Thanks, Fritz!

I'm eager to try this on the Slate Fork's rolling stock. Excellent idea, and one I would encourage you to submit for a tip in the MRH e-zine.

Nice Solution

Fritz,

That's a great solution to body mounting for your cars.  I've been body mounting a lot of my cars lately as well, using the couplers cut off the truck.  Micro Trains will sell new boxes if you want to go that route.  On my cars, I rebuild the truck mounted couplers into 1025 boxes and mount that assembly, it's a lower profile and narrower box.  I also put the spring back in the coupler in the transverse direction, this allows the knuckle to close, but there is no more slinky effect, it's working well.

Are you lowering cars as well?

thanks guys

Paul, not sure how I would go about the submitting...maybe I will try to figure that out.

Doug, I think I looked into those smaller boxes because I was cutting the couplers off the truck as well.  I was using the Micro-Trains 1015 ten paks, but it was a cost I did not want to pay...I was spending $$ on converting to metal wheel sets as well.  Man these things can cost! 

Lowering cars??hmmm I would think that might improve handling for some.  How are you going about that?  What size wheels are you using? 

00-90 pan head screws?

Where did you get the 00-90 pan head screws? All I've ever been able to find are the ones like come with MicroTrains couplers, an ordinary small diameter round head machine screw.

Actually, looking at it more closely, that looks more like a 1 or 2 truck mounting "sheet metal" screw, looking at the threads and the size of the head.

pan head screws from

model train stuff: Hob-Bits H841

 hope that helps

What's the minimum radius

that this become necessary?  I body mount the couplers in regular draft gear and don't have a problem but my N scale layout has fairly wide curves( around 22 inch radius in most spots). Anyone know how sharp a curve would have to be to cause a problem?....DaveB

minimum radius

DaveB

I found that as my layout morphed into what it is now, the curve radius has dropped from 22 inches all the way down to 12 inches.  And with the smaller curves my 60 foot box cars had more issues than the 50 foot cars, but both lengths of cars had issue.  The truck would not turn far enough and the car would jump the track.  The wheels were hitting the coupler box.  Now this did not happen when my layout had 18 inch minimum curves.  And sounds like yours, most curves were 22 inch radius.

But that is when my layout ran around the room.  My roomie was not smart enough to duck under, (three times in one day!! within the same half-hour), (its was funny to watch, but sad at the same time),  so for her health I gradually changed the layout to point to point U shape with a TT on one of the modules and a small loop at the other end of the layout, hence the smaller radius curves.

I am much happier with the layout now.  I have figured out I enjoy opps more than roundie-round.

"I found that as my layout

     Thanks Fritz,  I'll keep an eye out for any area where I need to go less than 18 inches radius. Going down to 12 inch could be a big help in accessing certain areas so making changes to the cars is a good idea. As the curves drop below 18 inches did you look into relieving the sides of the coupler boxes at the point where the flanges hit? On some styles of coupler boxes it's possible to cut away certain areas and have them still function.  I find it interesting that N scale has this problem while my test showed that HO and S scale cars with standard Kadees could work fine on 90 foot scale radius which would be 6.75 inches in N scale. I guess the N scale coupler boxes are much wider proportionally. ......DaveB

Not an issue with HO

Yeah Dave that is what I found as well with HO.  I was an HO guy for years...then I got out all together.  I hope the N-scale gods forgive me...but I have to confess I am starting (little by little to collect stuff for a 2 x10 switching HO layout.  I have never had curve issues with HO rolling stock.  They just look funny on small curves.

So yes I tried to clearance some coupler boxes but it just seemed to be more hassle than it was worth.  For me it was better just to replace them and move on.  I have got it down to just a few minutes for each car. 

" I tried to clearance some

  and they certainly look better with the narrower draft gear.   Do you have any photos of converted hoppers with open ends? I often find it hard to body mount coupler on them if they don't have a factory molded coupler pad.  .DaveB

hopper coupler conversion

Dave,

hoppers are a little different...just like tank cars...very little to work with.

but here is what a hopper conversion looks like...I tried to just keep it simple and do the same thing.

" here is what a hopper

" here is what a hopper conversion looks like...I tried to just keep it simple and do the same thing."

  Is there a mounting pad glued to the car under the coupler box? Some of my hopper have pads and some don't so they need a piece glued on to screw the box into.......DaveB

hopper conversion

there is just the skinny piece of frame.  On this it is a little thinner than the channel screwed down over the coupler.

but after the channel is screwed down, it is plenty strong.

Tight Radii - Difference Critical

Tight radii cause two problems. The first is the simple one of the curve. The second is the problem of the reverse curve. Ideally the curves need a transition between them.  

Otherwise a straight can be used. The greatest effect of the intermediate straight is if it's at least the length which is halfway between the distance between bogies (trucks) and the overall length of the wagon (car).

Archie

Body couplers

Very good information - and excellent photos !!!

My question is - WHY change the couplers to body mounted? What benefit does this achieve?

John

WHY change the couplers

I have found and some will agree in the n-scale world...that backing a line of cars (especially a long line) into a siding may have issues with truck mounted couplers.  Truck mounted couplers allow too much movement when forces are reversed on them...

does that make sense?

help...

"I have found and some will

     it's especially applicable to cars with low profile wheels sets where the lack of tall flanges make sit easier for them to twist sideways.  Since hoppers are harder to convert to body mounted couplers I've left many of my hoppers truck mounted and find they work ok on 22 inch radius curves as long as I don't push too much of a load. Sometimes I'll break a cut of cars in half to switch a truck mounted hopper without a lot of cars behind it. Ideally I'll get them all body mounted one day but I'm not holding my breath :> ) ...DaveB

visual example of why

this is the main reason I had to find a smaller coupler box...here is an example of 50 foot boxcars...one with the bulky truck coupler mounted to the body and an after with the new solution side by side.

At the risk of being repetitive the change in swing of the truck is obvious in this picture.  My 50 foot boxcars were the most problematic with jumping off the rail in a curve.

Also Dave here is another hooper conversion.  This on has a little less frame to attach to but it still works.  And stays on solid.  i use the end hole.

sorry the pic is a tad fuzzy.  This is very similar to my tank cars...real skinny frame work.

fritz

" here is another hopper

     Thanks for the photos. Some of my older hoppers have no center frame at the draft gear location so I have to cut a piece of plastic and glue it in to have something to screw the coupler box to. .......DaveB

n scale body mount coupler solution

fritz, INCREDIBLE IDEA!!!!! I was just learning about Nscale couplers and was discovering I liked the look of the Mchenry best. Then, by reading diff posts, I learned that the 'slinky' effect I was experiencing on my slow moving switching layout was do to the design of the MT coupler and not slack in the coupler itself, I was sold on the Mchenry.  But the problem was availability and reliability of the draft gear boxes. You my friend have solved that beautifully and cheaply! Lord willing, after we move,  I'll get me a set of 25pr of mchenry's A.S.A.P. and the other hardware and get to work

thanks John

I had been looking and experimenting for a while now...moving thru the fleet... I am doing my tank cars right now and have added a small plate of styrene to give the frame a place to stabilize the coupler install.

just bought another 50 pair of McHenry's - I think they are the best for the price.

pics to follow

Great idea! One question...

Very interesting method. The McHenry boxes work well for me down to 11" radius (my smallest) but only 30% of the boxes will clip closed from a bulk packet. I mean, really - come on Athearn! That's awful.

One question: doesn't this leave the coupler very high? With a McHenry box on an MT car I need 3 shims to get the right coupler height. 

Phil

body-mount vs. truck-mount

I'm a firm believer in the desirability of body-mount couplers for HO equipment. They look better. I bought only the better quality HO items that originally provide for body-mount couplers, mostly Athearn and MDC with the standardized type of coupler boxes.

When I got into N-scale many years ago, I decided to stick with truck-mounted couplers because of the added hassle of conversion. Kadee/Micro-Trains N-scale cars were pretty much all truck-mount couplers from the factory (back then). Other brands of N-gauge cars could be easily converted and upgraded with the Kadee/Micro-Trains wheelsets with couplers. No hassles with shimming the couplers heights to match up just so.

As already noted, truck-mounted couplers on N-scale cars can handle sharp curves without difficulty, a definite advantage for smaller layouts. Also, truck-mount couplers have fewer problems with running long cars and short cars intermixed on sharp curves.

Typical freight cars (maybe excluding the longest cars) generally handle 9.75" radius curves. Shorter N-scale cars may handle 8-inch radius curves. Trains can look OK on sharper curves with appropriate easements, IMO.

I was in N-scale back in the

I was in N-scale back in the early 1980's and recalled that body mounted couplers were not normal at the time.  How are things these days?  I have thought about getting some N-scale trains again, but the idea that I would have to convert most of the rolling stock from truck mount to body mount has sort of put me off.