Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[reinhardtjh]

Its not there now. 

It's back now.  https://www.micro-trains.com/publicfiles/monthly/MN1612.pdf

[jereising]

Been playing around with the TSC, very pleased with the results replacing the body mounted couplers on my trinity 5161 grain train.

Got to thinking about how nice it would be to be able to replace with these on my BLMA cars - but I'm not gonna deface those cars. 

I think it could be done (I monkeyed around with a TSC box and got it to fit on a reefer, kind of.  But it was too deep and the coupler kept flopping around vertically.

Be nice if some talented Shapeways designer would come up with something that would work - I've got a lot of BLMA cars....

This is something M-T could easily do - make a TSC that would fit a standard M-T box.  The innards would need to be larger, but they could narrow at the shank easily enough.

Lots of thinking out loud here.

[Philip H]

While @Shipsure went to great pains to tell us these were not intended for heavy duty switching, has anyone tried these in a switching layout environment?  Any experiences to share?

[C855B]

I've done a bit of switching... nothing serious, just fooling around with them. Joe is right, they're probably not for doing a lot of it, and will frustrate the die-hard switching operator.

First, using a toothpick as an uncoupling tool, even the sharp round ones, is a challenge. The TSC couples tight, with very little room to get the point between for releasing. I haven't dug-out my dental picks yet, but a truly sharp point is needed.

Then there's coupling force. I haven't done the mod on the spring whiskers to reduce the force, mostly because doing this for every car in the fleet is going to be one of those endless workbench projects that will haunt me forever and never get done. Anyway, coupling to one or two cars without The Hand from Heaven can't be done. Unless I bash into them at 40-50smph... usually followed by The Hand picking up the car, loco and everything else that's left the rails.

Then there's lateral swing. A switching layout is not likely to have curve transitions. My one functioning switching scenario is a straight directly into an 18" curve. Yes, 18". A C-C loco (60' or so) will lift a 40-foot car off the rails, every time.

[sigh]

I don't mean to sound so negative, but there is no ignoring the truths with operation. I really like these couplers - how they look, their no-hassle assembly, the prototypical close coupling, the easy fit in Atlas and later Kato power. Not having to deal with that infernal spring is a godsend. But as to operation, we'll have to wait for MTL's R&D to discover a way to soften the spring force and increase lateral travel before it meets the operator's needs halfway.

[wcfn100]

we'll have to wait for MTL's R&D to discover a way to soften the spring force and increase lateral travel before it meets the operator's needs halfway.

I've addressed both issues with my coupler pockets, but I've lost centering (for now, I have an idea).  When you get the ore car adaptors and the modified couplers, I'll be very curious about your results.  They went to the printer yesterday! But I don't think they'll be here to send out before Christmas.



Jason

[johnb]

While @Shipsure went to great pains to tell us these were not intended for heavy duty switching, has anyone tried these in a switching layout environment?  Any experiences to share?

put a finger on the roof and couple in a straight line

[johnb]

Been playing around with the TSC, very pleased with the results replacing the body mounted couplers on my trinity 5161 grain train.

Got to thinking about how nice it would be to be able to replace with these on my BLMA cars - but I'm not gonna deface those cars. 

I think it could be done (I monkeyed around with a TSC box and got it to fit on a reefer, kind of.  But it was too deep and the coupler kept flopping around vertically.

Be nice if some talented Shapeways designer would come up with something that would work - I've got a lot of BLMA cars....

This is something M-T could easily do - make a TSC that would fit a standard M-T box.  The innards would need to be larger, but they could narrow at the shank easily enough.

Lots of thinking out loud here.

lol, i said the same thing during the beta test to Joe

[johnb]

Here is a side by side of the Arnold and True Scale couplers.

[soo]

I put the TSC on my SOO IMRC F7's to see if I could close the coupling distance from the 1015's.

It improved it by 1.5 scale feet. Is it worth it,, In my minds eye,, yup sure is. I plan on putting 905's on the pilots on the a units, and leave the TSC on the b units.

Before


After




Well there ya have it.

Cya,
Y-it

[mark.hinds]

I put the TSC on my SOO IMRC F7's to see if I could close the coupling distance from the 1015's.

It improved it by 1.5 scale feet. Is it worth it,, In my minds eye,, yup sure is. I plan on putting 905's on the pilots on the a units, and leave the TSC on the b units.

(images and text removed)

Yes that looks better, but if you are going to go to the trouble of doing close coupling mods, why not make it the correct 3 feet?  Perhaps some of us see overall proportion first (the top-down aesthetic perspective), and others see detail first (the bottom-up aesthetic perspective)?  Detail is the only advantage of the True-Scale alternative, IMHO. 



Mark H. 

[Lemosteam]

Yes that looks better, but if you are going to go to the trouble of doing close coupling mods, why not make it the correct 3 feet?  Perhaps some of us see overall proportion first (the top-down aesthetic perspective), and others see detail first (the bottom-up aesthetic perspective)?  Detail is the only advantage of the True-Scale alternative, IMHO. 



Mark H.

Is that racoon proportional?   

[soo]

Well Mark you got me...by 18 inches. I did my installs with no modifications. Just going with what was there.

So you win..yay for you.

Y-it

[mark.hinds]

Well Mark you got me...by 18 inches. I did my installs with no modifications. Just going with what was there.

So you win..yay for you.

Y-it

Geez; I guess I shouldn't have posted so early in the morning (a criticism of me, not of you).  Wasn't supposed to be a slam on your improvements, but just a serious question.  That difference in perspective also was evident (different posters) in the PS-1 modification thread in the "N and Z Scales" forum. 

MH

[cjm413]

Geez; I guess I shouldn't have posted so early in the morning (a criticism of me, not of you).  Wasn't supposed to be a slam on your improvements, but just a serious question.  That difference in perspective also was evident (different posters) in the PS-1 modification thread in the "N and Z Scales" forum. 

MH

Agreed - it is a serious question for those of us that have already addressed the coupling distance on IMRC F's before TSC was an option (e.g. Unimates), but don't plan to convert everything else over to TSC.

[soo]

Ok..serious questions abound. I get that..certain people are pushing the envelope to make better models. I really get that.
So I will bow out of this conundrum. I am happy with what I accomplished.

Y-it