Fitting Kato Magnetic Couplings

[Khaul]

Yes, it is a 702. I kept the springs in a bag. The 702s have a t-shank but they are still a bit tricky to get into bogie coupler mounts like the one in my taki1000. The 923500 family look even harder because they don't have a t-shank. That's why I'm asking.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Khaul

[inobu]

I thought they were the as different coupler. but after refreshing my memory (looking on the Kato's web site) they aren't even close. lol. I was thinking they were the

923090

 

 

As i recall the technique was a assemble, grip with tweezers at the neck, tilt and twist one motion. If you didn't the coupler would hang and distort.Then I'd placed the spring by using a small screw driver with the spring on it. I would line it up with the stem and slide the first half on and then use a tip of the exacto blade to trap in onto the coupler. 

 

The grip with the tweezer as the neck was key. The coupler comes in two parts with the flang being the smallest it hard to handle.

 

 

I'm starting to remember. I changed out all of my Kato Bethgon coalporters to the magnet uncouplers. Brought the same idea when I switched to JR I repeated it with the koki's and tank cars. 

 

Here's one of the tankers

 

 

So, I don't think you will have a problem.

 

Inobu

[Khaul]

Mmm, it does not look like the 923090 come with trip pins, but they seem to have a hole to fit them. Is that what you do with the koki with the blue containers in the previous page?

[inobu]

Yeah, There are so many different version and numbers is can get confusing.

 

 

http://thomas.tuerke.net/on/mrr/images/coupler-koki-cover-removed-kato.jpg

 

But back to your point.

 

The Koki and tank cars are using 923500S. The magnet trip pin/hose works with no problems.

 

 

I swapped out the green Taki's 1000 and 3000 as well

 

Inobu

[Khaul]

I am coming back to this topic after a while to summarise and, I think, clarify an important missing point in the discussion

 

-as Inobu said the 923500 (and similar) work with both many Japanese locomotives, ie the DE10, and into Kato bogie mounts

-the 923500 just fit in the loco's pilot pin as shown above (message #27)

-to go in the standard Kato bogie mount the 923500 do need the centering spring which looks like the same used with the standard Rapido couplers but one also need to get the "Kato 923524 coupler cover plate". Those cover plates have the pin that goes through the loop at the back of the 923500 and that's the answer to the problem found by Claude Dreyfuss in post #1. See in jnsforum (where else?) http://www.jnsforum.com/community/topic/4958-kato-corrogated-passenger-car-truckcoupler-replacement-recommendations/ 

 

Now, there is still an unsolved part of the puzzle: would the 923500 + springs + 923524 also work with the body mounts? The photo at the top of this page seems to suggest that it would https://raicho.home.xs4all.nl/mcorner/mtconver/katocoup.htm Note that this refers to the old 28088 that are next to impossible to find. Interestingly the cover looks very much like the 923524 and the box looks like the standard Kato body mount box.

 

I am looking forward to experimenting and I'll report the results here.

[Kiha66]

Thanks for finding these!  The trip pin version of the coupler and cover plates comes with the kato manu 34/suha 32 chuo line set (10-1320), and I had never seen them before!  I like how they look far better than the 11-702 version, although they are a bit more pricey.   I'll be getting some for the observation cars and YOs that will have exposed couplers, and maybe eventually switch over the whole fleet.  I can test some in a body mount car if it would be helpful, although I think the cover wouldn't fit/be necessary in such an installation. 

[Khaul]

Your are welcome! And yes, the 11-702 are ok but being able to shunt properly would be uber cool, right?

[Khaul]

I have been experimenting with an order of magnetic couplers from Kato USA. I got for packets with 10 of the 923500 each plus the 923524 cover plates. The 923500 fit many locomotives with the standard coupler mount and, together with the cover plates, also work mounted in a standard Kato bogie.

 

923500 with cover plate. 11-702 for at the side for comparison.

 

923500s cannot be easily body mounted without a special coupler box. This box was included in the original Kato Japan 28-088 together with couplers, trip pins and cover plates providing an almost universal mount for Kato rolling stock. I am quite sure that the special coupler box is included in Kato USA reference 923160, more info here https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://s.webry.info/sp/muri-yatte.at.webry.info/200812/article_18.html&prev=search . 

 

923500 can be mounted in the locomotives, but I don't think this is the best idea. A better option would be to go for the straight shank couplers offered in three lengths (923502/923503/923504). Those seem to be identical to the knuckle couplers included in the Japanese locos but they come with holes for trip pins. 923500 sit often too high if installed in locos because they are underslung couplers and a bit thinner than their straight shank cousins. 

 

Coupler heights don't match for quite a bit. There would be decoupling in slopes.

 

That's better, slope proof. Even Mike Fifer would say it's ok. 

 

And yes, 923500 can be easily coupled with 11-702s.

 

In terms of performance 923500s are better than 11-702 for coupling pushing with locomotive and much better at manual decoupling with a sharpened toothpick or a small screw driver. They also look much nicer, especially without the trip pins. Magnetic decoupling seems to work, but I am trying with a brutal under track H0 Micro Trains permanent magnet. I'll report the tests when I get a Kato 20-032 decoupler track.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Khaul

[Shinchipboard]

Confused? Yes I am because Kato have a miniature buckeye that is on a completely new (to me) swivelling cam type arrangement. (see picture).

I want to fit a magnetically operated coupler to each end of my rake of 24's. It has been suggested that I swap out the bogie with one that has a coupler box. Unfortunately the bogie is a clip fit and not a simple hole and screw arrangement. I don't want to butcher my new coaches and anyway I can't see the correct style of replacement truck.    Help!!!!

[kvp]

Confused? Yes I am because Kato have a miniature buckeye that is on a completely new (to me) swivelling cam type arrangement. (see picture).

I want to fit a magnetically operated coupler to each end of my rake of 24's. It has been suggested that I swap out the bogie with one that has a coupler box. Unfortunately the bogie is a clip fit and not a simple hole and screw arrangement. I don't want to butcher my new coaches and anyway I can't see the correct style of replacement truck.    Help!!!!

The new Kato butterfly mechanism has been around on european trains for some time, but usually with NEM coupler mounts, so you can fit whatever coupler you want. In this case, the new Kato coupler mech should be clip removable and you could add the magnetically operated body mount couplers instead to the end cars in a reversible fashion. (might involve drilling a hole in the floor, but once the new coupler is removed clipping the butterfly mech back on would hide it)

[Khaul]

I finally got the Kato Unitrack uncoupler 20-032 to properly test automatic uncoupling. Well, ok, the magnet has just the right strength to uncouple most of the time. Unintended uncoupling is too common, though. When your trains just goes over the magnet uncoupling is not supposed to happen as far as there is no slack in your train. The problem is the magnet will attract the magnetic wheels and create an accordion effect producing slack and thus unwanted uncoupling. That's probably why plastic wheels are still popular among American modelers. 

If you want automatic uncoupling just for changing locomotives you can make it work quite well with the simple unitrack uncoupler. Going further than that would require a permanent magnet under the track that can be moved out of the way or an electromagnet.

923500 look and work better than 11-702 so not unhappy overall.