Microtrains trucks and couplers

[nscaler711]

You obviously must be correct Bob. How could I have thought otherwise?   
But no matter how you look at this, hands-free automatic uncoupling is not possible with those new couplers, and as I mentioned earlier, some modelers actually use that handy feature as there are no live N scale crew to handle that task yet.

Isn't that why we are producing Nano bots? To work our tiny trains like the real thing? 
In a sense I do agree with Bob; at least in the Z scale side of things.
On the z scale layout I have been "refurbishing" the previous owner had installed uncoupler magnets in weird areas and they are counter sunk into the board the track is laid on. If i were to remove them, I could destroy the track or the 1/8" ply he used. Anyway, the MTL cars do slinky, a lot worse than N scale, and the magnets have been horrible for slow speed movements. If I pull a cut of cars they randomly uncouple. If i want to shove a cut of cars back, sometimes the couplers wont react and I'll still have to use the toothpick of doom to the job.
Don't get me wrong when they work, they work great. But I am fine doing the job myself.
Oh and don't get me started on AZL Auto-latch.    How do we make a joint? RAMMING SPEED!

Also Bob, Save me a Bowl! Mint Chip is my favorite!

[Maletrain]

I got my bowl - where's that ice cream? 

Seriously, I think that Microtrains couplers are far from dead - if Atlas doesn't kill them.

For one thing, I am dealing with a lot of cars on club layouts that use knuckle couplers that connect to Microtrains couplers, even if they are not Microtrains couplers and have no magnetic uncoupling capabilities.  Converting all of those cars to Npossibles is beyond the club's budget and beyond my level of philanthropy, not to mention my remaining  life expectancy.  And others who come to the club to run their own equipment would need to convert or at least bring transition cars of their own to match the type of train they want to run.  We are still in the throws of converting some stock from rapidos!

I did go to the Microtrains website to see what it would cost to put Microtrains trucks with couplers on 24 Kato Coal Porters that have uncoupling problems during open house runs.  Looks to be over $200 at the prices on their website, but the trucks I need are not listed, anyway.  So, not an option until (unless) Atlas starts making those available again.  (I am currently looking at a way to make the Kato semi-dummy couplers not lift up to couple, so that they can't lift up inadvertently to uncouple when they shouldn't.  Which makes them even more unhelpful for ops.)

So, until Npossibles get adopted by manufacturers in the same way that Microtrains couplers were adopted, I don't expect Npossibles to replace Microtrains, or even Bachmann boxing gloves, in the way that Microtrains replaced rapidos.  When new rolling stock starts coming with Npossibles either on the equipment or separately in the box, already assembled, then the coupler sea state will change, but not before that.  And, I don't expect that to be in my lifetime.

None of the foregoing means that I don't appreciate Npossibles, and I do intend to convert at least some of my personal equipment.  It just means that Microtrains couplers are important to the hobby and I expect them to remain so for a substantial period.  And so are the Microtrains trucks that have no couplers attached.  The variety of Microtrains trucks being readily available has been important for the hobby.

[bbussey]

Speaking of coupler evolution, people seem to forget how many decades it took for manufacturers to switch either to knuckle couplers that would mate with Micro-Trains couplers, or to MTL clones. It did not happen overnight.

[rodsup9000]

on 24 Kato Coal Porters that have uncoupling problems during open house runs.

What about converting them to Unimate (made by Fox Valley now) couplers??
 They have body mounts too, if you wanted to go that route.

[Maletrain]

I do have a bunch of those dummy couplers, made under various names.  But, the Kato couplers that are giving me the problem are already very much like those.  The problem is really in the coupler box. 

The boxes are open at the top front, such that the dummy coupler can angle upwards when two are pushed together, then drop down with their knuckles engaged.  But they also seem to be able to angle upward and disengage while running.  So, what I really need to do is to keep them from angling upward.  I looked at trying to glue parts to the front or top of the box to prevent angling upward, but am seeing clearance problems.  Now thinking about drilling small diameter holes across the opening and inserting fine wire.

My experience with just about every T-shank coupler that goes in similar pockets (mostly conversions from rapidos) is that they will inadvertently uncouple in trains on those layouts.  That even includes the Microtrains T-shank conversion couplers.  So, to me, the box is the culprit that needs to be fixed, or replaced.   Fixing is a lot cheaper, if I can manage it.  Replacing the trucks doesn't even seem to be an option, now that the Microtrains short shank coupler rollerbearing trucks seem to be sold out.  And, I expect everything else Microtrains will sell out soon, too.

Which gets me back to wondering if/when Atlas will fill that hole in the hobby.

[rodsup9000]

I do have a bunch of those dummy couplers, made under various names.  But, the Kato couplers that are giving me the problem are already very much like those.  The problem is really in the coupler box. 

  Body mount the coupler and cut the old one off the truck. I've done it with their 2 bay hopper and it's easy.

[tehachapifan]

You obviously must be correct Bob. How could I have thought otherwise?   
But no matter how you look at this, hands-free automatic uncoupling is not possible with those new couplers, and as I mentioned earlier, some modelers actually use that handy feature as there are no live N scale crew to handle that task yet.

To expand on this, has anyone ever gotten any coupler other than an MT to actually uncouple over a magnet? I certainly never have, even with ones that boast the ability. In fact, I can't see the ones I have move at all even when an uncoupled coupler is moved back and forth over the magnet.

So, my original concern regarding MT couplers being produced at a different factory with possibly different materials still stands.

[turbowhiz]

I do have a bunch of those dummy couplers, made under various names.  But, the Kato couplers that are giving me the problem are already very much like those.  The problem is really in the coupler box. 

The boxes are open at the top front, such that the dummy coupler can angle upwards when two are pushed together, then drop down with their knuckles engaged.  But they also seem to be able to angle upward and disengage while running.  So, what I really need to do is to keep them from angling upward.  I looked at trying to glue parts to the front or top of the box to prevent angling upward, but am seeing clearance problems.  Now thinking about drilling small diameter holes across the opening and inserting fine wire.

My experience with just about every T-shank coupler that goes in similar pockets (mostly conversions from rapidos) is that they will inadvertently uncouple in trains on those layouts.  That even includes the Microtrains T-shank conversion couplers.  So, to me, the box is the culprit that needs to be fixed, or replaced.   Fixing is a lot cheaper, if I can manage it.  Replacing the trucks doesn't even seem to be an option, now that the Microtrains short shank coupler rollerbearing trucks seem to be sold out.  And, I expect everything else Microtrains will sell out soon, too.

Which gets me back to wondering if/when Atlas will fill that hole in the hobby.

The ultimate Kato Coal porter solution... Fix the typical N scale sky high ride height. Sort the coupling problems. And the uncoupling problems. And it looks sharp. Cheaper and better then attempting to replace the trucks;

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=59868.msg829341#msg829341

N-Possible couplers hold on edge under stress BETTER then MTL. Yes, RDA MTL. Demonstrably, every time. Oh and they don't draft buff draft uncouple like MTL. There is much more to the N-Possible coupler then the lack of slink and scale size. The more demanding your operations are, the more the NP shines.

[robert3985]

Well, @turbowhiz - Your post certainly took care of the Kato coal-porter problem!  I'd say that even if the poster with the uncoupling problems didn't want to use N-Possible couplers, body mounting appropriate MTL couplers (while they're still available) would solve his problems using at least most of the instructions in your link. 

If it's a unit train, never going to couple to any other cars, why not use N-Possibles??  Especially if appropriate MTL's are sold out.  Just askin'...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[rodsup9000]

why not use N-Possibles??
Bob Gilmore

Cost

Here's what he said earlier


"For one thing, I am dealing with a lot of cars on club layouts that use knuckle couplers that connect to Microtrains couplers, even if they are not Microtrains couplers and have no magnetic uncoupling capabilities.  Converting all of those cars to Npossibles is beyond the club's budget and beyond my level of philanthropy, not to mention my remaining  life expectancy.  And others who come to the club to run their own equipment would need to convert or at least bring transition cars of their own to match the type of train they want to run.  We are still in the throws of converting some stock from rapidos"       



I did go to the Microtrains website to see what it would cost to put Microtrains trucks with couplers on 24 Kato Coal Porters that have uncoupling problems during open house runs.  Looks to be over $200 at the prices on their website, but the trucks I need are not listed, anyway.  So, not an option until (unless) Atlas starts making those available again.  (I am currently looking at a way to make the Kato semi-dummy couplers not lift up to couple, so that they can't lift up inadvertently to uncouple when they shouldn't.  Which makes them even more unhelpful for ops.)"

[bbussey]

To expand on this, has anyone ever gotten any coupler other than an MT to actually uncouple over a magnet? I certainly never have, even with ones that boast the ability. In fact, I can't see the ones I have move at all even when an uncoupled coupler is moved back and forth over the magnet.

So, my original concern regarding MT couplers being produced at a different factory with possibly different materials still stands.

I use K&J neodymium magnets, which are much stronger than what MTL supplied, strong enough to bury into the roadbed adjacent to the track instead of immediately underneath it.  And the magnets are strong enough to affect all of the magnetic coupler variants.

[Maletrain]

I have found that the Bachmann under-track magnets are good at achieving magnetic uncoupling.  I can put them in the "roadbed" part of Kato Unitrack and they work well.  Besides being strong, they are also wider than between-the-rails magnets, so pull the trip pins more widely apart.  They really don't belong on a mainline, though, because they are good at uncoupling during slinky effect, too.

[Jimbo]

I have no doubt that Atlas will never produce any MT product (trucks, couplers, coupler conversions) that has been a slow seller.  Even MT themselves dropped many of the older conversion products (e.g. Rivarossi steam loco conversions) over the past few years.  So, for example, if you have an old Atlas/Kato RS-3, you’d better get your conversion kit now while you can!

I also am convinced that the True Scale coupler product line will not be continued.

I just don’t think that they would ever recover the cost of setting up the manufacture of these niche products.  At the end of the day, whatever they decide to do needs to earn back its cost.

Of course, Atlas could prove me wrong…. 

Jim

[Maletrain]

Assuming that Microtrains had an on-going manufacturing process for its staple items like trucks and couplers, it doesn't make sense to me for Atlas to "reinvent the wheel" by starting anew with different manufacturers, IF they intend to produce the SAME things.  Because Atlas bought the Microtrains company, I would expect that they could just take over administration of its contracts with others. At least that is what I would try to do, but lawyers might get in the way, somehow.

I can understand Atlas dropping some products, especially the True Scale Couplers and some of the conversion sets for long-out-of-production model locomotives.

The thing that worries me is what Atlas will do with Microtrains products that competed with Atlas products, particularly couplers and wheels.  The "no slinky" argument could be a factor in that, and the drop-out Atlas trip pins, too.  I expect there will be some differences in opinions inside Atlas, and have no idea how those will play out.

It would be nice if Atlas would make some specific statements about what Microtrains products they intend to keep manufacturing as-is.  Atlas seems to have an representative on this forum, so this would be a good place to say something.

[robert3985]

As for the Kadee/MTL Magne-Matic uncoupling feature...

...But no matter how you look at this, hands-free automatic uncoupling is not possible with those new couplers, and as I mentioned earlier, some modelers actually use that handy feature as there are no live N scale crew to handle that task yet.

@peteski - Peter, although I don't use the Kadee/MTL Magne-Matic uncoupling feature, there was a time when I did use it and quite effectively too.  Although I take a lot of extra effort to ensure that my trackwork is pretty near optimal for operation, both on the mainlines and in my sidings and industrial spurs, I found that Kadee/MTL N-gauge couplers, especially when there were only a few cars in a consist or when switching, would regularly not function correctly over the magnets in my Ideal Concrete industrial spur, due to slinkying.  Since the cars being spotted and picked up at the concrete plant were always the same cars, I added weight (a lot) and then, when that didn't completely cure the problem, I put Kadee/MTL restraining springs on one wheelset per car.  This cured the problem, and also kept the cars where they should be if setup at a show wasn't completely level.

Around this same time, I was invited to be part of the regular crew at Lee Nicholas's Utah Colorado Western HO scale layout, and to also do quite a bit of scenery work on a couple of areas that had been expanded.  Lee uses HO scale Kadee couplers, but uncouples them manually, so the crew has to learn how to manually, with Lee's uncoupling tools, uncouple cars when working the yard or when spotting cars at one of many locations on his layout.  I got used to the idea of manually uncoupling cars and adjusting the couplers in order to push cars to where they needed to be spotted without the cars being spotted coupling up.  Since prototypically, uncoupling and coupling of cars is done manually, it felt to me more realistic than when at where our NTRAK layout was set up, I would switch my industrial spur using the Magne-Matic feature.

So, I ripped out all of my uncoupling magnets, and started snipping off the magnetic dongles...and uncoupling manually.

This doesn't mean I have something against Magne-Matic delayed action uncoupling.  I think the feature is pretty neat but, I enjoy doing it manually.  And, I enjoy the looks of my trains without the magnetic dongle hanging down attached to every coupler.  Yeah, I suppose they sorta look like air hoses, sorta, but unconnected model air hoses attached to the car body look exponentially better IMHO.

Operationally, they were a PITA on our set up NTRAK layout because of the joiner tracks and sloppy workmanship of some of the members.  However, we dumped NTRAK and established our own double-track standards without joiner tracks, which basically solved the problems that joiner tracks cause. My own modular layout doesn't have joiner tracks, so I don't have any joiner track problems either.

So, that's the story, and the reasons I have for being happy as Hell that N-Possible couplers have come to pass while I'm still around to enjoy them!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore