Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[robert3985]

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.

Wellll Mark, IMHO no "slinky effect" is a very real advantage to the True-Scale couplers too...

Just sayin' 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[nkalanaga]

No slinky with Unimates, either.  Since there's probably no need for automatic uncoupling between units, could you use the TSCs as dummies, with a basic screw and washer for a pivot, and get both the appearance and close coupling?

As for the raccoon, I'd say it's either a young one, or Z scale.  The few I've seen seem to be bigger, and the only one I've had close contact with, while obviously young ("teenager"), was about the size of an average housecat.   If that's code 55 rail, I would think an adult, in N scale, would probably sit a little taller.

On the other hand, it's a very nicely detailed one, and I could probably find a place for a couple on my layout.

[peteski]

As for the raccoon, I'd say it's either a young one, or Z scale.  The few I've seen seem to be bigger, and the only one I've had close contact with, while obviously young ("teenager"), was about the size of an average housecat.   If that's code 55 rail, I would think an adult, in N scale, would probably sit a little taller.

On the other hand, it's a very nicely detailed one, and I could probably find a place for a couple on my layout.

It looks like a photo of a real raccoon Photoshopped into the picture. @Lemosteam  is just having some fun. 

[mark.hinds]

Wellll Mark, IMHO no "slinky effect" is a very real advantage to the True-Scale couplers too...

Just sayin' 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

In case it wasn't clear, I intended to limit my comments to close-coupling of semi-permanently-coupled locomotives (such as early F-unit sets).  The image I posted is one existing alternative to Unimates or "True-Scale", neither of which gives you the prototypical 3-foot spacing.  BTW, none of these alternatives, including the one I reference below, have a "slinky effect".

From another thread:

There was a guy on another Forum who used HOn3 couplers from "Rail Line"; part number #116.  They are a soft-ish plastic, and you cut the shaft to the desired length, and drill a mounting hole.  I modified his design by putting a Micro Trains spring on the mounting screw, as you can't torque it down for obvious reasons.  I also carved off the top portion of the coupler to get the look I wanted for N-scale; note how the side-view image of the couplers looks flat on top.  The close-coupling couplers can be substituted for the standard Micro Trains couplers on the Intermountain F-units, at any time desired.  So, if I want 2 A-units back-to-back, I can switch them out appropriately.  BTW, these can't be uncoupled during an operating session, so are most appropriate for multi-unit diesel sets, such as 1950s-era F-units, which the prototype operated in sets. 

Mark H. 

[cjm413]

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

No need to bow out, it was helpful to see how the TSC conversion compares to other conversions.

[mark.hinds]

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

You probably should be happy with what you accomplished, as it looks a lot better than the stock coupling distance, and provides useful info for the rest of us.  Furthermore, the solution you chose, unlike the one I chose, allows relatively hands-free coupling and uncoupling of the locos from each other.  The solution I chose usually requires one to lift the locos off the track to couple and uncouple.  I am willing to accept that because in my time period, F-units were operated in sets. 

MH

[cjm413]

In case it wasn't clear, I intended to limit my comments to close-coupling of semi-permanently-coupled locomotives (such as early F-unit sets).  The image I posted is one existing alternative to Unimates or "True-Scale", neither of which gives you the prototypical 3-foot spacing.  BTW, none of these alternatives, including the one I reference below, have a "slinky effect".

From another thread:

Mark H.

I'm not familiar with the Rail Line couplers, but they appear to be cheaper than the Unimates I've been using:

https://www.walthers.com/coupler-hon3-quot-sharon-quot-pkg-6

[nkalanaga]

Peteski:  Yes, I know, it's just a picture of a raccoon.  But given some of the modeling that HAS been shown here, I wouldn't be surprised if someone copied it. 

I was serious about being able to find a place for a couple.  Compared to that, a realistic N scale cow should be easy., and there'd be a market for those.  Maybe in another ten years.

[jereising]

A bit late to the party but thought there might be some interest in my results adding the TSC to my 108 car grain train.   The train consists of mostly IMRC 5161 and 18 ER 5161s, all in BNSF Swoosh.

Took this long because of supply difficulties and holiday decorating, but finally completed installation and testing.

I began with 40 cars.  (I did not convert any locos, three up front and one DP on the rear.)  Initial results were promising, so I ordered enough to finish the job.

On the first run after completion, I had a separation about 20 cars in.  I determined the cause to be coupler height difference, and solved it by simply matching height with another car.

Subsequent runs were perfect.  The lack of slack - which I thought might be an issue - turned out to not matter.  Bear in mind a run on the sub includes some two per cent in and out of staging.  The slink (I thought) might be beneficial to the DP unit on the rear, but as far as I can tell there is absolutely no problem.  It just runs.  And looks like a million.

I would convert the rest of my cars immediately except I will NOT trash my many BLMA cars by destroying their coupler boxes.

@Shipsure, I think it's time to consider molding a TSC to fit a standard 1015 style box.  Yeah, that'd do it!

[Kentuckian]

@Shipsure, I think it's time to consider molding a TSC to fit a standard 1015 style box.  Yeah, that'd do it!

Please! What else are we going to do about coal hoppers?

[Big Train]

I notice that one of the TSCs mounted on a Fox Valley ES44 wasn't staying centered. The two halves of the coupler weren't self aligning and centering any longer. When I pulled the coupler box apart, it seemed the whiskers are no longer as stiff as when they were first installed. Anyone else notice this?

You can tell it's happened when you try and couple two TSCs and they won't couple, or remain coupled, and see  the coupler halves are splayed wide open.

So far, it's only one coupler.

Generally though, I'm impressed with them although you really need to ensure of enough clearance to prevent interference when coupling rolling stock to a locomotive. Things like snow plough blades can foul against rolling stock if track radius is too severe.

[AKNscale]

I'm very happy with mine, I just have to finish my customizations so they'll operate better for my layout.

[Sokramiketes]

I notice that one of the TSCs mounted on a Fox Valley ES44 wasn't staying centered. The two halves of the coupler weren't self aligning and centering any longer. When I pulled the coupler box apart, it seemed the whiskers are no longer as stiff as when they were first installed. Anyone else notice this?

You can tell it's happened when you try and couple two TSCs and they won't couple, or remain coupled, and see  the coupler halves are splayed wide open.

So far, it's only one coupler.

Generally though, I'm impressed with them although you really need to ensure of enough clearance to prevent interference when coupling rolling stock to a locomotive. Things like snow plough blades can foul against rolling stock if track radius is too severe.

I noticed this with the long version. Unless you're buying them to do the welded conversion, I'd stay away from the long shank version.

[jereising]

I'm curious as to whether anyone has successfully converted a string of RC centerbeams to the coupler.

I made the attempt and failed miserably.  I tried the long shank, figuring that would be correct.  As I moved the train around the layout cars would tip alarmingly.  I then tried the short shank and although less severe, the cars still tipped going around a 30" radius curve...

I should note this train was converted to body mounts using the 1015 and has been a pretty consistent performer apart from the occasional break-apart.  And it's now back to the 1015s, and is handling well.

I had hopes for this coupler, but I'm afraid they are fading.  The 108 car Trinity 5161 train was apparently an exception.

[Sokramiketes]

I'm curious as to whether anyone has successfully converted a string of RC centerbeams to the coupler.

I made the attempt and failed miserably.  I tried the long shank, figuring that would be correct.  As I moved the train around the layout cars would tip alarmingly.  I then tried the short shank and although less severe, the cars still tipped going around a 30" radius curve...

I should note this train was converted to body mounts using the 1015 and has been a pretty consistent performer apart from the occasional break-apart.  And it's now back to the 1015s, and is handling well.

I had hopes for this coupler, but I'm afraid they are fading.  The 108 car Trinity 5161 train was apparently an exception.

Do you need them to be centered?  Since they don't have any swing, light cars, and especially those with a large distance between bolster and coupler pocket, will have a tendency to tip over.  I think you'd have to trim off the "centering whiskers" and probably also weld the two halves together.   See Jason's mod for the best way to do it and keep the click-to-couple functionality.

I'm surprised that the initial test batch didn't identify coupler swing as an issue.  I would be all over these with the back end spring and smaller box of a Z scale coupler, just with this head and no uncoupling pin.  I know they were trying to eliminate the slinky, but the eliminated the truck swing as well.  The slinky can be eliminated with two tabs.  But go back to the metal coil spring to allow more swing and a coupling force reduction.