Con-Cor heavyweight body mount coupler

[Allegheny]

I plan to body mount couplers to some Con-cor heavyweights.  I checked the Micro-trains conversion chart, but it only lists truck mount conversions of 1128, 1129 and 1130s not body mounts.  Did a search on TheRailWire and didn't find a specific post on my question.
Has anyone body mount MTL couplers to Con-Cor heavyweights?  If yes, what did you use and do you have pictures.

[Loren Perry]

No pictures, sorry, but I've installed body-mounted Micro-Trains 1015 couplers to dozens of my Con-Cor/Rivarossi heavyweight cars. I had to do this so I could install my GMM passenger car steps under the vestibule doors. The cars also have Oriental Limited black rubber diaphragms installed and the coupling is close. I arrange everything so the middle of the coupler's knuckle is even with the end of the diaphragm when viewed from above. This gives enough clearance for reliable operation.

The 1015's have more side-to-side movement which allows easy operation through a Peco Code 55 double crossover. Any other Micro-Trains coupler doesn't have enough side movement so the cars will derail when trying to go through this piece of trackwork which is essentially a fairly tight s-curve.

To install the couplers, I had to add a styrene shim where the draft gear meets the underside of the car body. I forget the thickness, but it may be around .040" or so, maybe .030". Once done, the draft gear is easily screwed into place.

[Allegheny]

I see the 1015 is a short shank.  Wouldn't a 1016 medium shank be better?

[peteski]

IIRC, @Lemosteam was working on a 3D-printed coupler adapter (with steps) for those cars.

[Lemosteam]

@peteski, never got any measurements.  Now if @Allegheny wants to help out and send me a car that I can measure and return...

[nkalanaga]

My couple have 1025s, but I don't have any sharp crossovers, so they have plenty of swing.  Other  than that, mine are basically the same as Loren Perry's, including  the close coupling and shim.  Unless you're sure  they'll never run on sharp curves, his recommendation of 1015's is probably a good idea.  Mine are so old I'm not sure 1015s were available yet...

[Loren Perry]

I see the 1015 is a short shank.  Wouldn't a 1016 medium shank be better?

Possibly, but the 1015's solved my problem so I didn't look any further.

[Allegheny]

I may just experiment with medium shank couplers (1016s?) and see how they work on tight radii.  Other forum member said to use .05" styrene to correctly position the coupler height.

[Catt]

1015's are medium shank ,1016's are the long shank.

[Allegheny]

Catt
Just checked Microtrains website and saw 1015s as short shank and 1016s as medium shank.  http://micro-trainsline.com/nscale/ncouplers
Did I misread?

[Kisatchie]

Catt
Just checked Microtrains website and saw 1015s as short shank and 1016s as medium shank.  http://micro-trainsline.com/nscale/ncouplers
Did I misread?

No, you're right.


Hmm... unlike Kiz most
of the time...

[Catt]

The point is if you have wide curves and no plows you can use the 1015.If you have tight curves and/or plows you use the 1016 because it has a long(er) shank.