Best Of Notes on body-mount couplers (work-in-progress)

[unittrain]

That video is incredible! Excellent modeling.

[ednadolski]

I've been busy lately so my progress has been slow, but at last I have a few more pix to show of some completed coupler/pocket installations.   These show both the 'standard'  length air hose and the 'extended' length air hose:

(NOTE - Click on each image for full-sized pix)













I'm really liking the way these look on the coupled cars, it almost looks like the hoses are actually joined    :








And just for grins, here is a comparison showing the installed pocket with the Bowser coupler next to a typical Micro-Trains coupler:






I am also getting to the point where I am going to be ordering more parts from PPD,  and since a number of folks have expressed interest I wanted to get started on making a list of names and how many parts you might like. I'm going to make a new fret layout for this, so I can't yet give an accurate idea of what the cost might be, but I will follow up with that as soon as I know more.

Since there parts can be assembled in a couple of different ways, I was thinking of doing a small fret for each type of part, with 8 parts per fret (enough for 4 cars).  This would let folks can mix-and-match to get exactly what they want.   The main choices for the covers are the standard length and extra length air hoses, and the choices for the pocket body are the standard length (for regular boxcars, hoppers, gons, and such) and the longer length (for longer boxcars, tank cars, and such).  The covers and bodies are completely interchangeable. There are also the mounting shims, which are either full-thickness or half-thickness.  So that would work out as follows:

Fret A: 8 covers, standard air hose
Fret B: 8 covers, elongated air hose
Fret C: 8 pocket bodies, standard length
Fret D: 8 pocket bodies, extra length
Fret E: 8 shims, full thickness (0.010")
Fret F: 8 shims, half thickness (0.005")

There are also the little 'hooks' for cut levers, but these are easy enough to include with the covers.  I make my cut levers from wire, tho I also have in mind to make etched ones, but that is a future project .

This is of course open for ideas & suggestions, so please be sure to let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!
Ed

[Zox]

Looking at this photo, the couplers seem to be of nearly identical size. It's almost entirely the brass mount  that accounts for the difference in appearance:



I have to wonder--if an MT coupler were installed in an etched-brass mount, could it be made to look just as good as the Bowser coupler-and-mount combination?

[Denver Road Doug]

Looking at this photo, the couplers seem to be of nearly identical size. It's almost entirely the brass mount  that accounts for the difference in appearance:



I have to wonder--if an MT coupler were installed in an etched-brass mount, could it be made to look just as good as the Bowser coupler-and-mount combination?

I really hate to put it this way, but are you looking at the same photo I am?   To my eyes the MTL is easily 40% larger, if not more.   Maybe I'm biased from seeing how significantly smaller they are with normal magnification but I would be shocked if they're less than 40% difference.  I certainly haven't mic'ed one out to see so I can absolutely be proven wrong about that.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about the etched-brass pockets to know if using an MTL would be possible, but I certainly can't see how it could work.  Personally I wouldn't even care to try, given the success of the trials thus far and the fact that I don't desire magnetic uncoupling.   The only potential wet blanket for me is if the frets are unreasonably expensive, but ( a ) I don't think that's gonna be the case and ( b ) that would still be an issue even if you were trying to cram an MTL coupler in there.

And just for grins, here is a comparison showing the installed pocket with the Bowser coupler next to a typical Micro-Trains coupler:

I was about to reply with this same photo to basically validate what is being done here.   What an outstanding look, and I cannot wait to get my frets ordered.  (now I just have to try to figure out which ones....)

Note: Following is just a placeholder list while I figure out how many I want of each part...disregard for now.
(45) Atlas Coalveyors
(20) Atlas Tank Cars (17,360;17,600;23,500;25,500)
(12) Gons (LBF 52/65ft;Atlas 52ft; MDC 52ft)
(21) Walthers Ballast Cars
(10) Misc "Long" Cars (Beer Cars? Cryo Cars?)

(21) Fret A: 8 covers, standard air hose (84 cars)
(4) Fret B: 8 covers, elongated air hose (16 cars)
(21) Fret C: 8 pocket bodies, standard length (84 cars)
(4) Fret D: 8 pocket bodies, extra length (16 cars)
(3) Fret E: 8 shims, full thickness (0.010") (12 cars)
(4) Fret F: 8 shims, half thickness (0.005") (16 cars)
(3) Fret G: 8 long shims, full thickness (0.010") (12 cars)
(4) Fret H: 8 long shims, half thickness (0.005") (16 cars)

[Philip H]

Outstanding Pete. Depending on cost, I'd probably be in for one of each fret as I had all the rolling stock mentioned, but not in huge quantities.

[Scottl]

Hmmm, so tempting...

The Bowser coupler looks a bit smaller to my eye, and more true to shape.   The absence of the trip pin is a huge improvement.  I think though that one major difference is the absence of a spring in the former and the lack of slinky effect during operation.

[ednadolski]

I think though that one major difference is the absence of a spring in the former and the lack of slinky effect during operation.

That's quite right, the Bowser coupler has no spring and thus does not slinky under any conditions.

The Bowser coupler is significantly smaller than the N-scale MT.   The MT 905 being a Z-scale coupler is closer in size to the Bowser, but still has a spring and will therefore exhibit the slinky even in a brass pocket.  Since the 905 has a wider shank, it would not be possible to make a brass pocket for the 905 as small as can be made for the Bowser.   (And IMHO it would be a bear to assemble with that tiny spring.)

I've been very pleased so far with the performance of the Bowsers.  It is possible to couple them to other couplers such as the MT, Accumate, Kato, and McHenry.  I haven't had any unwanted uncouplings with the Bowsers, whereas with other kinds the MTs will uncouple frequently under certain conditions (long train descending grades at slow speeds), and the Accumates seem to just let go on occasion when they feel like it.

I'm also able to install the Bowser couplers in locomotives, using the coupler box that came with the Full Throttle trucks.  If you look closely on the video I posted a few pages back, you can see that the lead loco had the Bowsers in a gray-primer painted FT box.   It is coupled to the following unit which is equipped with the standard Kato couplers.  My near-term goal is to completely upgrade all the cars & locos in that video to the Bowsers.

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

Nice progress Ed. I especially like the GNTX gon, which is one of the cars on my short list of conversions (which is not a short list at all).  Quick question: have you converted a car (e.g. an ExactRail boxcar) that was already body-mounted to start with?

I'll reinforce what Ed said about reliability: in my experience, these couplers are much better at coupling in the first place, and staying coupled once engaged, than MT's are.  This is mainly due to tighter tolerances in the design and the absence of a slinky effect.  They just work.  You can see some more comparison photos, and an overhead shot showing how well these mate, in this post back on p.1 of this thread.

Now that they are available at an affordable price from Bowser (and I think these boxes won't be too expensive either) this is an ideal solution for me -- maybe until the Proto-Mates come along...

-gfh

P.S. Thanks again to Ed for bringing these to market!

[up1950s]

Now that's what I call a worthwhile coupler alternative to the standard offerings . Too bad I got into N in 95 and not now . Going to have to get me some . Swapping magnetic ability for much improved proto looks is an easy decision for me .

[bbussey]

I got into N, and Kadee couplers, way way earlier than that.  It's too late for me to ever contemplate switching, but I'm glad to see this two-year stretch of R&D come to a favorable conclusion.

[GaryHinshaw]

Ugh.  I just got the 2nd half of my order of FT couplers from Bowser (they only sent half the order originally) and they're all defective.  So if you have a recent order from them, be sure to check for the following.  During assembly, the (trimmed) trip pins were all inserted improperly causing the lower loop on the knuckle to deform, and in some cases break:





Unfortunately, the ones that haven't broken already are very weak, and therefore useless.  I have contacted Bowser and I expect they will replace the order, but I just wanted to give y'all a heads up.  I've never seen anything like this in the rest of my stock, so hopefully this is an isolated incident.

-Gary

P.S. Thanks Bryan.  Just the other day I was thinking how long this has been in the works for.  Mostly just due to breaks in the action.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

How the hell did I miss this thread?

I was part of the group buy for the Bowser couplers several years ago. They have been sitting on my dest becasue I have not found an acceptable coupler pocket. I would like to try one fret of regular and one fret of long pockets to start.

[Denver Road Doug]

Fret A: 8 covers, standard air hose
Fret B: 8 covers, elongated air hose

Can you elaborate on where you would use "standard" versus "elongated"?   I've tried reading back through the thread a few times but don't seem to be finding that part of the dicussion.   I recall the initial attempts were too short overall.

Fret C: 8 pocket bodies, standard length
Fret D: 8 pocket bodies, extra length

I'm assuming the pocket body length is basically "cushioned underframe" versus not.  Correct?   Would tank cars generally use the standard length?

Fret E: 8 shims, full thickness (0.010")
Fret F: 8 shims, half thickness (0.005")

Are the shims simply for correcting coupler height or some other use.  And are they a required part? (i.e. top of the pocket body?)

My short list of how I'm planning to use these is: Atlas Coalveyors, Various Atlas Tank Cars (17,360/17,600/23,500/25,500), Various Gons (LBF/Atlas/MDC 52ft and LBF 65ft), and Walthers Ballast Cars.  I have 100-pair of the Bowser loose couplers and another 20-pair of the previous order with the Z trucks.

[ednadolski]

Can you elaborate on where you would use "standard" versus "elongated"?   I've tried reading back through the thread a few times but don't seem to be finding that part of the dicussion.   I recall the initial attempts were too short overall.

Really it depends on your proto.  I've seen the long hoses on more cars than I would have thought, such as boxcars, reefers, coil cars, and centerbeams; and the regular hoses on open & covered hoppers, gons, and tanks.

I'm assuming the pocket body length is basically "cushioned underframe" versus not.  Correct?   Would tank cars generally use the standard length?

Pretty much, tho that too depends upon which model it is.  So far I've only installed a couple of Athearn LPG tanks, IIRC Gary has done a few others.

Are the shims simply for correcting coupler height or some other use.  And are they a required part? (i.e. top of the pocket body?)

Not strictly required.  This too depends on the specific model, and sometimes the trucks and wheel sizes, as well as how much you might have to shave off a bolster.  I've been going with a coupler centerline height of 0.216" nominally above the railhead (same as the prototype 34.5", and matches the MT centerline as well IIRC).  That works out to the top edge of the pocket body at a height of 0.246" above the railhead, so if I can get the underside of the car to that height then I don't need a shim.


Ed

[ednadolski]

Ugh.  I just got the 2nd half of my order of FT couplers from Bowser (they only sent half the order originally) and they're all defective.

Yow, what a major bummer!  I'd guess that perhaps they get assembled in some kind of press, and something was seriously out of alignment.  Hopefully they get those replacements to you really soon.

Ed