N scale Body Mounted Couplers vs Truck Mounted

[peteski]

What (extra) details do these metal wheels have - and which ones are they?
Are there some specific details that plastic wheels, for example, are lacking?

That was probably a wrong choice of words. Many plastic wheels have the wheel-face profile which looks nothing like 1:1 wheels. Some of the new metal wheels (FVM, BLMI, Exactrail, and others) have more accurately made (dished) wheel face. Plus they have narrower tread. Some of the metal wheels also have more accurate wheel-back profile (rather then the flat wheel backs of plastic wheels).

The prototype uses body-mounted couplers.  If we want to copy the prototype as much as possible, then our couplers should be body mounted.

Yes, but the selective compression of our layouts results in curves much tighter than on 1:1 railroads, so we experience problems which dont' often come up on real railroads.

[cjm413]

I'll make one last point that has been raised tangentially in a prior post:

The prototype uses body-mounted couplers.  If we want to copy the prototype as much as possible, then our couplers should be body mounted. 

That said, like everything else in this hobby, it's up to the individual to decide whether that aspect of prototypical look is important.  But we've come a long way in nearly everything else - finer and more accurate details on everything, more accurate measurements for locomotives and rolling stock; recognition that weight matters, and an effort by manufacturers to provide cars with better weight; low-profile flanges on detailed metal wheels; code 55 track (and in some cases, Code 40); sound; etc.  In such an environment, truck-mounts seem anachronistic. 

John C.

More importantly, prototype cars aren't jacked up and/or have portions of their ends removed to clear truck-mounted couplers.

[wm3798]

Tastes Great! - Less Filling!

But seriously folks...

In the perfect world, use all of one or the other.  On my small switching layout, I like the way truck mounted couplers maintain the track center for coupling in tight spots.  I'm also running short trains, maxing out at 8-10 cars, and a yard that holds 12 total, so yard switching isn't a big deal either.

When I had the big layout with all the cars in the universe, a full switching yard and lots of main line action, body mounts were typically more reliable.  So there you have it.  Your mileage may vary.

Lee

[ksmiley]

I have to agree with Jagged Ben, its not so much the length of the car, its the distance between truck pin and the end of the car. So yes, 89ft flats with the trucks tucked back towards the center more than any other type of car are a problem when you body mount them as the coupler swings away from the center of the track more than regular cars on a curve.

So my practice has been that anything that uses a short truck or medium MTL truck mounted coupler can be converted to body mount and it will work well. 89ft flats and passenger cars, best to leave them truck mounted.

[MetroRedLine]

I'm relatively new to N scale, having been a convert from HO about a decade ago. I model modern era and refuse to buy any loco or rolling stock manufactured before 1990. I think older N scale trains are horrible, and don't want anything to do with them. I'm also a Code 55 guy and rolling stock with plastic wheelsets are not allowed on my layout (or they don't have plastic wheelsets on for long). So a fair number of my rolling stock already have body-mounted couplers (I'm a big BLMA freak, and anything else with body mounts gets my attention). Converting MTL rolling stock to body mounts is relatively easy; I've done the drill-and-tap routine for most of my 89' autoracks,

My question is converting non-MTL rolling stock, specifically those that don't come with MTL trucks or couplers. I really want to convert my Kato Maxi-IV well cars to body-mounts, but what is the best way to go about it? Has anyone done it? The stick truck-mounts are problematic especially if the well cars are preceded by an autorack; the first truck of the well cars after the autorack gets shoved off the track at the top of a grade on my layout (by comparison, the Deluxe Maxi-IV well cars, which have body mounts, perform well when coupled with autoracks in that same spot on my layout.

[jagged ben]

Converting the Kato Maxi IVs is something that probably calls for a 3d printed part, or else a bunch of styrene cutting.  It's been a while since I've thought about it, years actually.

[jereising]

I may very well try this technique on some of my BLMA cars.

I will give a warning on the long shank version:  the spring near the pivot hole has a weak spot.  When the coupler doesn't want to couple easily it may be because the spring is not holding the two pieces together as do the short shanks.  And when disassembled, one can see the weak spot when flexing the spring.  This can also cause break-aparts.  I just completed a long articulated auto rack train using only short shanks - see the other thread for more details... 

Sorry - thought this was the MT True Scale Coupler thread

Moderator, deletion OK.

[bbussey]

You can't do this with truck-mounted couplers.  Body-mounts and the center of gravity below the coupler plane allow a light car to be shoved while pushing pounds of load around sharp radii and still stay on the rails.

The load travels through the car frame with body-mounts, leaving the trucks to pivot independently.  The load travels through the trucks and wheels with truck-mounts, thus the need for larger wheel flanges to keep the trucks from rotating off the rails when being pushed.