Weekend Update 7/1/18

[MK]

I have not worked on the layout in a long while because I was focusing on my rolling stock, so I installed a beverage holder to inspire me to get going on long neglected layout projects. It "inspired" me to drink Guinness and run trains for a couple of hours, even better!

Tom L
Wellington CO

Hmmm...no foamy head?   

[hminky]

No, the common trigger is failing to use Micro-Trains Truck Restraining Springs:
https://www.micro-trains.com/index.php?_route_=n-2-truck-restraining-springs-1953-12-ea-00112002

Really, on every car.

If you are really railroading and doing switching scenarios every car would need them.

Tried to use them once on one of many ventures into N-Scale, can't believe anyone can put the springs into a truck.

The "Slinky, Bobbleheading" behavior always turned me off to N-Scale.

Tried Z-Scale and the "Bobbleheading" at any speed in that scale is laughable.

The McHenry's brought me back to N-Scale. The McHenrys fit in the MT boxes.

Harold

[up1950s]

What's the most important , to me , thing about the header PICTURE is not so much the what it is , though it would be interesting to get the straight skinny on it , it's the fatass wires that look like model railroad sized feeders . Instead of trying to always hide them , we might be able to showcase them as a quasi prototypical detail . I do agree that for signaling they are too big . Given the 3rd rail my guess it's a ground to complete the loop , and may have some sensing of a train vs a foreign object .Just my guess .

[jereising]

What's going to happen to that big open spot along the road? A rest stop or maybe a road maintenance depot with trucks and equipment, jersey barriers, piles of gravel, freeway sign stockpile, safety barricades, etc? That would certainly look interesting.

Stay tuned!  It's a work in progress...and there are other areas in need of rehab now that I have this somewhat presentable.  Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions!

[lashedup]

First shell out of the 3D printer:



Still have to resolve some more issues before these are fully dialed in (warping, orientation tweaking, supports, model changes, etc., etc.) but so far I'm impressed - better than shape ways. Model is sitting on a spare Kato Dome chassis I had laying on the desk.

[peteski]

"Bobbleheading" is more appropriate while switching.

Well Harold, bobbleheading, slinking, whatever works for you.  I know exactly what you mean, and to me it is not a major problem.  HIwever I acknowledge that there are plenty of modelers out there disliking the slinky effect.  But to me the MTL couplers are still the best when it comes to ease of coupling and uncoupling.

As size goes they are all about the same except for the heinous Bachmann, from the N-Scale Supply site:



Tried the Accumate but it doesn't work and is a pain being two pieces.
If your purpose is operating as a railroad and not screenshots, functionality trumps slight difference in appearance.
Never thought the two piece KD/MT couplers ever looked like a coupler.

Harold

I am very amused that you actually used *MY* photo to show me how reasonably-sized McHenry coupler are.  I created and posted that photo in a McHenry coupler evaluation, several years ago, on the now defunct and shut-down Atlas forum.  When I encountered then-new McHenry N scale couplers I was so disgusted with their size and with their ugly external spring that it compelled me to create a lengthy evaluation of them comparing them to the other N scale knuckle couplers available at that time.  Funny how we each see a totally different thing. You see a reasonable sized coupler where I see a large meaty blob. I'm also disappointed that at this time we have 2 more grossly oversized couplers in addition to the McHenrys (the Bachmann and Scale Trains couplers).  Why the heck are model companies keep thinking that large coupler is good for N scale. 

To reinforce my paint about the hugeness of the McHenry, here is another picture from that Atlas forum thready from which the picture you used was taken.



To me there is no hiding the fact that McHenrys are huge.  But you are obviously a McHenry fanboy, and I'm not.  So, whatever holds your train together . . . 

[daniel_leavitt2000]

McHenry and even EZmates have their uses. I had to convert several Atlas ACF 89' flats to extended length EZmates because the Accumate shank was too short and the metal coupler pockets would not accept MTL couplers. These cars have other issues and are a bit of a missfire for Atlas. Now that they have the BLMA 89' flats, I wonder if they will even bother running these again.

[hminky]

Your diagram doesn't line the coupler hands up.

The MT in operation looks large.



If you can live with "slinky" that is fine, gotta go with what works for you.

Wish Accurail would make a 3/4 N-scale Accumate like their Proto: HO coupler.



N-Scale EZ-Mates are the worst coupler ever.

Tried them on 1870's HO cars and then with those heavier cars they still wouldn't couple.



Harold

[peteski]

Your diagram doesn't line the coupler hands up.

The MT in operation looks large.



If you can live with "slinky" that is fine, gotta go with what works for you.

Wish Accurail would make a 3/4 N-scale Accumate like their Proto HO: coupler.



N-Scale EZ-Mates are the worst coupler ever.

Tried them on 1870's HO cars and then with those heavier cars they still wouldn't couple.



Harold

I decided to line up the outlines at the shank.  It is what it is. As far as your photo goes, it is true, all the N scale knuckle couplers have similar height.



The size difference is apparent in the plan view (in the photo of the couplers you originally used).  I just dislike the "meaty" appearance of the McHenrys.  But liek I said, there is nothing wrong with you using them - I simply commented that I wouldn't use them.  If I wanted to do a similar slinky-free conversion I would go with the Accumates (which I also dislike).

And I agree that it would be nice if someone would come out with a smaller and slink-free N scale knuckle coupler.

[cbroughton67]

And I agree that it would be nice if someone would come out with a smaller and slink-free N scale knuckle coupler.

Is it possible to do switching (easy coupling/uncoupling) with the MT TSC's? Their size and appearance are great, but I never gave them much consideration, since they're not compatible with any other coupler. They seemed to cause quite a stir when first released, but I haven't heard much about them since then.


Chris

[Tom L]

Hmmm...no foamy head?   

Ha, it was there when I poured it, should have taken the picture before I started "working" on it. I might just have to do it again!

[CodyO]

Finished wiring up the first of 6 Modules.
I *should* be done sitting under it and tightening screws.

Here's a view of the wiring with it all done
Green is for switch machines
Blue/Orange are Mains
Brown is sidings
Pure White is Frog Power


Here's the front view. I have some vinyl tape that shrinked after being applied so I have to fix a few spots and paint the switch areas black but for now I love that I can throw the switches and watch my turnouts move.

[Point353]

Finished wiring up the first of 6 Modules.
I *should* be done sitting under it and tightening screws.

Isn't one of the supposed advantages of modular construction that you can turn a module on its side - or even upside down - to make access for working on the wiring much easier?

[CodyO]

Isn't one of the supposed advantages of modular construction that you can turn a module on its side - or even upside down - to make access for working on the wiring much easier?

Yes, I'm still young so I don't mind sitting under it and then I don't have to take it apart. But yeah I could have taken the time and flipped the module over to do my wiring.

[S Class]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but there was an article from the late 1980's in MR (I want to say 1988) that suggested a dab of grease in the coupler box to help minimise the slinky effect. I can't remember the brand it was referring to or if it would be of any use 30 years later but it might be an idea?