Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[MichaelWinicki]

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.   
Joe

I think a truck mounted version would sell.

[learmoia]

I think a truck mounted version would sell.

It could be tossed in with all MT releases for preliminary conversion..

~Ian

[ednadolski]

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?

You may disagree, but I sincerely doubt that the success or failure of the TSC will hinge on the availability of a truck mount option. The traditional MTL coupler has been on a truck mount for decades, so from that perspective asking for a TSC truck mount amounts to asking MTL to compete against themselves. @Shipsure has already said that the TSC is targeting a niche, but I don't think you can grow that niche by trying to force-fit a product into a segment for which it was never designed and where there is probably little demand.  I also think you may be underestimating the challenges of getting such a small coupler to operate as reliably as the traditional MTL on small-radius curves. Even if that is solvable the TSC still has other constraints (no magnetic operation, incompatible with other couplers, and requires working with tiny parts) that likely will keep it locked in the niche space.  So if it is to succeed, it will have to do so as such.

If you really want "broader market appeal" then I think there are bigger fish to after in the form of adapting the TSC to fit into the integral coupler pockets on cars like BLMA, ER, and such (if that can be done).

Ed

[learmoia]

If you really want "broader market appeal" then I think there are bigger fish to after in the form of adapting the TSC to fit into the integral coupler pockets on cars like BLMA, ER, and such (if that can be done).

Ed

I think it can be done (a couple of different ways).. and that was factored into the designs I sent to Joe.. (And one way would also fit into any MT Pocket including trucks.. ).. If it works..

~Ian

[learmoia]

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

I had a few minutes before bedtime and tested the easement and 19" Crossover..

Time for some positivity..

Testing a 50' Stock coupled to a 50' Stock:
19" Crossover = WORKED!
19" Easement into 15" curve = Worked!
19" Easement into 13" curve = Worked!
19" Easement into 12" curve = Worked**
19" Easement into 11" curve = Worked**
** 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.

I'm looking forward to this weekend...
A: I'd like to see how these preform on a real life club layout at a train show..
And B: Get feedback from people that probably haven't seen these yet..

~Ian

[peteski]

Can someone (Ian?) test the TSC coupled to Kato and MTL N scale coupler on actual layout?  I managed to couple it (on my workbench) with a Kato but and an awkward angle whcih doesn't seem that it would work in real life situation. Somebody else mentioned that they mated TSC with regular MTL coupler (when I tried it was even more awkward than with a Kato). It would be nice to know if such interracial coupling will work or fail running on a layout.

[Cajonpassfan]

Well, I'm so impressed!
Got a set of long shanks in the mail today and put them on one of my my BLI PA units;  they are truly tiny! Very nice! Unfortunately, they make everything else look like Trump: HUGE! :
But the assembly is literally a "snap", I find it amazing how clean and crisp the parts are, they literally just "snap" together perfectly! I can't even imagine the tolerances here; great job Joe and MT!
Otto K.

[learmoia]

Can someone (Ian?) test the TSC coupled to Kato and MTL N scale coupler on actual layout?  I managed to couple it (on my workbench) with a Kato but and an awkward angle whcih doesn't seem that it would work in real life situation. Somebody else mentioned that they mated TSC with regular MTL coupler (when I tried it was even more awkward than with a Kato). It would be nice to know if such interracial coupling will work or fail running on a layout.

Micro-Trains.. you can physically make them connect on straight track with alot of manipulation and contortion.. but don't try to go round a curve.

Kato.. (SD40 and 50' Boxcar)
Coupling was manual with manipulation, but it would go around an easement curve..
.. it did NOT go around a standard curve due to the tip mentioned before...

Time for bed.. ~Ian

[learmoia]

Very nice! Unfortunately, they make everything else look like Trump: HUGE! :

No you mean YHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE..
BIGLY YHUGE..

 

[peteski]

Micro-Trains.. you can physically make them connect on straight track with alot of manipulation and contortion.. but don't try to go round a curve.

Kato.. (SD40 and 50' Boxcar)
Coupling was manual with manipulation, but it would go around an easement curve..
.. it did NOT go around a standard curve due to the tip mentioned before...

Time for bed.. ~Ian

Thanks Ian - just as I suspected.

[garethashenden]

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)

It was meant partially in jest.

[garethashenden]

I took a step towards replacing the ridiculous Bachmann couplers on some of my stock today. Working on one of their tank cars, I removed the original coupler and then carved away its box. I then GOOed an assembled TSC to the underside of the frame where the coupler box used to be. It's very slightly low, but a vast improvement over the original. For the other end I will file the underframe a bit so that the coupler sits at the correct height.

Bachmann boxing glove v. TSC


Ahh That's better

[peteski]

Bachmann boxing glove v. TSC

WOW! Other than the Rapido coupler, that is the most extreme example of a YOOGE N scale knuckle! 

[nscaleSPF2]

.... I then GOOed an assembled TSC to the underside of the frame where the coupler box used to be. It's very slightly low, but a vast improvement over the original. For the other end I will file the underframe a bit so that the coupler sits at the correct height.

This may be worth considering:  I measured the thickness of the top of the coupler box, and mine were almost 0.030".  Some or all of the top can be filed off without hurting the function of the coupler.  It may be easier to do this than file the underside of the car.  In the past, I have tried to remove material from the undersides of cars, and getting the coupler horizontal can be problematic.

[nscaleSPF2]

I had a few minutes before bedtime and tested the easement and 19" Crossover..

Time for some positivity..

Testing a 50' Stock coupled to a 50' Stock:
19" Crossover = WORKED!
19" Easement into 15" curve = Worked!
19" Easement into 13" curve = Worked!
19" Easement into 12" curve = Worked**
19" Easement into 11" curve = Worked**
** 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.

I'm looking forward to this weekend...
A: I'd like to see how these preform on a real life club layout at a train show..
And B: Get feedback from people that probably haven't seen these yet..

~Ian

Ian, how does the weight of the cars you are using for these tests compare to the NMRA standard?  I know from personal experience that this can make a big difference, especially when traveling over switches.