Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[learmoia]

May I suggest a "standard" for testing with S-curves?  How about a Kato Unitrack double cross-over, or equivalent with #6 turnouts and the same track separation?  That is pretty much an unavoidable S curve, with a straight section that is fixed by the parameters of frog number and track separation.  For the more free-form S-curves on our layouts, which we know can cause trouble without long-enough straight sections in the middle and easments for the curves, there are just too many variables for us to compare notes from one post to another.

I don't have Kato Switches but I have Peco switches so yes I agree switch crossover.. I'll test tonight.  I'm using Peco code 55, so small radius crossover?

[Cajonpassfan]

I don't have Kato Switches but I have Peco switches so yes I agree switch crossover.. I'll test tonight.  I'm using Peco code 55, so small radius crossover?

Yea, I think that was me asking the original crossover question. Your test would be much appreciated.
I'm also curious about using these couplers on MT 80' passenger cars...can they make it through a #6 or7 crossover?
How about multiple IM F units, has anyone tried to put them on those yet?
Thanks, Otto K.

[learmoia]

Yea, I think that was me asking the original crossover question. Your test would be much appreciated.
I'm also curious about using these couplers on MT 80' passenger cars...can they make it through a #6 or7 crossover?
How about multiple IM F units, has anyone tried to put them on those yet?
Thanks, Otto K.

I'm not sure I have 2 HW cars, but based on what I've seen I think you'll have troubles.. but I'll do more testing tonight and tomorrow, and report results..

I sent some designs to Joe to try to overcome some of these hurdles and expand the product line.. 

I really want to see this coupler work.. but there are some issues that need to be resolved for full implimentation and acceptabe functionality in real world n scale applications..

~Ian

[Lemosteam]

Yea, I think that was me asking the original crossover question. Your test would be much appreciated.
I'm also curious about using these couplers on MT 80' passenger cars...can they make it through a #6 or7 crossover?
How about multiple IM F units, has anyone tried to put them on those yet?
Thanks, Otto K.

I think it is intentional, but I am only guessing that this is the reason the MT passenger cars use the press fit pin instead of a screw.  I have noticed that the 1015 couplers on these cars swing on this pin in addition to shank swing if you will.

 My guess is that the new couplers will swing as well and that there will bel less shank swing because of the stiffness of the two leaf springs.

[learmoia]

I'm not sure I have 2 HW cars, but based on what I've seen I think you'll have troubles.. but I'll do more testing tonight and tomorrow, and report results..

I sent some designs to Joe to try to overcome some of these hurdles and expand the product line.. 

I really want to see this coupler work.. but there are some issues that need to be resolved for full implimentation and acceptabe functionality in real world n scale applications..

~Ian

Initial Test results were......... Interesting:

Here are the players:
40' cars
NYC 40' Box with short shank True scale - as designed.
CR Bay Window Caboose with short shank True scale - as designed.
50' cars
RDG 50' Box with short shank True scale - as designed.
HS 50' Boxcar with short shank True scale - as designed.

Atlas Code 80 Track with Custom line switches.
#4 Crossover
#6 Crossover

40' coupled to 40' (Stock Installs)
#4 Crossover OK (Barely)
#6 Crossover OK

40' coupled to 50' (Stock Installs)
#4 Crossover NO!
#6 Crossover OK

50' coupled to 50' (Stock Installs)
#4 Crossover NO!
#6 Crossover OK

Now I'm working on Fused couplers with various amounts of swing..

Coming tomorrow - 89' Autoracks

~Ian

[learmoia]

More Testing and Modifications.

Once you introduce some form of coupler swing.. Even the limited swing you get dramatically different results of the testing.
Note:  I fused couplers to simulate a closed coupler to test the swing function using the screw post as the swing block.
WARNING:  If you fuse the short shank coupler you end up with a dummy coupler... and burned fingers..

But fusing the long shank coupler actually IMPROVES performance.

I've submitted some designs to Joe that allow for improved performance.

S=Stock, SM = Swing Modified
40' (S/SM) coupled to 40' (SM)
#4 Crossover OK
#6 Crossover OK

40' (S/SM) coupled to 50' (SM)
#4 Crossover OK
#6 Crossover OK

50' (S/SM) coupled to 50' (SM)
#4 Crossover OK
#6 Crossover OK

Now lets get into Longer cars…

50' (Stock) coupled to 89’ (Stock long shank)
#4 Crossover LOLOLOLOLOLOL… NO
#6 Crossover Still NO!

50' (Stock) coupled to 89’ (Long SM)
#4 Crossover No!
#6 Crossover OK

50' (SM) coupled to 89’ (Long SM)
#4 Crossover YES!
#6 Crossover Yes

89’ (Long SM) coupled to 89’ (Long SM)
#4 Crossover NO, Not quite…. you would need truck mounted couplers.
#6 Crossover Yes

I need to get more long shank couplers before I can do more testing.. I had 2 pair, and I pretty much mangled them to come up with different versions to test.

~Ian

[C855B]

Ugh. I need to pull 27' ore jennies with 90' DD35s. Fortunately, DDA40Xs (100') never pulled ore trains.

Obviously I have my own testing to do. Sharpest on my layout will be #7s, all crossovers are #10s, fortunately. Maybe I dodged a bullet? Maybe? I hope?

[ryan_wilkerson]

Ian, thanks for doing this testing and posting the results.
If convenient, I think it would be valuable to know what the minimum radius is for these different combinations. Something simple like 11", 15", 22". FreeMo-N has a 22" minimum radius on the mainlines so I'm most interested in that.

[nkalanaga]

I'm not sure two prototype 89ft cars can go through a #4 crossover either. 

I suspect that ONE 89ft car probably wouldn't, without some work.  I saw the Yakima Valley Transportation electric line take one around an intersection once, on a streetcar curve.  It went, but they had to disconnect the brake rods, grease the rails, and pull it with a chain.

[peteski]

I'm not sure two prototype 89ft cars can't go through a #4 crossover either. 

. . .  but being realistic, there aren't too  many modelers out there who have enough room on their layouts for prototypically-wide curves or long turnouts (even in N scale).  I guess those people will just have to continue using the conventional oversize N or Z scale knuckle couplers.

[learmoia]

Ugh. I need to pull 27' ore jennies with 90' DD35s. Fortunately, DDA40Xs (100') never pulled ore trains.

Obviously I have my own testing to do. Sharpest on my layout will be #7s, all crossovers are #10s, fortunately. Maybe I dodged a bullet? Maybe? I hope?

I will try to post examples of the modifications I made, but you should be fine..

Ian, thanks for doing this testing and posting the results.
If convenient, I think it would be valuable to know what the minimum radius is for these different combinations. Something simple like 11", 15", 22". FreeMo-N has a 22" minimum radius on the mainlines so I'm most interested in that.

I was going to try to test on a T-Track layout this weekend.. And I have some wider radius uni-track I can test on.

. . .  but being realistic, there aren't too  many modelers out there who have enough room on their layouts for prototypically-wide curves or long turnouts (even in N scale).

Correct.. that's why I tested it, and with some design changes you can get it to work..

Like I said, I've been sending all of this.. including revised designs to Joe to help improve functionality..

[Maletrain]

. . .  but being realistic, there aren't too  many modelers out there who have enough room on their layouts for prototypically-wide curves or long turnouts (even in N scale).  I guess those people will just have to continue using the conventional oversize N or Z scale knuckle couplers.

Seems like there are other options to consider for what is basically a development project.  Truck-mounts for these couplers seem like an obvious option to try.  A pivoting body mount might be something to consider, too.  It does not have to be a one-size-fits-all-cars single product. The current MTL magnetics in N scale have plenty of mounting options, so why not go the same route with the True Scales?

As for modifying the True Scales' basic design, I suspect the limit is ease/cost of manufacture.  Today, we have the technology to design and produce realistically-sized N scale couplers that would open knuckles at the A or B end of any individual car based on a DCC signal or radio command.  We just could not afford to buy them for our hobby, because production costs would be too high for the market.  So, the search is for an easily manufactured design that works and is a large enough improvement to current models that it sells well enought to cover costs of design, tooling and manufacture.

I am hoping that the True Scales evolve into a mainstream option for us.  If not, I hope that MTL will turn its attention to more options for mounting its Z scale couplers on N scale equipment.  The Z-scales currently have the functionality we want, and the True Scales have the looks, but apparently not the functionality at this point.  I am hoping that the Ture Scale development continues so that I don't have to choose between looks or functionality in the future.

[ednadolski]

Truck-mounts for these couplers seem like an obvious option to try.

JMHO but that sounds like a counter-productive path to me.   The whole purpose behind a scale coupler is to improve prototypical appearance. A truck mount bring back all its inherent compromises for ride height, swing, unprototypically sharp operating curvature, etc. Considering too that the existing MT couplers already work just fine for most folks (and likely better than a scale coupler ever could), it just seems to me that a truck-mount defeats the reasons for going to a scale coupler in the first place.

Ed

[C855B]

Yes, I'm with Ed. The objective for True-Scale couplers was accommodation of the prototypical-appearance crowd while retaining some operating ability, vs. dummies. Truck mounts go the wrong direction in light of this goal. If these new couplers as body-mounts have difficulties with curves under 18", or 15", or whatever... well, that's really not the audience for them.

If I'm sounding gung-ho about these things, I am. There is some fine modeling going on around here, and the manufacturers over the last five years have really been upping their game in accuracy and detail. However, in nearly any photo of rolling stock my eyes go straight to the wheels and couplers, "That's N scale," due to the proportions imbalances. 3rd-party wheels, especially FVM "fine tread", have moved the bar there, and the True-Scale couplers (we'll get there with the boxes) are a major stride in fixing the other issue.

[garethashenden]

I'm glad these came out before I built a layout. I can now accommodate their requirements in the layout design.