close coupling adjustment MTL heavyweight passenger cars

[eja]

Ed? 

Ooops,

My bad

Ed

[NorsemanJack]

My curiosity got the best of me, so I assembled some True Scale Couplers to do a fair "side-by-side" comparison.  To my eyes, and my calipers, I believe that the coupling distance achieved by either True Scale Couplers or Z scale 905s are essentially identical.  I can feel the True Scales resisting even my 17 5/8" radii (i.e. the total lack of side to side movement is causing the draft gear box to twist on the MT coupler mounting pin).  I would think you would need radii at least twice that large to get into the range where True Scales would be functional in this type of body mount configuration.  The 905's, on the other hand, have plenty of side to side movement and take those curves just fine.

I have discovered that the Z 905's may need slightly different shims on the various MT heavyweight cars.  The nominal required shim is .011".  I initially installed .015" shims under each coupler, but it appears that my baggage is slightly higher than a Pullman, so I'm swapping to .010" shims on the Pullman to bring the coupler center lines closer to each other. 

MT True Scale Couplers:


Z scale MT 905s:

[NorsemanJack]

Here's the difference in couplinging distance between the tsc vs stock 1015/1016. I used the stock hole and pin for both couplers. If you look closely I used both long and short shank other wise they would have been too close. They are the same car just different ends.

Are you certain that one of those TSC's is a long shank?  Please see my photo above.  Both of those True Scale Couplers in my photo are short shanks and the spacing doesn't look much different than your photo.

[Jbub]

Are you certain that one of those TSC's is a long shank?  Please see my photo above.  Both of those True Scale Couplers in my photo are short shanks and the spacing doesn't look much different than your photo.

I had to pull the cars out of storage since the first photo was from December '17. The car on the left is the Multnomah 12-1 sleeper and it has a short shank. The car on the right is the heavyweight diner car and it has a long shank. If I were to put a short shank on that car with out drilling a new hole the coupler would sit  underneath the car baffle instead of proud of it as you can see from the new pictures.

[NorsemanJack]

The plot thickens.  Despite Jbub's statement that those are the same two MT cars, just different ends; I don't believe that they are.  The car on the right is a diner.  The one on the left appears to be a 12-1 sleeper.  I just checked all of my MT Heavyweights and it appears they did something different on the diner.  The mounting hole is approximately .060" further from the end of the car than on the rest of the Heavyweights, and there is a longer MT OEM coupler than the 1015 normally used on these.  I believe the RPO also used a different coupler.  It's too bad that they didn't place the mounting hole further back on all of these releases.

[NorsemanJack]

Thanks Jbub.  Looks like you posted 45 seconds quicker than I did!  Please see my post immediately above.

[altohorn25]

The plot thickens.  Despite Jbub's statement that those are the same two MT cars, just different ends; I don't believe that they are.  The car on the right is a diner.  The one on the left appears to be a 12-1 sleeper.  I just checked all of my MT Heavyweights and it appears they did something different on the diner.  The mounting hole is approximately .060" further from the end of the car than on the rest of the Heavyweights, and there is a longer MT OEM coupler than the 1015 normally used on these.  I believe the RPO also used a different coupler.  It's too bad that they didn't place the mounting hole further back on all of these releases.

You are correct sir; the mounting hole sits further inboard on the diner.

Nate

[NorsemanJack]

You are correct sir; the mounting hole sits further inboard on the diner.

Nate

Thanks Nate.  Now I'm going to have to see how a 905 fits on the diner.  Since there is no longer shank Z scale coupler, it's either that or one of the N scale couplers.  Maybe I can just swap in a 1015, since it looks like the diner might have a 1016 or some other longer shank coupler.  Does anybody know which MT coupler is on the diner?

[altohorn25]

Thanks Nate.  Now I'm going to have to see how a 905 fits on the diner.  Since there is no longer shank Z scale coupler, it's either that or one of the N scale couplers.  Maybe I can just swap in a 1015, since it looks like the diner might have a 1016 or some other longer shank coupler.  Does anybody know which MT coupler is on the diner?

I have 905's on my Diners and haven't had any problems hooking up to other 905's or 1015's (or whatever the stock coupler is on the heavyweights).

[altohorn25]

Here's some photos of one of my diners with 905's installed.  I did add a small shim under the coupler to get the correct height (I don't remember what thickness I used).  I have no problem on either the Modutrak Layout or my home layout running this car with my other heavyweights or any other car for that matter (19" radius on my home layout).  The only issue I see would be if you tried you run two diners right next to each other; then it might be too close.

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

[NorsemanJack]

Thanks for posting those Nate!  Looks like the 905 will work out fine on my diner.  Odd that MT would just make that one version with a better hole location.

[Albert in N]

 . In the meantime, USPS delivered my 905 couplers from MTL .  I used one shim each end from extras in MTL N scale 1015-1 packets (yes, I am a pack rat and I tend to keep unused train parts for times like these).  Yes, 905 couplers mate well with Kato factory couplers and the spacing is as good as Kato spacing.  Thanks for your help!  Since Burlington ran heavyweight passenger cars up until Amtrak, I ordered two more CB&Q MTL heavyweights from Trainworld. 

[NorsemanJack]

. In the meantime, USPS delivered my 905 couplers from MTL .  I used one shim each end from extras in MTL N scale 1015-1 packets (yes, I am a pack rat and I tend to keep unused train parts for times like these).  Yes, 905 couplers mate well with Kato factory couplers and the spacing is as good as Kato spacing.  Thanks for your help!  Since Burlington ran heavyweight passenger cars up until Amtrak, I ordered two more CB&Q MTL heavyweights from Trainworld.

Glad to see that you got your answers and they are working well for you.

According to the 1015-1 instructions, those shims are .014" thick, which should be about right.  Nominally, you need a .011" shim, but of the two cars I've done so far (a sleeper and a baggage), the sleeper worked fine with a .010" but the baggage needed .025" total shimming (a .010" shim plus a .015" shim).  I'm guessing it's just variation in the trucks and floorboard, which are both different between the sleeper and the baggage.  Those Z scale couplers don't leave nearly as much margin for error in mounting height.

I have the Micro-trains coupler height "gauge," but to be perfectly honest it is nowhere near being a precision measuring device.  This is compounded by the fact that there is vertical movement (i.e. "slop") in almost all of our couplers.