Truck vs Body Mounted

[wm3798]

And everything else...

"The earth is flat"
"It'll never fly"
etc. etc....

Lee

[lock4244]

The close enough is good enough philosophy is where I land as well. Some very obvious thing I can't live with, like the Atlas C630's painted for CN and CP... the tri-mount trucks and the wrong rear end and fuel tanks on the CP units kills me, so I didn't buy any. I'm getting some undec units and have the Briggs Dofasco truck kits for them, and I'll tackle some of the glairing differences as well, but I won't get all Robbman on them.

When I read that I don't the "Close enough is good enough" feeling... I feel that you're far more precise in how you want your loco's to appear than someone in the "CEIGE" crowd– but I think that's perfectly A-OK and like others have said, that's how the whole hobby advances and becomes more precise.

For many of us we may fall into the "CEIGE" for some topics, but on others, we're looking for precision.  And there's nothing wrong with that. 

CEIGE, but trimounts on an MLW 6 axle Century or M-Line is just too far from close enough. Simply painting a model in a particular roads colors is not CEIGE to me. I can live with some omissions, but not major details. Just like a CN or CP SD40 with the headlights between the number boards is just wrong...

[One of One-Sixty]

Is it possible to have a 85ft cars w/body mounted couplers to handle a 9.75" curve?

[John]

Is it possible to have a 85ft cars w/body mounted couplers to handle a 9.75" curve?

If it's not coupled to another car ...

[bbussey]

Is it possible to have a 85ft cars w/body mounted couplers to handle a 9.75" curve?

Why would you want to?

[One of One-Sixty]

Okay stupid question here, especially since it seems that body mounted couplers should be the wave of things to come.

Somebody mentioned that they do not see why it took so long for rolling stock both passenger and freight alike to get body mounted couplers, since motive power has had them for awhile.

If body mount couplers are the way to go, then the technology really needs to be improve to allow body mounted couplers to handle tighter radii like 9.75".  So with that being said how can we have body mounted couplers on rolling stock when it has it shortcoming handling tight radii?  Especially if they are on passenger/traction equipment where they generally take on tight curves in yards and terminals.  Even with freight equipment they should be able to handle tighter clearance if being shunted by a switcher.

Maybe it is just my ignorance.

Also it was alluded to that having truck mounted couplers took away from the details at the end of cars.  Once again, maybe it is my ignorance and lack thereof, but if a car has body mounted couplers, would that not take more away from the end details since it is mounted to the body where the details would be?  Where as if it was truck mounted the details could be there and the coupler arm would just swing below it.

[One of One-Sixty]

Why would you want to?

I am just trying to figure all of this truck vs. body mounted stuff out.  Especially since it seems that the standard is changing. 

[Zox]

...if a car has body mounted couplers, would that not take more away from the end details since it is mounted to the body where the details would be?

The thing is, real railroad cars have "body-mounted" (technically, underframe-mounted) couplers. So with body-mounts, you're putting the model coupler where the real coupler would be--in effect, the coupler is part of the detail. (Granted, our model couplers and coupler pockets are oversized, so there's still some adjustment to be made.)

In general, body mounts look more realistic, work better in some situations, and don't work at all when sharp curves are involved. And by "sharp," well, I've seen body-mounts cause problems on a 19-inch radius under exactly the right conditions.

Truck mounts aren't as realistic, and don't work as well in some situations (notably when backing a long train), but will often work better on the tight radii that we sometimes have to contend with.

On cars with truck-mounted couplers, it's also trivial to switch from Rapido couplers to Micro-Trains couplers--just replace the trucks. Generally body-mounted couplers require some level of surgery to make the switchover. Then again, most cars with body-mounted couplers are "high-end" models, and often come with Micro-Trains or compatible couplers pre-installed.

So it all depends on your skill level, and your priorities. If you need to convert a 1000-car fleet for an NTrak setup next weekend, swapping in M-T trucks is the easiest option. If you've got a few cars that need to look and operate as well as possible, and you have the layout to support it, body-mounts will give you the best appearance and operation.

And if you're some of the modelers on this board, you can incorporate body-mounts into your scratchbuilt Tn3-scale equipment from the start...

[bbussey]

It's also important to note that in order for cars of any length to operate with truck-mounted couplers and allow for coupler-swing on tight radii trackage, one of these scenarios applies:

• a significant amount of detail is missing from or compromised on the ends of the car
• the car rides a few scale feet higher than what is prototypical
• both of the above

Strong examples of the first include the vestibule steps missing from Riva Rossi and Lima heavyweights; the end yoke missing from Athearn 65' mill gondolas; the end buffers sitting way too high on the Athearn milk reefers.

Obvious examples of the second include Truline's 50' newsprint boxcar, Con-Cor enclosed auto rack, and MTL's Ortner hopper and modern tank.

In addition, there is an added complication from models that ride too high - because if the car rides too high above the trucks, then the maximum height of the car is also too high.  Many models are "selectively compressed" in order to have a correct overall height of the car even though it sits high over the rail.  Examples of this include MTL's 60' boxcars and the original Atlas/Roco 86' auto parts boxcars.

Regarding 9-3/4" radius trackage - unless it's a trolley line, you should try to stay away from it.  Most equipment looks terrible on 9-3/4, regardless of what length it is.  Moving up to 11" radius is a minor change, yet all existing mass-market RTR models will traverse it, regardless of which coupler-mounting method is utilized.

[Robbman]

I will say however - there is at least one general car model on the market that has truck-mounts and sits at the correct height: the Atlas USRA wood sheathed boxcars (and the steel rebuilts) that run on the Andrews trucks.

Think harder man... the BLMA TopGon sits at the right height... and doesn't have compromised end detail (OK... so the prototype made that easy to do... but still )

[Robbman]

I don't think that there is a RW standard ..

That I'm allowed on here is proof of that

[bbussey]

I will say however - there is at least one general car model on the market that has truck-mounts and sits at the correct height: the Atlas USRA wood sheathed boxcars (and the steel rebuilts) that run on the Andrews trucks.

Think harder man... the BLMA TopGon sits at the right height... and doesn't have compromised end detail (OK... so the prototype made that easy to do... but still )

Quite true, it does.  There are others as well, but they are among the few.