Body mount couplers, what's the big deal?

[havingfuntoo]

Why is it modelers design a small layout with mountains and 3% (or steeper) grades that loops  around 2 or 3 times instead of a simpler layout that allows wider curves? 

Isn't that just an indication of a modelers maturity and enthusiasm in the hobby that is not usually repeated on the second layout they build???

[Brakie]

Isn't that just an indication of a modelers maturity and enthusiasm in the hobby that is not usually repeated on the second layout they build???

Yes and no..Some long time veterans still wants to cram a ton of track in a 1/2 ton space.On the other hand it appears some rookies are fast learners and avoid placing that ton of track in a 1/2 ton space.

There will always be builders of small layouts due to space restrictions and the urge to cram more track for more"operation" will prevail until the day comes when these builders learn less is better and one doesn't really need steep grades and mountains in order to gain another loop with sharp curves.

IMHO two of the best lessons in "less is best" is the Carolina Central and Dave Vollmer's Juniata Division..

[DKS]

NZT take note. 

Noted.

[BN1970]

Rick, thanks for posting the link for your layout, very nice and a great grain elevator.

I also agree with Larry, my slogan is "less is more", but its the same idea. --Brian

[hpwrick]

Rick, thanks for posting the link for your layout, very nice and a great grain elevator.

I also agree with Larry, my slogan is "less is more", but its the same idea. --Brian

BN1970 and of course everyone tuned in here,

You are more then welcome.   Do allow me to discuss the "less is more"...concept here in one of the next paragraphs.

My history with curves.  Talking about immature in the hobby.   When I first started in HO I used the tightest radius curves I could find 15", 18" and etc.  I even bent them tighter, if I could find flex track.    What I discovered is my train equipment balked and jumped the track...every chance it had.     I thought evil spirits aka gremlins had attacked my layout.

Today, in N scale I use 15", 18", 22" and 24" radius curves.  Exactly what I used in HO.  Other then for height clearances you could all but run small 4 axled locomotives and 36' and 40' scale foot train cars in HO...on my layout.

There is a learning curve and we all have to go through it.   Ok pun intended. 

I just finsihed reading through Brakie's comments,

Brakie,     What you don't like my layout?    Not to worry, and I'ma not offended.    I'ma the one that hast to be happy with it.  Besides, I may have missed your point...oh well.

"Less is more"...well sort of.       Yes, I wanted as much running, hidden staging yards and small industrial switching...etc., etc., as  space would allow.   Further more, I'ma not a flat lander railroader.   Never have been.  So a mountain railroad is a must.

My N Scale, layout has evolved over the years and someday I will put together a slide show showing the progression.

What you see today is the result of  acquiring my dad's layout which meant cutting it down to fit into the space available.  Oh yes, did I have to modify it, to fit the space.  Sound familiar?

Of all the gall...(kidding of course) Greg, shows up with the grainery and the mini-city.   I mean what's a guy to do?   Upside, Once the scenery is in, it will hide  most of the track you can now see.  It will disappear.   As far as realestate that's what's out there basically in the background.  Now, that's enough justification for one day.    Wait till we start talking about perfection, sanctification and...oh sorry that's for another place and time. 

I hear the Canadian "Suits" calling.   They want the Howland and Pacific Rail Corp., to finish up the track work, wire in blocks and get the hand throws installed SO...they can call for a final inspection from the county.   Sheez!

Have fun!

RickH aka BarstowRick

Body mounted couplers is best mount, wide radius curves are the best curves, close coupling is the best coupling and excellent track work is essential to good performance.

You have to ask yourself, "What is it I want and then go for it"?

Feel free to visit my You Tube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbaGVReQ9X1lQR0ehzvfQPA?feature=results_main

[bbussey]

At risk of being an  , I don't think this tangent suggesting we abandon tighter radii curves is viable for most.  Based on what I see here, quite a number of folk have modest spaces and are forced to 9-12" curves.  Even in my medium space, I have a number of 12" radii.  If I needed 48" curves, I'd be modelling HO in a flash     It may look better, and on some switching type or basement layouts be viable.

Running on 12" radii, you won't have a problem.  Running on 9¾" radii, that's a problem.  A lot of current long-wheelbase motive power will not run on 9¾" radii.  So if the motive power won't run on it, there's no reason to expect long-wheelbase rolling stock to do so.

[hpwrick]

Running on 12" radii, you won't have a problem.  Running on 9¾" radii, that's a problem.  A lot of current long-wheelbase motive power will not run on 9¾" radii.  So if the motive power won't run on it, there's no reason to expect long-wheelbase rolling stock to do so.

Your thinking doesn't make you a butt head.

I agree...sort of.  I personally don't like using 12" radius curves peferring to push them out to 14".   Your last sentence, I absolutely agree with.    As long as we keep thinking tight curves is ok, as some/others have indicated here, the downside is we will continue to perpetuate poor  quality performance.

I worked in a hobby shop where I promoted the finer things of model railroading and got quite a scolding from the owner suggesting I back off and sell...what the people want.     I wasn't there to edumacate them.     The most frequent question asked, "What is the tightest radius curve" and I sold them 9 3/4 inch N scale radius curves.    My boss loved the sales and I hated it when they returned them.  Bumping, my commission.

Just a thought. 

[bbussey]

You misunderstand.  I didn't say I prefer 12" radii.  What I said was that currently-existing equipment with body-mounts would run on 12" radii.

[Brakie]

Brakie,     What you don't like my layout?   Not to worry, and I'ma not offended.    I'ma the one that hast to be happy with it.
-------------------------------------
Huh? Sorry Rick I haven't even looked at your layout-except the grain elevator..I'm puzzled..

Are you refering to my reply to havingfuntoo?  If so,that's was a general observation not aimed at anybody.

I'll stand with "less is best" on small layouts.

I even gave 2 prime examples.

[Catt]

I body mount for two reasons.One it is prototypical and two It allows the lowering of my rolling stock to to a realistic height (side benefit is it lowers the center of gravity) I have (so far) three different radiaii on my N scale layout.One curve is 15" three are 18" and the remaining one is 72" (crosses a large river).

My Z scale layout has two that are 11.5",one that is 12" and one at 12.5" I can run 89' flats with body mounts with no problem.

I am not saying that body mount couplers are they only way to go,but I am sating it works for me.

[hpwrick]

Time for some damage control.    Let's see what issues I stirred up overnight?   

Brakie,     What you don't like my layout?   Not to worry, and I'ma not offended.    I'ma the one that hast to be happy with it.
-------------------------------------
Huh? Sorry Rick I haven't even looked at your layout-except the grain elevator..I'm puzzled..

Are you refering to my reply to havingfuntoo?  If so,that's was a general observation not aimed at anybody.

I'll stand with "less is best" on small layouts.

I even gave 2 prime examples.

Yep, I must have been tireder then I thought and yes, I totally missed your point.  Or Did I?  Anyway, my bad.    My refrence was in response to your "Shaghetti" layout. 

If I read you correctly you are just simply saying there are many ways to build a layout.    I think someone else implied that newbies will build a mountain railroad and attempt grades that are steeper then is appropriate on curves way to tight for the equipment they are running.  Then sit in disgust wondering why it doesn't work very well.      An example of a immature model railroader.   

I had no idea you hadn't seen my layout.    There is a link here, to a slide show, in this thread which gives you an overview of my layout.    I think I put it in a response to Peteski...remarks and  questions.     Pictures taken just after construction of the mainline and coal district was completed.   A work in progress.

Here is that link: 

  If you want to see it.    It is a spaghetti bowl or so it's been called and the difference from most, it has wide radius curves and 2% grades.   To add here that the Athearn, UP Big Boy and Challenger negotiated the layout pulling a 30 car train...no problems.

Any way...who reads all the posts in a thread...right?

BBussey

You misunderstand.  I didn't say I prefer 12" radii.  What I said was that currently-existing equipment with body-mounts would run on 12" radii.

Not sure how I ended up not understanding...ahh...misunderstanding your point...as in I was agreeing.   Yep, I does agree with you.    My experience with body mounted couplers does confirm...what you said.   

I was attempting to make yet another point not meant to be directed toward you personally.    More about perpetuating tight radius curves as the way to go, being  inappropriate.   Instead consider the advantages and opportunities N scale affords us Ie., Larger radius curves.   Not to forget the hours of satisfying railroading, it will provide.   Do I dare say an indicator of a mature model railroader?

I body mount for two reasons.One it is prototypical and two It allows the lowering of my rolling stock to to a realistic height (side benefit is it lowers the center of gravity) I have (so far) three different radiaii on my N scale layout.One curve is 15" three are 18" and the remaining one is 72" (crosses a large river).

My Z scale layout has two that are 11.5",one that is 12" and one at 12.5" I can run 89' flats with body mounts with no problem.

I am not saying that body mount couplers are they only way to go,but I am sating it works for me.

Way to put it Catt.    I couldn't say it better.   No, I really couldn't say it better.   A shout out with a big thank-you implanted.

[robert3985]

I'm running 24" minimum radii, most being much larger than that.  I also have been rolling my own turnouts for decades...no probs there.  I also superelevate my curves and ease 'em too.  I've been running low-pro wheels before they were commercially available (I turned them down to an N-scale RP25 contour on my lathe).  All the guys in the club were surprised when the low-pro wheels ran just as reliably as their pizza cutters.  I then decided to replace ALL of my N-scale MT couplers with body mounted Z-scale MT couplers and lower my rolling stock accordingly (having a mill and the proper hold-down fixtures greatly increases both the speed and precision of this procedure).  I could still pull 60+ cars without any problems.

I had a big concrete plant as a main feature in one of my modular LDE's and the Atlas hoppers had problems in the "sharp" (16") radii there.  Body mounting MT Z couplers and adding weight eliminated the problems.  Just adding weight and keeping the truck mounted couplers didn't help.

The main problem with derailments (with rolling stock) is bad trackwork.  "Bad" track can be something as simple as running long engines and cars on small radius curves.  Okay...if ya want to run long trains with long engines and cars...ya better be prepared to run at least 18" minimum radius.  24" is mucho better.  The other thing that causes a lot of derailments are those magnetic "dongles" under the MT's (and others).  I alleviate this problem by simply cutting them off....snip snip...no more dongle problems.  I use a Rix-Pic, or martini toothpick for all my uncoupling needs (I like to be personally involved).

However, as stated over and over here, lotsa N-guagers want to make that spaghetti bowl layout with an itty-bitty minimum radius, AND they want to run big engines and long cars on it too.  Gotta pay the piper guys...if you want your spaghetti bowl layout, then run small B-trucked engines on it, with 40 foot cars, the occasional 50 footer and short trains...and don't back up!  Display your big engines, cars and passenger equipment on the shelf until you get room for a more "friendly" layout.

NOTHING is going to totally eliminate derailments...but...I haven't had a car that's in good order derail for 20 or more years, except when shoved or pulled through improperly thrown turnouts.  However, my sidings limit my trains to a Big Boy, 35 40' cars and a caboose (or equivalent), and my layout is single-level so I don't have any steep grades that I need to back up over.

Oh...the reason I go body mounted is 'cause it IS worth it appearance-wise for me.  It also forces my hand to lower my cars to their correct height (which really makes the trains look more real).  I'm sure with my precision trackwork that I'd have no probs backing up with either truck-mounted or body-mounted couplers through Echo Yard, or Devils Slide (I haven't)...it's just that body-mounts LOOK so much better!

But, if you like your cars riding high, with pizza cutters, cast-on grabs, running boards that are four times thicker than they should be, 9 1/2" radius curves using Atlas Code 80 track with big track-nails running down the middle (nailed to 1/4 inch "plywood plains") and those ubiquitous #3.5 turnouts with dead frogs and power routing through the closure points....let me take a deep breath.....THEN...more power to ya!!  I have fun MY way, and you have fun YOUR way...that's what it's all about, right? 

Just remember that your long engines and cars won't run as well on your spaghetti bowl as they will on my simple (but prototypical) LDE modules.  Do what the prototype does, big engines aren't cleared for certain minimum radius, low-trafficked trackage...but smaller engines and cars are!  If you're having trouble with your passenger cars and loooong modern cars derailing, then it's time to run what works on your layout (think "shorter"), until you get more room.

'Nuff said...

Cheers!
Bob Gilmore

[hpwrick]

Bob,

You are without a doubt a mature railroad modeler.
Thanks for sharing with us.

[avel]

robert3985, you have any pictures of your modules? Sound  really interesting. Don't really care if they are sceniced, what you have is my goal. I am going for a minimum of 18"R and Z couplers body mounted with lowering cars and closer coupling. Why?, because it makes it so much more realistic when I get down to eye level to watch a mainline freight pass through.

[gkoproske]

>> But, if you like your cars riding high, with pizza cutters, cast-on grabs, running boards that are four times thicker than they should be, 9 1/2" radius curves using Atlas Code 80 track with big track-nails running down the middle (nailed to 1/4 inch "plywood plains") and those ubiquitous #3.5 turnouts with dead frogs and power routing through the closure points....let me take a deep breath.....THEN...more power to ya!!  I have fun MY way, and you have fun YOUR way...that's what it's all about, right? 
=======================================================================
I have long since given up trying to persuade people to have model railroading fun the way I thought fun ought to be had.  But all the items mentioned in the quote above are mutually exclusive and have no bearing on model RR fun.  However, in the long view, body mounting couplers is a pain in the butt, turning down wheel flanges is a pain in the butt, code 55 track is a pain in the butt, and speed matching decoders is a pain in the butt.  Geez, it's as if all you folks already have all your scenery applied and your buildings built.  The answer to the original question , "Should I body mount my couplers?" is "Not unless you have anything better to do."