On the horizon - closer coupling Atlas Accumates?

[Mark5]

Potentially good news posted on the A-forum:

Originally posted by Cory Rothlisberger

We are slowly but surely making modifications on the coupler boxes of our trucks with Accumate couplers. As Daniel pointed out, the 100-T truck has seen a pair of changes. The Andrews truck has also been shortened up quite a bit (compare the first run or two from the latest ones). The 50-T Friction Bearing truck is the next truck style that you will see a change on. The shortened coupler box is featured on the current production of the 2-Bay Offset hopper.

We hope to have a full range of these modified trucks out on the market soon. When they're ready to go, there will be an announcement on our web site.

I've got some of the current production 2 bay offsets on order, so I can't wait to see them.

Mark

[bbussey]

Body mount the couplers, and this problem goes away. 

[Mark5]

Body mount the couplers, and this problem goes away. 

Yeah, I know, I know ... ;D

But, since I've been accumulating stock since the 1970s, I have hundreds to do. You coming over to help?

When I was a teen I had time to hand lay my track and fabricate my own turnouts, man I miss those days! These days (with wife, kids, and too much work) I have to pick and choose my priorities.

Bottom line, I may or may not get to it one of these days.

[Chris333]

It is about time. I figured they had a large stock pile to use up first. But when they release an all new model with tons of detail and the couplers still stick out...

[bbussey]

Body mount the couplers, and this problem goes away. 

Yeah, I know, I know ... ;D

But, since I've been accumulating stock since the 1970s, I have hundreds to do. You coming over to help?

I've got hundreds of my own to do!  But I am slowly working my way through the NH-era (and CR-era) fleet - lowered bodies, FVM wheels and mostly MTL 1015 or 2004 couplers, but also AccuMates in ATL coupler boxes here and there.  I have some McHenry's from when they handed out the samples in Louisville, and whatever body-mounted Athearn cars I've bought in the past year or so, But they are my least favorite of the three brands.  I've been trying to work through by railroad.  Almost all of the New Haven equipment is done, much of the Pennsy, New York Central and the other New England roads.  My NH freight equipment fleet is 40-50 cars, so that's a lot of lowering and body-mounting! 

The passenger fleet has been a lot easier to do, as I've been modifying the cars as soon as I acquire them if they are not kitbashed or from core kits and various car sides.

[Mark5]

I picked up some McHenry's recently to play with, I'm not crazy about the size though.

You can guess what kind of car makes up over 50% of my fleet though ...

[daniel_leavitt2000]

If you think this is good news, you should see what Micro-Trains is working on.

[Robbman]

If you think this is good news, you should see what Micro-Trains is working on.

Bet it won't hold a candle to the 100T I did for BLMA...

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I don't think they will be doing anything involving 100 tons anytime soon.

[GaryHinshaw]

Sounds like a step in the right direction for Atlas.

Up until now my standard has been MT Barbers with truck-mount couplers and FVM wheels: not perfect, but standardized, reliable, and decent coupler spacing. The arrival of BLMA trucks has thrown me for a loop: if I'm going to body-mount everything now, I need a better coupler.  MT: slinky; McHenry: too big, and no coupler pockets  (WTF?); Accumates:  .  What's a mother to do? (Do MT Z scale have the slinky effect?)

-Gary

P.S. Any chance of a 125T/38" truck from BLMA?   

[Andrew Hutchinson]

Not having an atlas two bay on hand to check the trucks, is there any modification to the coupler shank?
Thanks,

Andrew Hutchinson

[Walkercolt]

Welllll, body-mounting isn't a "cure-all" for N-scale. Physics partly determines the size of an operating knuckle coupler. Then how many cars do you want to pull (around what radius?) and what grades? I can point to my beloved tank-cars as perfect examples of cars that it would be nearly impossible to body mount the couplers and not have excessive (grossly excessive) space between cars. The coupler pocket would require the end of the tank to be notched out for clearence on many of the cars. Even in HO, some cars have to be (gasp!) compromised in design for the coupler pocket. "Life iz hard an' then chu' die an' go to Hell."-Izzy Moreno, "Miami Vice" :

[bbussey]

Sounds like a step in the right direction for Atlas.

Up until now my standard has been MT Barbers with truck-mount couplers and FVM wheels: not perfect, but standardized, reliable, and decent coupler spacing. The arrival of BLMA trucks has thrown me for a loop: if I'm going to body-mount everything now, I need a better coupler.  MT: slinky; McHenry: too big, and no coupler pockets  (WTF?); Accumates:  .  What's a mother to do? (Do MT Z scale have the slinky effect?)

-Gary

P.S. Any chance of a 125T/38" truck from BLMA?   

Body-mounted MTL couplers have the spring in front of the pivot post (rather than behind it as on the truck-mounted couplers), so the cars only oscillate when being pushed.

McHenry's fit in both Accu-Mate and MTL coupler boxes, and Accu-Mates fit in MTL coupler boxes.  MTLs won't fit in Accu-Mate boxes because there is no clearance for the centering nubs on the coupler halves.

[bbussey]

Welllll, body-mounting isn't a "cure-all" for N-scale. Physics partly determines the size of an operating knuckle coupler. Then how many cars do you want to pull (around what radius?) and what grades? I can point to my beloved tank-cars as perfect examples of cars that it would be nearly impossible to body mount the couplers and not have excessive (grossly excessive) space between cars. The coupler pocket would require the end of the tank to be notched out for clearence on many of the cars. Even in HO, some cars have to be (gasp!) compromised in design for the coupler pocket. "Life iz hard an' then chu' die an' go to Hell."-Izzy Moreno, "Miami Vice" :

Body-mounts perform better than truck-mounts because the load is passed through the car bodies and the trucks can freely navigate any anomalies in the track.

All cars can be have body-mounted couplers.  With some, you have to modify the coupler box or the underframe, or provide an additional mount, but it is possible to do and not have the coupler overly-extended.

I don't know of any existing tankcar models where the end of the tank would require a notch to clear the coupler box.  MTL specifically makes a low-mount coupler (#2004) with an offset shank to handle this.  They've used it on their own caboose models for decades.

[Zox]

Body-mounts perform better than truck-mounts because the load is passed through the car bodies and the trucks can freely navigate any anomalies in the track.

Whereas truck-mounts perform better than body-mounts because the angle at which the couplers meet is greatly reduced, causing less side-force on the wheels.