McHenry N scale couplers

[hminky]

Wanting an easy coupler to swap out on my Bachmann hoppers I looked at the comparisons of the different couplers on the web.

The McHenries looked good so I bought a pack.

The compare well with the MT and look a whole lot better than the Bachmann:



The McHenries swap out in the Bachmann and Model Power locomotives.

They couple with all the other brands.

Compared to a MT:



Accumate:



Bachmann:



The mounting hole is smaller than the Bachmann so the lug has to be shaved down on the 55 ton Hoppers.

They look a whole lot better than the originals:



Harold

[tom mann]

Yeah, I agree: these are better looking than the MT and Bachmann.  However, I hate that exposed spring!

[peteski]

Yeah, I agree: these are better looking than the MT and Bachmann.  However, I hate that exposed spring!

...and the XL size...






Good concept gone bad..  Then Arnold/Vlk knuckle coupler is much better size and appearance wise, but it is not fully compatible with MT couplers (and not sold individually).

[Nato]

        I was one of the Beta Testers for the Mc Henry couplers we were asked to swap out Atlas Accumate's and compare. I still have a small baggy with about six in it. I must agree, the visible spring and the large size detract from an otherwise good product. Yes it would be nice to be able to purchase the Arnold Hornby coupler. Nate Goodman (Nato).

[jagged ben]

In my experience they are worse at staying coupled than other types.

[nkalanaga]

My McHenry complaint is that, if they come apart, I can't fix them.  Reassembling a MT coupler is easy for me, as I assemble my own anyway, and I have extra springs.  Fixing an Accumate is even simpler, and I make my own draft gear boxes when needed.  If the spring comes out of a McHenry it's likely gone forever, and if the pin comes out, so does the knuckle and spring, leaving nothing to reassemble.  I've had to put Accumates in two Athearn cars because of that.

[mmagliaro]

I can buy packs of those McHenry springs pretty cheap and they make ideal
upgrades/replacements for all the driver equalization springs in the Samhongsa brass steam locomotives.
It's hard to find such light-yet-not-too-light springs in such a small diameter for a good price.

OH NO!
If you keep saying you hate those exposed springs, they might change the design.

SHUT UP ABOUT THE SPRINGS!   

[peteski]

I can buy packs of those McHenry springs pretty cheap and they make ideal
upgrades/replacements for all the driver equalization springs in the Samhongsa brass steam locomotives.
It's hard to find such light-yet-not-too-light springs in such a small diameter for a good price.

While I haven't actually tried them in that application they seem to be way too soft to work properly.  A proper stiffness spring in that application would allow the locomotive body to float over the wheels on a flat piece of track.  All the springs would be compressed about 50%.  Similar to how automobile suspension works.  When the car is sitting on even surface you can compress its suspension down if you place some weight in the car, and if you were to grab the car by the bumper, you could lift it up by a noticeable amount (with the suspension springs assisting you in lifting the car).

In this type of a design, when a wheel hits a bump, the spring will compress allowing the wheel to go up riding over the bump, and if there is a dip in the track the suspension spring for the axle traveling over the dip will extend with the wheel, keeping the wheel in positive contact with the track at the location of the dip.

To me is seems that if you use the McHenry springs in model locos suspension, they are so soft that they will be fully compressed when the model sits on level track.  Basically the suspension will be bottomed out (like it would in a grossly overloaded automobile).  If a wheel goes over a bump in the track, that will jerk the entire model upwards.The only useful application in this setup is when there is a dip in the track. Then the spring over the wheel going over the dip would exert some downward pressure over that wheel allowing it constant contact with the track at the location of the dip.

[mmagliaro]

Peteski,
All I can say is the next time I use a McHenry spring for this, I'll take some video and demonstrate.
The springs actually do not bottom out.  They are not as soft as they appear.

I don't have anything here right now with those springs in it.  But on the couple I've done it to,
I can sit the engine on the track and still lift the drivers slightly up off the rails against the springs.

[peteski]

Peteski,
All I can say is the next time I use a McHenry spring for this, I'll take some video and demonstrate.
The springs actually do not bottom out.  They are not as soft as they appear.

I don't have anything here right now with those springs in it.  But on the couple I've done it to,
I can sit the engine on the track and still lift the drivers slightly up off the rails against the springs.

Sure, I would love to see a video.  I just thought that a spring soft enough to allow a coupler's knuckle to open under weak force of a magnet would be way too soft for a heavy brass loco.

How about the McHenry or Kadee H0 knuckle springs? Have you tried those?

[mmagliaro]

I assume the HO ones would be a larger diameter and probably would not fit.

I found these.  Here is an example of using the N springs in a Samhongsa engine (wow... talk about thread drift)....

[peteski]

Thanks Max!  I guess the N scale McHenry knuckle springs are stiffer than I thought.

[robert3985]

Personally, I prefer MTL 903's...Micro Train's Nn3 and/or Z scale coupler.

Way back when (15+ years ago), I took measurements of an actual coupler at the Utah State Railroad Museum, came home and miked an assembled MTL 903.  Even though MTL couplers don't look very prototypical, the area the 903's occupy is right on for N-scale in 5 of 6 measurements.  I've long since lost those measurements, but the fact is MTL 903's are very damned close to the size of a prototype coupler scaled down to N-scale.

Just for giggles, I decided to see if one of them would couple up to a lost-wax investment cast coupler on the pilot of one of my Key brass USRA Light Mikes.  I wanted to pull a longer train (I was into long trains in those days) by double-heading a couple of these nicely detailed, excellent running engines, so I installed an assembled MTL 903 on the tender of one and, whaddya know!...it coupled up!  And looked pretty good too...  Here's a photo:

Photo (1) MTL 903 and Scale Investment Cast Coupler:


Here's a comparo between the MTL 903 and the MTL Whatever they put on their "wooden caboose":

Photo (2) MTL 903 & Standard MTL Coupler Comparo:


I had been holding off until DKS got his NZT coupler into production, but unfortunately, it looks as if that will never happen.  Now I'm back to putting on 903's on everything I can, and they are fully compatible with MTL N-scale couplers so I can easily run them together without even thinking about it.

When something better comes out, I'll probably convert to that...and I don't care if they're not compatible with MTL couplers...just as I didn't care when I converted from Rapidos decades ago.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[hminky]

As the original poster I just was pointing out the McHenry is a good swap out for the Bachmann coupler.

Use 903's on the pilots of my steam locomotives, but they are too much trouble for rolling stock if one is using Unitrack.

Kinda overkill with the oversize Unitrack everything is relative. I use Unitrack because it makes N-scale fun.

Have handlaid Code 40 back in the seventies, that wasn't much fun, building or operating and have tried Code 55 Atlas.

Love Unitrack!

As far as the springs on the McHenry, they are invisible while operating.

Only had one locomotive where the driver springing actually did anything, that was the S-scale SHS 2-8-0.

Harold

[peteski]

You know, as usual, here on TRW we discuss everything to the Nth degree (with few OT diversions).  So all is as-expected.