Trainworx N-scale Mini-89 (M89) Coupler Testing

[peteski]

Aren't Scale Trains couplers also almost identical to McHenrys?  So we have yet another N scale knuckle coupler.    Scale Trains should have lived up to their name and produced their coupler to be more realistic looking and close to scale.

[ednadolski]

Scale Trains should have lived up to their name and produced their coupler to be more realistic looking and close to scale.

Close to HO scale, perhaps.... 

Ed

[Mark5]

I emailed Pat and he reported that in simple terms the "M89" coupler is 89% of the size of the MTL knuckle. They fit into 1015 pockets and some of the other MTL pockets.

It doesn't sound like these couplers will be available separately (initially), so not yet a fleet solution for me personally.

It's got me wondering what Charlie Vlk's coupler might look like ... @ncbqguy

Mark

[peteski]

89% of MTL coupler size?  That's not really much of an improvement.

According to the info I gathered, Arnold coupler (used on their SW-1 locos) is based on (Charlie) Vlk design.  Here it is compared to MTL N scale coupler.



As far as MTL clones go, IM started making their own couplers (I have them on AC-12 locos) that are basically copies of MTL, but not as well molded.  I have also seen other MTL clones, but don't recall on which models.

Then there is the GOEMON coupler.  That onw os molded as well as MTL, and looks more prototypical (but about the same size at MTL).

[Mark5]

89% of MTL coupler size?  That's not really much of an improvement.

11% Improvement and not slinky 

I'll take what I can get (in this case I effectively can't get it).

I'd like to see a commonly available coupler that:

• is smaller
• addresses the slinky
• works!

The Lee English Zscale couplers are tempting but the coupler pockets are a challenge if you don't want to spring for a 3d printer ...

Mark

[dem34]

As far as MTL clones go, IM started making their own couplers (I have them on AC-12 locos) that are basically copies of MTL, but not as well molded.  I have also seen other MTL clones, but don't recall on which models.

The run of Atlas ALP-45s and matching Bi-level Bombardier coaches featured some kind of MTL clone.

[GM50 4164]

89% of MTL coupler size?  That's not really much of an improvement.

According to the info I gathered, Arnold coupler (used on their SW-1 locos) is based on (Charlie) Vlk design.  Here it is compared to MTL N scale coupler.



As far as MTL clones go, IM started making their own couplers (I have them on AC-12 locos) that are basically copies of MTL, but not as well molded.  I have also seen other MTL clones, but don't recall on which models.

Then there is the GOEMON coupler.  That onw os molded as well as MTL, and looks more prototypical (but about the same size at MTL).

Pete I purchased some of those Goemon couplers and they do look nice but this is all you get, just the coupler. I haven't spent much time with them but I am unsure what coupler boxes to use with them. You are supposed to use your own boxes, trip pins and springs for them. Any idea as to which coupler box to try?

[peteski]

Pete I purchased some of those Goemon couplers and they do look nice but this is all you get, just the coupler. I haven't spent much time with them but I am unsure what coupler boxes to use with them. You are supposed to use your own boxes, trip pins and springs for them. Any idea as to which coupler box to try?

Yes, they fit the standard MTL coupler boxes like 1023/1025. They also fit the truck-mounted coupler boxes.  Basically. any coupler box which is designed for the shanks with the spring in the back of the shank.  If you contact MTL directly, they should sell you just the boxes, trip pins, and springs.

If you have any MTL cars with truck-mounted couplers, you can slide the coupler box open and just replace the MTL coupler with a GEOMON.

[nkalanaga]

It's been several years, but I bought 500 pair of 1025 boxes from MT, so, yes, they do sell them separately.  I haven't tried buying springs, but they will probably sell them as well.

In my case, I was between jobs at the time, so decided to covert all of my truck-mounted couplers to body-mounts.  Being cheap, I bought the boxes, and reused the truck-mounted couplers and springs.

[robert3985]

89% of MTL coupler size?  That's not really much of an improvement.

According to the info I gathered, Arnold coupler (used on their SW-1 locos) is based on (Charlie) Vlk design.

As far as MTL clones go, IM started making their own couplers (I have them on AC-12 locos) that are basically copies of MTL, but not as well molded.  I have also seen other MTL clones, but don't recall on which models.

Then there is the GOEMON coupler.  That onw os molded as well as MTL, and looks more prototypical (but about the same size at MTL).

For myself (your opinion my differ) the #1 problem that bothers me with N-scale couplers is the slinky effect.  Looking at the mounting hole the GOEMON coupler has, with its elongated centering coil spring capture box, it's going to have a slinky problem.

The #2 problem that bothers me, is the coupler being oversized...I mean a LOT oversized....and since the GOEMON coupler is evidently the same size as the regular MTL N-scale coupler in width and height, even if its detailing is quite a bit better than the MTL, it will still look OVERSIZED...a LOT oversized.

With state-of-the-art materials and injection mold designing and manufacturing technology, (or 3D UV resin printer technology) it should not be an insurmountable problem to design a non-slinky, scale-sized, realistic-looking, robust, self-centering N-scale coupler with realistic looking draft gear boxes, that easily uncouples with a toothpick or supplied uncoupling tool (Forget anything magnetic).

Just sayin'....and starting to think seriously about this....

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

With state-of-the-art materials and injection mold designing and manufacturing technology, (or 3D UV resin printer technology) it should not be an insurmountable problem to design a non-slinky, scale-sized, realistic-looking, robust, self-centering N-scale coupler with realistic looking draft gear boxes, that easily uncouples with a toothpick or supplied uncoupling tool (Forget anything magnetic).

Just sayin'....and starting to think seriously about this....

Well Bob, I'm just as puzzled as you why the model companies keep coming up with brand new coupler designs, yet none are made appreciably smaller or more realisitic-looking. Some are slink-free, but their springing is sub-par. The plastic whisker springs are too stiff and the knuckle springs look terrible and are easily lost.

[EmdFan]

Yes, imagine even more couplers on the market...

[wazzou]

Nothing worse than when the image is no bigger than the thumbnail, once clicked on.

[ednadolski]

Well Bob, I'm just as puzzled as you why the model companies keep coming up with brand new coupler designs, yet none are made appreciably smaller or more realisitic-looking.

I'd figure the perception is that doing anything too different from existing designs would have too much risk of reducing their sales -- i.e. , not compatible, not enough buyers who care about the smaller size (or would even see it as a negative).   And there are plenty of people who simply do not care about the slinky, or are willing to trade it off in order to have the magnetic operation.

I'd agree with @robert3985, that an 11% size reduction simply is not worth the bother, JMHO. It's very marginal appearance improvement, yet nowhere near enough if appearance is an important factor.   Then do you convert everything (time + expense) only to have to do it all again for the next 11% that comes along (if it ever does)?

Ed

[EmdFan]

Nothing worse than when the image is no bigger than the thumbnail, once clicked on.

That's the only pic I have. A guy who knows a guy sent that pic...