MT True Scale Couplers revisited

[w neal]

With so many teething problems, its sounding like these couplers may not really be worth the trouble of the conversion of a fleet.

[peteski]

I wonder if the answer is a coupler that is sized in between an MT n-scale coupler and the True Scale, which also fits in a 1015 box.  And if it fit in a truck-mounted coupler box– maybe even better.  But obviously it needs to have more swing than the True Scale coupler.

It exists!  It is the Arnold/Vlk coupler. But it is not available for purchase in large quantities - only as a spare part for Arnold locos.  But it is also "slinky" just like 1015 couplers.

[peteski]

Ben, Yes I'm not a mathematician, just a dumb locomotive electrician, but I'm not buying it. We are talking dead weight not volume. 5,000 cubic feet of air does not weight the same as 5,000 cubic feet of lead. How much does that 16 cylinder diesel engine weight with 300 gallons of oil and 300 gallons of water on board? Then you have that 5 ton Generator coupled to it. You have 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel, you have 6 tons of traction motors, not even sure what the air compressor weights, but you have to pick it up with a crane. Heck, the starter motors weight 80 lbs and there are two of them. Our models are plastic with some light weight metals used for the electric motor and cast frame. Yes our models do not have breaks, but coupling into a prototype railcar even with the brakes released is like hitting a brick wall.

Regardless of the scale weight, the real elephant int he room is how these couplers work. Unlike the AAR coupler where the knuckle stays opened until the couplers mate, these couplers have stationary knuckle and instead the entire coupler spreads open.  You can't expect it to behave like the AAR coupler.

As far as thinning the whisker springs goes, there is no need to thin the entire spring (either on the inside or outside).  All you have to do is thin a small section (about 1/32") close to the shank. That will be the flex point for the entire whisker. The long shank coupler already features something like that (but not quite thin enough).

[Chris333]

I put these on my ABBA set of FA/B 1's and they work perfectly. They are not made to replace regular couplers.

[jagged ben]

@Rich S

While you're probably right that the listed prototype weight doesn't include fuel and water and perhaps not even oil, those things are still pretty much just a rounding error.  We're talking another 30,000 pounds or so over the listed weight of 265,000.   The model is still at least 5 times as heavy in scale.

Also, regarding model material, yes our models have a lot of plastic but on many of them the wall thickness which you don't see is several times as thick as the prototype in scale.  So that essentially cancels out.  A typical freight car tare weight is ariund 65000 lbs which would be only a quarter of an ounce scaled down.  Our cars weigh more than that.

I will grant you this:  you are correct that our models don't weigh enough in as much as the definition I gave above no longer makes complete sense when other aspects of physics are considered.  For example, acceleration scales linearly which means that force doesn't scale correctly if you scale mass cubicly according to volume.   Thus it takes 1/160^2  the amount of force to get a 'scale weight' car moving the same scale speed as the prototype.  Now that I work that out... that's  the reason our cars roll so easily when coupling.  It takes tons less force (literally) to get them moving in scale.

Of course, if our cars weighed only 160th of the protoype, we'd have other problems that would be insurmountable.  Like, there are no materials that dense that we could build our models from, and no motors that would fit inside an Nscale loco to pull such heavy cars.  Or, if those things existed, we'd have to make our track voltage thousands of volts to use the track as conductors for that much power, and have a functioning radiator in the loco to keep it from melting into a lump of goo...   I'll stick to hoping for a better coupler. 

[nscaleSPF2]

With so many teething problems, its sounding like these couplers may not really be worth the trouble of the conversion of a fleet.

w neal, I am sure that there will be a better solution, at some future time.  There almost always is.  But, for my money, I cannot afford NOT to convert my fleet.  When I look at a photo of an N scale loco or car (since the new coupler came out), my eye immediately goes to the coupler.  I can't help it.  MTL 1015 = bad.  MTL TSC = good.  It's just me, and I can't help it.

Just sent Verne out to get more TCS's.

[Missaberoad]

w neal, I am sure that there will be a better solution, at some future time.  There almost always is.  But, for my money, I cannot afford NOT to convert my fleet.  When I look at a photo of an N scale loco or car (since the new coupler came out), my eye immediately goes to the coupler.  I can't help it.  MTL 1015 = bad.  MTL TSC = good.  It's just me, and I can't help it.

Just sent Verne out to get more TCS's.

My thoughts exactly... my dream coupler would be a N scale Sergent Engineering coupler (even with its issues which are issues on the 1:1 couplers aswell)

but for now this is the best coupler available for my needs and well worth the required tinkering... 

[wcfn100]

My coupler pocket went to print finally and hopefully will be shipped Monday and get to me late next week.  I'm hoping people will test them and give feed back.  I think there will be a workable solution to all of this.


Jason

[brill27mcb]

With so many teething problems, its sounding like these couplers may not really be worth the trouble of the conversion of a fleet.

I don't think these are "teething problems." These discussions are between folks trying to explore the application limits of the couplers and to possibly expand the utility of the coupler design beyond what the MT design objectives were. They seem to meet MT's stated purposes just fine.

I have been pushing the application limits in another direction. I have mounted these couplers onto Shapeways Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee interurban shells. By filing the area bounded by the top of the pilot and the backs of the stepwells, and leaving the coupler box mounting screws a bit loose so the whole box can rotate, I can run 5-car trains around 140 mm (5.5 inch) radius curves, including "S' curves. This is perfect for trolleys and interurban models, where the normal N (and even Z) couplers look even more "too big" than on railroad cars, and where I do not care about self-centering and automatic coupling.

I don't think you should give up on them just based on the discussions posted here. It depends on what your needs and uses are.

Rich K.

[Rich_S]

@jagged ben  I think Pete hit the nail on the head when he said:

the real elephant in the room is how these couplers work. Unlike the AAR (Janney) coupler where the knuckle stays opened until the couplers mate, these couplers have stationary knuckles and instead the entire coupler spreads open.

It sounds like the biggest problem is the amount of force it takes for the two half to spread allowing the other coupler to mate with first.  Of course once someone is finally able to create an N scale operating Janney Knuckle coupler, the next problem we'll run into is, broken knuckles from ruff couplings and bad train handling     

[Cajonpassfan]

@jagged ben  I think Pete hit the nail on the head when he said:

It sounds like the biggest problem is the amount of force it takes for the two half to spread allowing the other coupler to mate with first.  Of course once someone is finally able to create an N scale operating Janney Knuckle coupler, the next problem we'll run into is, broken knuckles from ruff couplings and bad train handling   

Oh, I get plenty of bad train handling as is, often from my horribly overconfident friends...
They don't seem to like following instructions...
Otto K.

[MichaelWinicki]

It exists!  It is the Arnold/Vlk coupler. But it is not available for purchase in large quantities - only as a spare part for Arnold locos.  But it is also "slinky" just like 1015 couplers.

Good point!

Maybe it will be available in large quantities at some point.

I'd love to test it.

[peteski]

Good point!

Maybe it will be available in large quantities at some point.
I'd love to test it.

You should be able to order them from Hornby USA/Arnold.  If you look in this post there is a scan of the instruction sheet where the part # of the coupler is shown.  Photos of the couplers are in this 2nd post of the thread. Just contact Hornby USA (contact info here)and see if you can order couple of pairs (each package includes a pair).

There are some issues with them (like the "air-hose" trip pin easily twisting out of alignment), but overall look pretty good and work well.

[jagged ben]

@jagged ben  I think Pete hit the nail on the head when he said:

It sounds like the biggest problem is the amount of force it takes for the two half to spread allowing the other coupler to mate with first.  Of course once someone is finally able to create an N scale operating Janney Knuckle coupler, the next problem we'll run into is, broken knuckles from ruff couplings and bad train handling   

Well, yes.   Actually, if you look, I said that first.   

[wcfn100]

Well, yes.   Actually, if you look, I said that first.   

Actually Joe told us that to begin with. 


Jason