TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: Zack L-J on June 21, 2023, 02:18:06 PM
-
Who currently makes the absolute strongest knuckles in N? I mangled the stock 1015(clone?) on my BLI T1, and I intend to do some heavy hauling with it, so I want to get to my maximum traction or torque long before I get to the limit of the coupler.
Thanks!
-
?? I've seen 1015s keep together on a 30ft Train running NTrak. What are you doing specifically that would cause them to break before burning the motor?
I could chock it up to BLI clones not being up to snuff, but its just odd.
-
MTL.
Clones are clones.
-
Long ago, when I was active in NTRAK, I used to run trains that were between 60 and 100 cars long with Micro Trains N-scale and Z-scale couplers...putting the smaller Z-scale coupler'd cars near the rear of the train...and had no problems whatsoever with coupler breakage, or trains coming apart since I was careful to make sure all the magnetic dongles were the right height, as were my couplers.
Since the MTL patent ran out and lots of clone couplers appeared, I haven't been running trains much longer than 40 cars on my layout, so my couplers nowadays aren't getting much of a workout weight-wise.
Speaking from experience and running extra-long trains years ago, I'd stick with MTL N-scale couplers, making sure they're all the right height, and either making sure the magnetic dongles are also the right above-track height, or snipping them off (which I do) since if you're not using the MTL "MagneMatic" uncoupling system, what hangs below the coupler is merely cosmetic...and a potential problem-maker if not maintained at the right height.
Sooo...as has been already stated, what are you doing that breaks couplers?? I've never had a problem that way unless I dropped a car on to a concrete floor.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Whoa, yeah, what did you DO?
I've never had a coupler failure and I, too, have run some monster trains on NTRAK layouts.
-
Nah unlike the awful sound this one isn’t BLI’s fault. I simply forgot about inertia when running the train back and forth to break it in and rammed at push pin at about 100 scale mph.
As long as y’all say the 1015s I already have are perfectly cromulent, I’m happy.
As for what I want to haul, I want to use the T1 as a helper for the DD40 I use on The Caboose Train, which i think currently stands at around 200 cabeese long.
-
The coupler failures I’m used to are more like a lot of coupler pitching and height misalignment, so honesty in retrospect I don’t know why I bothered asking, as those are usually due to old worn out or badly made rolling stock.
-
Strongest N scale couplers are the old rapido couplers. Just look at how robust they are due to their size and girth! Those are still the default coupler used outside of USA.
But when it comes to knuckle couplers then as I see it MTL is the best . They will break if something like you described happens (hey, even the 1:1 couplers made out of steel will, and do, break under extreme forces).
-
Strength is not really the issue. All the knuckle couplers are about equally as strong, in terms of the material they are made of, which in my experience never breaks due to drawbar pull.
The only coupler design I'm aware of that is literally not strong enough is *truck mounted* Accumates. These were mostly released a number of years back, and the Accumate coupler parts replaced the Rapido in old truck tooling. Under enough stress, this design twists out of place, even 'explodes'. Body mounted Accumates do not have this same issue. (In fact I find them among the most reliable.)
Some couplers also don't close and grab very reliably, and here I'm thinking in particular of earlier runs of Athearn McHenry couplers, where the knuckles didn't reliably swivel closed and such. Athearn seems to have improved this over the last few years though.
But in my experience the main reason for uncoupling is because couplers are too slippery and/or have too much vertical play and/or are not vertically aligned. With a lot of drawbar pull, one knuckle slips over the top of the other. This happens to all makes, even MT. The MT 'reverse draft angle' is supposed to stop this but really only slows it down. We really need a revolution in N scale coupler design and material to address this.
Finally, the MT 1015/16 is fine for pulling cars. If you push cars, and or have slack action between locos, it's not so good, because the knuckles open when they're shoved together, and it's luck of the draw whether they grab when pulled part again. The best design for staying coupled is the original MT 1023/1025/1027 and truck mounted shanks, which generally push each other closed more like the prototype. These suffer more greatly from the slinky effect for some people. But they're the best at staying coupled.
-
easy answer ... steel couplers ...i don't do N scale, just HO , but i found Kaydee steel couplers [number 5s] were the most reliable
-
easy answer ... steel couplers ...i don't do N scale, just HO , but i found Kaydee steel couplers [number 5s] were the most reliable
Neat to know that they make steel couplers for HO, but not applicable for N scale, unfortunately.
-
There's also our True Scale Couplers...bias opinion of course :D. I have a forty tank car train (065) I pull at home from time to time and they hold as well.
Joe
-
I've never had Unimate/Red Caboose/Fox Valley/Scale Trains dummy knuckle coupler fail. Those things will pull a barn if you hook something to it.
https://shopfvm.com/products/n-static-coupler-short-shank?_pos=1&_sid=02ce16077&_ss=r
Nate
-
There's also our True Scale Couplers...bias opinion of course :D. I have a forty tank car train (065) I pull at home from time to time and they hold as well.
Joe
I will vouch for the MT True Scale Couplers! When Randy Stahl (sd45elect2000) brought his 150 car Milwaukee Road ore train to visit my N scale Housatonic RR layout, I was seriously impressed. The train measured out at a few inches over 22' long. All of the cars had resin loads too. He body mounted the MT True Scale Couplers on all of the ore cars, with only 2 having transitions with regular MT couplers to couple to my locomotives and his caboose. There were no uncouplings, no slinky action at all, and we were actually able to back that huge train about 12 feet through curved areas as a test. Some of the curves are as tight as 15" radius, like the wye at the Canaan Union Station.
-
There's also our True Scale Couplers...bias opinion of course :D. I have a forty tank car train (065) I pull at home from time to time and they hold as well.
Joe
I'm converting all of my couplers to MT True-Scale couplers and I'm very happy with both their appearance and their functionality. However, I'm not pulling extra long trains...the longest being around 40 cars and a caboose, while most low-priority trains that need to find a siding for the high priority trains to get by are limited to a total train length of 9'5" (One Big Boy, 30 40' cars and a caboose) because that's the length of my shortest center siding.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
The only issue with MTL TSCs is that they require some force during coupling and don't uncouple nowhere as easy as other knuckle couplers. I'm not even talking about magnetic uncoupling here. So if one is running regular OPS sessions on a layout where trains are being assembled in the yard and there are lots of other industry switching operations, I think the standard MTL couplers make more sense. Those couple and uncouple much easier.
But for roundy-round operations and for appearance, TSCs are great.
-
The only issue with MTL TSCs is that they require some force during coupling and don't uncouple nowhere as easy as other knuckle couplers. I'm not even talking about magnetic uncoupling here. So if one is running regular OPS sessions on a layout where trains are being assembled in the yard and there are lots of other industry switching operations, I think the standard MTL couplers make more sense. Those couple and uncouple much easier.
But for roundy-round operations and for appearance, TSCs are great.
I agree. They are great for unit trains, but not for switching intensive layouts.
-
So these true scale couplers are incompatible with normal couplers?
-
So these true scale couplers are incompatible with normal couplers?
Yes, incompatible.
-
Might be worth looking into putting it on my big passenger trains with whatever the front car is being a conversion. Thanks for the tips y’all!
-
Most passenger trains one can't really see the couplers anyway, as the diaphragms are in the way. I wouldn't bother changing the couplers there, although a better looking one on the observation car would be nice, assuming your train has one.
-
So these true scale couplers are incompatible with normal couplers?
That is correct. They are not compatible. Here you can see the MT True Scale coupler on the left, vs a regular MT coupler on the right.
[attachimg=1]
-
We haven't heard from the Npossible coupler folks in a while. Their goal is to make the TSC coupler design work well for coupling and uncoupling. I have not committed to a standard, yet, but will soon have to do that. Hoping to hear from the Npossible guys before that decision.
-
I’m reviving this topic on “strongest couplers” having recently picked up a force gauge to scientifically prove what I’ve been observing in coupler testing. I’m looking for some community input on just how much force is reasonable to expect from a coupler before it fails.
Seems like prototypically in North America at least 14000 feet is effectively max train length. So roughly ~250 cars or so.
How much more force than “~250 cars” on level track is reasonable (assuming the train is being pulled from one end) .. 500? 750? 1000? 2000? Cars will string-line on typical layout curves long before 250 cars…
I’m just wondering from the community what they expect from their couplers with respect to maximum train length (one can transpose length to grades too.. Coupler force technically is what I’m after).
Has anyone encountered a scenario where they’ve actually broken a coupler?
I think by far the issue people will care about is how much force you can apply to couplers when they’re miss-aligned (i.e. uneven track/not quite perfect coupler heights) before they uncouple, which actually seems to be where trouble lies.
-
The only MT couplers I've ever broken resulted from dropping a car on the floor. Yes, they will impact break.
Now, before the development of Reverse Draft Alignment (RDA) the vertical slippage problem under heavy load of MT's was just impossible. They didn't break, they just would not hold before one or the other would slip up/down. A partial slip pushed a trip pin down to snag something, and there's where most of the hostility toward trip pins comes from. Jim Fitzgerald came up with a process to trim old couplers to a manual RDA and MT adopted it. But all it takes is one car in a consist that's not RDA for something to fail. The pins get blamed when it's the knuckle design. If they are trimmed, the harder you pull the more they center.
The failure point on heavy trains can be more than the coupler. On truck mounts the truck pin may pull out. On body mounts a pin holding the coupler box to the frame (a typical approach) can pop out.
For brute strength though, I vote Caboose Hobbies, that's what I put in dedicated trainsets, or old cars that have Rapido boxes and resist conversion, like Rivarossi passenger cars.
-
Nah unlike the awful sound this one isn’t BLI’s fault. I simply forgot about inertia when running the train back and forth to break it in and rammed at push pin at about 100 scale mph.
As long as y’all say the 1015s I already have are perfectly cromulent, I’m happy.
As for what I want to haul, I want to use the T1 as a helper for the DD40 I use on The Caboose Train, which i think currently stands at around 200 cabeese long.
The couplers in BLI motive power are not MTL 1015s, regardless of any resemblance. They've been using a hybrid design in recent releases, AccuMate internal springs merged with MTL-style thumb and knuckle. But the plastic is not the same. Definitely not acetyl and possibly styrene.
-
I've tried a lot of different couplers, including the TSC's, and I keep returning to the MT1015 or 1023/1027. My layout is designed for operation, and I need a coupler that can be easily uncoupled with a pick, and that couples flawlessly. The MT just works. I don't have really long trains (25 cars max), but for an operations-oriented setup, the MT has proven best.
John C.
-
To me this seems a bit like overthinking, as a model train is far more likely to uncouple because of bad track, misaligned/snagged couplers, slinky/pogo effects, and such. (Esp. if taking about something like shows/exhibitions, with lots of rail joints and different levels of track quality). Beyond that it would be a matter of slipping the loco wheels, or stringlining some part of the train on an (unprototypically sharp/steep) curve or grade, before ever getting to a coupler breaking point (exploding Accumates or other junk being the exception).
For just a raw strength of the materials, I would suggest grabbing a few different couplers, hanging them from a fixed vertical height with some kind of weight as a load, and just adding dead weight to see which ones can take the most before they fail. Otherwise, I can't really think of an objective way to do a comparison.
That said, I don't know if there is a meaningful way to equate any kind of load weight to a number of cars that can be pulled, since the latter is subject to so many varying conditions.
I recall trying something like that with the LEZ couplers when some of us first started using them. IIRC I got up to nearly one pound of dead weight, without the coupler breaking, before I decided that any further testing wouldn't prove much.
Ed
-
As much as I like the look of truescale couplers, the only thing I’ve ever used them on is an abba set of intermountain ft’s. They really do help the look of that set. When the truescale came out, there were 2 weekends a year that I ran on the layout at the Hinton Rail Museum. I was running 100 car trains on that layout. The only issues I ever had were accurate related other than when backing up. I had thought I might convert one day but never did and probably won’t at this point. I am working on body mounting regular MTL on my fleet though and don’t have any fears of coupler breakage no matter the train size.
-
Way back when I was active in Ntrak, it was (and I suppose it still is) a fun thing to see how long a train you could pull on the setup. Several of the club members were shooting for 100 car trains and achieved that pretty easily, but my longest train was 63 cars, pulled by one of my brass Key FEF-2's with a boiler full of low-melt-metal.
Although several times there were spontaneous uncouplings due to bad joiner tracks with all of our long trains, I never saw a coupler break on any of the trains.
Those days were before the Kadee/MTL patents expired, so the only "knuckle couplers" in use were Kadee/MTL N-scale couplers and Unimates.
Later, I converted everything to MTL Z-scale couplers and I could still pull trains of the same length, but the couplers were more finicky and had to be all of nearly exactly the same coupler height, or they would uncouple over trackwork the N-scale couplers didn't have a problem with.
As to what N-scale couplers are the strongest??? I would venture a guess that the Unimate couplers would probably take the prize...unless you can find some scale sized brass dummy couplers and convert several hundred cars to use them for the test. Hahaha!!...that would be time consuming, expensive and impractical.
Speaking of "impractical" I rarely run trains on my home layout of over 40 cars...and only on priority freights since the rest of the trains have to fit on my center-sidings which are a minimum of 9' 7.5" long. If I'm just trying to impress the kids who are counting cars while participating at a show, my 31 car trains being pulled by a Big Boy at shows impresses them enough.
The prototype Big Boy would pull trains of 4200 tons over the Wahsatch Grade between Ogden and Wahsatch UT...several hundred tons more than what it was designed for...but actual car counts on real Big Boy pulled trains were usually not over 70 or 80 cars going east out of Ogden, with the exceptions requiring a helper during high-traffic periods, which cut off at the top of the grade, the lone Big Boy being able to handle the over-tonnage train on more level track from Wahsatch to Green River and beyond.
Since my layout design elements are slightly less than half the length of the equivalent prototype scenes, it only stands to reason that my longest trains should be approximately 1/2 the length of the prototype trains that traversed that territory, so...30 to 35 car freights are just right for me, and I don't miss pulling 60+ car trains one whit.
Even at that, I'll be interested to see what your findings are when your testing is complete. :)
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
I’m reviving this topic on “strongest couplers” having recently picked up a force gauge to scientifically prove what I’ve been observing in coupler testing. I’m looking for some community input on just how much force is reasonable to expect from a coupler before it fails.
If by "fail" you mean physical damage, then I believe that most couplers will uncouple (by sliding up or down over each other) long before a physical failure. Not sure of this exercise is really useful. That's because of factors like flexing shanks, vertical play in the coupler box, or even entire car lifting off the track.
-
The only MT couplers I've ever broken resulted from dropping a car on the floor. Yes, they will impact break.
Ok.. so formulate a drop test to determine at what height they brake when falling from the layout.. :)
My vote for strongest coupler is the Precision Master/Red Caboose/Fox Valley/Scale Trains? Unimate..
-
A draw bar strength of 60 cars on a 2.5% grade should do it for me. That said, I care a lot less about material strength than the following:
- knuckle design that pushes the knuckles closed when shoving
- knuckle design that doesn't separate with slack action (same, really)
- rough inside surface to reduce the vertical slippage others have mentioned
- designs with prototypicalish shelves
-
A draw bar strength of 60 cars on a 2.5% grade should do it for me. That said, I care a lot less about material strength than the following:
- knuckle design that pushes the knuckles closed when shoving
- knuckle design that doesn't separate with slack action (same, really)
- rough inside surface to reduce the vertical slippage others have mentioned
- designs with prototypicalish shelves
Hmmm...."prototypicalish"....I like that. I'll have to use that word every now and then when appropriate! :D
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
A draw bar strength of 60 cars on a 2.5% grade should do it for me.
This is as close a functional requirement as one can get. Yes the grade and number of cars could be varied to determine the most commonly used scenario, but this is a good start.
At one point I was considering taking a 10' 1X4 and making an adjustable pivot track on a long wall and placing a fish scale with a stop at the upper end and a hook that is compatible with all couplers to do two things:
1: Create a ratio of car actual car weight vs. car weight on wheels on an inclined track, to determine an average baseline weight to assess the drawbar force per car at a specific incline.
2: Use the same scale fixture to hook to a pseudo car (pull pocket with a mounting attachment for the coupler box) on level track and pull to fail on various popular couplers
-I have actually done a facsimile test 2 using an MT 2 bay hopper to fail. Unfortunately, I did not record the measured force value nor do I remember the value. I DO recall that surprisingly it was quite a bit of force that my hand used to break it.
This is my pull test gage in one of my traction tire pull test videos. I would mount a similar stop on the incline track using the same device. It is accurate to 0.1oz as can be seen:
-
I was always amazed at the 0-5-0 force required to move a 100-car hopper train (Atlas 3-bays) equipped with 100% MTL trucks/couplers on nTrak back in the day. Those were not particularly heavy cars, and the couplers pre-dated the advent of the MTL “reverse draft angle.” It seemed amazing to me (still does) that 5 Atlas/Kato geeps could move the train. I don’t believe there was really any substitute for MT pizza-cutters with truck-mounted couplers in that scenario. Not to mention the heavier frames used on those engines… sometimes I think we’ve actually regressed with our featherweight DCC/sound-equipped engines and low-profile wheels. But I digress…
-
By sheer volume of plastic, the “Rapido type” coupler is probably the strongest.
-
I don’t believe there was really any substitute for MT pizza-cutters with truck-mounted couplers in that scenario.
Pizza cutters will add drag,esp. on tighter curves.
Ed
-
Angus Shops: I suspect you're right. I've broken cars with Rapido couplers by dropping them. I don't remember ever breaking one of the couplers. And, with no moving parts, they should be tough.
-
By sheer volume of plastic, the “Rapido type” coupler is probably the strongest.
When my Ntrak club was running long trains, it wasn't the Rapido-style couplers that were failing, but it was their coupler "box" that was giving 'way with really long trains. So, I guess since the "box" is part of the coupler design, it could be considered coupler failure....maybe. 8)
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
That would depend on the box design. The original Atlas/Minitrix design, with a solid box and a metal clip, wouldn't be likely to fail. The Con-Cor design, where the coupler twists into place in an open, flexible box, doesn't look nearly as secure.
-
It seems then that the ~60 car 2.4% grade /~250 car level track is probably a very reasonable benchmark. My rough estimate is those aren’t far off from each other. I’m estimating that represents ~2.2 newtons (.5 lbf/7.9 Oz) or so of force. I want a reasonable number to consider a “full pull”; This is about offset reliability rather than failure strength; This is WAY below any failure strength I’ve measured. But above any number of pull apart values I’ve found with factory installed couplers.
Much of my strength testing previously has relied on using dead locomotives to create resistive forces simulating long trains. But as I began observing certain behaviors, I wanted to more reliably prove my casual observations in a more controlled and repeatable manner, enter the force gauge.
My coupler test setup isn’t super sophisticated, but I’m getting consistent and repeatable results. A pair of 1055 gauges, a bi directional force gauge shimmed to line up to the 1055 that measures .01 newton increments and which also holds a peak value, and some unitrack. Different couplers can be mounted up in the 1055 gauges too.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/37/6106-150124134150.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=37974)
Any number and combination of cars can be setup between the 1055’s and then pulled or pushed. The unitrack section(s) can also be shimmed under cars to progressively mis-align couplers, or propped on joints to create humps, and force can be applied and measured.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/37/6106-150124134630.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=37975)
Any bets as to which end pulls apart first ? (pre-production N-Possible (not TSC/derived TSC) scale couplers on the left, stock MTL on right, identical MTL models.
(For fun I’ve tested the brute strength of couplers by just connecting the 1055’s directly together and pulling (to destruction); It’s much more of an academic exercise rather than of any practical value but curiosity got the better of me)