Microtrains trucks and couplers

[Sokramiketes]

Sure Bob . . . if you are willing to switch over your entire fleet. Conversion cars do not count in my book. 
Some people do not find the slinky effect objectionable and also use the magnetic uncoupling feature.  Not  everybody strives for absolute scale coupler accuracy.

Don't loose the details in a soundbyte!  nPossibles, while scale size, also operate better.  They hold better, they don't have unwanted bouncing/slack/vertical sliding issues, and they deal with poor track better than any MTL style knuckle.  Yes, including bad module joints.  (I admit Modutrak has those too.)

Now, I don't think we need to divide into camps over coupler choice either, which I'm starting to sense in this thread.  Folks like Bryan Bussey have reasons.  And he's willing to work toward a complete set of standards that work for him.  That includes stronger magnets and avoiding uncoupling picks around catenary. 

We had the magnet vs uncoupling pick debates over many hours operating in the Chicago area since the late 90's.  Reid Bros', Pistello's, Denton's, etc.  Picks were the consensus of the group.  So we have that frame of mind around here.  And that means magnetic uncoupling hasn't been a feature for a long time... *for us*. 

I like Bryan's reminder that it took many years to adopt MTL's.  Same thing with metal wheels and Atlas Code 55 track.  "Oh my god the new track isn't compatible with my MTL pizza cutters!  How could I ever afford to convert my fleet??"  Modutrak took the "maybe using Atlas Code 55 will encourage better rolling stock on the layout" approach.  Then we dealt with a round of Snob-U-Trak comments, but also inspired the next round of N scale.  Grant visited with us in 2008-ish and went home and tore out all his track and converted to good wheels and body mount couplers.  Because the system (a whole system!) worked better and looked better. 

Metal wheelsets and body mount couplers are now pretty well adopted on new equipment. 

I tried some other interim paths.  None panned out, like MTL Z scale couplers.  MTL true scale.  Vlk couplers (BLI, Arnold, JTC, etc) I'd go back to reliability, body mounted MTL, and was in cruise control for what, 20 years since the Code 55 debate? And participated in many discussions about what a better coupler would look like.  More detailed, better appearance, no slinky.  That was mostly talk.  Several iterations of MTL compatible couplers have all struck out.  I had a lot of hope for the Vlk coupler.  But it never worked because it had to be compatible.

Fast forward to nPossible.  Intriguing.  Lots of promises.  I'm pretty open to trying things, but even so it was awhile before fully paying attention to what Andrew was trying to show us.  And then, picked some up.  Converted a couple of cars.  Tried them on Modutrak.  Did a torture test of an engine and couple conversion cars on Grant's southern alberta rail.  In a parallel path, Gary was an early adopter and further in conversions, following everything he tried with the Lee English coupler and the good, but not great experience.  So I started a full train conversion and we rode across Canada on VIA #1 to see Gary's. 

A couple things affected me on that trip.  Yes, the couplers are awesome and the best coupler available for consistent operating characteristics.  But I was reminded about something else.  These top notch N scale layouts (sar and Tehachapi BC) set out on a set of standards and, yes, are a bit cutting edge.  That involves a lot of boring work to bring stuff up to one standard.  And yes, it costs money.  What you have at the end of the yellow brick road is smooth, FUN, operating.  And a sense of mass being moved and train dynamics and getting lost in watching smoothness at eye level.

I'll also note that I was surprised to hear how long Gary had been in N scale.  Because when you see the layout, there isn't any bit of legacy N scale around.  Both he and Grant seem to have less nostalgic grip than I have! 

In contrast, I'll note that great friend Kirk Reddie (RIP) was the opposite.  His abomination of n scale standards meant his barn layout was a mix of any track and era standard he could get his hands on!  (And yes we'd have that conversation in person!  He gave me this nickname for a reason...)  Pizza cutters were his favorite because they were the only thing that could operate at all on that mess.   

I find myself reinspired, and connected with a group of N scalers that are exploring what the next set of amazing standards is going to be.  It's early in nPossible history, but damn am I excited about where N scale is going.  These guys make me want to be a better modeler.

Will I convert everything?  Nope.  Because I might move on from that era.  Literally (been catching up on modern railroading) and figuratively. 


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

Someday I'll start a thread for the next layout project. 
 

[Maletrain]

I previously have acquired and tested the MTL Z scale and True Scale couplers, as well as the Npossilbes, all while hoping to make a rather large layout to a much better standard than I experience at our club.  But, realism has sunk into my planning, so I have now cut my planning back at home, where I still hope to someday make at least a small layout that is close to scale, including code 40 rail and Npossible couplers.

However, I expect that most of my train running will occur at my club, where there is not much enthusiasm for fine scale, and a lot of legacy infrastructure that is anything but.  So, except for whole trains that I take there to run and take home again, I am still involved with MTL couplers and their compatible competitors.  And, I think it will remain that way for a long time - even if Atlas kills the MTL couplers and all we can get is Accumates. 

But, I will have to pull the trip pins out of the Accumates (before they come out by themselves somewhere in the trackwork), so magnetic uncoupling without the MTL versions seems like it would be a thing of the past not so long after the loss of MTLs.

[GaryHinshaw]

I have no idea what the N scale coupler landscape will look like 10 years from now.  But one thing that would dramatically smooth the way is for manufacturers to adopt rigorous standards for coupler pockets.  My ideal would be something like a 1015 style box mounted at the correct height that can accommodate an MTL style shank or an N-P shank+URS splitter (without requiring surgery).   Ideally the box could be a separate part that could be replaced with an N-P scale box, if desired.  But in many situations, (e.g. tank cars, auto racks) a removable box is probably not practical or desirable, but that's fine if either style of coupler were compatible.

And please manufacturers, stop inventing your own couplers!  That more than anything it what drove me to adopt N-Ps.  I really needed a single brand of coupler for reliability and it honestly would have been nearly as much work to convert a bunch of my stuff to MTLs as it is turning out to be for N-Ps (since less than half my fleet had decent MTLs to start with).

Oh, and nice essay Mike.  Kirk's moniker is perfect for you. 

[dandopinski]

With scale couplers now a reality, the final N scale frontier is scale rail.

[John]

I hope the NP couplers do well, but realistically, MT couplers and knockoffs will be the standard for quite some time - I will not convert any rolling stock over in my lifetime - not that I think they aren't good. Everything I've seen in the threads here shows the NPs have a place for modelers, but having converted my fleet from Rapidos to MTs, pizza cutters to lo-pros, I just can't justify another change ..

I agree with Gary on both points - universal coupler pocket, and standard coupler .. Now that Atlas is an even bigger elephant, they could make that happen

[robert3985]

With scale couplers now a reality, the final N scale frontier is scale rail.

@dandopinski - Actually, scale rail is available for N-scale.  It's called (ahem!)...Code40.  Code40 flex is available from Micro Engineering (just recently produced with new injection tooling and becoming stocked in stores).

It's reported that pizza-cutters will run on it, but I have not personally verified that claim.  I don't have any pizza-cutters in either my locomotive nor rolling stock fleets anyway.

No Code40 turnouts are available, but learning to roll your own isn't that difficult using the Fast Tracks method, jigs & tools.  Code40, because of its small size, is easier to work than Code55 and turnout construction goes noticeably faster.  I build my Code40 turnouts (and ALL of my turnouts) using paper templates taped to a nice, flat, straight piece of 1X6 pine.  I taught myself to build my own turnouts in the mid 1980's, way before Fast Tracks existed.

Okay, I can hear it now..."BUT, Code40's railhead is waaay too wide/Code40's railfoot is waaay too wide!!"  ...and other remarks.  In order to actually observe if these are rumors or facts, years ago, I decided to take my dial calipers and micrometer out and measure Micro Engineering Code40 rail.  Since I am interested in the Union Pacific after heavier mainline rails were laid in Weber/Echo Canyons early in 1941, several months before Big Boys were delivered (in September 1941) and track curves re-aligned to accommodate the giant engine's dimensions and weight, I did my research and found out that the new rail laid was 131lb rail.

Next, I found several diagrams of various types and sizes of rail used by North American railroads, including measurements for prototype 131lb rail.

Surprisingly, when I measured my ME Code40 rail, it was taller than 0.040"...it varied between 0.0425" and 0.044"...it wasn't consistent, but always a little taller than 0.040", so I rounded it off to "approximately 0.043 inches tall."

Here's what I found.  Prototype 131lb rail is 7.125" tall (0.0446" in N-scale). Code40 rail is approximately 0.043" tall...that's 0.0016" too short.  Prototype 131lb rail's railfoot is 6" wide (0.0375" in N-scale). Code40 rail's railfoot is 0.0385" wide...that's 0.001" too wide.  Prototype 131lb rail's railhead is 3" wide (0.01875" in N-scale). Code40's railhead width is 0.019" wide...that's 0.00025" too wide...one quarter of a thousandth of an inch too wide.

My conclusion is that Micro Engineering Code40 rail is less than two thousandths of an inch off in height (too short), and the railhead is only a 1/4 of a thousandth of an inch off in width (too wide). This is pretty much right-on IMHO and I would have no problem whatsoever using it as my mainline rail to represent prototype 131lb rail.

However, Micro Engineering Code40 rail's railhead does "look" too wide, and this is because it isn't as rounded as prototype rail is...it's more square...which makes a larger reflection off of the shiny top than if it was more prototypically rounded.

Oh well.

Now, if Code35 rail were available, I'd do the remaining scenes on my layout using Code40 as the mainline trackage and Code35 for my industrial spurs.  As it is, I use oversized Code55 (Rail-Craft) for my mainlines and hand-laid & Rail-Craft Code40 flex for my sidings/spurs/branchline trackage because I love the difference in height I can see when the trackage is adjacent to each other.

But, it's not available.

Which doesn't change the fact that Micro Engineering Code40 (code 43) is fully appropriate for 131lb mainline rail.

It IS scale rail for N-scale.

Photo (1) - Measurement diagram for prototype 131 lb rail with N-scale measurements added:


Photo (2) - Superdetailed Key Big Boy (with MTL Nn3/Z scale coupler) on hand-laid Code40 track which is correct for the 131lb mainline rail it ran on:


Photo (3) - Hand laid Code55 mainline trackage with hand laid Code40 siding trackage in the foreground:


Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Jimbo]

Everything I've seen in the threads here shows the NPs have a place for modelers, but having converted my fleet from Rapidos to MTs, pizza cutters to lo-pros, I just can't justify another change ..

John:

For the sake of discussion, you raise an interesting point.  In the past, you clearly saw value in switching from Rapidos to MT; I presume the switch from pizza cutters to lo-pros was due to a switch in track to Atlas C55?  In other words, your modeling has been evolving over time to improve appearance and, presumably, performance.  What was done in the past has presumably benefitted your modeling and improved your skill.

At the same time, these changes you've made to your rolling stock are a sunk cost - what's done is done - so that really shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether you make a switch.  What SHOULD factor into your decision is whether the payoff of improved appearance is worth an investment going forward.  At this stage, you may have no desire to invest the time and money into this, or you may have operational reasons to stay the course (e.g. perhaps you use magnetic uncoupling, or interoperability with others is important to you.)  And I certainly respect this.

I'm in the process of switching over my rolling stock right now; the reason for my change is that I want operating couplers on the pilots of my steam locomotives that aren't ugly.  (If you look at the thread "An N-Possible Journal", you'll see that the 2.5 conversions that I've posted have been for steam locomotives.)  Changing over all of my rolling stock will be a daunting task, and will likely take many months if not years.  I've gone through the same process of Rapidos to MT, Pizza Cutters to low-pros, and, now that I'm switching couplers, I'm also upgrading to metal wheelsets.  It's not a cheap date.  I'm sure that I'll be happier in the future that I'm doing this.

Each of us have their reasons on whether or not to change, and I'm not suggesting one way or the other is right or wrong.  However, past rolling stock upgrades shouldn't be the reason.  It's a sunk cost.

I'd appreciate any other thoughts or comments.

Jim

[John]

John:

For the sake of discussion, you raise an interesting point.  In the past, you clearly saw value in switching from Rapidos to MT; I presume the switch from pizza cutters to lo-pros was due to a switch in track to Atlas C55?  In other words, your modeling has been evolving over time to improve appearance and, presumably, performance.  What was done in the past has presumably benefitted your modeling and improved your skill.

At the same time, these changes you've made to your rolling stock are a sunk cost - what's done is done - so that really shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether you make a switch.  What SHOULD factor into your decision is whether the payoff of improved appearance is worth an investment going forward.  At this stage, you may have no desire to invest the time and money into this, or you may have operational reasons to stay the course (e.g. perhaps you use magnetic uncoupling, or interoperability with others is important to you.)  And I certainly respect this.

I'd appreciate any other thoughts or comments.

@Jimbo  . thanks for the post --

I'm 70+. For various reasons,  I'm staring at less longevity every day. I've come to the realization that I have more toys than will ever need or use.

To convert over 600 pieces of rolling stock is a cost in time and funds I don't wish to undertake. The ROI isn't there for me personally anymore.  What I have will meet my needs.

The only things I may upgrade is a few select locomotives with sound and keep alives.   

My layout is not operational, having only completed a small portion of the rebuild after I took the old one down a few years ago. Progress is slower than I hoped. I haven't run a train on the track that I have in place in over a year ..

I have a small FremoN module that I'll take to the next Timonium show in Feb and will run there.  With any luck, I'll get the layout far enough along this year to run around in a circle. Friends have offered help, but I'm pretty much a lone wolf when it comes to building the layout. .


Regards - John

[Jimbo]

@Jimbo  . thanks for the post --

I'm 70+. For various reasons,  I'm staring at less longevity every day. I've come to the realization that I have more toys than will ever need or use.

To convert over 600 pieces of rolling stock is a cost in time and funds I don't wish to undertake. The ROI isn't there for me personally anymore.  What I have will meet my needs.

The only things I may upgrade is a few select locomotives with sound and keep alives.   

My layout is not operational, having only completed a small portion of the rebuild after I took the old one down a few years ago. Progress is slower than I hoped. I haven't run a train on the track that I have in place in over a year ..

I have a small FremoN module that I'll take to the next Timonium show in Feb and will run there.  With any luck, I'll get the layout far enough along this year to run around in a circle. Friends have offered help, but I'm pretty much a lone wolf when it comes to building the layout. .


Regards - John

@John :

I hear ya!  We all have to make our choices; I’ll never judge modelers who make different ones than I do.  Given the same conditions, I would probably choose the same priorities that you are.  (Except I couldn’t care less about sound!    )

I wish you all success in your layout build!

Sincerely,
Jim

[robert3985]

Welllll...I'll hit 77 this year (in May) and I'm still at it.

I've gone through Rapidos, Kadee/MTL N-gauge couplers, MTL Nn3/Z scale couplers, MTL True-Scale couplers and now N-Possibles.  I started machining my own low-pro wheelsets when Kadee N-gauge wheelsets were 3 piece, then went to their plastic 1-piecers when they came out, then decided on FVM Narrow Tread metal wheelsets when they came out.

I finally decided on DCC/Sound after Athearn's Challengers were available, even though the first MRC sound decoders for them were trash.  They're all Tsunamis now.

I've moved, and finally have room to set up and finish my sectional/modular layout, so I'll be doing that this year along with continuing to replace my wheelsets and converting over to N-P's.

Although I feel each day that I wake up, get out of bed and get to work as being a Gift, I'm not in any physical danger yet...so, I'm blessed, and thank my parents for their good genes!

Pretty exciting times for N-scale IMHO and I hope that when I finally kick the bucket, they'll have to carry me feet first out of my workshop or layout room while still wearing my Optivisors!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[dandopinski]

Bob
Sure we have code 40 and that's good. It would be better if there were a variety of switches to go with the flex track. I would also like to see 115lb rail and 85lb rail available too. Keep pushing the fidelity envelope.

[Maletrain]

Getting back to the original worry in this post, I think that Atlas has just answered that question, and the answer is good GREAT :

"We have received a number of inquiries regarding the availability of trucks, couplers, and parts. Atlas intends to continue offering these items, consistent with past Micro-Trains practices. Availability will be restored as components are produced in conjunction with regular product manufacturing."

Halleluiah !!!

Now, back to our thread drifting into fine scale land. 

[thomasjmdavis]

There was a confirmation of sorts from Lowell Smith in the newsletter I received today.  He mentions the business cars he's been waiting for since (I think) before the Talent fire.  He's had conversations with Atlas, and had a very positive response.  Not that they will be out tomorrow, but he indicated the cars will be made.  And, if they are doing the business cars, I am hoping we see a return to regular announcements on Atlas/MTL heavyweights.

[Maletrain]

NUTZ!!! After messing with the Kato couplers I need to fix or replace, I decided that replacement would save me a lot of time, so I ordered 30 Barber Rollerbearing trucks with short coupler extensions from MTL before their 1/26/2026 order deadlne.  Although the order went through, I just received an e-mail from them saying they didn't have any for me.

So,  I would really like to have some idea about whether Atlas is going to make them available before next November.  I suspect not.  So, I am probably going to start gluing tiny parts to the Kato couplers soon, because I will have 48 of them to do, and getting the part positioned properly and glued tightly is going to be tedious.

What glues would people here suggest for attaching styrene to whatever slippery plastic Kato uses for it dummy knuckle couplers?  There will surely be some tension forces as the part blocks the couplers from tilting upward when in buff.

[Sokramiketes]

NUTZ!!! After messing with the Kato couplers I need to fix or replace, I decided that replacement would save me a lot of time, so I ordered 30 Barber Rollerbearing trucks with short coupler extensions from MTL before their 1/26/2026 order deadlne.  Although the order went through, I just received an e-mail from them saying they didn't have any for me.

So,  I would really like to have some idea about whether Atlas is going to make them available before next November.  I suspect not.  So, I am probably going to start gluing tiny parts to the Kato couplers soon, because I will have 48 of them to do, and getting the part positioned properly and glued tightly is going to be tedious.

What glues would people here suggest for attaching styrene to whatever slippery plastic Kato uses for it dummy knuckle couplers?  There will surely be some tension forces as the part blocks the couplers from tilting upward when in buff.

If I was going for quick and dirty just to work in a unit train, I'd probably just dab on 5 minute epoxy from the top and forgo any other appurtanance/shim/etc.