Athearn 48 well car

[rgengineoiler]

Does anyone have any knowledge on replacing body mount couplers on the new Athearn 48 foot double stack well cars.  They do not couple to micro Trains and I have changed many others types but these Athearn slid into the pocket really tight with a screw to hold them and I don't see enough room to slid in a MT.  Any Ideas please.  DR   

[nkalanaga]

If they're stock McHenry couplers an Accumate will fit in the same box.  Otherwise I have no idea, as I don't have one of the cars.

[rgengineoiler]

Ok, I don't have any Accumate's as I try to be MT on everything.  I'll see if I can buy some and thanks.  Doug

[rgengineoiler]

I just Googled about N scale couplers and came up with this evaluation written by Peter Wisniewski on Fifer Hobby Supply website.  www.fiferhobby.com/n-scale-coupler-evaluation.  If you want to know about N scale couplers this is an eight page evaluation of Kato, McHenry, Micro Trains and Accumate couplers in detail that Mr. Wisniewski put together.  Hope this helps for any of you that are interested.  Doug

[MK]

I just Googled about N scale couplers and came up with this evaluation written by Peter Wisniewski on Fifer Hobby Supply website.

That's our very own @peteski .   

[peteski]

Wow, that brings back some memories of the Atlas forum!  I did that right after McHenry coupler was introduced as the newest N scale knuckle coupler, and I was not very impressed with its appearance or operation.  I didn't realize that Mike Fifer posted that info in his website.  I don't mind, but I'm surprised. 

Since then few more N scale knuckle couplers appeared on the market (like Bachmann "boxing glove", Scale Trains, GOEMON, and Hornby/Arnold). I have my original write-up and photos. I should update my write-up and re-post it here. One of these days . . .

[nkalanaga]

Accumates are the standard coupler on modern Atlas cars, so if you have any of those, you can steal the coupler.  Most, if not all, Atlas cars with body-mounted Accumates are designed for drop-in replacement with MT 1015s. 

If they fit, put the 1015s in the Atlas cars, and use the Accumates in the Athearn.

[rgengineoiler]

Just finished.  Checked my large array of left over couplers and had 4 Accumate pairs and used three for these new Athearn Well cars.  They do couple with the MT's good enough to stay.  Threw away thoseMcHenry's.
I wish the manufactures would forget trying to make their own couplers and Use MT"s.  The cars are so expensive now as it is but I personally would pay a small amount extra for the installed Micro-Trains and not spending so much time having to change over for MT's.  Just my opinion.    I only get to do this stuff in the winter.  Also, thanks for the help .   Doug

[jagged ben]

McHenry's seem to be really hit or miss as to their practical functioning.  I think they've gotten slightly better over time. 

[nkalanaga]

My McHenrys seem to work, but I don't "like" them, simply because, if anything goes wrong, they're almost impossible to repair.  If that little spring gets lost, forget it.

It would be great of Athearn would follow Atlas's lead.  Use their own coupler if they wish, but design the box to accept a MT 1015.  All it takes is a couple small dents for the MT centering pins, and it doesn't affect either the appearance of the functioning of the stock coupler.

One place the McHenry is great is on the pilot of a steamer.  Since it doesn't need a centering spring, and has a solid shank, one can drill a hole behind the actual coupler, cut the rest of the shank off, and mount it with a pin.  Centering by hand is prototypical, and it will fit where no other will.

[peteski]

One place the McHenry is great is on the pilot of a steamer.  Since it doesn't need a centering spring, and has a solid shank, one can drill a hole behind the actual coupler, cut the rest of the shank off, and mount it with a pin.  Centering by hand is prototypical, and it will fit where no other will.

The huge problem with McHenrys is that they are huge! Not quite as large as the Bachmann "boxing glove", but they look way oversize, even compared to the already-oversize MTL couplers.  While their overall shape is vaguely closer in appearance to the AAR coupler than MTLs, the size was a deal killer for me.  That was one of the main reasons I wrote that coupler comparison on the A-board (on Fifer's website now).


Kato coupler seems to be the closest visually to AAR couplers (if the "horn" on the side is trimmed).


GOEMON coupler (which is drop-fit into MTL boxes) is also visually more appealing to me than standard MTL coupler. 

[samusi01]

It’s too bad that the GOEMON coupler doesn’t come in a 1015 variant. I’ve got a few running around on the layout but a drop in version would be nice.

[turbowhiz]

The huge problem with McHenrys is that they are huge! Not quite as large as the Bachmann "boxing glove", but they look way oversize, even compared to the already-oversize MTL couplers.  While their overall shape is vaguely closer in appearance to the AAR coupler than MTLs, the size was a deal killer for me.  That was one of the main reasons I wrote that coupler comparison on the A-board (on Fifer's website now).


Kato coupler seems to be the closest visually to AAR couplers (if the "horn" on the side is trimmed).

The comparison image is great; however, the relative “prototype” is in fact quite oversize in its own right. Traditional N scale couplers aren’t that close to scale! You said you didn't have prototype dimensions when you made the comparison mind you.

(Google “e type coupler drawing”, and you will find any number of dimensioned prototype drawings, which I found to generally all agree)

I’ve quickly refactored your comparison here somewhat crudely with a closer representation…. (Might not be absolutely perfect but it’s a lot closer)


The “horn” on the Kato coupler is only there to make them more compatible with the traditional MTL coupler. Ugly to be sure…

[peteski]

Thanks Turbowhiz.

When I took those photos I did not locate any specific dimensions of the 1:1 AAR coupler so I just approximated its size.  Now with the TSC from MTL this would be a moot point.  I could just compare it to the other couplers. We know that all currently available operating N scale couplers are oversize.  Regardless of the size difference, in plan view the Kato coupler still looks the closest to the prototype (regardless of it being oversize, along with all the other couplers).  The appearance unfortunately is not great from the side view, but I would still prefer it to the even more oversize McHenry, or Scale Trains couplers, which have slightly more realistic appearance from the side view.  Unfortunately the Kato couplers are in my experience not the most reliable couplers. That is why I stick with the slinky MTLs for the overall reliability, and ease of operation.

[nkalanaga]

I agree that the McHenry is probably the ugliest of the common couplers, although I haven't seen the Bachmann.  I haven't bought anything from Bachmann since the 1970s, except 0-6-0 shells (for Nn3 kitbashes), and some used ATSF full domes (for GN kitbashes).

Part of the reason the MT couplers look better than the others is that they're "finer".  The plastic parts are thinner, and the whole thing is narrower, so it looks smaller, even though it's still oversized.  The other look "clunky" by comparison.

I'll still stick by my statement that the McHenry is great for loco pilots, simply because it's the only one that will work with no draft gear box.  Just cut a hole and pin it in place.  It may not look that nice, but if you want an operating front coupler, it will fit almost any loco.