MT True Scale Couplers revisited

[Bill H]

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

Actually the problem is not what Pete 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..."), thinning the inside of the fingers solved the force needed to couple, the face of the coupler is too narrow to align properly with the other coupler unless the cars are aligned with each other perfectly. Read the OP.

Cheers,
Bill

[peteski]

Actually the problem is not what Pete 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..."), thinning the inside of the fingers solved the force needed to couple, the face of the coupler is too narrow to align properly with the other coupler unless the cars are aligned with each other perfectly. Read the OP.

Cheers,
Bill

We both described the problem using different terms. It seems that mine (describing non-operating knuckles) seemed to be easier to visualize.  But maybe it was the elephant that did it.    And yes, Joe (from MTL) ) did specifically state that these couplers (while being functional) were not designed to be used as a replacement for the feather-force-coupling and magnetically uncopupling standard N scale MTL couplers.

[jagged ben]

Actually the problem is not what Pete 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..."), thinning the inside of the fingers solved the force needed to couple, the face of the coupler is too narrow to align properly with the other coupler unless the cars are aligned with each other perfectly. Read the OP.

I get what you're saying.  It's just a different piece of what I was saying in my first post, which is that we don't have a product that simulates prototypical coupler operation. 

Are the lateral tolerances so bad that if we had prototypically operating scale knuckles we would still have misalignment?  I ask in earnest. 

[nkalanaga]

Quite likely, unless you lay your own track, make sure both track and wheels are perfectly gauged, AND make sure there's no side play in the truck pins/screws OR sideframe/wheelsets.  With all of that, the cars should stay aligned, and they would probably work.

That said, I've seen brakemen wrestling with prototype couplers, on straight track, that still weren't perfectly aligned.  There are no centering springs on freight car couplers, so if one gets pushed to one side, it stays there.

[Bill H]

Nick:
You are exactly correct, it is the side play in various components (wheels, trucks etc) that exacerbates the issue. Feather touch coupling is clearly possible with the fingers thinned to 0.010", the problem is just the face to not quite wide enough to absorb the side play unless the cars are perfectly centered in order for the two faces to slide past each other and couple. FWIW, I was testing with MT cars, MT trucks and FVM wheelsets on ME code 40 track. Further exacerbating the issue is the lack of swing to the coupler, which forces coupling to dead straight track. Letting the coupler pivot on the attaching screw would not solve this problem as there would be nothing to coerce the coupler to return to the center line. Of course if operational coupling is of no issue, then allowing the coupler to swing should alleviate the lifting of inside wheels on tighter radius track.

As far as I can tell, the couplers operate exactly as Joe described, and designed, excepting the lack of swing on tighter radius track which might cause problems for some.

In my own mind, I had hoped for a solution to eliminate the slinky effect and have more scale size couplers, thus I was trying to get the TSC to do what they were not actually designed to do.

Kind regards,
Bill

[Rich_S]

That said, I've seen brakemen wrestling with prototype couplers, on straight track, that still weren't perfectly aligned.  There are no centering springs on freight car couplers, so if one gets pushed to one side, it stays there.

There is nothing to center the shank on a prototype locomotive, as mentioned if it's pushed to one side it will stay there until someone moves it. Centering springs only exist on model trains, which make them very unrealistic. If you want more realism, get rid of the center springs, of course you'll probably have to find some way to add some resistance to the shank of the coupler, so it doesn't flop from side to side with the lightest breath of air. On the prototype, it does take a fair amount of force to move the coupler from side to side, unless it been greased recently. But until someone designs and manufactures an actual Janney knuckle coupler for N scale, this is all a moot point as you'll need the centering spring to hold the coupler in alignment while it spreads open to accept the other coupler.

[Rich_S]

In my own mind, I had hoped for a solution to eliminate the slinky effect and have more scale size couplers, thus I was trying to get the TSC to do what they were not actually designed to do.

Kind regards,
Bill

Bill, Have you tried using the Truck Restraining Springs to eliminate the slinky effect?

https://www.micro-trains.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=342

[Bill H]

Bill, Have you tried using the Truck Restraining Springs to eliminate the slinky effect?

https://www.micro-trains.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=342

Hi Rich:
Yes, every car has one spring on one of the wheelsets, only body mounted 1015s no truck mounts permitted, metal wheels, and every car is weighted to NMRA standards. Still have some slinky in backing moves. I operate on another large N scale layout, same specs, same issues. At least with 1015s, the slinky is only when backing, but still detracts from both perception and performance during operation moves. Really wish it were not this way, because I am otherwise pleased with the general performance of the 1015s.

I had hoped to use the TSCs for A-B unit connections as they look a little better than the RC Unimates, but they lack sufficient swing under some conditions where the Unimates have no problems. So, as I said before, I guess the current iteration of the TCS does not fit my needs. Wish it were otherwise as they do look nice.

Kind regards,
Bill

[Cajonpassfan]

Bill, with your experience running with a spring on every fourth axle, how much extra drag does it create? How long are your trains and do you operate on grades? I have a 3% downhill and the slinky drives me batty, even with "brakes on" in the caboose. I'm concerned about the extra drag for the uphill run if I were to add a spring on every car...
Thanks, Otto K

[Bill H]

Otto:
I have not run my current layout since moving to a new state without the springs, as my current layout has no grades, I have only had time to set up one module. I have operated on other layouts with the same spring setup, with 15-25 car trains, on what I guess are up to 2% grades and did not notice any issues. Note, however, that in both cases, either multiple lashups were the order of the day, or engines with decent traction were involved, or pushers were involved. FWIW, the springs do not totally solve the problem, getting the exact same resistance on each car is not possible, so some cars will evidence more resistance than others, and that in itself will contribute to the slinky. Also note that having a spring on one side of the wheelset pushes the wheel set to the opposite side of the truck, and thus the two wheelsets in the truck do not exactly follow the same path, and that can cause the coupler on the spring end of the car to be very very slightly offset. Benefits of the springs is that they do make coupling moves easier, help eliminate some of the slinky and cars have less of a tendency to roll off if the track is not dead level. Not a perfect solution, but as far as I know, one of the easiest to implement.

Kind regards,
Bill

[nkalanaga]

They would probably be fine for anyone modeling in Proto:160, if there is anyone.  The 2mm folks in Britain are doing fine, so it would be possible here.

Having said that, I looked in my GP38 operator's manual.  It lists the minimum radius as 140 ft single, 302 ft coupled to a 50 ft car.  Not 300, but 302, so it sounds like they actually tested it, instead of doing calculations.  With that, it's not surprising that these couplers don't work on sharp model curves.

[Cajonpassfan]

Otto:
I have not run my current layout since moving to a new state without the springs, as my current layout has no grades, I have only had time to set up one module. I have operated on other layouts with the same spring setup, with 15-25 car trains, on what I guess are up to 2% grades and did not notice any issues. Note, however, that in both cases, either multiple lashups were the order of the day, or engines with decent traction were involved, or pushers were involved. FWIW, the springs do not totally solve the problem, getting the exact same resistance on each car is not possible, so some cars will evidence more resistance than others, and that in itself will contribute to the slinky. Also note that having a spring on one side of the wheelset pushes the wheel set to the opposite side of the truck, and thus the two wheelsets in the truck do not exactly follow the same path, and that can cause the coupler on the spring end of the car to be very very slightly offset. Benefits of the springs is that they do make coupling moves easier, help eliminate some of the slinky and cars have less of a tendency to roll off if the track is not dead level. Not a perfect solution, but as far as I know, one of the easiest to implement.

Kind regards,
Bill

Thank you Bill for taking the time to respond. The quest continues...
Otto

[garethashenden]

They would probably be fine for anyone modeling in Proto:160, if there is anyone.  The 2mm folks in Britain are doing fine, so it would be possible here.

Just me I believe. There may be others, but not many of us.

This is the reason I have no hesitation in fitting them to everything. I don't currently have a layout but I'll build it to work with the couplers, along with the tighter flangeways and wheel gauge.

[Bill H]

Just me I believe. There may be others, but not many of us.

This is the reason I have no hesitation in fitting them to everything. I don't currently have a layout but I'll build it to work with the couplers, along with the tighter flangeways and wheel gauge.

Garet:
If you are going to make these couplers work, you will also have to tighten the track gauge just a bit. Otherwise the rail to rail sideplay potentially keep the couplers from aligning correctly. I am using FVW fine width wheels, which match NMRA standards in gauge, as well as ME code 40 flex, which is right on with NMRA widths. Still too much lateral play for these couplers.

Kind regards,
Bill

[garethashenden]

Gareth:
If you are going to make these couplers work, you will also have to tighten the track gauge just a bit. Otherwise the rail to rail sideplay potentially keep the couplers from aligning correctly. I am using FVW fine width wheels, which match NMRA standards in gauge, as well as ME code 40 flex, which is right on with NMRA widths. Still too much lateral play for these couplers.

Kind regards,
Bill

You're right, there is too much play between the track and the wheels. I've actually been doing experimentation over the past few years with FS160 standards, which are basically the same as 2mmFS, but reguaged to 9.0mm. To get this to work I'm been regauging the FVM wheels. I find that if I pull the wheel slightly out on the axle the flanges will go through narrower flangeways and have less slop on the track.

It's not a method I would recommend to most people, but it works for my needs.