Intermountain's "Micro Train" couplers

[peteski]

Since I expressed my dissatisfaction with what I considered false advertising on the IM part in https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=30181.msg330974#msg330974 , I decided to show others what I'm griping about.

First, IM has been touting the fact that all their AC locos are Micro-Trains coupler equipped.  This is seen online and in the printed flyers.  Next, the instruction sheets included inside the box state that the model has MT couplers.  First and second run, both have this incorrect info.


Then, couple of pages further in the instructions, they show photos of their non-MT coupler.  Again, this info is shown in both the 1st and 2nd run's instructions.  This to me indicates that at the time the instructions were written (even for the initial run), IM knew that they would not be using MT couplers.


Here are some photos of the coupler.  It is a new knuckle coupler which I have not seen on any other models.  It appears to be some sort of strange hybrid which seems to have a shape somewhat reminiscent of the Accumate, but the split-shank is designed just like MT coupler.  The molded-plastic centering spring seems to be based on Accumate.  My photos show the IM coupler next to the MT and the Accumate for comparison.











IM produced 2 runs of the AC-12s and a another run of the other AC models.  Even if they made a honest error in their initial literature, they should have fixed it for the later runs.  I know,if this makes me so unhappy, I can replace those Frankenstein couplers with MTs. The IM's coupler pocket even has the depressions to properly accept the centering pins in the MT shanks.  But my point still is that IM should not keep on stating that their models have MT couplers.

[Sokramiketes]

Yeah, I'd say that MTL should have a problem with that.  Thanks for sharing since I had not known this.

[SebastianLee]

 who knows, it may be a MTL designed coupler as a lower cost alternative.   It's definitely not what I  would call a true MTL  coupler.   Only MTL  could answer if it was as their  product /  design.

[eja]

OMG .. here  we go ...  one ribbet, two, ribbets .. etc

[bbussey]

Shouldn't this be brought to Intermountain's attention and asked of them, rather than speculating on the intent?

[kalbert]

Shouldn't this be brought to Intermountain's attention and asked of them, rather than speculating on the intent?

+1 I'd think Intermountain and Micro Trains are the interested parties. Involving anyone else is just making mud. I'm sure if you asked either of them you'd get a real answer. You might not like the answer, but you'll get one.

[OldEastRR]

Intermountain and Micro Trains are the interested parties. Involving anyone else is just making mud.

However a private communication between one person and two company PR offices does NOT get the news out there about something that is not quite right and should at least be brought to the attention of the model RR community at large. Or is your policy "Tough Luck, Pal, you bought it you're stuck with it"?

[christoph]

Interesting thread 
For me these are two subjects:
- First a detailed description of a new coupler design that uses a mix of design features
- Second a possibly incorrect reference in the data sheet

My emphasis is on the coupler design.  I remember from another thread the discussion of "very similar looking" truck designs and a remark that the MTL patent for the couplers has expired now.  So it seems there are copied designs around.
The "new" coupler presented above seems to combine the measurements of an MTL coupler and at the same time tries to avoid these fine springs that MTL uses and that are to my understanding a specialty of MTL and Kadee because they have the experience to manufacture these in high quality.  The remaining question is how these couplers work in operation, are they compatible, are they reliable??

It would be interesting just to know more about these couplers.

Best regards,
Christoph

[Sokramiketes]

Shouldn't this be brought to Intermountain's attention and asked of them, rather than speculating on the intent?

In the other thread he did mention that he contacted Richard at Intermountain... but never received an answer?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Shouldn't this be brought to Intermountain's attention and asked of them, rather than speculating on the intent?

Yes. It should.

[Kisatchie]

Shouldn't this be brought to Intermountain's attention and asked of them, rather than speculating on the intent?

Yes, it should be brought to Intermountain's and Micro-Trains' attention, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed on the forum. It's a fast way to get the word out that something isn't kosher so that more people can contact the companies involved and provoke some corrective action.


Hmm... I'm staying out
of all this...

[bbussey]

In the other thread he did mention that he contacted Richard at Intermountain... but never received an answer?

Understood.  But then, my feeling is that bit of information should have been included in the initial post so that we have all of the facts.  If it is stated that IMRC was contacted and didn't respond, then this thread wouldn't have the initial appearance of sniping from behind the rocks.

And to clarify — it's not the reporting that I'm calling out, it's the assessment of intent.

[tom mann]

Issue noted, and thread locked.