Micro-Trains/Atlas Update - 1/20/26

[squirrelhunter]

Me too.  100% converted to Accumates.

I prefer them too. No slinky effect and vastly easier to reassemble. The looks could be improved upon, but I think the *springless* design is much better. If they had been easier to get seperate from trucks, I'd probably have have considered converting the fleet to the..

[Mark5]

If they had been easier to get seperate from trucks, I'd probably have have considered converting the fleet to the..

While I have a bunch of truck mounted versions to harvest from, I bought a fair amount of the Accumates by themselves: https://shop.atlasrr.com/p-13604-n-scale-accumate-coupler-set.aspx

[peteski]

Finally, only after the demise of Micro Trains and uncertainty about their couplers, it comes out that there are quite a few fans of the generally shunned Accumates. Personally, I don't much like them either. Their trip pin comes out by merely bumping ito it, but that is irrelevant since they do not work well for automatic magnetic uncoupling. Then there is that strange "robotic" angular shape.  But the love for the Accumates did take me by surprise. I guess we can't just go by popular opinions.

[Mark5]

Finally, only after the demise of Micro Trains and uncertainty about their couplers, it comes out that there are quite a few fans of the generally shunned Accumates.

I've never been shy about the fact that I like Accumates (or the couplers that I don't like: Bachmann (all), McHenry, ScaleTrains "boxer", etc).

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=27132.msg277765#msg277765 etc

[Dave V]

Admittedly I’m also a little surprised at the love for Accumates. I appreciate the lack of the justifiably-maligned “slinky effect,” but Accumates almost always leave a trip pin somewhere to derail the next train or explode when looked at incorrectly, at least in my experience. If they had more integrity I’d probably be onboard.

[Dupesy]

Admittedly I’m also a little surprised at the love for Accumates. I appreciate the lack of the justifiably-maligned “slinky effect,” but Accumates almost always leave a trip pin somewhere to derail the next train or explode when looked at incorrectly, at least in my experience. If they had more integrity I’d probably be onboard.

just pull the trip pins out.  Unlike MTL they serve no purpose unless you use magnetic uncoupling.  I have noticed the older Accumate trucks seem to have slightly flimsier components (shank and couple box) that can randomly deconstruct under the weight of a heavier train.  Newer ones seem to not have that problem.  I body mount them anywhere its feasible.

[squirrelhunter]

Finally, only after the demise of Micro Trains and uncertainty about their couplers, it comes out that there are quite a few fans of the generally shunned Accumates. Personally, I don't much like them either. Their trip pin comes out by merely bumping ito it, but that is irrelevant since they do not work well for automatic magnetic uncoupling. Then there is that strange "robotic" angular shape.  But the love for the Accumates did take me by surprise. I guess we can't just go by popular opinions.

Do folks actually use magnetic uncoupling? I've never seen it on a an N scale layout in real life, and the only HO layouts I've seen it on either used it in areas that were not accessible by hand or were older layouts. Also, I've never seen where it works more smoothly that just using a pick, going back and forth trying to get the trip pins to engage with the uncoupler has always frustrated me. Really curious on this one? Maybe I'm the outlier on this?

EDIT- I Also agree the worst aspect is their appearance- not sure why they didn't make a effort to make them better looking.

[robert3985]

Do folks actually use magnetic uncoupling? I've never seen it on a an N scale layout in real life, and the only HO layouts I've seen it on either used it in areas that were not accessible by hand or were older layouts. Also, I've never seen where it works more smoothly that just using a pick, going back and forth trying to get the trip pins to engage with the uncoupler has always frustrated me. Really curious on this one? Maybe I'm the outlier on this?

EDIT- I Also agree the worst aspect is their appearance- not sure why they didn't make a effort to make them better looking.

I used MagneMatic Uncoupling on the industrial spur on my first NTRAK module (not on the mainlines) back in the 1980's, and, it worked very well, both uncoupling and then pushing the car to its destination, not coupling up again.

However, for it to work consistently, I had to overly weight the cars and put the Kadee/MTL axle springs (or whatever they're called) on one conical truck bearing surface per car, because if the car slinkied, it would re-couple...then, I'd have to back out to the magnet location and re-uncouple again. I didn't consider this to be a big deal since the modified cars worked very reliably.

I decided that for my purposes, since I designed all of my few industries to be fairly easily reached, that manual uncoupling seems more prototypical to me operation-wise...plus, I got to remove the magnetic dongles on every coupler thereby increasing reliability, and bettering appearance.

I am now converting everything to decidedly un-magnetically designed, prototypical-looking and finely operating N-Possible Couplers...which happen to be fully compatible with my cars and engines that I've converted to much modified MTL True-Scale couplers with a 3D printed coupler pocket.

Cheerio
Bob Gilmore

[nkalanaga]

I tried magnetic uncoupling - in the mid 1970s, on a piece of 1x6, with two tracks.  Frustrating enough that I never tried it on a working layout.  The magnet ended up on the refrigerator door.

My main complaint about the Accumate is visual.  As Squirrelhunter says, they could have made them less "clunky".  They seem to work fine.  The main reason I don't use them regularly is that I prefer body mounted couplers.  For years there were no body-mounted Accumates, so I had to replace them, usually with 1025s.  Current body-mounted Accumates usually stay, and if replaced, get 1015s in the same box.

Truck-mounted Accumates on Railsmith passenger cars work fine, with themselves, with Kato couplers, or with MT passenger trucks.

I do not like McHenrys.  They don't seem to work as well, and, if they come apart, it's impossible to find the spring to repair them.  Plus, their box won't work with 1015s, so I have to replace the body-mounted ones with Accumates.

[peteski]

Yes, magnetic uncoupling dos get used. Usually not on the main but on industrial spurs, out of reach for manual uncoupling.  As Robert mentioned, usually using the delayed uncoupling feature.  If the couplers  are "greased" with powdered graphite, this process words quite well.

I also don't understand this hate for the trip pins.  To me they do somewhat resemble the air hoses on 1:1 trains.  While the appearance of the coupler itself and the trip pin is not to scale, but still, there is some resemblance.  We also seem to forget how much better they looked (and operated) than the rapido couplers.

[Rossford Yard]

just pull the trip pins out.  Unlike MTL they serve no purpose unless you use magnetic uncoupling.  I have noticed the older Accumate trucks seem to have slightly flimsier components (shank and couple box) that can randomly deconstruct under the weight of a heavier train.  Newer ones seem to not have that problem.  I body mount them anywhere its feasible.

I cut them off or pull them out on all of my couplers of any brand.  Even one derailment from a hanging trip pin is too many.  And, I do like the hands on approach of manual uncoupling when switching.  In fact, I like the entire idea of "eye level" ops, i.e., leaving time for the brakeman to uncouple and walk back to the caboose or other location, etc.  One layout I know also has a "Flagman Floyd" to set out when appropriate, which I will adopt soon.

[John]

I have noticed the older Accumate trucks seem to have slightly flimsier components (shank and couple box) that can randomly deconstruct under the weight of a heavier train.

Hmmmm .. prototype modeling

[Dupesy]

Hmmmm .. prototype modeling

now if we could just get the emergency brake to apply so the train doesn't roll down the helix....

[robertjohndavis]

I cut them off or pull them out on all of my couplers of any brand.  Even one derailment from a hanging trip pin is too many.  And, I do like the hands on approach of manual uncoupling when switching.  In fact, I like the entire idea of "eye level" ops, i.e., leaving time for the brakeman to uncouple and walk back to the caboose or other location, etc.  One layout I know also has a "Flagman Floyd" to set out when appropriate, which I will adopt soon.

I hear you about eye level.

I display my layout publicly once a year and gave in to a slightly lower height than what I wanted. My next “permanent” layout will have the trains higher. If the excess height cars aren’t tickling my nose hairs, the layout is too low.

[SAH]

I have a bunch I've cut off trucks, I'd be very happy to forward them to you if you so desire

I was graciously gifted enough cut offs to last a lifetime.  Send them to Andy @crrcoal .

3D printed coupler boxes allow easy body mounting options.  They're out there.  You can always use parts to make a master and cast your own.  Not an out-of-the-box solution but I kind of like doing it that way.  1015/1016 boxes work too.

Custom body mounting allows me to draw the coupler closer to the body.  Doing so makes the coupler look smaller (or less noticeable as oversize).  I use a custom uncoupling pick very similar to what is generally in service for N-Possibles.

From an aging eyesight standpoint, and with operations in mind,  I'll take the slightly larger Accumates over scale couplers everyday of the week.