Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[wazzou]

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

Something about that seems backwards to me.
Shouldn't coupler designs allow unfettered operation on currently standard layouts rather than have to make designs fit the operating characteristics of a coupler?
(By standard, I mean using long available commercial track components)

[ednadolski]

Shouldn't coupler designs allow unfettered operation on currently standard layouts

No, not if you want them to be prototypical.   The 1:1 trains generally will not operate on #4 crossovers or the scale equivalent of 9 3/4" radius curves.

(Nit:  I would suggest "conventional" rather than "standard".... the latter implies some level of common design and conformance.)

Ed

[learmoia]

Something about that seems backwards to me.
Shouldn't coupler designs allow unfettered operation on currently standard layouts rather than have to make designs fit the operating characteristics of a coupler?
(By standard, I mean using long available commercial track components)

Yes and No...

The general modeler that is still using #4 switches and 9 3/4 Switches is NOT going to want to use these couplers..

These couplers are geared towards the modeler that is custom building switches, using thin flange wheels with Code 55 or 40 rail.  But there are some operational and application hickups even for those modelers that need to be worked through..

In response to my design proposals, Joe told me the product is "evolving" so it sounds like they plan on making tweaks and expand the product line.



~Ian

[Maletrain]

JMHO but that [truck mounts] 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.

You seem to be missing my point.  Peteski's post was writing-off the True Scales for many users because of the current problems, and my response was aimed at not making them unsuitable for the majority of users.  Likewise, your post seems to put your goals for the True Scales ahead of the priority for attracting a large market share for them.  If you only want to use body mounts, then you can do that if these things remain on the market.  But, for them to remain on the market, you may need enough others to buy them. too.  Many of those others may want couplers that are realistically proportioned and able to operate on their layouts with unrealistically tight curves (i.e., less than 20" radius).  The True Scales have to compete with MTL Z scale magnetics and scale-sized dummies, both of which can navigate typical layouts.  If True Scales get relegated to serve only people who have large layouts with broad curves who don't don't want to uncouple magnetically but want realistic coupling distances and do want to uncouple cars without lifting them, then that may be too small a customer base to keep them on the market.  You don't lose anything by MTL putting truck-mounts on the market, because you don't have to use those truck mounts.  On the other hand, you might lose all of the True Scales if MTL does not do something to make them appeal to a broader customer base than only guys like you.  Understand?

That said, I would prefer to see some sort of body mount with the necessary swing to get 50' cars across #4 cross-overs and 85' cars across #6 cross-overs.  But I would not be surprised if that requires a total redesign of the coupling function springs.  Perhaps a design that makes them fit a narrower space would allow for another apparatus that tends to keep them centered while allowing them to swing.  But, there are limits on box width imposed by wheel swing, etc., and there are costs associated with additional complexity.  So, it is going to take some inginuity to devise a solution that we can afford that works as well as truck mounts and looks as good as body mounts. 

[JoeD]

There were engineering limitations given what these are.  I tried to accommodate as many basic scenarios as possible but there is room for more products and variations.  Early on I had to accept that "S" curves were going to be an difficult challenge and no matter what we did, would not yield satisfactory solutions. (they challenge standard body mount situations as well) We can't design for all the permeation's and quirks of any given layout, truck, body mount, competitors products even with standard off the shelf products.  I had more gap in the knuckles for #4 switches but ended up with a new and interesting version of the "slinky" effect no one would have liked.  I had thinner whiskers and nothing would stay closed or they broke...but there are other solutions and thanks to Ian's contributions, plenty of food for thought.  Hoping to schedule design work on a truck mounted version, a shelf coupler for tank cars, under-slungs etc after testing some of his suggestions.   If the goal was a magnetic replacement coupler then this product wouldn't see the light of day, its an accessory and hopefully will help modelers have cars that look more prototypical...but like anything, this is a first step.

Joe

Something about that seems backwards to me.
Shouldn't coupler designs allow unfettered operation on currently standard layouts rather than have to make designs fit the operating characteristics of a coupler?
(By standard, I mean using long available commercial track components)

[learmoia]

*** Radius Testing ***

The more I test, the more 'prototypical' the couplers get...

Do you have easements built into ALL of your curves?... you'll be fine..
No??... Gotta have the coupler swing...

Using Unitrak, I tested the following Radius(s): 9 3/4", 11", 12 3/8", 13 3/4", 15"
Going forward we'll call them 9, 11, 12, 13, 15
So I setup about 45 degrees of 9, then 11, then 12, then a short straight, then reverse 13, straight w/ rerailer to couple cars then 15"
All Stock installs.
40' coupled to 40'
15 OK
13 OK
12 OK
11 OK
 9 OK

40' coupled to 50'
15 OK
13 OK
12 OK
11 OK
 9 OK

50' coupled to 50'
15 OK*
13 OK*
12 OK*
11 OK*
 9 OK (Barely)

HOWEVER

*The cars would work OK 'in the curve'

I noticed the 50' cars would bind and tip when going from straight into the curve, once in the curve they were OK...

EDIT:
I later found that for curves 12 and less, Once into the curve the bind in the coupler would push the flanges towards the outside rail - increasing rolling resistance - and maybe derailing thin flange wheels... But it did work without derailment...

The modifications below took care of this...


So I inserted straight pieces between each curve to simulate this with every radius..
50' coupled to 50'
15 TIP
13 TIP
12 TIP
11 Derail
 9 Derail

Now, Swing modified couplers..
50' coupled to 50' (Both with swing modified couplers.)
15 OK
13 OK
12 OK
11 OK
 9 OK!

And Longer Cars....
89' coupled to 89' (Both with swing modified couplers.)
15 OK
13 OK
12 Tip
11 N/A
 9 N/A

~Ian

[Maletrain]

Hoping to schedule design work on a truck mounted version, a shelf coupler for tank cars, under-slungs etc after testing some of his suggestions.   If the goal was a magnetic replacement coupler then this product wouldn't see the light of day, its an accessory and hopefully will help modelers have cars that look more prototypical...but like anything, this is a first step.
Joe

That is great news.  To my eye, the True Scales with truck mounts on long cars and body mounts on engine pilots and cabooses will still give me better looking trains than z scale magnetics all-around. Since they don't mate-up, it is an either-or decision that I am going to need to make.

And, since MTL is one of my favorite companies in my very favorite country, I wish you the best in making the best for us.  Thank you for the efforts.  And thanks to Ian for doing his hands-on testing in such a well conceived and well reported manner.

[learmoia]

 

Hmm.. I could use the scale test car to simulate an ore car.. (lets try to get it through a #4 crossover with an Autorack..)

~Ian

[learmoia]

Hmm.. I could use the scale test car to simulate an ore car.. (lets try to get it through a #4 crossover with an Autorack..)

.... OMG IT WORKED!!!!!!

Wow!  (The autorack had swing modified couplers of course..)   

~Ian

[C855B]

(Thanks, Ian!)

[Maletrain]

Ian, you are doing a great job of testing and reporting.  Thank you for the effort as well as the clear reports.

One thought occurred to me while reading your results about easements: when using Kato Unitrak, I typically use a 15-degree section of 19-3/4" radius track as an easement for my tighter radius curves.  And, the equivalent easement occurs when a #4 Kato turnout is used to enter a curve with its diverging path.  That is something that is easily done with most available sectional track brands.  So, perhaps another standard test would be to see how the True Scales handle smaller radius curves when a single 15-degree section of 19" or 20" radius track is used to transition from the straight track.  More people are likely to use that technique on their layouts than making more prototypical transitions with flex track, so it helps address concerns of a larger potential customer base.  And, if it works with that type of transition, it will work even better with better transitions.

[learmoia]

Ian, you are doing a great job of testing and reporting.  Thank you for the effort as well as the clear reports.

One thought occurred to me while reading your results about easements: when using Kato Unitrak, I typically use a 15-degree section of 19-3/4" radius track as an easement for my tighter radius curves.  And, the equivalent easement occurs when a #4 Kato turnout is used to enter a curve with its diverging path.  That is something that is easily done with most available sectional track brands.  So, perhaps another standard test would be to see how the True Scales handle smaller radius curves when a single 15-degree section of 19" or 20" radius track is used to transition from the straight track.  More people are likely to use that technique on their layouts than making more prototypical transitions with flex track, so it helps address concerns of a larger potential customer base.  And, if it works with that type of transition, it will work even better with better transitions.

I can test that, but you'd need to use that method everywhere.. every industry.. every siding..

Also remember that every switch where you immediately 'turn back' to parallel is an S curve..

~Ian

[Maletrain]

I can test that, but you'd need to use that method everywhere.. every industry.. every siding..

Also remember that every switch where you immediately 'turn back' to parallel is an S curve..

~Ian

True enough.  The cross-over test will cover the cases where a track turns back parallel after a turnout, since it is an equivalent S curve if there is no intervening straight section.  For Kato UniTrak, at least, the curved section that turns back to parallel is 19-3/4" radius for the #4 switch.  For Atlas sectional code 55 track, it is a 30" radius for their #5 switch.  So, I am thinking that the Kato #4 and #6 cross-over tests cover the yard ladder question for what works in a yard and what doesn't.  Maybe long cars can be restricted to the 2nd or 3rd yard track past the lead if they can curve 15 degrees on 19-3/4" radius from straight track.  Planning a layout for smooth operation requires some care and thinking, no matter what couplers are used, and there are existing rules-of-thumb for that with existing couplers. So this testing just makes the parameters clear for that process with the new couplers.  And reveals areas where those new couplers might benefit from more development.

[learmoia]

True enough.  The cross-over test will cover the cases where a track turns back parallel after a turnout, since it is an equivalent S curve if there is no intervening straight section.  For Kato UniTrak, at least, the curved section that turns back to parallel is 19-3/4" radius for the #4 switch.  For Atlas sectional code 55 track, it is a 30" radius for their #5 switch.  So, I am thinking that the Kato #4 and #6 cross-over tests cover the yard ladder question for what works in a yard and what doesn't.  Maybe long cars can be restricted to the 2nd or 3rd yard track past the lead if they can curve 15 degrees on 19-3/4" radius from straight track.  Planning a layout for smooth operation requires some care and thinking, no matter what couplers are used, and there are existing rules-of-thumb for that with existing couplers. So this testing just makes the parameters clear for that process with the new couplers.  And reveals areas where those new couplers might benefit from more development.

I can test a 19" 'crossover' and curve easements, won't be able to do it until tomorrow night...

Then we'll find out the rest this weekend on the T-Track layout....

If there are any other tests you'd like give me a heads up, and I'll see what I can do..

~Ian 

[learmoia]

There were engineering limitations given what these are.  I tried to accommodate as many basic scenarios as possible but there is room for more products and variations.  Early on I had to accept that "S" curves were going to be an difficult challenge and no matter what we did, would not yield satisfactory solutions. (they challenge standard body mount situations as well) We can't design for all the permeation's and quirks of any given layout, truck, body mount, competitors products even with standard off the shelf products.  I had more gap in the knuckles for #4 switches but ended up with a new and interesting version of the "slinky" effect no one would have liked.  I had thinner whiskers and nothing would stay closed or they broke...but there are other solutions and thanks to Ian's contributions, plenty of food for thought.  Hoping to schedule design work on a truck mounted version, a shelf coupler for tank cars, under-slungs etc after testing some of his suggestions.   If the goal was a magnetic replacement coupler then this product wouldn't see the light of day, its an accessory and hopefully will help modelers have cars that look more prototypical...but like anything, this is a first step.

Joe

You're do'n a good job Joe!! 

When you get into Shelf Coupler - See what you can do for a Tank car Body Mount box too.. (Something that mounts to the tank body)..

I'll send you a design idea..

~Ian