Coupler height on Bluford 86' Boxcars...

[learmoia]

Over the years I acquired roughly 20 Bluford 86' boxcars for my Autoparts plant.  Now that I have a few out of the box and on the layout, I'm finding that coupler heights are all lower than the standard, but all over the place in how low.  (it's almost like they should have had the under slung MTL coupler installed (like Trainworx)

Any tips on fine tuning these to resolve the issue?

~Ian

[randgust]

Photos?   Not all of us have those to know.

I know it's 'old school' but the MT approach on the piggyback flats with the underslung coupler on the supported extension drawbar was pretty brilliant.  And they used an underslung coupler box too.  I don't see those parts on the MT website though. 
N Scale Kits did the complete imitation on their piggybacks.

I've had consistent problems with stringlining long cars on heavy trains around a 15" curve if the coupler shanks were short like the Atlas.  So not only do you have an issue with the knuckle height, the further back the box mount is and a longer shank the better off you are.

[Mark5]

I bought some from the first run, and from several subsequent runs.

This is from the first run:



Bluford 86' on the left, MTL 60' on the right (this is when I learned that MTL 60' HiCubes are vertically compressed)

Mine are all boxed up (I have a bunch) at the moment (I just moved), so I don't know if any others of mine have the issue Ian is is experiencing.

Mark

[learmoia]

I'll get some photos of some with the height gauge...

[randgust]

Yeah, that kind of mount between the box and the truck centers is the exact thing I'm pointing out here.

I'm not sure what your train weight is and minimum curve radius, but I'd test it with the cars to make sure you are OK.  I sure wasn't.   Stringlines if the cars were in the front third. 

[learmoia]

I went down this morning and took the 3 examples I had to a height gauge and they all came out more or less correct..

The car with Accumates (2nd run I think) was dead on accurate.
The other two sample cars are from later runs (MTL couplers and metal wheels)
I previously put truck shims in one and that was was close enough to height.
The other one was lower but not much..

I think its more of a trip pin issue than a coupler height issue.

I'm using Kato Track, and I just finished relaying most of my curves to get:
480mm - 18 7/8" / 447mm - 17 5/8" Minimum Mainline Radius  (previously I was using 381 and 348 curves in the easement curves)

There is still one spot that I'm forced to use 381.. but that was upgrated from mostly 348 to 381 minimum.

I'll clip the pins and retest things and see how they do.

Another thing I can try is to permanently mount the coupler box to the body.. that should remove the downward flex under tension..

~Ian

[peteski]

If the  trip pin is a problem why not just adjust it (bent it up a bit) instead of snipping it off?

[learmoia]

If the  trip pin is a problem why not just adjust it (bent it up a bit) instead of snipping it off?

I could..

[jagged ben]

Not able to get pics right now, but for those who don't remember the Blueford cars have a rather unique and innovative body mounting that allows the draft gear to pivot to accommodate tighter radii.  I recall some screws that may need to be tightened up so that the puvoting arm doesn't sag. 

[learmoia]

Not able to get pics right now, but for those who don't remember the Blueford cars have a rather unique and innovative body mounting that allows the draft gear to pivot to accommodate tighter radii.  I recall some screws that may need to be tightened up so that the puvoting arm doesn't sag. 

Right... I found that in some cases... but even with the screws tight, there still may be some 'slop'.. I think the solution might be as simple as a .005 shim on the plate to hold the coupler box up.

[robert3985]

If the  trip pin is a problem why not just adjust it (bent it up a bit) instead of snipping it off?

@peteski - Peter, First, the "pins" or magnetic dongles as I like to call them, have no function below the coupler body if not using Magne-Matic uncoupling, so, cutting them off is much faster than fiddling around with them if they're out of spec.  Second, dongles have always been a source for coupler problems (potential and/or actual), so eliminating them below the coupler body gets rid of potential and/or real interference problems they might cause for increased running reliability.  Third, and this is merely my opinion, they look ugly...just curved metal rods bent into a decidedly non-prototype appearance requiring painting to slightly improve their appearance, detracting from the overall prototype appearance of any N-scale rolling stock or motive power model they're attached to.

Sure, some modelers think they look like brake hoses, and maybe they appear better between cars than nothing at all..maybe..., and everybody's entitled to their opinions.  That said, my opinion is that nothingness is better than ugliness, and on every car and engine that I own, the dongles have been snipped.

However, nothingness between cars isn't ideal since prototypically there are always brake hoses, so, early on, after I determined that Magne-Matic uncoupling wasn't for me, and I started snipping them when I was running long, heavy trains on the NTRAK setup...which would sometimes cause coupler droop, making the dongle of the offending drooping coupler go below clearance specification while running, causing derailments and/or uncoupling problems.  So, snip snip, problem solved...and, I started applying Precision Scale brass brake hoses on car ends, and later, less durable, but readily available BLMA Styrene hoses since they were stocked at my LHS.

Even though the illusion isn't complete because the hose ends don't attach to each other in N-scale (like they can in some larger scale applications) they look pretty good from many viewing angles.  Notably, Micro Trains included semi-realistic looking ones (much better than the dongles) that attach to their True-Scale Coupler boxes, and N-Possible couplers also have much more realistic looking brake hoses for attachment to their coupler boxes, both of which I highly appreciate.

Photo (1) - MTL True-Scale Couplers on my BLI F3's showing a good viewing angle for the included cosmetic brake hoses:


Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

@peteski - Peter, First, the "pins" or magnetic dongles as I like to call them, have no function below the coupler body if not using Magne-Matic uncoupling, so, cutting them off is much faster than fiddling around with them if they're out of spec.  Second, dongles have always been a source for coupler problems (potential and/or actual), so eliminating them below the coupler body gets rid of potential and/or real interference problems they might cause for increased running reliability.  Third, and this is merely my opinion, they look ugly...just curved metal rods bent into a decidedly non-prototype appearance requiring painting to slightly improve their appearance, detracting from the overall prototype appearance of any N-scale rolling stock or motive power model they're attached to.

Whatever they are called Bob, I just provided an alternative to snipping them off. Doesn't matter to me whether you like them or not.     As for problem's, I never had any issues with them as they are very easily adjusted. When adjusted properly there is no way they will snag on anything at or below rail top level. And nothing should stick up over the rail top level on a well-built layout.  MTL couplers with their trip pins or magnetic dongles have been reliable since they were first produced in early '70s. I bet dollars to doughnuts that most modelers using them do not remove or cut them off.

[randgust]

I have a 15-car train of 80-foot piggyback flats for my Super C, three Kato six-axles on the front, various MT, N Scale Kits, Trainworx, other flats.  Mix of body mounts and truck mounts.  2% grades on a 13"/15" curve, grade compensated, but still tough.   It's a hard enough pull to stringline stuff over, also I had to stay with either pizza cutters or mid-flanges.  So there's a lot of stress on the couplers here.

I do all magnetic.  Had all kinds of 'issues' with train separation, pins deflecting for years, until I modified each and every coupler to RDA specs by hand.  That's just amazing.   The harder you pull the better they center, they will not deflect, they will not pull apart.   You'll break a head off before something deflects up or down.   And all my pins are still on.

So if you are using magnetics, that's the solution.  I had a terrible time with the old MT truck mounted extended boxes until I did this with false uncoupling.  And any kind of vertical curve on body mounts wants to pop them out of alignment as well without this.

[robert3985]

Whatever they are called Bob, I just provided an alternative to snipping them off. Doesn't matter to me whether you like them or not.     As for problem's, I never had any issues with them as they are very easily adjusted. When adjusted properly there is no way they will snag on anything at or below rail top level. And nothing should stick up over the rail top level on a well-built layout.  MTL couplers with their trip pins or magnetic dongles have been reliable since they were first produced in early '70s. I bet dollars to doughnuts that most modelers using them do not remove or cut them off.

@peteski - Peter, i just like the word "dongle" for some reason. And, you asked a question, and I just provided an answer.  It doesn't matter to me that it doesn't matter to you if I like them or not.  But, since I don't use Magne-Matic uncoupling (as I stated in my answer), I don't like them, so I get rid of them...a very simple procedure. 

No matter how you look at it, it doesn't take as much time to snip them off as it would to fiddle around with them to get their clearance correct...or, to even just check if their clearance is correct.  Snip snip

I agree that on a "...well-built layout..." dongles shouldn't be a problem, unless the well-built layout has any turnouts, diamonds, grade crossings, passenger-loading facilities, etc., that require railhead level structures between the rails and if trains are long and heavy.  Since I didn't have a layout early on, I ran my trains on the local NTRAK setup, which definitely was NOT a "well-built layout" being composed of both well-built modules and trash.  Get the picture? Checking dongle clearance is probably the first thing modelers check when a car consistently derails, because THEY ARE a problem, or at least, a very real potential problem.

However, maybe MTL's solved the coupler drooping problem since they've modified the coupler jaws at least once that I know of.

As for Kadee/MTL N-scale couplers being "reliable" since the early 1970's, they were fairly reliable...I know, I was there...converting all of my engines and cars to them, with a literal bucket full of cast-off Rapido-style couplers under my workbench.  However, they weren't perfect (and are still not perfect) and had some problems, some of which got fixed, and some still need fixing...such as slinky-effect.  However, one of the problems for heavy, long trains, was that the stresses on cars positioned towards the front of the train would often cause coupler droop (or "deflection"), which would lower a properly adjusted coupler dongle enough that it would catch on turnouts, diamonds, grade-crossing...anything that was at, or near rail head height between the rails.  It's a fact, and I know it because I was there experiencing the problem, along with other club members.

Sure, out of all the present-day N-scale & Z-scale magnetically actuated couplers, MTL couplers are the best.  However, they aren't the best when the modeler wants a more prototypical looking, non-magnetically operated N or Z scale coupler, and who hates slinkying.

As for your statement that "I bet dollars to doughnuts that most modelers using them do not remove or cut them off."...I wouldn't bet against that claim since it's very likely true.  But, what does that have to do with anything??? First, most modelers don't "use them", since they only get "used" if the modeler elects to use magnetic uncoupling.  All the rest of the time, dongles just sit there on the couplers...an additional variable and/or potential problem...looking ugly, and lookin' for trouble.

Additionally, I rarely write a comment directed towards "most modelers"...which is why I like being here at TRW.  This is where "most modelers" don't dare to tread, and my comments on this thread have generated (so far) several PM's dealing with getting advice regarding replacing standard MTL N-scale couplers with MTL True-Scale couplers.

I have a 15-car train of 80-foot piggyback flats for my Super C, three Kato six-axles on the front, various MT, N Scale Kits, Trainworx, other flats.  Mix of body mounts and truck mounts.  2% grades on a 13"/15" curve, grade compensated, but still tough.   It's a hard enough pull to stringline stuff over, also I had to stay with either pizza cutters or mid-flanges.  So there's a lot of stress on the couplers here.

I do all magnetic.  Had all kinds of 'issues' with train separation, pins deflecting for years, until I modified each and every coupler to RDA specs by hand.  That's just amazing.   The harder you pull the better they center, they will not deflect, they will not pull apart.   You'll break a head off before something deflects up or down.   And all my pins are still on.

So if you are using magnetics, that's the solution.  I had a terrible time with the old MT truck mounted extended boxes until I did this with false uncoupling.  And any kind of vertical curve on body mounts wants to pop them out of alignment as well without this.

@randgust - Good to know there's a solution!  My operating environment was different.  I encountered "deflection" problems when pulling 60 to 80 car freights on my club's NTRAK setup, with no grades, a 24" minimum mainline radius, but with some module joiner trackage being waaaay sub-par.  I was running lo-pro wheelsets at the time which I had machined myself on my 6" Atlas lathe, which was pretty easy to do with the early Kadee 3-piece wheel/axle setup.

At the time, I was experimenting with Magne-Matic uncoupling, and I thought it was pretty cool, keeping any magnets off of my module's mainline trackage as per NTRAK requirements at the time.  Most club members were still using Rapido-style couplers, and one of their objections to converting to Kadees was the uncoupling/derailing problem because of bad trackwork and long, heavy NTRAK trains to impress onlookers.  I installed axle springs in my cars and my short trains I was going to switch at my Devil's Slide module at the Ideal Concrete Plant to mostly eliminate slinkying and delayed uncoupling problems that the effect causes, but for loooong trains out on the mainline, axle springs weren't ideal.

In the end, I decided that manual uncoupling was much more "operator involving", than remote magnetic uncoupling, so I got rid of my magnets and started snipping dongles, then went with Z-scale couplers when they started being produced...then True-Scale Couplers (modified) when I got them figured out.  Happy that the new N-Possible Couplers are compatible with my True-Scale's, because when they become available, everything is going to be N-Possibles.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore