Kato Superliner couplers (N scale)

[MetroRedLine]

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.

Closer than the stock Superliners couple. They were made to operate on 9 3/4" radius, hence the truck-mounted couplers. My intent was to have this body mount draft gear box operate on 15" radius and higher.

[Ike the BN Freak]

Wonder if the Kato Kinematic couplers would work, they allow close coupling but also spread out in curves.

https://store.katousa.com/product/kinematic-coupler-set-for-close-coupling-n-scale/

[nkalanaga]

One solution for closer coupling with the 1015s is to ignore the instructions on where to drill the mounting hole.  I put mine 1/4 inch back from the outer face of the (fixed) diaphragm.  That gives about the same distance as Kato and Railsmith truck mounts.  I'm pretty sure it won't work on curves less than 16 inch radius.

[peteski]

Wonder if the Kato Kinematic couplers would work, they allow close coupling but also spread out in curves.

https://store.katousa.com/product/kinematic-coupler-set-for-close-coupling-n-scale/

I believe those will only fit in cars designed to accept them, and the only set I know of is the Morning Daylight.
Interesting is that in Europe, most (if not all nowadays) cars come with kinematic (rapido) couplers for close coupling.

[turbowhiz]

I’ve not spent a lot of time developing for passenger equipment, but simple 1:1 replacement with scale couplers can net fairly dramatic improvements. My scale design is far more reliable then MTL Z scale couplers, and in many cases MTL full size couplers too.

With scale couplers, you can do better in N scale then HO with respect to prototypical coupling distances, simply by nature of the fact that more prototypically wide corners are far easier to accomplish in N scale. All Kadee HO scale couplers are overscale, including the “Scale” ones. N-Possible couplers are truly to scale.

Case study here: Rapido LRC cars.

OEM on these cars are Rapido 1015 clones that couple a little closer then true 1015’s. They are in completely separate boxes. I replaced them with medium shank N-Possible couplers. With operating rather than dummy diaphragms these cars could be scale distance coupled and still manage ~#7’s and ~18” corners I figure. As pictured, they still make it around 12 3/8 unitrack, but not 11”, including the locomotive-1st car joint. There is just less than 1 mm distance between the cars. A short shank on one car and medium shank on another (1 mm difference) won’t clear the stock solid diaphragms.

The locomotive is equipped with a short shank N-Possible coupler.

[MetroRedLine]

I’ve not spent a lot of time developing for passenger equipment, but simple 1:1 replacement with scale couplers can net fairly dramatic improvements. My scale design is far more reliable then MTL Z scale couplers, and in many cases MTL full size couplers too.

Okay great...so when is it going to be available on the market? 

[dem34]

SoonTM

[peteski]

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.

All this talk made me curious.  I took a Superliner truck and MTL coupler gauge (with a 1023 coupler) and  took some photos.



That protrusion does not seem to interfere with Kato-MTL coupling.  They couple even easier than Kato-to-Kato becuase of the very soft centering spring in the MTL coupler.






Even at extreme angle (which would  not happen in normal operation), the protrusion doesn't seem to cause interference, but it might with other brands of couplers which I didn't test since the MTL couplers were mentoned.

[peteski]

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.

Interesting. I don't recall 80% of Kato couplers being low compared with MTL.  The truck-mounted coupler pockets are molded with the truck, so either all or none should be at the correct height.  The coupler parts themselves are also all the same, made from the same molds.



Just for grins, I took a Kato Superliner truck and MTL height gauge.  They seem to be perfectly aligned.  The Kato couplers are underslung because they use the same coupler boxes which would accept rapido couplers.

The problem I see with Kato couplers is their unscheduled uncoupling when the couplers are laterally offset (like entering curve or S-curve), while running under slack.  That is when they sometimes uncouple.



My unscientific observation is that this happens because the inward pointing end of the knuckle (circled in the photo) is too shallow.  If it was slightly deeper it might prevent those uncouplings.

[MetroRedLine]

Interesting. I don't recall 80% of Kato couplers being low compared with MTL.  The truck-mounted coupler pockets are molded with the truck, so either all or none should be at the correct height.  The coupler parts themselves are also all the same, made from the same molds.



Just for grins, I took a Kato Superliner truck and MTL height gauge.  They seem to be perfectly aligned.  The Kato couplers are underslung because they use the same coupler boxes which would accept rapido couplers.

Here's my Superliner (my Amfleet is the same height):



Though measuring a tad low, these still fall within the tolerances of coupler operability and are some of the better ones. I have never had an issue with the Superliners, although I have never coupled them with non-Kato cars/locomotives. My comment on low coupler height was more directed on Kato's other models, such as:

Maxi-IV:


Maxi-I:


P42DC:


And the worst culprit of all, the ALC-42:


Other Kato low-slingers (no pics with the stock coupler since I put MTL 2004s on those suckers ASAP):

SD70M
SD70ACe
SD90/43MAC
C44-9W (front coupler only)
AC4400 (front coupler only)

[Sokramiketes]

Man, I hope your gauge isn't off. 

[MetroRedLine]

Man, I hope your gauge isn't off.

It's literally a block of metal that sits on a track with a coupler attached to it. How can it be off?

[peteski]

I never owned any Kato freight cars. I do have a P42 and a Charger, but both are disassembled, so I can't check the coupler height.

[Sokramiketes]

It's literally a block of metal that sits on a track with a coupler attached to it. How can it be off?

Well I've never seen so many Kato pieces with low couplers eithers... so something is up.