Con-Cor's new couplers - a quick review

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I just received my sample for Con-Cor's new knuckle couplers. The knuckle looks like a standard MTL coupler that is fused together. The shank has whisker springs like Accumats, IM and McHenry couplers. The coupler has a somewhat narrow profile making coupling with Unimate and Kato couplers difficult. These couplers do not kiss couple; they require you to couple then rail the car.

I was more interested in the trucks. We have had several high quality trucks introduced recently thanks to BLMA, Atlas and MTL. The Con-Cor trucks to appear to have improved tooling. There is no melted appearance to them from using worn out dies. The trucks just don't look right though. They have a very curvy look to them, more so than a Barber S2 100T truck. The detail relief on the springs is not quite up to standard but there are bolts on the roller bearing caps. The roller bearing trucks have a husky 100T look to them, but feature 33" wheels. They do offer these trucks without wheelsets.

While I appreciate seeing new trucks on the market, The new Con-Cor trucks have some issues. These appear to match no prototype and feature contradicting details. When equipped with the incorrect 33" wheels, the trucks cost as much as BLMA's amazing freight car trucks and that is totally unacceptable.

Con-Cor should have taken the opportunity to design a ground breaking truck when they had the chance. Instead, the company produced a mediocre product priced out of the market.

[wm3798]

"Instead, the company produced a mediocre product priced out of the market."

Sounds like they're prime for being taken over by Walthers!

[Mark5]

here's a quick review: they stink.

Better than crapidos though (I guess).

[TiVoPrince]

Twenty
years later we get the 'MDC' mighty darn compatible trucks and couplers, again...

[Nato]

     When you say curvy look do you mean a gentle curve to the top of the side frame that is higher at the ends? When Con Cor first did a roller bearing truck I thought it was really cool that they based theirs on trucks that I saw on many freight trains in my area that did have side frames with that slight upward curve to them. I'am not sure who the protype maker of this design was. I have to agree though,for the price they want for their truck/coupler they could have made it a fully working design.                            Nate Goodman (Nato). Salt Lake, Utah.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

The proto you are referring to us the Barber S2. The Con-Cor truck also curves outward from the journals to the spring pack. The spring pack is the widest part of the truck, which looks ridiculous.

[Brakie]

"Instead, the company produced a mediocre product priced out of the market."

Sounds like they're prime for being taken over by Walthers!

Can we afford to lose more  N Scale products?  ??? We all know Walthers less then stellar  N Scale track record.

[Iain]

Pics?

[Robbman]

The proto you are referring to us the Barber S2.

Unless you know the method used for stabilizing the truck (i.e, how the friction wedges in the bolster are sprung), there is no way to tell if it's a Barber just by the sideframe. 

[Sokramiketes]

Unless you know the method used for stabilizing the truck (i.e, how the friction wedges in the bolster are sprung), there is no way to tell if it's a Barber just by the sideframe.  

Yeah, it's not like they cast "Barber" into the sideframe or anything...

http://jamesriverbranch.net/show_pic.asp?src=100t_asf_barber_s2_F

[Robbman]

Yeah, it's not like they cast "Barber" into the sideframe or anything...

http://jamesriverbranch.net/show_pic.asp?src=100t_asf_barber_s2_F

I was referring to the Con-Cor N scale truck that Nate and Dan were talking about, not a prototype truck.  So in an effort to make my original statement more readable and understandable when taken as a standalone statement, I'll amend it here:

Since very few N scale trucks have lettering on the sideframes dictating what type of truck they are, unless you know the method used for stabilizing the truck, and assuming that that itself was molded correctly in the ends of the bolster, there is no way to tell if the Con-Cor N scale truck is a Barber just by a sideframe description.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I thought only Barber had that concave look at the top of their 100T sideframe.  Does anyone else use that type of design?

[Robbman]

I thought only Barber had that concave look at the top of their 100T sideframe.  Does anyone else use that type of design?

ASF Ride Controls use the same sideframe design... pattern number and AAR codes are of course different, but when comparing the sideframe drawings... they're the same.

With the S2-HD of the late 70s, Standard Car Truck (now owned by Wabtec) specced a specific sideframe design, such that other competitors could not use it on their own trucks (mainly ASF, now Amsted)

[Sokramiketes]

I was referring to the Con-Cor N scale truck that Nate and Dan were talking about, not a prototype truck.  So in an effort to make my original statement more readable and understandable when taken as a standalone statement, I'll amend it here:

Since very few N scale trucks have lettering on the sideframes dictating what type of truck they are, unless you know the method used for stabilizing the truck, and assuming that that itself was molded correctly in the ends of the bolster, there is no way to tell if the Con-Cor N scale truck is a Barber just by a sideframe description.

The method used for stabilizing the truck?  In N scale?  Are you serious? There is none.

I would counter that there's no way for you to tell that it's NOT a Barber, so Dan can call it whatever he wants. 

[Ian MacMillan]