Kato Superliner couplers (N scale)

[NorsemanJack]

I'm sure the protrusion is there for a good reason, possibly to keep the knuckles from rolling apart during curves.

[Lackawannae8]

I'm sure the protrusion is there for a good reason, possibly to keep the knuckles from rolling apart during curves.

It does more bad than good in my experience

[NorsemanJack]

It does more bad than good in my experience

I've never had a problem.  What do you think is the "bad" thing that it is doing to you?

People cutting them off because they read on the internet that they should?  This is exactly why I don't buy used N scale trains.

[peteski]

Yes, I would also like to find out the specific reasons what cutting off that protrusion accomplishes (other than "doing more bad than good").  Usually when designing functional parts (not just purely cosmetic) designers do things for specific reasons.

[nkalanaga]

Kato's couplers work fine with each other, or with MicroTrains couplers.  I have had some that didn't want to work with McHenrys, and a few Accumates didn't do well.  The Accumates on freight cars I replaced with MT.  McHenrys I replaced with body-mounted 1025s.

Fortunately, the only Kato couplers I have are on passenger cars, and my two SDP40Fs, so there are few conflicts.  I have trimmed a few that didn't like the Accumates on Walthers/Railsmith cars, but others work fine with the same cars. 

[Lackawannae8]

I've never had a problem.  What do you think is the "bad" thing that it is doing to you?

People cutting them off because they read on the internet that they should?  This is exactly why I don't buy used N scale trains.

When paired with my microtrains or Z scale couplers they want to help bind up in tough curves and causes things to derail. My railroad my decisions and personal pref

[Rusty Spike]

One man's explanation, (YouTube), was to make the Kato's play nice with his MTL's. Also on YouTube replacement of RTR Kato couplers on their passenger set with Kato couplers from their Coal Porter set fpr more close coupling.
Have not tried this, nor experimented. Shame, nice company, good models, guess this is their weak point. Every company's got one somewhere. Still fixable and not a "decision to buy killer", my opinion.

[NorsemanJack]

One man's explanation, (YouTube), was to make the Kato's play nice with his MTL's. Also on YouTube replacement of RTR Kato couplers on their passenger set with Kato couplers from their Coal Porter set fpr more close coupling.
Have not tried this, nor experimented. Shame, nice company, good models, guess this is their weak point. Every company's got one somewhere. Still fixable and not a "decision to buy killer", my opinion.

I doubt that Kato would consider inability to easily couple to every other N scale coupler in the world to be a weak point, especially with their passenger sets.  Stick with complete name train sets and matching Kato locomotives and nothing requires "fixing.'

The use of Kato close-coupling dummies to shorten distances between locos/cars is a proven drop in approach, which also requires no "fixing."  Works great between Kato F units.  I've also done this with one CZ set, adding the short coupler only to the front of each car (doing both would be too much).

[MetroRedLine]

A couple years ago, I was exchanging emails with Alvin "Wuttermelon" Ho from Wutter Vehicles & Details (for those who aren't familiar, they're known for their 3D-printed detail parts from their Shapeways page). I inquired about him doing a 3D printed part for Kato Superliners that allowed for a draft gear box for body mounting, wide coupler swing and relatively-close coupling, plus an end skirting with HEP receptacle detail (which is missing on the N scale Kato models). He was interested in doing such a part, but the talks stalled once we couldn't really decide which coupler to use (the options were MTL 1015, 905 (Z-scale coupler) or Tru-Scale Coupler). I told him I would do the research on my end, but I found that I don't have the resources to do any test mock-ups.

One thing about Kato couplers that no one really mentions is the fact that 80% of them sit too low with regard to MTL coupler height gauge standards. Many of my Kato locos require MTL 2004 underslung couplers to better mate with MTL height standards.

[NorsemanJack]

a draft gear box for body mounting, wide coupler swing and relatively-close coupling

Those are pretty much mutually exclusive goals.

[nkalanaga]

Not really.  Passenger cars with 1015 couplers will work on 16 inch radius curves, both with each other, and with Kato and Walthers/Railsmith truck mounts. 

[NorsemanJack]

Not really.  Passenger cars with 1015 couplers will work on 16 inch radius curves, both with each other, and with Kato and Walthers/Railsmith truck mounts.

It's the close coupling that suffers....GREATLY.

[MetroRedLine]

Those are pretty much mutually exclusive goals.

That depends on how the draft gear box is designed. A 1015 has a somewhat limited swing due to having closed sides, but a 1019 draft gear box has open sides to allow for a wider swing. Granted, there will obviously be a limit to the swing and the minimum radius, but the goal was to have this work on 15" minimum radius curves.

[MetroRedLine]

It's the close coupling that suffers....GREATLY.

The objective was to make the cars noticeably closer, and not necessarily to prototype dimensions. Even HO scale couldn't get that down.

There are two factors: Coupler length and Coupler size. The length is obvious, and there's a give-and-take factor involved in allowing coupler swing. Coupler size is also a factor, as the MTL 1015 coupler knuckle is rather large, and its design creates noticeable slack, which can vary the distance of these cars noticeably. The Kato stock coupler is slightly smaller, as with the MTL TSC and 905, so that's why the latter two were considered as options. In N scale it's quite literally a Game Of Inches (or in this case, millimeters).

[NorsemanJack]

The objective was to make the cars noticeably closer, and not necessarily to prototype dimensions. Even HO scale couldn't get that down.

There are two factors: Coupler length and Coupler size. The length is obvious, and there's a give-and-take factor involved in allowing coupler swing. Coupler size is also a factor, as the MTL 1015 coupler knuckle is rather large, and its design creates noticeable slack, which can vary the distance of these cars noticeably. The Kato stock coupler is slightly smaller, as with the MTL TSC and 905, so that's why the latter two were considered as options. In N scale it's quite literally a Game Of Inches (or in this case, millimeters).

I guess the question would be "closer than what?"  If it's closer than MT heavyweights, it means absolutely nothing.  I can't wait to see this wide swing, close coupling body mount in actual photos.  The closest we've ever gotten to body mount close coupling would likely be the IM F units with the short shank dummy unimates.  Of course, those are relatively short wheelbase, so much more forgiving.  I've experienced body mount Z scale MT on the Microtrains heavyweights.  They make them much more passable, but nowhere close to prototype.  And, those tiny couplers being body mounted is an open invitation to unexpected uncoupling.  I no longer own any MT heavyweights or 905 Z scale couplers.