TSC radius experiments

[garethashenden]

Some of this has been gone over before, but I've done some experimenting for myself and thought I'd share the results. Maybe this goes in Product Discussion, maybe it goes in N scale, I'm not sure. Anyway:

All the couplers are as supplied TSCs, a few of them are long shanks, most are short. All the cars have metal wheels. I set out four curves in ME code 40 flex track of constant radius. 16", 18", 20" and 24". I had a 8.5" straight section at one end and whatever was left of the flex straightish at the other end. I did not use a transition curve between the straight and the curve deliberately. I also had a few pieces of 15" Kato Unitrack for the smallest radius.

I used a variety of cars, 33' hopper, multiple 40' boxcars, 50' boxcar, 61' bulkhead flatcar, 70' baggage car, and Rapido's Osgood Bradley cars, which I think are 85'. I tried most combinations with some interesting results.

Almost everything worked on the 24" radius. The only combination that didn't work was the 33' hopper and the OB. Obvious really, that a really short car isn't going to work well with a really long car. Real railroads don't allow this and it's clear to see why. However, the 33' hopper works with the 70' baggage car. And the baggage is fine with the OB, so they work in a train, just not coupled together. A 40' boxcar is fine with the OB.

I don't have much to report on the 20" radius. Everything that works on the 18" works on the 20", but the 20" doesn't fix issues with the 18". Maybe 22" would be a good test, I'll have to do that.

With the 18" curve passenger cars are out completely. Two OBs won't work together, and one OB won't work with the baggage. All the freight works fine. The 61' bulkhead flatcar works well with the 33' hopper, and everything with wheelbases in-between those works fine as well.

16" was similar to the 18". Because of the tighter radius some cars derailed at higher speeds, but that may have been how I pushed them.

When we get down to 15" the 33' hopper stopped working with the 61' flatcar. A 40' boxcar is still fine with both the hopper and the flatcar.

For my purposed I will plan on 24" minimum radii on mainlines with 18" on freight only areas knowing that I can go a little lower if needed.

I hope this is of interest to other. Here is a picture of the setup. You can see some things don't work.

[Mark W]

Good start, but these results will change drastically once you introduce the weight of a full train pulling against the couplers and curves.

My easiest example is the Red Caboose centerbeams.  Standing alone, they'll hold around a 15" curve no problem, add 40 cars behind them and they string line on 30" curves.

[garethashenden]

Good start, but these results will change drastically once you introduce the weight of a full train pulling against the couplers and curves.

My easiest example is the Red Caboose centerbeams.  Standing alone, they'll hold around a 15" curve no problem, add 40 cars behind them and they string line on 30" curves.

Prototype centerbeams string line if you look at them funny. But you're correct that the weight of the train will have an effect on things. As will transition curves.

[Philip H]

so using these on 89" TOFC flatcars under 24 inches is probably a no go too?

[garethashenden]

so using these on 89" TOFC flatcars under 24 inches is probably a no go too?

I would think so. I have three TOFC cars, I'll convert them at some point and experiment with them.

[Jbub]

Won't the couplers sit low on tofc cars and auto racks?

[Nick Lorusso]

I know MTL passenger cars and TSC do not like 18" or smaller radius. Pull right off the rail.

[Jbub]

I know MTL passenger cars and TSC do not like 18" or smaller radius. Pull right off the rail.

I used the pin that holds the standard coupler in along with the long shank tsv and had no problems with the 315mm Kato track. I'm pretty sure the couplers were swiveling though

[Seligman Sub]

Not to side track the discussion but has anyone tried these couplers for switching operations?  TSG Multimedia guys did a review and it didn't look promising for that but was wondering if anyone has tried that here.

[C855B]

Won't the couplers sit low on tofc cars and auto racks?

And cabooses, and Bachmann switchers, and ScaleTrains.com turbines, and... . Yes, anything that uses an offset shank is going to be trouble. Last night I was converting a current Centralia UP CA-4, which happens to come with 1015s, to discover they use 0.055" thick washers on the bolsters to raise the body so the couplers are at the right height. That's not going to do. I already knew that the draft gear top of both the 1015 and TSC is 0.030" thick. The TSC, unlike the 1015, doesn't need "containment" to handle, and the lid is simple and flat, so I trimmed the dogs off top of the box and pushed the topless assembly onto the pin on the Centralia frame. Changed the bolster washer to the 0.020" spacer that comes with MTL trucks... perfect. Well, at least not nearly as bad.

I'll look at an auto rack this afternoon. Not as optimistic.

Not to side track the discussion but has anyone tried these couplers for switching operations?  TSG Multimedia guys did a review and it didn't look promising for that but was wondering if anyone has tried that here.

Valid observation. I've resorted to using dental explorers, or... heaven forbid... just lifting the car. Part of the "no slinky" of the TSC is coupling is (refreshingly) tight. No skewer or toothpick is going to be sharp enough to wedge into the gap for uncoupling. The other end of the deal has two problems. First is the short-shank TSC takes a moderate amount of force to couple, with an audible "snap" - no kiss-coupling of single cars, that's for certain. Long-shank is considerably better. Second issue is alignment. I've found that I can kiss-couple two long-shank cars if and only if they are perfectly aligned. There's not a lot of mating face for the couplers to slide each other into position, they have to be there to start with.

Since I don't plan on a whole lot of switching ops on my layout this doesn't bother me too much. I like what the closer-to-scale gap between cars and the scale size do to the overall perception, not to mention how eliminating the slinky effect increases running reliability, so I'm really sold on the TSC.

YMMV.

[PiperguyUMD]

I've been converting my fleet using wcfn100's coupler boxes and his prescribed modifications.

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=40370.0

I've only converted about a 10 33' hoppers and 40' boxcars, but I've been moving them around on my City Terminal layout which has 9" radius curves, with no trouble. 



Honestly, I hadn't thought much about uncoupling, It was a major victory getting them to work on such a tight radius.  I'm sure I'll be able to come up with some kind of tool to do the job.

[Mark W]

Xuron makes an un-coupler that works great for TSC as well as regular N Scale couplers, Z scale couplers, even most HO couplers.

It does the job perfectly, but I did have some issues getting cars coupled back together later on...

[Kentuckian]

Xuron makes an un-coupler that works great for TSC as well as regular N Scale couplers, Z scale couplers, even most HO couplers.

It does the job perfectly, but I did have some issues getting cars coupled back together later on...

Where’s the down arrow?! 

[Lemosteam]

Xuron makes an un-coupler that works great for TSC as well as regular N Scale couplers, Z scale couplers, even most HO couplers.

It does the job perfectly, but I did have some issues getting cars coupled back together later on...

What no  or  LOL.  You suckered me with the link!

[peteski]

Xuron makes an un-coupler that works great for TSC as well as regular N Scale couplers, Z scale couplers, even most HO couplers.

It does the job perfectly, but I did have some issues getting cars coupled back together later on...

ROTFLMAO!