Converting To Z-Scale Couplers - Is It Worth The Effort?

[Chris1274]

Are the LE/FT couplers still only available on Z scale trucks, or can they be purchased separately?

[PGE_Modeller]

Available directly from Lee English.  The last ones I bought were $1.60 per pair, minimum order 50 pairs.  E-mail him to get a mailing address - e-mail is, IIRC, in one of the posts in the "Body Mount Couplers" thread in "Best of the Wire".

Cheers,

[GaryHinshaw]

Correct.  Up-thread:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=31598.msg350792#msg350792

or direct:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg324793#msg324793


-gfh

[Chris1274]

I don't suppose there's a chance they would fit into a 1035 coupler pocket, is there?

[GaryHinshaw]

I don't suppose there's a chance they would fit into a 1035 coupler pocket, is there?

If you mean the MT truck-mount 1035, then no.

[ednadolski]

I don't suppose there's a chance they would fit into a 1035 coupler pocket, is there?

I haven't tried myself, but I think that may work, since the LE/FT coupler does fit in the Exactrail pocket, and the Exactrail pocket comes from the factory with an MT coupler.

In addition to the Exactrail factory pocket, the LE/FT also works in the factory pocket on the Atlas coil car:




They also fit in the factory pocket on the Athearn 2-bay hopper:




Even tho these cast-in factory pockets are oversized, it is a lot easier to just use them than it is to remove & replace them with the brass pocket.


Ed

[Chris1274]

I haven't tried myself, but I think that may work, since the LE/FT coupler does fit in the Exactrail pocket, and the Exactrail pocket comes from the factory with an MT coupler.

In addition to the Exactrail factory pocket, the LE/FT also works in the factory pocket on the Atlas coil car:

[bbussey]

I've been in N scale since 1973 and have a rolling stock and motive power fleet that numbers in the hundreds and once numbered in the thousands.  The effort was expended at the time to convert all non-Kadee rolling stock to Kadee/MTL couplers.  It is considerably cost-prohibitive at this point for me to move off an N scale MTL-based knuckle coupler standard, particularly when every manufacturer now offers MTL-compatable couplers on their products.  Also, the Magne-Matic style method of uncoupling rather than a RIX tool is needed for automated functions — such as potential computer-controlled motive power changes at New Haven — so that also dictates the choice.

The time to consider a change is when you are in the early stages of the hobby, when you don't have a lot of equipment to convert.  You also must keep in mind how you intend to operate on your layout, and that you will have to modify every new purchase of equipment moving forward for the considerable time being.  You also have to consider the source of your coupler choice and project what the availability will be in the future.

[6axlepwr]

This is exactly the choice I need to make now while my collection is still rather small.

I would like to go with the LE/FT coupler, but the thought of having to make a project out of every car I buy is not all that appealing. Also redesigning my locomotives to take the LE/FT coupler is not all that appealing either.

If I stick with MT, I will send the Delrin parts to my son in law and he will cast them in metal for me. Much less chance of them breaking over time.

The verdict is still out for me though.

[BCR751]

I have to agree with Mr. Bussey on this one.  I have way too much stuff (not nearly as much as many of you, however) to go the conversion route, especially since the LE/FT couplers won't likely fit in some of the pockets.  Even with my rather meager roster, it would be very expensive, and time consuming, to do the whole-scale conversion.  I think I'll save any conversion for special models that I want to display or photograph and let the rest ride.  Thanks for all of your contributions to this thread.

Doug

[Scottl]

A good argument as any.  If they did not slinky and ruin the effect of the train operation to my eyes, I would settle too, but MTs are gone as soon as I have a good replacement and time.

[nsbob]

I remember reading an article a while back that someone suggested inserting a piece of rubber band in the spring of the MT couplers to mostly eliminate the slinky effect.  It sure sounds tedious and time consuming but probably worth the effort if it works.  Has anyone tried this to see how effective it is?

[wcfn100]

I have over 500 freight cars.  I had started to convert to Z scale MTL couplers until manufacturers started to body mount, then I stopped and just accepted the MTL standard.

That lasted until I got some of the FT/LE couplers and the etched pockets. 

I have probably over 600 freight cars and will surely buy hundreds more over the following years.  That's not going to stop me from making my models (look and operate) better when I have the chance.


Jason

[peteski]

I remember reading an article a while back that someone suggested inserting a piece of rubber band in the spring of the MT couplers to mostly eliminate the slinky effect.  It sure sounds tedious and time consuming but probably worth the effort if it works.  Has anyone tried this to see how effective it is?

The only problem I see with this idea is that rubber (like the rubber used in elastic bands) hardens and gets brittle after few years of air exposure.  Or on the other extreme, it "melts": gets soft, gooey, and sticky.  I guess if you don't mind replacing those rubber springs every few years on all your cars then the rubber spring will work. 

[DKS]

Nothing says you need to convert en masse. Even real railroads take years to adopt new standards. It took years to move from cast iron wheels to steel; from assembled (e.g. archbar) trucks to one-piece castings; from solid journals to roller bearing; you get the idea. Since N and Z are (more or less) compatible, you can plan out a conversion strategy over time and still work with the mix.