Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[learmoia]

If they are as reliable as regular Micro-Trains couplers... I'm on board (for unit-trains and Locomotives to start with..)

Once they start coming up with conversions for cars with micro-trains pockets, and body mount conversions for freight cars.. I think I'll take the leap..

A simple 1 piece dummy coupler that works with the scale coupler and fits in the standard MT trucks and pockets may go a long way to help transition..

If this takes off, I'm sure other mfgs will begin to produce compatible couplers.. like Unimates, Ect..

~Ian

[peteski]

If this takes off, I'm sure other mfgs will begin to produce compatible couplers.. like Unimates, Ect..

~Ian

Um, there is this patent thing. Remember, for many years Kadee was the only company making N scale knuckle couplers until the Kadee/MTL patent expired. Only after that other companies started cloning them.

As far as these couplers exploding, a quick look at their construction shows that this won't happen.  They are inherently non-exploding. 

[ednadolski]

Um, there is this patent thing. Remember, for many years Kadee was the only company making N scale knuckle couplers until the Kadee/MTL patent expired. Only after that other companies started cloning them.

Seems that would depend upon which part(s) could be patented (perhaps the centering whiskers and/or the split shank design).  The AAR coupler size and shape could probably not be patented, so it may be possible to make an operationally compatible coupler without infringement.

Ed

[johnb]

I'd love to see a picture of one on a locomotive.

[johnb]

[bbussey]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[wmcbride]

Thanks for the photos, Bryan and Johnb.

I can't wait to put these on my IM F units and every other engine I can stick them on.

As has been said above several times, a version that can go on cars produced with body-mounted couplers (BLMA, Exactrail (?), etc.) would be an important, if not essential marketing tie-in.

I've never been a magnetic uncoupler -- always used a tool so, for me, that's not an issue. I have always hated the slinky effect so no tears from me over that with these.

It's funny how we adjust to "normal." When you look at a train, the size of N couplers disappears. If you really look at a single car end, the existing N couplers look huge compared to the car. I will be happy to see a new "normal" with these new couplers.

The next hurdle is handrails, especially endrails. Maybe photo-etched end rails like those Ed Nadolski developed might be part of the future there?

[jagged ben]

Yeah, IM F units will be where my first purchase gets tried, along with some extras for general experimentation.

[thomasjmdavis]

This leaves me with 3 questions-

1) Have any of you beta testers tried running the new couplers though the tighter curves on your layouts?  Any thoughts on the practical minimum radius (or turnout frog) for a passenger car or longer freight car equipped with these?  I may be laying track for a new layout before these are on the market, and while I am thinking broad curves everywhere, previous experience is that my minimum radius usually ends up a couple inches smaller than I anticipate when planning a layout.

2) will the new couplers pocket also fit Microtrains FT A and B units?  Have any of the lucky beta testers tried these on an FT?

2) can anyone tell me which packing box I put the FTs in?  2 of the 3 IM units are in the box marked "Locos" but the MT so far are unaccounted for.  Must be here somewhere... Would save me having to ask embarrassing questions on Railwire if I could just look at one.

PS- thanks to everyone posting photos of these on cars and locos- I think I am sold-especially for my passenger cars, where the spacing between cars bothers me most.

[Big Train]

Interesting development in N Scale, but then that's what I've always expected from Micro-Trains.

I understand these new ones will not couple with other existing couplers. Fine. Anything to replace Accumates is OK by me.

What is the possibility of MT adapting their current range of couplers by modifying the the shape or profile to attach to the new ones? Or, create a new range of drop-in "hybrid" replacements to fit in existing components for cross-compatibility?

I do see a need for some of the rolling stock I have, as well as locomotives so I will buy them.

I'd hate to see a situation develop like Atlas did when it introduced their Code 55 track making a lot of equipment incompatible. Flash back to the Beta/VHS wars. (And all that is irrelevant now somehow....)

[bbussey]

This leaves me with 3 questions-

1) Have any of you beta testers tried running the new couplers though the tighter curves on your layouts?  Any thoughts on the practical minimum radius (or turnout frog) for a passenger car or longer freight car equipped with these?  I may be laying track for a new layout before these are on the market, and while I am thinking broad curves everywhere, previous experience is that my minimum radius usually ends up a couple inches smaller than I anticipate when planning a layout.

2) will the new couplers pocket also fit Microtrains FT A and B units?  Have any of the lucky beta testers tried these on an FT?

That's a good first question, and one that I was discussing with another beta-tester a few days ago.  The tightest that I tested them on was 11".  I would assume that MTL has confirmed that they operate on 9¾", but most likely they won't couple on radii that tight.

I didn't try them with any motive power other than for the purpose of close-coupling permanently-assigned multiple-unit consists, such as the FA set I pictured above.  This is the only practical use for my purposes — close-coupling MUs with no oscillation.  That wasn't MTL's intent in designing this product, but it is a fortunate alternate-use option for my purposes.

[Cajonpassfan]

Geez, those couplers really make the handrails look fat

[bbussey]

What is the possibility of MT adapting their current range of couplers by modifying the the shape or profile to attach to the new ones? Or, create a new range of drop-in "hybrid" replacements to fit in existing components for cross-compatibility?

I do see a need for some of the rolling stock I have, as well as locomotives so I will buy them.

I'd hate to see a situation develop like Atlas did when it introduced their Code 55 track making a lot of equipment incompatible. Flash back to the Beta/VHS wars. (And all that is irrelevant now somehow....)

As Joe stated, these are incompatible with any existing N scale knuckle coupler including the current MTL product line, and there is no way to adapt any of the existing coupler line to work with this new coupler.

Again — the intended purpose of this new coupler is for long-train running at shows and for more realistic photo ops.  You may find that attempting to couple to a single car with a yard switcher at low speed is not as effortless as with the current coupler line.  The couplers connect when you push them together by hand, but it takes more effort than with the existing coupler line.  They do not connect together as easily when attempted with motive power.

I like them a lot and they will work extremely well in the scenario that I will use them, which is for close-coupling multiple units.  They eliminate the need for drawbars, and they "uncouple" simply by lifting one of the units up.  It makes the storing of MU consists much easier.  But I won't be using them in operational situations.

[Cajonpassfan]

Again — You may find that attempting to couple to a single car with a yard switcher at low speed is not as effortless as with the current coupler line.  The couplers connect when you push them together by hand, but it takes more effort than with the existing coupler line.  They do not connect together as easily when attempted with motive power.

Well, that's what I was afraid of, and if that's truly he case, it will severely limit their use to coupling between engines and maybe some unit train or car block applications. A question for you Beta testers....if a single car won't couple, how many parked cars does it take for a reasonably realistic coupling?
Thanks, Otto K.

[Missaberoad]

How does the force required to couple cars compare to a 903/905 coupler?

I think this is a compromise that has to be faced if we want scale sized couplers in N.
I know additional weight (above the NMRA standard) helps with Z scale couplers (as well as improving the cars physics) but I'm not interested in running long trains.  (30-40 cars max)

Looking forward to experimenting with them. I'm already switching with 903's and sharpened picks, so i dont think I'll be going in with unrealistic expectations.