Weekend Update 7/1/18

[hminky]

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?

That is a hit or miss method.

Have tried the method and it is unreliable.

Cleaning out the coupler box is a real pain when too much grease is applied.

Harold

[Seligman Sub]

What about just using the MT drag springs? I know some modelers use them to what sounds like good effect and was thinking about doing this myself. 

[C855B]

What about just using the MT drag springs? I know some modelers use them to what sounds like good effect and was thinking about doing this myself.

The operative word is "drag". If you don't run but a few cars on any of your trains it'll be fine, but if you alternate between small switch jobs and longer "mainline" trains, or have an operations scheme where you make-up long trains after the switch crews are done with 'em, the lost capacity is significant.

[Mark W]

Perhaps we can call @dmidkiff into the conversation.  He mentioned an interesting technique to me at the NSE Convention.  When assembling MT Couplers, install the spring sideways, so that it would be oriented perpendicular to the rails when installed on a car.  This is supposed to retain proper coupler functionality, but eliminate (or greatly reduce) the slinky effect. 

I think he mentioned cutting the spring in half will make it fit better too.  I might give it a try.

[GhengisKong]

I've taken a longer Kato spring used in the passenger cars and cut off the necessary amount of coils to fit inside the M/T box so that the coupler can open and close normally, but not hardly budge in a linear motion. It works well.

[Jbub]

Depending on the mt coupler you have, does it matter if the spring is in front of our behind the post?

[peteski]

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?

Yes, that would dampen the bouncing, but would also dampen the sideways swing needed for automatic magnetic uncoupling.  Another idea floated around was to  replace the spring with a small piece (roughly same size as the spring) of rubber from an elastic band.  Problem with that is that the rubber in time hardens and gets brittle.   Slinky is here to stay and if it is extremely bothersome, there are slink-free couplers available.

[peteski]

Depending on the mt coupler you have, does it matter if the spring is in front of our behind the post?

Not really.  It will still slink either way.  The original method Kadee (back when these were made by Kadee) recommended was to install the drag spring only in the caboose.  But with modern trains there are no cabooses anymore. 

[GhengisKong]

nevermind

[JanesCustomTrain]

nevermind

thebollocks     (good times)

Jane

[GhengisKong]

thebollocks     (good times)

Jane

Well I wasn't sure if jbub was asking me a question or peteski since peteski answered first above.

[Jbub]

I was asking a question about MarkW's post. I should have quoted. I was curious if installing the spring sideways in the couplerss where they go behind the post would pose a problem.

[peteski]

I was asking a question about MarkW's post. I should have quoted. I was curious if installing the spring sideways in the couplerss where they go behind the post would pose a problem.

I doubt it would make a difference.  As I see it, it is the bosses in each half of the split shank (bosses which engage in the slots in the coupler box) which are subjected to the pull/push stress applied to  the coupler.  The spring is used for centering and closing the coupler.  I'm not sure if a sideways-mounted spring centers the coupler, but it should close it correctly.

[dmidkiff]

I doubt it would make a difference.  As I see it, it is the bosses in each half of the split shank (bosses which engage in the slots in the coupler box) which are subjected to the pull/push stress applied to  the coupler.  The spring is used for centering and closing the coupler.  I"m not sure ow a sideways-mounted spring centers the coupler, but it should close it correctly.

Peteski has got it right, the coupler opens and closes correctly but it does not center itself. All of the ones I can think of off the top of my head have the spring behind the post. I use the boxes cut off trucks, 1025 and 1015 boxes. I also picked up a set of fashion tweezers from Amazon and I can hold a full length spring in them, it compressed without shooting them into space and the tweezers fit between the couplers, so no fiddling with the tip of an X-Acto or any of those other tricks.

Doing the spring this way still leaves a lot of forward/backward movement of the coupler in the box, so you can have a lot of slack action, but I hardly see any slinky or bounce because the spring coefficient if much higher.

Doug

[Jbub]

@GhengisKong does the Kato spring mod change the force needed to couple?