Adventures in prototypical True-Scale coupler pockets.

[chessie system fan]

I need to get some one of these days.  Have you thought about making a scale locomotive pocket?

[wcfn100]

I need to get some one of these days.  Have you thought about making a scale locomotive pocket?

Yes, locomotives pockets will be coming.  I honestly haven't done much with them yet because the MTL boxes will drop in many locomotives so there's at least a solution without modification.

Modeling the CGW, my short list is:

Kato NW-2
Kato F units
Atlas GP-30
Kato RS2

Hopefully those with cover other locomotives as well.  I will also try and support those who have bought the coupler pockets with whatever locomotive they'd like to see done.

Jason

[ednadolski]

I've been trying these TSCs & pockets on some Red Caboose 89' autoracks, which considering their length and overhang are about the most demanding scenario I can think of for body-mounted couplers on freight cars.

It turns out that even a 24" radius curve is not broad enough to keep these cars from pulling off the track.  One thing that works, tho, is to simply file away 0.050" or so of the side walls from the open end of the pocket.  (Work gently or the FUD may snap off.) This gives the coupler the swing room that it wants in order to work reliably.  I haven't tried tighter curves, but in principle one could keep removing more material from the side walls for increasingly sharp curves, until other geometry limitations are  reached (esp. for cars having different wheelbase and overhang dimensions).

Body-mount pockets on these autoracks will sit way too low, so you have to cut a notch in the floor of the car to accept the pocket.  I attached the pocket to a strip of styrene glued to the inside floor of the car, which is not pretty but at least it is inside the car where you don't see it.

Ed

[Mark W]

I've been experimenting with True-Scale couplers for the past few weeks and this thread is probably the best place to revive it.  I first want to convert a whole train of random mixed freight to get a sense of how the couplers will operate between mixed freight lengths.   After about 25 cars, I'm still undecided whether I want to go ahead with the rest of the fleet.  Anything over 70 feet is of course a challenge, but I've gotten them to the point they are running ok.  Unfortunately, having to do some of the modifications outlined earlier in this thread puts a limit on how they perform for switching and operations.  What to do, what to do. 

In any case, here's a minute video of my True-Scale test train.

[wcfn100]

Well that's a timely post Mark as I've been wanting to update this thread after taking the summer off of most train related things.

I did design a pocket for the Athearn 89' flats.



If you recall I was asking about gluing FXD a few weeks ago.  The one piece glues into the Athearn pocket with the old coupler post removed.  There's a lip at the car end that keeps pulling forces in check.  The lid is a friction fit that can be glue or I've inculded holes for .020" styrene posts if someone thought it would help.



I can run this around 15" radius curve with short and long cars coupled to it.

I'm also hoping to update the Atlas ore car adapter.  I'm making a couple modifications that will make everything cheaper and easier to convert a fleet.


Jason

[wcfn100]

Here's a couple better pictures.





I should also mention, this conversion allows you (or forces you to depending on who you are) to lower the Athearn car to a more prototypical height.

Jason

[robert3985]

I've been experimenting with True-Scale couplers for the past few weeks and this thread is probably the best place to revive it.  I first want to convert a whole train of random mixed freight to get a sense of how the couplers will operate between mixed freight lengths.   After about 25 cars, I'm still undecided whether I want to go ahead with the rest of the fleet.  Anything over 70 feet is of course a challenge, but I've gotten them to the point they are running ok.  Unfortunately, having to do some of the modifications outlined earlier in this thread puts a limit on how they perform for switching and operations.  What to do, what to do. 

In any case, here's a minute video of my True-Scale test train.

Well....I'm impressed! 

After I get my workshop set up again and my modular layout up...converting my stuff to these couplers will one of the first things on my "must do" list...for sure!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[ednadolski]

In any case, here's a minute video of my True-Scale test train.

Looks great!   There are a few cases where the car-to-car distance seems a bit long, but overall these are still a great improvement over conventional couplers.   They really help the rolling stock to look larger and give more to-scale proportions.

Geometry-wise, what are the tightest curves and shortest turnouts that you can run with this train?  Did you have to make adjustments for swing?

I'd bet you could crawl that train <10 scale mph down a 2% grade thru S-curves without the slightest hint of a 'slinky' 

Ed

[Mark W]

Looks great!   There are a few cases where the car-to-car distance seems a bit long

Which ones?  I didn't precisely measure any of these like Jason does.  But if you can tell it's off by a shaky video, then it probably warrants correction. 

Geometry-wise, what are the tightest curves and shortest turnouts that you can run with this train?  Did you have to make adjustments for swing?

I'm finding that the curves depend on drag.  I can roll any two cars through a curve just fine (mine are 22" minimum), but put the weight of 40 cars behind it, throw in a 1.5% curvy grade and things over 70' begin to freewheel, if not string-line all together.  In a few cases, I had to use the screw to mount the coupler box, and leave it loose so the whole box swings.  It's not ideal, but that extra 2.5mm makes a big difference.  I now have a pair of each type car type/length converted, from cement hoppers to autoracks, and the entire train can now run unsupervised around the modules I set up for testing!

I'd bet you could crawl that train <10 scale mph down a 2% grade thru S-curves without the slightest hint of a 'slinky' 

Indeed!  It's a strange feeling to be able to wiggle the caboose and see the engine 40 cars away mirror the motion!  Also, it may bias, but I think reversing long trains is much more reliable with TSCs, though that could be attributed just to having everything body-mounted now. 

[ednadolski]

Which ones?  I didn't precisely measure any of these like Jason does.  But if you can tell it's off by a shaky video, then it probably warrants correction.

Just 1 or 2 of the covered hoppers.  Are these all the long shank couplers?   I haven't used many of the short shanks myself, since they seem just a bit too short.

Also, it may bias, but I think reversing long trains is much more reliable with TSCs, though that could be attributed just to having everything body-mounted now.

The body mounting, as well as the reduction in 'slop'  will both help.  It should also work well with DPUs, as long as there isn't too much overhang mismatch on sharp curves.


Ed

[C855B]

... I think reversing long trains is much more reliable with TSCs, though that could be attributed just to having everything body-mounted now.

This is what I'm finding, as well. My layout test train is 40 cars long, is about 50% TSC, has a mix of old and new cars and a variety of wheel types. The ability to back it up cleanly over 120' and through several turnouts directly increases with the number of TSC in the consist.

... Are these all the long shank couplers?   I haven't used many of the short shanks myself, since they seem just a bit too short. ...

My issue with the short shank version is coupling force. The long shank couplers can almost kiss-couple as well as Magne-Matics, as long as they are lined-up. So wherever possible I use the long shank, and so far the only required need for short shank is on locos.

I would like to have wider swing without the loose-screw fudge. Maybe our friends at MTL have a solution in the mill.

[chessie system fan]

Seeing the thread revival reminded me to post my efforts.  I got some of Jason's coupler pockets earlier this year and decided to try them out on one of the more egregious coupler pockets out there.  Here's quick pic.  I still need to do a soak and get the wax off.  Up next is new scale steps.

[Missaberoad]

Happy to see this thread active again...

Jason, any plans to redesign (sprue up) you're coupler pocket on shapeways?
Or is this on hold for the time being?

Curious if I should wait or bite the bullet 

[wcfn100]

Happy to see this thread active again...

Jason, any plans to redesign (sprue up) you're coupler pocket on shapeways?
Or is this on hold for the time being?

Curious if I should wait or bite the bullet 

Yes!  With the kids back in school I've been going back over all my 3D files do to the changes needed with the new Shapeways printing rules.  I should have the Atlas ore car adapter up in a couple days and the standard pocket is on the short list.  I've also updated the Wheels of Time flat adapter which I have in order right now to check it.

I was hoping that MTL was going to make some noise this summer about any changes to the coupler they were going to do, but nothing happened so I'm going forward with what we have.

It's just so hard to not get distracted... (just got this today  )




Jason

[wcfn100]

So here's the update on the Atlas ore car adapters. 

First, let's look at where it was:



This version is basically the standard coupler box with the adapter added to it.  It requires the user to drill and tap for the screw and to weld the coupler shanks together.

Being that the ore cars are so short, I felt that they didn't need the swing of the modified coupler shank.  And since I know that the biggest application for these will be unit type trains I wanted to get rid of the screw which adds $1 to each car conversion. 

This is what I got.



Sorry for the translucency, it wasn't that bad to the naked eye.

This pocket uses the stock long shank TSC (which I'm going to ask MTL again to sell separately) with no modification.  I need to add a .010" shim to the top of the coupler box drawing because I didn't account for how sloppy the coupler is without welding it.  I also modified the lid and box to be a press fit.  I will need someone to test this out to see if it will hold up without any glue.

The plan is to offer four versions.

-Weld modified with screw lid

-Weld modified with press lid (haven't drawn this one yet)

-Stock coupler with press lid

-Press lid with draw bar


The idea would be that the ends of the unit train could have the modified shanks to give full swing when coupled to a locomotive and between the ore cars could just use this new version or a draw bar version which will keep the time and cost down considerably.


Jason