close coupling adjustment MTL heavyweight passenger cars

[Albert in N]

   Micro-Trains Line heavyweight passenger cars look great and priced reasonably, but the gap between coupled cars is wider than my Kato streamlined coaches.  There does not seem to be enough room to simply drill and tap a new coupler box mounting screw closer to the axle to tighten things up.  Recall that these are factory installed body-mounted.  FYI, I use Kato Unitrack 13 3/4'' (348mm)  radius curves.  Does anyone have ideas on closing the gap between cars? 

[glakedylan]

replace with the MTL's true scale couplers?

[peteski]

MTL passenger cars have body-mounted coupler held in by a removable plastic peg (instead of the typical 00-90 screw).  I thought that they also molded a 2nd hole in  the underframe to be able to move the coupler inwards. Or am I confusing the MTL with Rapido cars?

[Angus Shops]

I drill and tap a new hole inboard of the original hole and remount the couplers with a standard MT coupler screw. Actually a pretty straightforward mod. I don't think there's second dimple or similar.

[bbussey]

Agreed.  There is enough room to drill and tap a second hole on the body's coupler pads, which moves the couplers in enough to make a difference.  Adding ALM diaphragms in place of the non-functional stock diaphragms also helps.

[NorsemanJack]

replace with the MTL's true scale couplers?

I think the Z scale MT 905's are a better option.  They provide a similar reduction in coupling distance (over 50%), but will still couple with other N scale couplers.  They also allow more movement around medium radii curves.  They will install with the original pin/hole so about a five minute job per car and no drilling/tapping.  Moving the original MT couplers inward can cause interference with the trucks in some situations.  I have photos posted on another forum if you are interested.

[Albert in N]

   Thanks! I think I will order some MTL 905 Z scale couplers.  These might also mate better with the Kato cars.

[altohorn25]

I think the Z scale MT 905's are a better option.  They provide a similar reduction in coupling distance (over 50%), but will still couple with other N scale couplers.  They also allow more movement around medium radii curves.  They will install with the original pin/hole so about a five minute job per car and no drilling/tapping.  Moving the original MT couplers inward can cause interference with the trucks in some situations.  I have photos posted on another forum if you are interested.

I agree; I do this with all my MT heavyweights.  I do end up painting them rust brown when I install them as it gives them a bit more "grip" and you have less uncouplings.  Here's a video of my carnival train; all the sleepers at the end of the train have 905's installed:

/>
Nate

[NorsemanJack]

Here's the before and after with MT Z scale 905's:

[NorsemanJack]

  Thanks! I think I will order some MTL 905 Z scale couplers.  These might also mate better with the Kato cars.

While not mandatory, if you want the Z scale coupler centerlines to match the original couplers, you may wish to add a .010" or .015" shim between the coupler and the car body.  I believe the nominal difference between a MT 1015 and a MT 905 is .011".  Fortunately, Kadee sells a package of .010 and .015 shims for next to nothing:

https://www.modeltrainstuff.com/search?search_query_adv=kadee+shim

There are 20 of each thickness in a package.  Some trimming required.

Also, in my experience, the MT 905 will readily couple to a Kato coupler.  The MT 1015 is more hit or miss (although they can be easily forced to couple).

[peteski]

Here's the before and after with MT Z scale 905's:

Nevermind: NorsemanJack fixed the images iin his post as I was composing this one.

[NorsemanJack]

Nevermind: NorsemanJack fixed the images iin his post as I was composing this one.

Yep, thanks.  I got a bit "smarter" and was able to get them to display.  I would blame finicky forum software, but I really can't back that up.....

[Maletrain]

Going to 905s in the OEM attachment point seems to cut in half the open distance between the diaphram faces.  But it is still pretty wide separation.  Has anybody mounted 905s on new holes to bring the cars even closer?  Alternatively, will American Limited diaphrams close the gap when used with the 905s?   And, if so, will the cars still work on 13.75" radius?

[NorsemanJack]

Going to 905s in the OEM attachment point seems to cut in half the open distance between the diaphram faces.  But it is still pretty wide separation.  Has anybody mounted 905s on new holes to bring the cars even closer?  Alternatively, will American Limited diaphrams close the gap when used with the 905s?   And, if so, will the cars still work on 13.75" radius?

I think new holes with the 905's would work, but the back of the draft gear might start to interfere with the trucks on tight radii curves.  I think the 905s reduce the open distance by a bit more than half, but I agree that they are still wider than I would prefer.  I've declared "good enough" at this point, but would like to hear from anybody who does try 905s with new holes.

I wouldn't try to use American Limited diaphragms, as they would just replace a non-prototypical space with a non-prototypical "huge long tunnel" diaphragm.

Keep in mind that those are close up photos.  In an operating train, the reduced distances look MUCH better and for many they might be acceptable.  The original spacing simply is not.

[Loren Perry]

  Micro-Trains Line heavyweight passenger cars look great and priced reasonably, but the gap between coupled cars is wider than my Kato streamlined coaches.  There does not seem to be enough room to simply drill and tap a new coupler box mounting screw closer to the axle to tighten things up.  Recall that these are factory installed body-mounted.  FYI, I use Kato Unitrack 13 3/4'' (348mm)  radius curves.  Does anyone have ideas on closing the gap between cars?

On my MT heavyweights, I managed to achieve close coupling using the stock parts only. No new couplers needed. I used a drill bit (a number 61 works for me) the same size as the hole in the draft gear on the car body (or slightly smaller) and drilled right into the crack between the body-colored coupler mounting pad and the black-colored underbody casting. Yes, both parts are separate but this technique works anyway.

Now I simply press the MT-supplied plastic pin in the coupler draft gear box into the new hole. I also apply a small droplet of CA glue in the hole before doing this to increase the strength of the connection. Once done, I apply another small droplet to the seam between the rear edge of the draft gear box and the underbody casting to prevent swiveling of the draft gear box. Be certain no glue enters the draft gear or the coupler will be locked in place. Acetone can be used to clean it out if necessary.

I run lengthy trains with this system and no problems have surfaced. There's a little daylight between adjoining diaphragms and my trains can negotiate a Peco double crossover with no difficulty (an S-curve equivalent of two No. 6 turnouts back to back.)