MTL True Scale Couplers - E-Z Uncoupling Tool

[Rossford Yard]

C855B,

Guess I should have noted I am not using TSC.  I am just getting around to putting metal wheels on all my trucks, having taken a while to get all trucks to C55 tolerance.  You and many others are still one step ahead of me in the proto modeling dept.  Even for regular couplers, I think the dental pick would probably be better, and I may mod my home made unit with one of proper length to try that, too.

[Seligman Sub]

C855B-

This thread is of interest as I too greatly dislike the slinky effect of regular MT couplers. However I was under the impression and TSC don’t operate well because they are difficult to couple with normal switching moves unless one resorts to banging couplers together real hard.

Seligman Sub

[Jbub]

C855B-

This thread is of interest as I too greatly dislike the slinky effect of regular MT couplers. However I was under the impression and TSC don’t operate well because they are difficult to couple with normal switching moves unless one resorts to banging couplers together real hard.

Seligman Sub

That is true for the short shank couplers. The long shank couplers take quite a bit less force to couple. Not quite as little as a regular MT coupler but close. Also, the trick is to make sure the couplers are centered to each other just like the prototype.

[learmoia]

That is true for the short shank couplers. The long shank couplers take quite a bit less force to couple. Not quite as little as a regular MT coupler but close. Also, the trick is to make sure the couplers are centered to each other just like the prototype.

Wellll... technically..
A prototype coupler doesn't 'center' itself beyond the fact that it has little if any 'swing' to begin with.  The pivot takes place in the fit between the coupler knuckles themselves.. (which TSC addresses fairly well).

The exception being 60+' cars that have some swing (and alot of slinky) built into them (Our railroad calls them rubber bands).. But they still don't center themselves other than the fact that they were likely centered when they were last uncoupled and 500+lbs coupler assembly don't move around at the touch of a feather.

The 'Slinky' in a freight car can be determined by the length of the cross key pocket and any other load cushion devices..
I pulled the Dim on a coupler box drawing I did a while back that simulated the cross key on the sides, and 'Prototypical slinky' measures

0.0354" per coupler (Gap between centered cross key and pocket edge x2)..

Then Double that for the other car 0.0708" plus 1/2" slop in the coupler. 

Slinky between 2 normal cars should be around 0.0740" or.. 11.8" in 1:1

So we're back to balancing prototypical appearance against realistic model operation.

~Ian

[learmoia]

On another note..

A couple of years ago (Jan of 2017).. I did some design ideas for Micro Trains to consider some future solutions to some of the initial issues with operation of TSC couplers.
.. Since the TSC line hasn't moved forward yet, and the designs were free ideas to Micro-Trains, I figure it won't hurt to throw the ideas out and get TRW feedback.
( @Shipsure if I need to pull the images down, let me know.)

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

A: Is a 1015 Lid design that allows use of a short shank TSC installed in the existing 1015 box.
B: Alternate designs of MT couplers to remove the slinky but attempt to retain easy coupling in standard boxes.
C: Self contained design to avoid fused coupler for custom boxes.
D: Another idea for a fused long shank coupler.

All designs by Me.. with use granted to Micro-Trains if they decide to use them.

~Ian