Similar Question, Different Engine...

[strummer]

I just picked up an Intermountain FT A unit off eBay. It did not run (as expected), but thanks to my recent experience with split-frame diesels while re-gauging their wheels, I was able to get this thing running...and very well, I must say. HOWEVER.....

Unlike the MicroTrains version, which has the built-in option of mounting a knuckle coupler on the back ("B") end, this is only set up for the drawbar that it came to me with. There is very little room back there (in fact, the drawbar slightly rubs on the inner truck frame), so as is a coupler is out of the question.

Any (helpful  ) suggestions?

Thank you.

Mark in Oregon

[RBrodzinsky]

Find an IM FT B unit 

Not sure I have ever come across an FT A unit with anything other than the drawbar.

[strummer]

...that's "helpful"... 

... [ Guests cannot view attachments ] ...

Mark in Oregon

[thomasjmdavis]

Mark, are you trying to (a) make the unit independent, (b) modeling an ATSF or similar unit, where the railroad opted or converted from drawbars to individual couplers between As and Bs, or (c) mating to Microtrains FTs?  Does the coupler need to magnetically uncouple, or manually uncouple, or is it mostly for looks?

I just compared the MT and IMs that I have.  MT was pretty clever in how they accomplished the interchange-ability of coupler and drawbar- although I think it might impact the minimum radius (as does the IM drawbar arrangement which you note rubs on the trucks a bit).  Now, if they would just answer my request for parts, so I could fix the 2 I have that are down because I need coupler parts and those little brackets they use to mount them.

Photo might be some help.  MT on the left, IM on the right.  MT used a more compact gearbox, and put a block under the diaphragm (which reads as a buffer plate when viewed from the end) to give them a way to fit a coupler in there.  The IM drawbar mounts to a stud above the truck, and they removed the floor of the diaphragm and the sbuffer altogether in order to wedge the drawbar between the frame and the truck.

[strummer]

Mark, are you trying to (a) make the unit independent, (b) modeling an ATSF or similar unit, where the railroad opted or converted from drawbars to individual couplers between As and Bs, or (c) mating to Microtrains FTs?  Does the coupler need to magnetically uncouple, or manually uncouple, or is it mostly for looks?

I just compared the MT and IMs that I have.  MT was pretty clever in how they accomplished the interchange-ability of coupler and drawbar- although I think it might impact the minimum radius (as does the IM drawbar arrangement which you note rubs on the trucks a bit).  Now, if they would just answer my request for parts, so I could fix the 2 I have that are down because I need coupler parts and those little brackets they use to mount them.

Photo might be some help.  MT on the left, IM on the right.  MT used a more compact gearbox, and put a block under the diaphragm (which reads as a buffer plate when viewed from the end) to give them a way to fit a coupler in there.  The IM drawbar mounts to a stud above the truck, and they removed the floor of the diaphragm and the sbuffer altogether in order to wedge the drawbar between the frame and the truck.

Thomas

I'd have to say "yes" to all the options you mention, if possible. As it turns out, the unit I got is an ATSF decorated model; very pretty. 

Indeed. You can see by your photo how much space the MT has, and how little the Intermountain has. Hence the problem as I see it. I tried subbing an older Red Caboose knuckle, but even after filing it down a bit to make it thinner, that truck frame still made contact with it and compromised the truck's ability to pivot freely.

I do have to say this unit runs beautifully, just as Mark "Spookshow" wrote on his site.

Mark in Oregon

[thomasjmdavis]

I am facing the same problem you are, as I picked up an extra IM B (used) and had hoped to run it with my original IM set as ABB. 

I have a really crazy thought and am trying to decide if it is worth it to take one of each apart.

Just "for the heck of it" I pulled out one of my IM F3s.  The trucks look just like the trucks of the FT.  But not just like the trucks of the IM FT, they look just like the trucks of the MT FT (underneath). That is, it appears that IM redesigned their truck specifically to provide more space (so they could body mount a 1015 coupler on the F3).  I wonder if it is possible to swap trucks from an IM F3 to an IM FT.  Because the FT truck is so close to the end, you would not be able to use a 1015, but it might provide enough space that you could build up the area below the diaphragm and then mount the MT FT coupler and bracket.  (Does anyone know if there is a part number for this coupler assembly?  I have an email off to MT, since I need to repair a couple of my MT FTs as well, but if anyone knows....)

It is past 11 here, so I am not going to start disassembling locomotives, but

[strummer]

I am facing the same problem you are, as I picked up an extra IM B (used) and had hoped to run it with my original IM set as ABB. 

I have a really crazy thought and am trying to decide if it is worth it to take one of each apart.

Just "for the heck of it" I pulled out one of my IM F3s.  The trucks look just like the trucks of the FT.  But not just like the trucks of the IM FT, they look just like the trucks of the MT FT (underneath). That is, it appears that IM redesigned their truck specifically to provide more space (so they could body mount a 1015 coupler on the F3).  I wonder if it is possible to swap trucks from an IM F3 to an IM FT.  Because the FT truck is so close to the end, you would not be able to use a 1015, but it might provide enough space that you could build up the area below the diaphragm and then mount the MT FT coupler and bracket.  (Does anyone know if there is a part number for this coupler assembly?  I have an email off to MT, since I need to repair a couple of my MT FTs as well, but if anyone knows....)

Interesting theory. When I first got my MT FT, it was missing its rear coupler. I contacted Micro Trains, and I got (2) sets of:

 #00101014 "RM-Single FT T-shank Coupler" This is what was written on the invoice.

I looked at that as a possible option; at a fast glance, the coupler box, although very short, is much too bulky for use on the IM, unless you somehow can mount it beyond the end of the car body itself, as you mention. Even then I wonder if it might stick out too far to really look right(?).

Again, we're dealing with an area with almost no useable space...but please, keep thinking about this. There's gotta be a way! 

Mark in Oregon

[nkalanaga]

Rick:  I see what you were trying to say - was there a prototype FTA without a B unit.  Apparently there were some, at least in later years, as the "Second Diesel Spotter's Guide" says that some As received rear couplers so they could be mixed with other types.

I always though the A and B units had to stay together, unlike later F units.  Guess not.

[strummer]

Rick:  I see what you were trying to say - was there a prototype FTA without a B unit.  Apparently there were some, at least in later years, as the "Second Diesel Spotter's Guide" says that some As received rear couplers so they could be mixed with other types.

I always though the A and B units had to stay together, unlike later F units.  Guess not.

Let me hasten to add here that I think cab units always look better in pairs; either 2 A's or A-B. But since this drawbar is absolutely useless to me as it is, I'm trying to figure out a coupler solution...if for no other reason so that I can at the very least pull some cars! 

Mark in Oregon

[thomasjmdavis]

Rick:  I see what you were trying to say - was there a prototype FTA without a B unit.  Apparently there were some, at least in later years, as the "Second Diesel Spotter's Guide" says that some As received rear couplers so they could be mixed with other types.

I always though the A and B units had to stay together, unlike later F units.  Guess not.

From http://old.atsfrr.org/resources/funits/ft.htm (go to page 2)

By September 1941 the Santa Fe had five A-B-B-B sets of FT's in operation numbered 100LABC through 104LABC. Although EMC's (by this time it had become EMD - Electro-Motive Division of General Motors Corp.) intent was to market the FT as AB sets permanently coupled by a drawbar, the Santa Fe early on requested couplers on all units. Subsequently, all of the Santa Fe's FT's, with the possible exception of the original two A-B-B-A sets, were delivered with couplers on both ends of all units, greatly adding to the flexibility of these units and making the shifting around of locomotive consists much easier.

  When we consider that ATSF owned about 1/2 of all FTs produced, it is actually quite likely that most FTs had couplers at both ends, even though most of the railroads that owned them had drawbars between AB pairs or ABA sets.

Although the joke going around at one point was that ATSF actually only owned 50 As and 50 Bs, they just renumbered them so often that it looked like 500 total.

[thomasjmdavis]

OK, we can eliminate truck swaps as a solution, at least without major surgery.  Neither the MT FT or the IM F unit trucks are interchangeable with the IM FT.  Gear towers of both are larger than the gear tower of the IM FT.

My next crazy thought is to try to modify a coupler from a 1017 or 1018 passenger truck. I have some where the coupler box is VERY small (these seem to have changed over the years, I think I have 4 versions altogether).  The difficulty here is that the coupler included is the opposite of what we would want- because it attaches to the truck, it is too low, so the shank of the coupler is "overslung" to compensate (the coupler is above the shank), and it would need an "underslung" coupler (below the shank) if mounted to an FT in order to get close to coupling with anything else.  But I don't know that it would ever get close to a realistic 3' coupling distance.  I wonder if one of the coupler set ups for intermodal cars might be adaptable.

As an "oh, by the way" in all the testing, I have discovered that it is near impossible to remove an IM fuel tank without busting the little clips on the side that hold it to the frame.  Nothing that can't be rectified with a little tacky wax or double sided tape, but not well designed for maintenance.

[strummer]

OK, we can eliminate truck swaps as a solution, at least without major surgery.  Neither the MT FT or the IM F unit trucks are interchangeable with the IM FT.  Gear towers of both are larger than the gear tower of the IM FT.

My next crazy thought is to try to modify a coupler from a 1017 or 1018 passenger truck. I have some where the coupler box is VERY small (these seem to have changed over the years, I think I have 4 versions altogether).  The difficulty here is that the coupler included is the opposite of what we would want- because it attaches to the truck, it is too low, so the shank of the coupler is "overslung" to compensate (the coupler is above the shank), and it would need an "underslung" coupler (below the shank) if mounted to an FT in order to get close to coupling with anything else.  But I don't know that it would ever get close to a realistic 3' coupling distance.  I wonder if one of the coupler set ups for intermodal cars might be adaptable.

As an "oh, by the way" in all the testing, I have discovered that it is near impossible to remove an IM fuel tank without busting the little clips on the side that hold it to the frame.  Nothing that can't be rectified with a little tacky wax or double sided tape, but not well designed for maintenance.

...I found that out myself yesterday....

I'm on a different tack regarding the rear coupler; won't post anything until I know if it works....

Update:

I thought I'd try to use the drawbar as the platform for holding a coupler.

First I (carefully) removed a bit of material from the casing of the rear truck, where it was contacting the drawbar and pin.

I removed the molded-on faux "coupler" castings from the top and bottom of the bar, reinforced it with some thin styrene; drilled and tapped for a 00-90 screw, then cut off the "fingers" from the B unit end of the drawbar. Screwed on an MT#905 Z scale coupler, and tried that.

It was only partially successful; I can now haul cars, so it does "work", but because the entire coupler and box sits beyond the car body, it looks a little ridiculous.   

Once again, there's just no room to attach a coupler where it belongs, short of creating a "pocket" in the 2 metal frame halves and then reducing the height of the plastic spacer that the drawbar pin gets pushed into. That's something I don't think I'm qualified to take on at this point.

I was following the recent thread about ordering the #905s in bulk, so I will add that the Z scale coupler does look really good... 

Mark in Oregon

[strummer]

...as kind of a "post script" to this thread, and to my previous post:

That coupler hanging so far out was bugging me, so I took it all apart (again!), and was able to drill and tap a new mounting hole a full 1/32" closer to the end of the unit. I then mounted an Accumate coupler, as opposed to the Z scale MT, as the Accumate mounting hole is closer to the front of the coupler box, which then moves everything "back" towards the engine.

That really helped, although it certainly is not "perfect": kind of reminds me of an engine I'd wager we've all had a one time or another, the HO scale Tyco F9, with its truck mounted rear coupler. 

Anyway, there you have it...

Mark in Oregon

[thomasjmdavis]

Thanks for the updates Mark.  I was considering something similar (accumate).  I put the project aside for the moment as I have a bunch of parts ordered from several manufacturers and when it all gets here, I will clear the workbench, pull out all the MT, Accumate and Unimate couplers and conversion kits, and spend a weekend repairing and upgrading locomotives. I've had a lot of stuff in storage for a while, and so almost everything needs a lube job, and I still have a couple Life Like E units with "rapido" couplers. Which we need a new name for, as it must drive Jason nuts.

As for "perfect"- even the MT units (at least mine), when coupled, have about 60 scale inches between them (3/8") according to my trusty caliper.  I don't have diagrams for an FT, but diagrams I have for F3s show a coupling distance of 36"- so even the MT coupling solution is imperfect. 

Tom D

[strummer]

Hey Tom

Glad my ramblings are of interest to someone. 

Please let me know if you come up with a decent solution; it's ironic that F/E units, which are so iconic to American railroading, seem to be the hardest engines to do a "proper" coupler conversion on...

When I first re-discovered N scale, one of the first engines I bought was a Life-Like E unit; I couldn't believe how smooth and quiet it was, although I never did come up with a good solution for the front coupler on that one...good luck!

Mark in Oregon