Couplers

[bbussey]

Micro-Trains Magne-Matics and the Atlas Accu-Mates.  I'm loyal to both, and would be whether I had strong business dealings with them or not.  If I change the couplers on a piece of equipment, I change to either of those depending upon the situation.

The third coupler I use is the current rendition of the Kato coupler.  I keep them on factory-installed models.

[Mark5]

I like Kadee/MTL except for the slink.

I like Accumates and use the Atlas 23015 whenever possible.

The Bachmann knuckles are HUGE, the smaller McHenry couplers are still too large for my tastes.

Mark

[robert3985]

MT's are the way to go.  Just converted my new (and now sound DCC equipped) Kato E-9's to MT's for closer coupling with MT Z-scale couplers on the noses and AMB diaphragms in-between.  I'll keep the Kato couplers on the passenger cars, but all my freight cars eventually will get body mounted MT Z couplers until DKS gets his couplers in production.

Slinky effect?  I simply put springs on the axles of several cars and Mr. Slinky goes away...or pull a brass CA-5 or CA-6 on the end.

My maximum train length is 35 40' cars, a Big Boy and a caboose...about 9' 7", which is the minimum length of my passing sidings on my modular layout.  I don't do the "how many cars can I pull" thing any more...got over that when I graduated from Ntrak.

I was just thinking about it.  Four weeks ago my son and I ran for the entire Evanston Roundhouse Festival (2.5 days) and I never noticed any slinky effect. Hmmmm...A way over-rated problem in my estimation.

Cheers!
Bob Gilmore

[SP-Wolf]

I was just thinking about it.  Four weeks ago my son and I ran for the entire Evanston Roundhouse Festival (2.5 days) and I never noticed any slinky effect. Hmmmm...A way over-rated problem in my estimation.

Robert3985--Couldn't agree with ya more. Sometimes ya got tell some guys--"Don't over analyze it-just play through".

Have fun,
Wolf

[TiVoPrince]

Waiting  
for NZT product to arrive before responding...

[Scottl]

I'm waiting for NZT too, very hopeful.

Now that I have run trains up to 5', the slinky effect of MT is quite noticeable and I don't like it.  I have had no issues with Accumate but I would prefer a finer coupler for looks.

[ednadolski]

Slinky effect?  I simply put springs on the axles of several cars and Mr. Slinky goes away

While that can work in some cases, for me at least it seems counter-productive to add drag deliberately when a big reason for buying and maintaining higher-quality equipment is to reduce drag.   Not to mention the effect of excessive drag on reducing effective loco pulling power and increasing the tendency toward stringlining.

A way over-rated problem in my estimation.

Some day you'll have to visit my layout, and see just how ridiculous a long train looks as it slinks its way down Tehachapi Loop.  Call me an A-hat, but that isn't the sort of thing that I invest my modeling time & money to see.  And no, it definitely is not because of bad wheels, dirty track, car weight, choppy-running locos, or scale headwinds.

Ed

[DKS]

Some day you'll have to visit my layout, and see just how ridiculous a long train looks as it slinks its way down Tehachapi Loop.  Call me an A-hat, but that isn't the sort of thing that I invest my modeling time & money to see.  And no, it definitely is not because of bad wheels, dirty track, car weight, choppy-running locos, or scale headwinds.

Thank you, Ed. Someone had to tell it like it is.

[Kisatchie]

There have been some interesting replies here. I guess I should give my opinion now.

I'm using mostly MTL couplers. About 9 or 10 years ago, I tried to eliminate the slinky effect by putting Accumate couplers in Micro-Trains truck-mounted coupler boxes. That seemed to work well, but just from handling the cars (sorting them, adding decals, etc.), a lot of trip pins fell off. And I prefer the visual effect of trip-pins-as-air-hoses. Looks like I'm stuck with Micro-Trains N scale couplers, since the cost of converting them to anything else would be prohibitive.


Hmm... could someone
prohibit Kiz from talking
so much...?

[PAL_Houston]

Let's be clear, here: 

1.  A LOT of my rolling stock was acquired used, with Rapidos.  For these step one was to replace the truck & coupler assemblies with Atlas/Accumates.  This was inexpensive, easy and fairly reliable way to get TRAINS.

2.  A fair amount of my rolling stock (new or used) came with Accumates.

3.  A fair amount of my rolling stock (new or used) came with MT's.

4.  On BALANCE, most of my rolling stock is now MT's -- I didn't go check the inventory, precisiely, but I'd bet it's about as close as the current pre-election polls, that is darn near 50:50!!!!

[Dupesy]

Interesting this topic should come up, as I'm currently in the middle of a "coupler, truck and wheel" craze.  (last craze was "decoder installation"; very expensive)  Anyways, I've decided that all equipment will have Accumate couplers, either truck mounted with Fox Valley metal wheels, or body mounted when easily accomplished with BLMA trucks and wheels.  This includes MTL equipment.  I'm about 1/5th of the way through my roster of about 600 cars.  Needless to say, I have an ever-growing pile of MTL trucks and lo-pro wheels I need to dispose of at some juncture.

[jagged ben]

I think the slinky effect is primarily an effect of cars being lighter than they could be.  Otherwise I just don't understand why some people seem to have different results than I do.  I used to have problems with it back in the day when I ran old lightweight Atlas cars with minimal weight in them.  Nowadays I only run cars that are more properly weighted (MT, IM, MDC, etc.)  and I generally just never see it.  If I do see it I add a bit of weight.  The only place I ever have a real problem with it these days is cabeese, because they are always at the end of the train, and because I don't want to risking harming my nice cabeese to get weight inside.  I will probably try the MT restraining spring at some point, just haven't done so yet.

As far as scale couplers and all that, I am committed to body-mounting.  But although I really wish I could experiment more, our club layout just has too many issues with vertical curves, and I can't keep my cars coupled consistently enough with full size MTs at the proper height.   Wherever I can I use 1025s, followed by 2004s or 1015s as necessary.  McHenry's get replaced, those things have proven a complete inability to stay coupled in my experience.

[Bendtracker1]

I think the slinky effect is primarily an effect of cars being lighter than they could be.  Otherwise I just don't understand why some people seem to have different results than I do.  I used to have problems with it back in the day when I ran old lightweight Atlas cars with minimal weight in them.  Nowadays I only run cars that are more properly weighted (MT, IM, MDC, etc.)  and I generally just never see it.  If I do see it I add a bit of weight.  The only place I ever have a real problem with it these days is cabeese, because they are always at the end of the train, and because I don't want to risking harming my nice cabeese to get weight inside.  I will probably try the MT restraining spring at some point, just haven't done so yet.

The trains that I run are only 25-30 cars long max and I have no grades.  What little they "Slinky" looks more like slack action to me.
As for the cabeese, I do the same thing, I use the truck retainer springs, 1 or 2 on each caboose.
The majority of my cars are weighted to at least NMRA specs if not a little bit heavier.

I have in no way seen any increased drag on my equipment, mainly since they are shorter trains and I run 2-3 locos on each train.
But I can see how this might effect longer trains and those that run on grades.

I guess the way I see it, you do what you gotta do to make things work for you.  Be it looks or purpose.  For operational purposes, I'm more worried about reliability than looks.

But I'm also looking forward to seeing what DKS come up with!

[Mark5]

I'm also looking forward to seeing what NZT comes up with, but we'll have to wait quite a while for that eh?

[TRC 3001]

Having a fairly large layout, and long trains, I've found that with all the available options out there currently, Micro Trains are the way to go in my opinion.  Yes, they have drawbacks, but from a reliablity standpoint they have the least amount of issues when it come to operations.