Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[robert3985]

I don't think the whiskers are the problem.  In fact, I think making them weaker will make coupling harder to do.

I think the issue is just the fact of trying to couple two closed faces together.


Jason

We'll find out next month... 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Missaberoad]

Wanna bet?  Hate to say it but if you do, you loose...

Norfolk Southern has had a device that allows the operator of a helper set to automatically uncouple the helper from the train simply by pushing a button (shades of electro-magnetic uncoupling).  To learn more read here (this devise is also in use on eastbound coal trains heading to Norfolk where helpers are required to help overcome ruling grades):

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/67016.aspx

As someone who has moved prototype equipment around, It is absolutely still a hands on process. Whether it is pulling the pin and/or on the knuckle by hand to ensure it is open enough, ensuring the cars are secure (with either handbrakes or air) or centering the coupler (because they are not at all self centering) there is quite a bit of potential hands on work before we make the joint and get protection to connect the air hoses/loosen the handbrakes.

Even uncoupling requires that angle cocks be closed, air brakes bled, handbrakes applied and tested. the uncoupling pin physically pulled and that the cars be observed to remain secure after they are uncoupled. (something difficult if not impossible to do from the locomotive especially 5, 10, 50 cars away)

Yes in the very specific and now a days rare situation of cutting a helper off the rear or front of a train already equipped with TIBS, automatic un-coupling is possible, (although NS eliminated that system, and went back to two man helper crews AFAIK)
but when it comes to switching it is still most definitely "hands on"... 

I will admit that I don't have a prototype example of a Finger from the sky however! 

Well outside of Monty Python at least

[towl1996]

I also want to thank the beta testers who to the man went above and beyond evaluating this for us.  The feed back was honest and helpful and allowed us to move forward with something we felt good about offering.

To me, this is the most remarkable and encouraging thing that came out in this thread. If more manufactures would actually use modelers and historical societies as resources, the bar could certainly be raised and it shows this type of interaction can work. Well played by all involved.

[robert3985]

Wanna bet?  Hate to say it but if you do, you loose...

Norfolk Southern has had a device that allows the operator of a helper set to automatically uncouple the helper from the train simply by pushing a button (shades of electro-magnetic uncoupling).  To learn more read here (this devise is also in use on eastbound coal trains heading to Norfolk where helpers are required to help overcome ruling grades):

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/67016.aspx

I model the UP and helpers were cut-off at Wahsatch at the top of the Wasatch/Echo Grade out of Ogden during the early 50's...no automatic uncoupling went on there, so what do I care if NS automatically uncoupled/uncouples it's coal drag helpers????????

AND, did/does NS have automatic uncoupling when breaking down/making up trains in their yards or spotting them on sidings or industrial spurs???

Nope...it's still a hands-on operation everywhere else I'd be willing to bet...  ...with the possible exception of a modern hump yard.  Since I'll never model one, I've never researched it.

Joking aside, it IS interesting to know that about the NS...maybe... 

Cabooses on the Wasatch/Echo grade were placed behind the helper, so automatic uncoupling wouldn't have worked there anyway, as the train had to stop and the helper engine and caboose backed up about 300 yards past the center siding turnout, then accelerated very quickly...the brakeman manually uncoupled the caboose from the helper, and the helper left the caboose drifting towards the train in the distance...as another crewman threw the switch just after the helper went by on to the center siding, passing the center siding turnout's head blocks.  Watching the crew member who'd just thrown the switch run and grab the curved grab iron near the end of the caboose and swing himself up onto the platform like an acrobat as the caboose rolled by at about 10mph shows graphically why those grabs were shaped the way they were!  The caboose drifted on to the east-bound mainline, with the brakeman at the brake wheel as the caboose drifted slowly onto the back of the stationary train...and coupled up.  Then the brakeman got off the caboose platform and attached the brake line hose to the train among other duties, then...the conductor tested for air pressure and signaled the engineer to proceed.  While all that was going on, the helper (usually a 3700 class oil-fired Challenger or TTT) crossed over the west-bound mainline onto the Wahsatch Wye, and headed back down 70 miles to Ogden, light...with marker lamps on the tender.

UP called this maneuver "Kicking the caboose"...

Automatic uncoupling seems BORING compared to what I just described.  Too bad I can't fully replicate that maneuver without either using my big, fat greasy fingers to shove my cabooses back on the end of the waiting train or motorizing them somehow on my version of the Wasatch/Echo Grade. But at least I can replicate somewhat the manual uncoupling!   

Just sayin'...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

I don't think the whiskers are the problem.  In fact, I think making them weaker will make coupling harder to do.

I think the issue is just the fact of trying to couple two closed faces together.
Jason

But this is a split coupler design (like Kato coupler) and the whiskers are what keeps the coupler closed (and centered).  During coupling the coupler's split parts open up allowing the knuckles to slip past each other. Id the spring pressure was weaker there, less pressure would be required to open up the coupler. But too little pressure from the whiskers might not center the coupler properly.

From what I see in the photos the whiskers are fairly thick, except for a small thinner section close to the root of the whisker. That seems to be where most flexing occurs.

[JoeD]

Here is a shot of the standard coupler with our 905...some swell guys on another forum were asking to see the two side by side.

Joe

[JoeD]

I lifted one of Ryan Wilkersons photo's of the difference with passenger cars.   Yes, because of the distance between the pivot of the truck and the knuckle, they require something greater than a 11" radius I suspect.  I've been noodling around with a conversion similar to the 1019 that offers a swing arm that loops over the center of the trucks in effect making them quasi truck mounts.  It might provide enough swing to get around tighter radius track and still clear the boarding steps.



Joe

[Missaberoad]

Here is a shot of the standard coupler with our 905...some swell guys on another forum were asking to see the two side by side.

Joe

Thanks for that shot Joe!

Here's a top down prototype shot that shows how nice the True-Scale coupler looks from this angle.

[wcfn100]

But too little pressure from the whiskers might not center the coupler properly.

I think too little pressure won't get the coupler faces to pass over each other and interlock.

But like Bob said, we'll see in a month.


Jason

[JoeD]

I mounted them on the pilot of the Model Power Mike and came up with this...  I am working on using the box minus the lid with some material trimmed off to mount behind the pilot.  The way I have it here it's static, but if I were to attach some styrene on either side of the wings, that might give them the the meat to work.  Shanks are still a bit short though. 





problem I see just looking over my Model Power stock is how different they are behind the pilot.  I think something with an extended shank and a narrow box might work.

Joe

[haasmarc]

As Bryan and others have said this is being provided as an option or an accessory not to replace the existing coupler.  I think the standard for size and shape was established long before some of us were born and it is what it is.  If you need to do hands free with a smaller coupler, the 905 is a great option, one I have used for most of my time at MTL.

Joe,

What is needed terribly is an offset 905 for cabooses and other cars like flat cars.  What do we need to do to get this done?

[Missaberoad]

I mounted them on the pilot of the Model Power Mike and came up with this...  I am working on using the box minus the lid with some material trimmed off to mount behind the pilot.  The way I have it here it's static, but if I were to attach some styrene on either side of the wings, that might give them the the meat to work.  Shanks are still a bit short though. 
Joe

Joe, what size screw is that? is it a standard 00 90? if so did you drill out the hole on the coupler?

[JoeD]

you can send a large donation to my retirement fund    I hear ya, something we need to look at.

Joe

Joe,

What is needed terribly is an offset 905 for cabooses and other cars like flat cars.  What do we need to do to get this done?

[JoeD]

Joe, what size screw is that? is it a standard 00 90? if so did you drill out the hole on the coupler?

Yes, it's a 00-90 I cut short.  Really you would bust through the top and have to trim the screw down a bit and add a drop of paint...but thats just a quick R&D Look.

[Catt]

Looks to be about the same size as the 905.If that's the case it might be just the ticket to body mount on the front of Z locos used as lead units.