheelsets, file bolsters, convert couplers, etc. just to obtain a model that looks more like a representation of its prototype and less like a caricature. It's not as if there aren't plenty of other interesting modeling tasks to do. Thankfully, in some cases at least, things are moving in the right direction.
Ed
-
It just blows my mind some times to think that in this day & age and considering what some models cost, that modelers still have to replace trucks, change wheelsets, file bolsters, convert couplers, etc. just to obtain a model that looks more like a representation of its prototype and less like a caricature.
Up until factory body mounted couplers there were three options to designing a car. Make it ride high to clear the truck mounted couplers, notch the ends of the car to clear the coupler so the car could ride the correct height (thus making the ends unprototypical and impossible to fix), compromise the height of the car.
Of those, I'll take a car riding too high every time.
It has surprised me that no one has ever offered some sort of exchange service for MTL floors.
Jason
-
The slinky effect of that many MTs in a long train would be a deal-breaker for me. I would rather change over the couplers even if it means having way less than 1000 cars.... to each his own of course ;)
Depends on the times, Ed. In 1980, that was not only the best option but the only option in upgrading from Rapido couplers. The oscillation was solved by adding retaining springs to the wheels. We are now 35 years removed from then, so understandably there are better alternatives now. Though I went through not only upgrading the couplers but also body-mounting and lowering much of the fleet to proper ride height. The coupler knuckle size is only part of the issue.
-
Up until factory body mounted couplers there were three options to designing a car. Make it ride high to clear the truck mounted couplers, notch the ends of the car to clear the coupler so the car could ride the correct height (thus making the ends unprototypical and impossible to fix), compromise the height of the car.
Of those, I'll take a car riding too high every time.
It has surprised me that no one has ever offered some sort of exchange service for MTL floors.
There is no money in it, unfortunately.
-
Yow that thing could have kept Noah safe. :facepalm:
It just blows my mind some times to think that in this day & age and considering what some models cost, that modelers still have to replace trucks, change wheelsets, file bolsters, convert couplers, etc. just to obtain a model that looks more like a representation of its prototype and less like a caricature. It's not as if there aren't plenty of other interesting modeling tasks to do. Thankfully, in some cases at least, things are moving in the right direction.
Ed
Couldn't agree more it's ridiculous, the thing I don't understand is why the larger scales instead wouldnt have this problem as the typical layout in HO has tighter radii relatively speaking than N. I'm just glad manufacturers have changed things in N regarding ride height and coupler mounting.
-
It has surprised me that no one has ever offered some sort of exchange service for MTL floors.
Jason
That assumes you have a MTL car that's worth the trouble. Their 40' and 50' PS-1's are inferior to the Atlas (40') and MDC/Athearn (50') PS-1's, and Atlas has announced a N scale FMC 5077 that should be a major improvement over the MTL model.
-
BLMA's ASF A-3 friction-bearing 70-ton trucks and Atlas' Barber S-2A friction-bearing 50-ton trucks will lower MTL cars appropriately.
Does Atlas have any plans to offer these trucks as separate parts? I have plenty of IMRC cars that could use them....
-
I believe so, but anyone who wants to see the Barber trucks as a separate item should make his/her intentions known.
-
That assumes you have a MTL car that's worth the trouble. Their 40' and 50' PS-1's are inferior to the Atlas
Hey look, a new guy. :)
Jason
-
Yeah, there is a compromise with everything I guess. The advantage with BLMA trucks is you can lower your MT cars without filing the metal frame. Doing this puts the frame at a height that allows for a Z scale coupler to be mounted without modifications. But currently, you need the 100 ton truck to get the 3 visible spring option.
This is one that I did:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/Gallery/_DSC3879.jpg)
Maybe @Craig Martyn can chime in here and let us know when a 70 ton version will be available. :tommann:
But you'd need to make modifications for the coupler - that car should have extended draft gear! ;)
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=528630
Great job on that car, but I guess Railwire is poisoning my mind and I keep noticing more things. Not that I don't have models with incorrect couplers or anything.
Mark
-
Actually, the whole metal wheel/ride height/coupler/truck issue with N scale is what got me into HO. I could pick up some HO clearance items at MBK for ~$15 and they were awesome right out of the gate. It's not like I'm not into "work", but I would rather start at "weathering" than "filing bolsters".
But that was 10 years ago, and things are much better in N now - at least the parts are there for retrofitting, and almost all the new stuff is correct.
-
Actually, the whole metal wheel/ride height/coupler/truck issue with N scale is what got me into HO. I could pick up some HO clearance items at MBK for ~$15 and they were awesome right out of the gate.
I understand and keep almost going there myself. I'll probably end up picking up some HO stuff eventually just because its cool out of the gate.
-
Actually, the whole metal wheel/ride height/coupler/truck issue with N scale is what got me into HO.
For me it was the slinky couplers that nearly drove me out of N (actually it did for a time). It would be too frustrating, to put hours of effort into lowering, painting, detailing, and weathering models only to put them on the layout and watch them bounce back & forth disconcertingly like toys. Thankfully, Gary found out about the LEZ (a.k.a. Full Throttle) couplers. Even tho it still takes work to convert couplers, N scale has enough other benefits to make it worth the effort.
Ed
-
I'll probably end up picking up some HO stuff eventually just because its cool out of the gate.
PM me if you would like any HO stuff, very lightly used but in great shape and at an ever better price. ;)
Ed
-
For me it was the slinky couplers that nearly drove me out of N (actually it did for a time). It would be too frustrating, to put hours of effort into lowering, painting, detailing, and weathering models only to put them on the layout and watch them bounce back & forth disconcertingly like toys. Thankfully, Gary found out about the LEZ (a.k.a. Full Throttle) couplers. Even tho it still takes work to convert couplers, N scale has enough other benefits to make it worth the effort.
Ed
The one thing that scares me about using the LEZ/FT coupler, is that he/they could stop providing them to us separately, and the etchings are also a 1 man show(you!)...I would hate to have a fleet half converted and then have to find another solution...A few months back we were drooling over someones (Jim Six?) very nice proto looking N scale coupler, and you in particular were trying to drum up support. At the time, I said with NZT and another which I can't think of now coming we should probably wait...I now eat those words, as neither seems to be any closer to reality.
Why can't we get a better coupler option for N scale?.....It is sorely needed..For now, I've(mostly) converted to Accumates to eliminate the slinky, and although they are still oversize, stopping the slinky has made a huge difference, enough for me to stay in N scale and not go (back) to HO...
-
With MT going to body mounted couplers on many of their new cars, it wouldn't be hard for them to lower their older ones. Just retool the floor with a lower bolster and a mounting hole in the right place for a 1015 or 1025 coupler (they use the same hole). The tooling needs to be repaired periodically anyway, so it could be done as part of the normal maintenance cycle.
It wouldn't solve the body detail issues, but most people seem to accept the body inaccuracies better than the excess height.
-
Why can't we get a better coupler option for N scale?
I think the huge reason is compatibility with the existing knuckle couplers. Nobody wants to make a good-looking and almost-scale size coupler which will not mate with the millions of other knuckle couplers out there. If you are willing to abandon the existing coupler compatibility, make a true-scale N scale coupler (and convert hundreds of the models you already own and be prepared to convert any new model you buy) then go and make that coupler. But I have a feeling that not many modelers will buy your scale-coupler. So, you won't make much profit and you will go out of business. There are other reasons (like reliability of a smaller coupler) but I think that compatibility is the big one.
Just look at H0 scale which is much more popular than N. Sergent Engineering makes a true-scale H0 coupler (http://www.sergentengineering.com/) . Yes, they are still in business, but how many H0 layouts have you seen where those couplers are used?
-
then go and make that coupler. But I have a feeling that not many modelers will buy your scale-coupler.
:RUEffinKiddingMe:
First, I will not be producing any couplers, ever. I don't know why you would say it like that. And would you somehow find it offensive if someone does?...You might be happy with the slinky effect, but I get the feeling that many are not, just read some of the previous posts in this thread!
Secondly, who says there are compatibility issues? ...I am talking about the need for more in-scale couplers, which seems like an obvious, and overdue, step in the quest for more in-scale N scale models. If the FT couplers can work, so can whatever else comes along, and I'm sure the imaginary(so far) coupler would take that into consideration.
If we didn't push for it, we'd still be getting rapido's on new rolling stock...But, if you still want to use them you have that option...The same would still be true if we get another coupler....
I seem to recall that the FT couplers held more weight than even MTs own z scale coupler without breaking. I guess we'll have to wait and see what "my" imaginary coupler will hold..
However, as I previously stated, I am converting to Accu-Mates, and not holding my breath for another option to arrive anytime soon....
-
Pete is right — unless the resulting design will mate with the existing MTLs and MTL-compatibles, it would be impossible to make an injection-molded scale coupler and be profitable. It took 30 years for the MTL coupler to supplant the Rapido coupler, and during much of that time, Kadee/MTL offered their cars with both coupler types. Even today, MTL still offers the Bettendorf truck with Rapido coupler. So offering a mass-market scale coupler in this day and age that doesn't mate with the existing couplers is a money-losing venture.
-
Pete is right — unless the resulting design will mate with the existing MTLs and MTL-compatibles, it would be impossible to make an injection-molded scale coupler and be profitable. It took 30 years for the MTL coupler to supplant the Rapido coupler, and during much of that time, Kadee/MTL offered their cars with both coupler types. Even today, MTL still offers the Bettendorf truck with Rapido coupler. So offering a mass-market scale coupler in this day and age that doesn't mate with the existing couplers is a money-losing venture.
Secondly, who says there are compatibility issues? ..
and I'm sure the imaginary(so far) coupler would take that into consideration.
-
The huge mistake I made was interpreting coosvalley's post incorrectly. I thought he was looking for a true-scale-size (like Sergent in H0). I assumed that because we already have several oversize N scale knuckle couplers available, and couple more in the pipeline. But it now appears that all coosvalley is looking for is a slightly smaller version of a coupler like McHenry. Meh.
I also doubt that some pressure from modelers made manufacturers of U.S. prototype N scale models convert to knuckle couplers (as rest of the world still happily uses Rapidos). Again, the big breakthrough was expiration of Micro-Train/Kadee patents for knuckle couplers. Once that happened, manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon of making similar (but less expensive and not as good) couplers and then the manufacturers started using those in their models.
-
It wasn't pressure from modelers per se. It was the consumers speaking with their dollars in showing their overwhelming preference for equipment RTR with the MTL coupler over those with the Rapido coupler. While the expiration of the patents have allowed various MTL coupler clones to appear, there remain a number of MTL-compatible couplers on the market that are not based on the MTL design. Atlas, Bachmann, Kato and Athearn are prime examples, with at least Atlas and Kato migrating to knuckle couplers well before MTL's patents expired.
-
It wasn't pressure from modelers per se. It was the consumers speaking with their dollars in showing their overwhelming preference for equipment RTR with the MTL coupler over those with the Rapido coupler.
Which manufacturers (other then MTL) were offering a choice of models with either Rapido or MTL coupler? Before the patent expired that is.
What I'm confused about is that I thought that N scale Accumates were produced after the MTL patent expired. And I also do not recall Kato making the same model available in 2 choices of couplers allowing modelers to chose which coupler they preferred. I'm also not considering the non-automatic couplers (which probably didn't violate the patent rules).
-
The one thing that scares me about using the LEZ/FT coupler, is that he/they could stop providing them to us separately, and the etchings are also a 1 man show(you!)...I would hate to have a fleet half converted and then have to find another solution...A few months back we were drooling over someones (Jim Six?) very nice proto looking N scale coupler, and you in particular were trying to drum up support. At the time, I said with NZT and another which I can't think of now coming we should probably wait...I now eat those words, as neither seems to be any closer to reality.
Why can't we get a better coupler option for N scale?.....It is sorely needed..For now, I've(mostly) converted to Accumates to eliminate the slinky, and although they are still oversize, stopping the slinky has made a huge difference, enough for me to stay in N scale and not go (back) to HO...
There were several recent attempts at an N scale coupler that I can recall: the DKS/NZT Protomate, the Charlie Vlk coupler, and the Brian Banna Sergent-like coupler. FWIW I don't seem to recall attempting to "drum up support" for any of these (not even sure what that really means anyways) but I can think several reasons why you don't (and won't any time soon) see the broad adoption of a new coupler:
- The existing ones are "good enough" for most N-scalers.
- Most N-scalers are not interested in anything that is incompatible.
- Most N scalers are not interested in taking on significant conversion projects.
- Manufacturers would be unwilling to install a new coupler on their products.
- A truly 'scale' coupler (like a Sergent) would be too small for many modelers to operate (or even see in some cases)
- Investment cost and lack of ROI are significant obstacles.
While it's true that the LEZ is one person, he does have an active presence in the Z scale market so it seems somewhat unlikely that this would just suddenly dry up (which of course could happen to any one, any time -- we did have the scare on that when it looked for a while like his tooling had gone kaput). I've hedged on that by stockpiling enough couplers to last me for a while if it ever does come to that. The etched pocket that I did was (and remains) a personal project and was never intended to reach any kind of market. If others are interested, great, but the fact there too is that I've never seen anyone else other than Gary post pics of their conversions (and I still have leftover frets of parts that nobody wanted). All that being said, etchings are hardly rocket science and it certainly would not be hard or costly for anyone to come up with something similar.
I think one piece of this whole situation is that there is no one-size-fits-all when to comes to couplers. Perhaps ongoing improvements with 3D printing will lead to some additional options in the near future.
Ed
-
I have a feeling that not many modelers will buy your scale-coupler. So, you won't make much profit ....
You could make a small fortune... the only catch is, you would have to start with a big one :D
Ed
-
Which manufacturers (other then MTL) were offering a choice of models with either Rapido or MTL coupler? Before the patent expired that is.
What I'm confused about is that I thought that N scale Accumates were produced after the MTL patent expired. And I also do not recall Kato making the same model available in 2 choices of couplers allowing modelers to chose which coupler they preferred. I'm also not considering the non-automatic couplers (which probably didn't violate the patent rules).
I didn't say there were manufacturers other than MTL that offered both MTL-compatible and Rapido couplers. I said that there were manufacturers that started offering MTL-compatible couplers before the MTL patents expired. The Accu-Mates were designed specifically to operate differently than the KD/MTL design in order to compete without violating the patent.
-
Yea, I should have been more clear myself...I am really just hoping for a more in scale coupler that would not only be compatible, but closer to scale. I wouldn't say I'm looking for a smaller McHenry (I call them McHUGEy's). Actually, the best solution I have seen is the FT/etch conversions by Ednadolski and Gary. The best sounding solution, to me, was the Protomate, which remains to be seen whether or not it will happen(coming in 2014! :facepalm:).
In another thread Bryan mentioned that MT could have made themselves a rigid shank combined with their knuckle, thus avoiding the patent expiration, and given themselves a no slinky, automatic uncoupling, and patent-able option. That would have been pretty sweet..Someone dropped the ball there!..
@ednadolski -- "trying to drum up support' may not have been the best choice of words. It was during the discussion about B. Banna's coupler, and I merely mentioned that with new couplers that were coming, I'd rather wait and see if the protomate/C.VLK options were any better before supporting a 3rd new option...And you said that they may end up never coming, which, is kinda what happened--so far.
-
Yea, I should have been more clear myself...I am really just hoping for a more in scale coupler that would not only be compatible, but closer to scale. I wouldn't say I'm looking for a smaller McHenry (I call them McHUGEy's).
tr
While it is not my intention to pick on you, what exactly do you mean by "more in scale" MOre appearance-wise, more size-wise or both?
Appearance-wise it seems that McHUGELYs are fitting the bill. Kato couplers are also surprisingly quite close in appearance to the prototype (especially in top view).
Size-wise any of the Z scale couplers would fit the bill.
If you want both size and appearance then you would need a totally new coupler. But to fit both criteria the coupler would most likely not be compatible with any of the existing knuckle couplers. That is the big issue. I don't see such coupler being made in large quantities anytime soon (for the reasons already mentioned)
But we can all ponder stiff here. That is what TRW is for.
Several years ago I compared all the N scale knuckle couplers available at the time.
http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=52328 (http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=52328)
-
I meant more in scale size, though appearance is important too..I actually like the detail on the McHugely's "thumb", but the knuckle is just too big for me, it actually seemed like a step in the wrong direction to me, size-wise. I use MT Z scale couplers on certain cars, and I have not had any major issues there, with the exception to the slinky effect, but a car or 2 with MT Z's in a train of accu-mates is becomes hardly, if at all, noticeable.
The size of the mounting box is also an area that could use some love, and that's what I like about the FT/EdEtch(TM) solution. This is also a feature of the Protomate according to the announcements I saw...
-
I'd rather wait and see if the protomate/C.VLK options were any better before supporting a 3rd new option...And you said that they may end up never coming, which, is kinda what happened--so far.
The Protomate design has a global patent, so unless and until the owner either decides to produce it, or license/sell it to someone willing to pay for it and then produce it, it may be a long time indeed before we see anything like it.
Ed
EDIT: just so we can pine torment ourselves some more, here is the link to Brian's scale coupler:
-
I'm still extremely happy with the LE/etch solution and would recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind an off-market product*. That said, I have only converted a few dozen cars to date, and the prospect of converting them all seems remote. Fortunately they are quite compatible with all other N scale knuckle couplers - otherwise I would not have started down this path. So if the supply dries up, I will seek other compatible solutions for the rest of my fleet, but I will likely keep the cars I have converted as is and enjoy them.
-gfh
* There are two slight concerns I have about the LE/etch combo: 1) They don't reliably touch mate with MT N scale couplers; you sometimes have to lift one coupler to mate them. This does not happen when mating with Kato, Accumate or McHenry's though. 2) By design, there is less slack in the couplers, so it can be harder to monitor pusher locos by reading slack.
-
If size is the main criteria, MT's 903/905 works quite well with their N couplers. If they would design a coupler with the 903 coupler, and a shank/draft gear box that would directly replace the 1015 or 1025, or preferably both, it would probably sell quite well. Modelers could retrofit cars with the N version, and use the Z version where space is tight, while not having to convert everything at once.
Why do both 1015 and 1025 replacements? Most people today seem to prefer the 1015, and it is a shorter draft gear, but it's also thicker than the 1025. The 1025 actually looks better on many cars, and I've had several cars where 100 ton trucks wouldn't work with the 1015 coupler. Even with countersunk flathead screws, the axles hit the screw, requiring either thinner axles, raising the car, or using 1025s with flathead screws. A few hand twists with a 3/32 drill bit countersinks them nicely.
The two couplers use the same hole-end distance, and the mounting height is only a few thousandths of an inch different, so they're effectively interchangeable.
-
If size is the main criteria, MT's 903/905 works quite well with their N couplers.
It's not about just the size (which would be a purely cosmetic issue). I've tried the 905s and found that they slinky just as much as their N scale big brothers, which is hardly surprising since they share the same fundamental design.
The slinky oscillations also lead to unwanted uncouplings. I see this particularly in long trains moving slowly (like a scale 10-20 mph) down grade in a helix (certainly not a good place to have unwanted uncouplings!). Again this is not really too surprising because it is an artifact of the design -- the coupler can't really tell if you are running in a helix or trying to use its 'automatic operation' feature. This does not happen with non-spring based couplers, like the LEZ, Accumate, McHenry, or Kato.
Ed
-
I understand and keep almost going there myself. I'll probably end up picking up some HO stuff eventually just because its cool out of the gate.
Have you seen the Kadee HO PS-1's with the cushioned underframes?
-
Hmmm I wonder were the trucks and wheels on this thread went, they seemed to have rolled away... :facepalm:
-
Hmmm I wonder were the trucks and wheels on this thread went, they seemed to have rolled away... :facepalm:
If you are referring to the discussion of any HO freight cars that look great right out of the box, it appears this thread went on off on a "Tangent"
http://www.tangentscalemodels.com/search-models/ (http://www.tangentscalemodels.com/search-models/)
It's admittedly unfair to make direct comparisons between HO and N, but if manufacturers like ESM and BLMA could raise the bar in N like Tangent and Kadee have done in HO, it's up to the other manufacturers to either make reasonable attempts to keep up or become irrelevant like Tyco has in HO.
-
Actually BLMA has set new standards in N scale, they have made more realistic trucks that even lower the car body, have produced finer rolling wheels, and kinda started the whole body mount craze in out of the box rolling stock.
Rapido has done the same with passenger equipment as well... I'd say that Micro Trains is the one that is behind the times on this, some of their stuff still looks like O-27... And they don't have alot of finer details as BLMA, FVM, Trainworx, or even Exactrail... But yet they still charge as much or more for their stuff... Yes they are Made in the USA... But if anything they need to step up their game...
Just one guys opinion...
Anyways... Back to trucks please... And no not the things on highways that like to scare other drivers at night...
-
I'd say that Micro Trains is the one that is behind the times on this, some of their stuff still looks like O-27...
That is the funniest thing I heard today. Thanks for that! So now the MTL is the Bachman of the 21st Century? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
Actually BLMA ... kinda started the whole body mount craze in out of the box rolling stock...
Not exactly. :D But they were among the first group of manufacturers to move in that direction. 8)
-
Early N scale had a lot in common with O-27, and much of the modern stuff still does. That isn't necessarily bad. Sure, O-27 has sharp curves, truck mounted couplers, cars sit too high, giant rail and bad tie spacing, etc, but it runs, it sells, and people have built operating layouts with it.
N and O seem to share the tinplate/scale combination. which HO and S have gotten away from. It makes for some confusion in trains and track, but also means a larger market for related items. Scenery, structures, vehicles, etc are the same for both groups.