# Replacing Kato couplings - what do I need?



## Virgil (Aug 20, 2021)

To put it into context I am a Brit who has just decided to convert from British outline to American. I also intend to stick exclusively with Kato locomotives but not rolling stock. That‘s enough backchat so on to the nub of my problem. I already possessed a CTX cleaner fitted with both a MTL and Rapido couplings. My Kato 4400 arrived with Kato couplings so I purchased a set of MTL 2004-01 to enable me to pull the CTX and for when I purchased some Microtrain wagons. Fitting was simple but the height is too high for the MTL coupling on my CTX on a Bettendorf truck. So what do I need to solve the problem? Is it the MTL 2003 or would the 1015 be better. A secondary problem is that I also purchased a set of Kato Bethgon Coalporters the couplers of which are at the same height of the MTL 2004 coupler that I have fitted to the 4400. Thus if I use a 2003 coupling on the loco whilst the drop in height might be beneficial for connecting to the CMX it will be too low for the Bethgons - not that I know what replacement MTL couplings I need for them once I have the loco sorted.

At present it ‘Tis a puzzlement‘ and any help and advice would be much appreciated. Rapido couplings might well be ‘naff’ but at least a Rapido is a Rapido is a Rapido unlike MTL which appear to come in a multitude of variations.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Here is a link to Micro Trains coupler conversion instructions…..PDF’s of the various manufacturers and the couplers involved for conversion….hope this helps…..

MicroTrains coupler conversion instructions


----------



## Virgil (Aug 20, 2021)

Old_Hobo said:


> Here is a lonk to Micro Trains coupler conversion instructions…..PDF’s of the various manufacturers and the couplers involved for conversion….hope this helps…..
> 
> MicroTrains coupler conversion instructions


Many thanks for the link. According to Microtrains I need 1128 for the Bethgons. That’s one problem solved. Seems as if the 2004’s are correct for the loco. Problem is they sit too high for the Bettendorf trucks on the CMX cleaner and that little gem I refuse to be without. Thinking about it perhaps the way to go is to buy an old wagon and convert one end to link to the loco and the other to the CMX.


----------



## Virgil (Aug 20, 2021)

Following further investigation it would appear that the couplings on the Kato AC4400 that a I am attempting to change to MTL offerings are not underslung. This means the MTL recommended 2004’s are inappropriate and that I should be using either 2015’s or 2003’s Would be nice before I order if someone could confirm whether this is correct.


----------



## 498cm3 (Jul 30, 2021)

I would roll with a 1016 medium shank, or a 1015.
They sell a pack that has 2 pair 1015 short & 1 pair 1016 medium. Those are very useful for body mount conversion on rolling stock.

Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Virgil (Aug 20, 2021)

498cm3 said:


> I would roll with a 1016 medium shank, or a 1015.
> They sell a pack that has 2 pair 1015 short & 1 pair 1016 medium. Those are very useful for body mount conversion on rolling stock.
> 
> Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk


Many thanks. I was thinking along the same lines. Reckon I will also invest in a 2003 set just to cover all bases. I am sure that what I don’t use will come in useful in the future.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Virgil said:


> Many thanks. I was thinking along the same lines. Reckon I will also invest in a 2003 set just to cover all bases. I am sure that what I don’t use will come in useful in the future.


Virgil;

Words (in parenthesis) are this old Yank's guess at British names for stuff. 😕 

Since the locomotive's couplers are body-mounted, can't you simply shim them down with small pieces of styrene, to a height that matches the couplers (couplings) on your cars (wagons)? Do you have a Micro-Trains coupler height gauge? It is very handy to check that all your couplers are at the same standard height. Another indispensable tool is an NMRA standards gauge. It is used for checking the track gauge, wheel gauge, lineside clearances (loading gauge?) and a host of critical measurements on turnouts. (points)
I modified one for checking coupler height more accurately than the Micro-Trains gauge, which depends on eyeball measurement. I cut a slot for the coupler knuckle and another slot for the trip pin. I set the gauge on the track and roll a car up to it. The knuckle, and the trip pin, should each fit into their respective slots. If either doesn't, it needs to be adjusted. For operation, it is very important that every Micro-Trains coupler be at exactly the same height as all the others.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Virgil (Aug 20, 2021)

traction fan said:


> Virgil;
> 
> Words (in parenthesis) are this old Yank's guess at British names for stuff. 😕
> 
> ...


Hi Traction Fan,

Responding in reverse order I have a Micro-Trains coupler height gauge on order. It should be with me next week. Most necessary methinks given that MTL couplings are much more critical than Rapidos. I don't have a NMRA standards gauge but seeing the useful way you have modified one I reckon I will add one onto my shopping list. 

Now in respect of the locomotive I will make no attempt to shim them down to the correct height unless I find there is no alternative. I brought MTL 2004 couplings for the Kato AC4400 because that's what it says on the MTL website that I needed. After all if you cannot trust the manufacturer to specify the correct coupler who can you rely on? Below are some photos which hopefully will explain my decision.

















Apologies for the poor quality of the photos. The first shows the 2004 installed into the AC4400. The second shows the removed Kato coupler and the clip that holds the coupler in place. The retaining clip works just as well for the MTL 2004 as is highlighted rather poorly in yellow in the first photo. Its so simple and ingenious that I have no desire to change it unless I have too and of course adding shims would mean doing just that.
















The third image shows the coupler opening. The 2004 fits snuggly into it. If I were to add shimmies I would have to cut into the locomotive body assuming I wish to continue to use the 2004's. Photo 4 shows the real problem which is that the MTL2004 assumes that the Kato coupling for the AC4400's are underslung whereas in my model that is not the case. From the research I have done either a 2003 or a 1015 can be fitted without me having to modify the loco in any way and allow me to use the original Kato coupler retaining clip. If so then it's a win win in my humble opinion.

Which brings me onto my final point. If I have to I will saw and hack to modify engines and rolling stock but only after I have exhausted the possibility of simply changing things. If I possibly can I like to be in the position of being able to return the items back to their original situation (weathering excepted). As I indicated in my original post I had obtained a set of Kato Bethgons - used- at a very competitive price. 
















To illustrate my point there is a good video on the internet on how to convert a Kato Bethgon to take MTL couplings. The method advocated involves cutting the Kato coupling in the second photo off of the truck, drilling into the chassis of the wagon and screwing a MTL coupling into it. Without doubt it works but me I simply used a Bettendorf truck so all I had to do was unscrew the Kato truck and screw the Bettendorf into its place. OK so the wheels are no longer the same and the cost is a few pennies more but I have overcome the problem with the ability to return the wagon to its original format should I ever need or desire to.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Virgil said:


> Hi Traction Fan,
> 
> Responding in reverse order I have a Micro-Trains coupler height gauge on order. It should be with me next week. Most necessary methinks given that MTL couplings are much more critical than Rapidos. I don't have a NMRA standards gauge but seeing the useful way you have modified one I reckon I will add one onto my shopping list.
> 
> ...


Virgil;

Your photos, and explanation, explain why you don't want to shim the coupler box down. I think you are wise to switch to Micro-Trains couplers.
While I'm a big Kato locomotive & passenger train fan, Kato couplers are somewhat notorious for not staying coupled to any other brand of coupler. You might consider saving, and re-installing those metal wheelsets shown in your last photo. Our model cars are often woefully underweight, and weight located as low down on the car as possible, does the most good in helping them stay on the track, especially when switching. (shunting) 
Metal wheels also pick up less dirt than plastic ones. Micro-Trains does sell metal wheels to fit their trucks. (bogies) So do Fox Valley Models, and Intermountain. As yet, Micro-Trains does not sell their trucks with their metal wheels installed.

Mounting the couplers on the body of the car, as shown in the video you mentioned, can be good, or bad, depending on the radius of the curves on your layout. Rather than repeating a long explanation of why, I'm attaching my file about couplers. You may have a potential problem with that long locomotive having it's couplers body-mounted, and the cars couplers truck-mounted. The file explains this.

As mentioned, the NMRA standards gauge has many uses. The direction sheet packed with it shows all the things you should check with it. The second file "Improving Atlas turnouts" shows the NMRA gauge being used to check many critical areas of a turnout, starting on page 8. The turnout shown is an Atlas HO-scale "Snap Switch," but the gauge's checks apply equally to any brand, or scale, of turnout.
The third file, "Improving Atlas turnouts 2" concerns the N-scale version of Atlas turnout, just in case you are using them. Hopefully not, Peco turnouts are much better.

Keep having fun;

Traction Fan  🙂


----------



## Virgil (Aug 20, 2021)

Hi Tracton Fan,

Many thanks for the Coupler file most informative and useful. The two on Atlas turnouts are of less interest to this Brit merely because I have no Atlas track of any description and nor do I ever envisage investing in any but that's simply a personal decision.

I thought I ought to do an update on my coupler progress. Yesterday the MTL 1015/16 and 2003 packs that I ordered arrived as did the height gauge. I found assembling the couplers extremely fiddly (age and resulting eyesight and steady hands problems adding to the frustration) but successfully put together the 2015/16's without too much problem. The 2003 were an altogether different proposition. The clip on tops refused to stay put. Will need to sort that out but that's for another time.

I did note that the depths of the 1015 1016 and 2003 couplings were identical and consequently refused to fit. The difference in depth between them and the 2004's was only marginal but enough to prevent fitting without modification to the body of the loco. As I said above if I have to physically alter a loco or wagon I will but with an element of reluctance. Still it had to be done and the alteration was destined to be minor.










All that needed to be done was for the coupler opening to be squared off. This involved removing the offending bits circled with a sharp craft knife with the emphasis on sharp. Thats it. Simple. Job done. MTL couplings installed. Tested with height gauge and all was well with the world. Hooks up to the CMX cleaner and/or the Bethgon trucks I fitted with MTL's quite nicely. Runs well with no uncoupling. Thus I am well pleased. Now onwards and upwards to the next challenge for I am sure there will be many along lifes highway as the next Kato engines I need to replace the couplings over to MTL's on are the F9 A and B units. Sadly in the UK the MTL recommended couplings for them are out of stock for now with UK suppliers so that is a to do in the future. Never mind I can bask on the immediate success and rest on my laurels for the time being and can always turn my hand to the parts of the scenery that are in need of improvement. That to me is one of the real joys of model railways. There is always another task to occupy the time. Just like in RL work is never finished.

Have fun and Choo Choo.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Virgil said:


> Hi Tracton Fan,
> 
> Many thanks for the Coupler file most informative and useful. The two on Atlas turnouts are of less interest to this Brit merely because I have no Atlas track of any description and nor do I ever envisage investing in any but that's simply a personal decision.
> 
> ...


Virgil;

I'm glad you were able to get your couplers installed, and that things worked for you. Yes, assembling couplers is a royal PITA! The special tools mentioned in my coupler file will make it easier. If you want some extra challenge to liven up your life, try assembling Z-scale couplers! They are closer to scale size for N-scale than the ones sold as "N-scale" and the Z-scale couplers will fit in some tight spots the N-scale ones won't. While I've done it, I won't pretend it was any fun!  The main reason I included the "Improving Atlas turnouts" file was to let you see photos of the NMRA gauge being used on a turnout. I didn't think it likely that a modeler in the UK would be using Atlas turnouts, but the critical measurements are the same for any turnout. I didn't even know if Atlas products were sold over there. Since Peco is made in the UK, and is much better quality, I figured that would likely be your choice.

Traction Fan


----------



## Virgil (Aug 20, 2021)

Traction Fan,

If you don't mind I will pass on attempting to assemble Z-scale couplers. N gauge MTLs are enough of a challenge Now I was going to refrain from commenting on your last reply for whilst I am enjoying our conversation and am appreciative of the help you have kindly provided I had decided that, with the coupling sorted, the topic had reached its natural conclusion but on reflection I thought I should at least confess to not using Peco track. Now what follows will be off topic but may be of some insight should our paths cross again (which I sincerely hope they do on another n gauge issue)

After OO when I was much younger I gravitated to n gauge due to space restrictions. Not an uncommon reason I know. In those days I did indeed use Peco track which I reckon is one of the UKs success stories as far as model railways are concerned. Trouble began when house moves in later life necessitated dismantling layouts. As the years went by this became an increasing area of frustration. With the last house move some years ago I decided to bite the bullet and look at set track options. In that area Peco IMHO is poor and provides no automatically motorised turnouts. Tomix I rated as the best followed close behind by Fleischmann. The off-putting elements with the offerings of these two companies was firstly the lack of availability, secondly the price in the UK and finally and somewhat more importantly the fact that the motorised turnouts of both would be on show. That left Kato. Toy like in its profile yes. Lacking in variety (particularly in turnouts) certainly, but readily available in the UK, fairly priced given that turnout prices are inclusive of the motor, snap together and very easy to dismantle and rearrange should the need or desire arise. The problem was could I live with the look of them. After much reflection an examination of what I wanted from my model railway the answer was yes I could. With age firmly against me it became a no brainer. On a side note I will forever continue to believe that Peco are missing a real trick by not embracing plug and play If our hobby has any real longevity in the future it has to attempt to attract the interest of younger generations. Not easy I accept in this world where immediacy is the order of the day but to continue to manufacture turnouts where you have to physically add motors to turnouts then make appropriate connections in order for them to work is almost a relic from the dark ages when 3 rail was the order of the day. 

Apologies if I am boring you so I will wrap it up by briefly explaining why I am converting to Kato USA models. Thats simple. Its all down to reliability. IMHO recent British outline models in n-gauge are wonderful in their degree of detail and are getting better by the year. That sadly is offset by poor internals. Satisfactory running out of the box is becoming rarer and rarer and the number of new models with problems being returned under warranty is increasing. Fortunately Kato models normally perform beautifully. They are quiet. Have more powerful motors so pull better and general are far superior in their build quality. Yes they are a wee bit lacking in quality of detail but I can live with that providing the engines run without problems. Of course all of the above is just my belief which I am aware others quite naturally disagree with. Trouble is Kato only produce 2 British outline models the Eurostar and more recently the 800 class (and the later they only produced because British Rail brought them from Hitachi) Japanese and European hold no appeal for me but I have always had an affection for the large North American locomotives so hence the change.

Anyway enough from me. Its been good chatting with you. Hope to catch you on another topic in the not too distant future.

Have fun.

Virgil


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Virgil said:


> Traction Fan,
> 
> If you don't mind I will pass on attempting to assemble Z-scale couplers. N gauge MTLs are enough of a challenge Now I was going to refrain from commenting on your last reply for whilst I am enjoying our conversation and am appreciative of the help you have kindly provided I had decided that, with the coupling sorted, the topic had reached its natural conclusion but on reflection I thought I should at least confess to not using Peco track. Now what follows will be off topic but may be of some insight should our paths cross again (which I sincerely hope they do on another n gauge issue)
> 
> ...


Virgil;

Thanks for posting a little of your background. It didn't bore me at all. Have you ever considered, or maybe you are already using, sectional/modular construction for your railway? With all your changes of household, it would seem like a natural thing for you. I built my present railroad in sections, and I'm very glad I did. I was originally planning to shoehorn this layout into a small space under the stairway of the condo my wife & I were living in at the time. As the stairway was in the living room, you can imagine my wife's "heavily restrained joy" at the prospect of having a model railroad in it! 
Since we were both working, and had two young daughters, time for hobbies was very short indeed. I settled for building a 1/8th scale model of my proposed model railroad. I belonged to a model railroad club with a workshop, so I built the full-sized sections there. Then I was able to transfer from Los Angeles to San Diego. We moved into a 3-bedroom house, with Hurrah! an attached garage! Since the railroad was sectional, I could transport it easily, with no real damage, and adapt it to a larger, and different shaped, space. The sections have a top, which forms a long shelf when they are connected. This provides storage space for my collection of train books, along with other stuff. (see first photo) The sections are four feet long, sixteen inches deep, and sixteen inches high. Deeper sections, at the ends, house the track loops needed for continuous running. The other photos show some of my layout which is loosely based on the Milwaukee Road's passenger service in Seattle, Washington, during the 1920s. I can also switch to the 1950s by changing autos, signs and of course the trains.

I share your regard for Kato Locomotives and passenger cars. Kato is my favorite brand. I've never quite understood the fairly common criticism of Kato's detail on their locomotives & cars. Yes, its largely molded-in, but its very well done, in my opinion. One can always add detail to a smooth running locomotive, but its a lot harder to turn a poor runner into a smooth runner.

OK, I understand we have covered the subject of couplers enough, and Atlas turnouts more than enough! 😕
On the subject of motorized turnouts I think you may be in the minority, at least among experienced model railroaders. American "newbies" usually opt for "that brand whose name can no longer be spoken" because of the attached motor, and slightly lower price. However. the not-so-newbies usually prefer to add the switch machine of their own choice. This doesn't apply to roadbed track, since both major brands have built-in motors.* That roadbed track option, specifically Kato Unitrack, is very popular here, (but then so is 3-rail. Check the O-scale section of this forum ) However, you may be right about Peco missing an opportunity by not offering roadbed track complete with turnouts that have internal motors. Time will tell.

* The other popular brand of roadbed track here is Bachmann, and their turnouts are horrible.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## GNfan (Jun 3, 2016)

LOL @ "the brand of turnout that is not to be named".


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

Virgil said:


> If our hobby has any real longevity in the future it has to attempt to attract the interest of younger generations. Not easy I accept in this world where immediacy is the order of the day but to continue to manufacture turnouts where you have to physically add motors to turnouts then make appropriate connections in order for them to work is almost a relic from the dark ages when 3 rail was the order of the day.


I wanted to say something about this comment, if you don't mind. I partially agree with you, but I am not sure that would be too much help without a few other changes. I am a relative newbie to the hobby, but with some background around it. My father collected HO trains when I was a kid and I grew up with him, going to train museums, and helping in a hobby shop (mostly sweeping floors and doing clean up stuff) he worked part time at. At one point, my oldest son was given an old Lionel O scale train set that we set up for him to play with. It was just an oval layout, but most of the cars could be made to do different things, such as launch a rocket or load and unload stuff, etc. At some point, I had an HO Bachman Amtrak set, but it was also just an oval and it got boring pretty fast, especially for my kids. Last year, my second son got with me and talked me into helping set up a real layout with him. We chose a 4'x8' table with N gauge trains and started with the Kato train and track sets. The layout rapidly grew to three loops for trains and a fourth just for trolleys. His daughters (13 and 7 year olds now) were interested and love playing with the trains.

I firmly agree that we need to do something to attract younger generations into the hobby. Snap together track sets are going to be critical for that to work, especially if they are good quality sets like Kato. Poor quality track may be doing more harm in the long run because of the frustration it brings in. But, and here is where I sort of disagree, we need more than just track sets to interest the kids. The simple loop will quickly get boring and will lose the interest of the kids. My granddaughters will come in and run the trains for a max of about 15 minutes before they get bored (yes, part of that is my layout design was more towards running the trains than doing things like switching yards). So, I think the first step after basic track sets is something similar to what Kato did with expansion packs. By making sets that are sized and designed to work with the basic set but have sidings, inner loops, switch yards, etc, Kato has set it up to expand and keep people more interested longer. The closest I have seen to that from other companies is lists of layouts and the track parts needed to build them. But they are not designed as expansion sets too much, just new layouts to build.

I know why we cannot get too much in N scale with cars that do anything, like milk bottle unloading and loading stations, but we will lose a lot of the kids to video games and the variable action they offer. That is a problem I am not sure how to solve.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

GNfan said:


> LOL @ "the brand of turnout that is not to be named".


GNfan;

I thought of you today while trying to find a second locomotive for my grandson's little layout. He wanted to run two trains at once and so "Papa" added a second loop of track.
I had originally set him up for single track with passing sidings, as shown in the second photo, but at his young age he just wants to see trains go. My grandson's name is Hudson, so naturally I looked at 4-6-4 steamers. Hudson is only six years old, and I'm starting him off with a simple DC loop layout. Now two power packs, two loops, two trains going. Very simple.

Well the first locomotive I grabbed to test the new outer loop was a Kato GP-30 in GN's Orange & green scheme, like the prototype in your "Where's Smith tower?" response to my Seattle post. Beautiful little model locomotive without the "weathering" applied to the real one in your photo. It runs super smooth and quiet. I don't know if you have one, but you would probably drool al over it if you saw it. 
Then I started looking through my box of steam locomotives, and they kept coming up Great Northern, Great Northern, Great Northern. I'm supposed to be a Milwaukee Road guy! 😊 Of course, Kato doesn't make much N-scale steam in general, and none lettered for the Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul & Pacific. Also, I have a staging yard that's intended to represent King St. Station, and now the station, so a few GN locos (not including you😄) will be appropriate for my layout. I also have stuff form that other railroad whose name James Hill never mentioned without a curse. NP.

Regards;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## GNfan (Jun 3, 2016)

*Off-topic: *"He who is not to be named" is an H.P. Lovecraft reference stolen by J.K. Rowling for Harry Potter's nemesis Voldemort.

Actually, there isn't a lot of labelling on GN, NP, or SP&S steam locomotives: either the road's initials or the locomotive number on one of the boiler domes, the number on the cab under the window, and the railroad's name and/or herald on the tender.

GN 4-8-4 #2582 - Great Northern (rrpicturearchives.net) 
NP 4-8-4 #2650 - Northern Pacific (rrpicturearchives.net)
SP&S 700 (rrpicturearchives.net)


----------



## Virgil (Aug 20, 2021)

traction fan said:


> On the subject of motorized turnouts I think you may be in the minority, at least among experienced model railroaders. American "newbies" usually opt for "that brand whose name can no longer be spoken" because of the attached motor, and slightly lower price.


Traction Fan I am in no doubt that as far as experienced modellers go I am indeed in a very small minority calling for more and improved plug and play. Then again how many of that group will still be waking up above ground in 20 years time? I also agree with Steve Rothsteins comment above that more add on packs ought to be the order of the day but if I get going down that road I shall be sounding off all day. Younger participants have to be encouraged into the hobby If it is to survive and thrive.

Virgil


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Virgil said:


> Traction Fan I am in no doubt that as far as experienced modellers go I am indeed in a very small minority calling for more and improved plug and play. Then again how many of that group will still be waking up above ground in 20 years time? I also agree with Steve Rothsteins comment above that more add on packs ought to be the order of the day but if I get going down that road I shall be sounding off all day. Younger participants have to be encouraged into the hobby If it is to survive and thrive.
> 
> Virgil



Virgil;

Nothing wrong with being in the minority, even if its a minority of one, as I am for some of the modeling methods I use. I agree that encouraging young modelers, or young prospective modelers, is a good idea. That's why I built a little layout for my six-year-old grandson who already loves trains. (see photo)
It's also the reason I wrote all my files, to help "newbies" whether young or old.

Roadbed track is not my personal choice, but it is chosen by many. That's a nice thing about this hobby, you can do things your own way, and so can each modeler. Kato didn't invent, and manufacture, their Unitrack line to loose money. On the contrary, it seems to be a very successful product line for them, so perhaps more variety, and improvements in quality, are in the future. I think there is room in this hobby for those who, (like me) prefer Micro Engineering's highly realistic-looking flex track, and those who prefer Kato Unitrack, (like you.)
By the way, I hope you don't think I was criticizing your choice of turnout types, that was certainly not my intention. I was only trying to explain the logic behind Peco & others selling turnouts without attached motors. Its simply that there is a demand for that product.
Then there are companies who sell motors without turnouts, like Circuitron's Tortoise motor. Those are a very well made & super popular product, used on a variety of turnout brands, including Peco. I have even heard of people removing Atlas's weak twin-coil switch machine, and installing a Tortoise motor.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------

