Exactrail has a new Draft Box coming

[bbussey]

In addition to losing trip pins the Accumates simply will not hold together in a long train.   Then there is the 10 foot coupling distance.   20 -25 cars is the usual limit for Accumates.   Meanwhile I have seen as many as 143 cars with Mt's.   So while the oscillation does occur there are simple solutions to it.  And that is the key.   Mt's problem can be easily solved.  Accumates problems can't.  No, your cars will not yoyo back and forth they will just stay 10 feet apart.   

I don't think the current Accu-Mates disintegrate under load.  Current Atlas trucks have been retooled so that the coupler pocket is further in-board.  And if you body-mount them, the Accu-Mates extend no further than MTL couplers.  No one ever seems to complain about the body-mounted Accu-Mates on Atlas motive power, where the load forces are the highest.  Atlas #15023 is the part number for the body-mounted coupler.

I've seen consists containing equipment with MTL couplers far exceed 143 cars.  The problem at that point becomes the truck-mounted couplers, as the weight of the train puts too much load on the front cars to keep them on the track.  That's why all those N long-train records a quarter-century ago were set with the lighter 33' twin hoppers rather than a mixed consist.  If all the equipment had body-mounted couplers, the consists could have been much longer than they were and pizza-cutters wouldn't have been required to help keep them on the track.  Accu-Mates work better also body-mounted.

Lastly - if the oscillation issue was easily solved, MTL would have solved it long ago.  Just from a practical business standpoint, it's much more labor-intensive to assemble an MTL coupler than it is an Accu-Mate or Kato.

[Brakie]

I have had zero problems with the Accumates while pulling or shoving while switching cars at scale switching speed.I will take your word on long train consist pro or con since I have no experience there.

To my mind nothing kills slow switching realism like the slinky action.

I still fully believe MT  should redesign their coupler but,as long as we add springs to axle points and find other ways to fix their slinky boo boo why should they?

Now maybe youse guys can  figure this one.

I have notice if two or three cars in the cut has Accumates it lessens and depending how cars are coupled eliminates the slinky action at switching speed.

Any ideas why?

[Puddington]

I have seen more Accumates "blow up" under load than I have Canadian Political leaders tell a lie.......

If I have a choice, albeit one i don't like, between slinky and derailment due to coupler failure I know what I'll choose...

"Accident mates" have not been kind to the Puddington Valley Sub....................

[inkaneer]

The MT's were hailed as a God send when the defacto coupler was the Rapido.  It is still the best coupler going even with the oscillation.    I tried the McHenrys but every trip pin had to be raised to prevent snagging on switches.  My two biggest gripes about them are first, they do not come with a coupler box so you have to use a MT or Accumate box.  Second the shank is the same length as the MT and Accumates.   MT and Accumates need that shank as it is part of  the opening and closing mechanism of the coupler.  McHenrys operating mechanism is contained in the coupler head.  The shank could be a lot smaller.   Add to this is the fact the McHenrys did not come with a "T" shank.   If it came with a short "T" shank it could have been used on steam pilots and would be a lot easier to body mount on rolling stock. 

[up1950s]

lightened up



Spring is in front if I am seeing correctly , so it's the more favorable reverse slinky . No slinky is ideal though . Makes me wonder why the box extends so far back of the screw .

[Mark5]

Thanks for posting that Ritchie!

Looks like the way they mounted the box the coupler will stick out too far ... 

Mark

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Craig, thats an awsome story and shows how commited your company is to quality.

I wonder if the exactrail coupler pocket was designed for the Mchenry couplers. I bet they decided to go with MTL as an after thought which would explain why the box wasn't designed to fit the coupler perfectly.

[Dave V]

Incorrect.  The prototype does have an extended coupler, but the #1015 sticks out so far from it's bolster point, it actually measures out correctly for the 64' Reefers.  That said, a 1016 in that coupler pocket does stick out way too far.  Our Reefer uses the 1015 coupler.

(Little back-end story that few know about:  We had shipped 1016 couplers to our factory and our ENTIRE Reefer production was fitted with the 1016 couplers (we sold a LOT of these cars - thank you all).  Upon receiving our production samples, we noted our mistake - the 1016 was ridiculously too long.  So, even after being boxed for shipment, every car was unpacked, 1016 couplers removed and 1015 added.  Long story short, this cost us considerable time and money, but our commitment to quality stands and we just couldn't release the cars with the wrong coupler...)

Railwire needs a like button!

Craig, these don't fit my era, but knowing this makes the 4 ACF gons I bought all the more special!

[Glenn Poole]

It's a shame too, because the 1015 pocket design sucks when it comes to ride height. That's the reason the body mounted FVM cars ride HIGHER than their truck mounted predecessors.

They should lower the car and put MT coupler #2004 which has an offset upwards but otherwise the same as a 1015.

[Robbman]

Railwire needs a like button!

Craig, these don't fit my era, but knowing this makes the 4 ACF gons I bought all the more special!

They are... you know we redesigned the coupler box on those too