ooops I think I got it wrong :(

If it doesn't quite line up, some minor bending should take care of it. There's a lot of vertical play in those couplers. 

I have two MTH 400e's, the Circus and the Harley Davidson versions, and they both pull long strings of 200 series freight cars without a problem.  So unless LCT has changed the couplers on the new Red Comet 400e to accomodate passenger cars, which I doubt, you should not have any problems. 

Bob

i've got to say this is one thing i will never understand about reproduction fans... tab and slot, ok, i can see that, but why would anyone want to go back to remaking one of the worst coupler designs in all model railroading history?

Gary, as an Ives man I share your dislike for Lionel couplers, but I don't understand what you're saying.  Reproduce Lionel classic period tinplate but put a different coupler on them?  Huh?

the modern AAR knuckle coupler functionally dates back to 1888.  i'll bet that if Lionel had the capability of making an operating coupler in 1920, they would have.

so sure... why not?

navyseal,

I did a search on this forum and seems that some folks had a hard time matching 200 series cars to their 400e. Seems as if the tenders of 400e engines that MTH cataloged with the comet cars have 500 series trucks.  That would explain why MTH made it known that the 200 series blue comet boxcar had 500 series trucks.  I really need to use the search function more often. Tons of captured info that's really helpful.

Sunrise

I'm not exactly a "Purist" when it comes to tinplate and I do like reproductions. I would even go with all box couplers on standard and O gauge! I have some Ives,Lionel and American Flyer and the easy way to deal with pulling different manufactures is I change out the coupler on the engine. For example: I have an Ives coupler on my Lionel 400E and a American Flyer coupler on my Lionel 390E! If I had the option to go with all one type of coupler it wouldn't bother me much as far as historical accuracy. I'm more a runner than a collector.

to take that a step further: Reproduce classic tinplate with can motors, smoke and electronic sounds?

Once you start changing things it is no longer true to the original, but these are being bought not as historical replicas (for the most part) but rather as modern interpretations of the originals.

SO if they were to standardize the couplers it really would not hurt things.
Another option would be to make easily changeable couplers (yes I realize many are easy to change) of universal shank length and then people could standardize on whatever coupler they like best. Just a thought

Roland

Now that is a really good idea.  

I wonder if Mike Wolf gave the standardized coupler any thought when he found himself manufacturing all of the big 3 tinplate.

My dad had this problem in 1928 when he was 10 years old, so it's nothing new.  He got his freight set one car at a time for Christmas each year, and things were changing fast around then.  His freight set consists of a pure Ives 193 cattle; a Flyer-bodied Ives 20-192 box; a 200 series Lionel gondola; and a 500 series Lionel caboose.  That's what I grew up thinking a freight train should look like.

The solution was to put all Ives couplers on everything, since both his locos and his passenger cars were Ives.

I thought of doing something similar when I got serious about this, but I couldn't keep up with it.  It would take a boxcar load of couplers and then some.

Just keep a few twisty ties around.

couplers not compatible with Dorfan?

will tab and slot be an option?

trucks with details, but leaf springs on freight cars?

i'd rather see the plain-jane Dorfan trucks with brass journals.

nice, different, but not really Dorfan.

That is a post from Overland flyer on June 21st taken from the Dorfan thread.

All trains no matter what you call then reproduction, facsimiles or whatever should have the correct coupler IMHO.

Dorfan O gauge couplers were always tab & slot.  my comment was in response to Lionel automatic box couplers proposed for Dorfan reproductions.

do you work for Fox News?

you seem skilled at quoting out of context.

cheers...gary

I'm getting nervous about my recent "conversion" to tin-plate with all of this incompatible coupler talk!!!!

Haven't bought anything yet but it's something that I will make sure that I keep in mind when I hit York.

- walt

Tom Snyder had the same very low opinion of the couplers that were used and he was a huge fan of Standard Gauge reproductions.You are not alone in your opinion. One of the funny things about slot and tab, is the difficulty of switching, you have to pull the car off the rails, not exactly prototypical, but then why worry about reverse moves, the cars bunch up anyway?  I think the best non prototypical tinplate coupler was the Marx scissors coupler which I think are under rated. Well tinplate scale is all over the place anyway. I don't need a "right look".

Did you see the article "The Right Look" in this issue of OGR? Mr Riddle has never been much around tinplate, I guess. You know reading this and similar articles, strikes me that some might think this is "correct" way to do things. I say only if it bugs you. LOL..I liked the picture that showed out of scale stuff out of proportion to one another..looks like my layout for cryin out loud..ha. Each to their own, I guess...I guess if Riddle saw my layout, he'd have a nervous breakdown. I don't need a right look..or a wrong look..

For standard gauge, I have made a coupler adapter for Flyer to Lionel, but it also works with most any tab & slot coupler. I think a Flyer to Ives adapter would be quite easy. Don't have any std Dorfan to compare with.

Steve

There was a long discussion on this forum about a year ago about the couplers on the 400E and compatibility with 200 vs 500 series freight cars. Bottom line was, Lionel made all the 400E tenders the same, with small wheels. There's a lot of vertical play in the couplers to match up with the taller 200 series cars, and if you still need a little more, you bend them. 

I've been noticing that the new MTH reproductions have less play in couplers (and in trucks, axles, and wheels also) than the originals, and this leads to difficulties out of the box.  I have more derailment problems from couplers and wheels without enough "slop" in them than I have from track problems.  I find myself re-mounting MTH couplers with cotter pins to allow them to flop around easier, and things ride smoother.

Walt, just buy all Ives, vintage and MTH, and you'll have no coupler problems!

RichArt routinely installed operating knuckle couplers on their Standard Gauge sets.  I have a RichArt BiPolar and six RichArt passenger cars as well as a RichArt McKeen Motor Car with two trailers all of which have operating knuckle couplers.  I would love to see MTH adopt something similar.

Bob

An excellent idea. Did RichArt use regular Lionel-type 0 gauge knuckle couplers, or something of their own design? I have one of the repro RichArt McKeen cars built by the guy in Texas and it has tab couplers. 

As you may know, you could order RichArt BiPolar and passenger car sets in 2-rail G gauge.  On these, Dick Mayer installed unique combination G/Standard Gauge couplers.  As you can see on the pictures below, it appears that Dick grafted the plastic knuckle end of a G scale knuckle coupler with the metal shaft end of an Ives coupler.  Dick used this basic coupler design on the RichArt products he made to operate on 2-rail G gauge as well as on a few Standard Gauge items, like my set.  (NOTE:  See this unique RichArt set in action on the SGMA layout at Trainfest 2013 in Milwaukee this coming November.)

Please tell me more about your Texas-built "repro RichArt McKeen cars".  Except for a few RichArt 710 series passenger car kits, I didn't know that other RichArt products were sold in kit form and I'm interested in learning more about your RichArt McKeen kit.  (Are you sure we are talking about a "RichArt" McKeen motor car kit and not one of the two very similar looking McKeen motor car kits, made by Robert Thon and then 25 years later assembled by Thon and by Sergio Sanchez?) 

Bob Nelson

I purchased my reproduction McKeen car from a guy who has what is left of Dick Mayer's old parts and dies from this model. It was not a kit - I bought it fully assembled and running. It has interior seating but no cab detail. I'm thinking of putting in a driver's seat, etc. when and if I have time. He has fabricated a lot of the parts, either in his own shop or by contracting out, copying Rich-Art originals. He has a day job - he's an airline pilot, if I remember correctly - and he puts together a few McKeen cars every now and again when he has time and sells them. He doesn't have a web site - he sells through eBay and train shows. I don't know how many he has built but it's probably between 10 and 20. You can contact me offline if you would like his contact information.

I have never seen an original Rich-Art McKeen car so I cannot comment on how close mine is to the original. It is a very nice looking model, quite well made and finished. Power is from a can motor built into one of the trucks with a worm drive to one axle and a chain drive to the second axle. It is very noisy in operation because of the chain drive. This actually doesn't bother me; the noise sort of adds to the tinplate experience. 

Here are a few photos. 

That's a great looking repro short-version RichArt McKeen motor car!   The airline pilot is obviously doing a super job building his McKeens from RichArt parts. Did he acquire the dies and parts to build RichArt McKeen trailers?

For comparison, here's a picture of my long-version McKeen Motor Car KULSHAN with two trailers.  By your text, it sounds as if your motor car has the same kind of can motor, worm gear and chain drive system that mine does.

Bob Nelson

----

That's a great looking repro short-version RichArt McKeen motor car!   The airline pilot is obviously doing a super job building his McKeens from RichArt parts. Did he acquire the dies and parts to build RichArt McKeen trailers?

----

I'm not sure of that. I seem to remember him mentioning that he had built a trailer or two, and my unit does have a tab coupler in the back, but I'm not positive one way or the other. I like your long setup with the two trailers - impressive to say the least.

The repro McKeen got a lot of attention and comments when I ran it at our museum. I'd love to see MTH make a McKeen car, either in tinplate or in 0 scale. The 0 scale one was cancelled due to a shortage of pre-orders, but that was at the height of the recession. It might be worth another try. I think a McKeen would be popular in tinplate, especially in 0 gauge where they could make it for a lot less money than a Standard Gauge version.