Announcement: All-New Rivet Counter N Scale Multi-Max

[turbowhiz]

Doesn't seem to have hurt their sales much tho.  I'm willing to bet that ST figured that most (if not all) customers would just want to replace them with MT's anyway. It would be a losing proposition for them to try to make a coupler that solved all of N-scale's historic coupler woes (with all the conflicting requirements that entails), when realistically their goal has to be to sell their product without adding cost and/or taking a critical supply chain dependency on another vendor or competitor.

Even if a 'perfect' coupler could be made to exist, a substantial number of N scalers simply would never be interested in it.  Either they would not want an aftermarket part, or they would not want something different, or the existing stuff already works well enough for their purposes not to be an issue.

Ed

Without a doubt, the coupler situation is a real blight on N scale. The quality of todays models, such as but definitely not limited to the ScaleTrains offerings, really brings to light just how HORRIBLE N scale couplers are. It doesn’t matter what form they take on; they are all terrible. I know that there would be many more scale modelers interested in N scale if the couplers weren’t so horrible… I see some incredible modeling here, but without a doubt, the couplers really bring the whole scale down.

The incredible work that @GaryHinshaw is doing highlights just how using a more scale appropriate coupler changes everything.

Let’s just suppose for a moment that the Micro Trains TSC really worked? As in coupled with forces that were equivalent to traditional MTL couplers, that stayed coupled and didn’t slink, and that accommodated tighter radius corners for example. Basically, combine the reliability of the traditional MTL coupler with the appearance of the TSC. (Short of maybe magnetic uncoupling, as well trip pins are another awful looking thing… In any scale)

How many people here would actually go to the trouble of converting equipment, assuming it was somewhat straightforward to do (as in at least 1015 type situations would be manageable, i.e. any of the scaletrains models) ? (You aren’t going to put TSC’s on typical truck mounted car on stilts models without some more work of course… And there is no way a good-looking scale coupler will accommodate existing N scale couplers. N scale couplers are so horrendously oversized they couple just fine with HO scale couplers!!)

I’m kind of with Ed, that it’s quite possible that enough people don’t care. But I’m curious as to what others think…

How many people would go all in a TSC type coupler if they worked?

[Englewood]

As long as my train doesn't come apart when I'm running, and the couplers aren't big enough to be mistaken for HO scale, I'll stick with whatever the factory supplies. The couplers on the ST autoracks aren't that much bigger than MT. But my main concern is a layout that runs problem free, even if prototype fidelity suffers a bit.

[turbowhiz]

As long as my train doesn't come apart when I'm running, and the couplers aren't big enough to be mistaken for HO scale, I'll stick with whatever the factory supplies. The couplers on the ST autoracks aren't that much bigger than MT. But my main concern is a layout that runs problem free, even if prototype fidelity suffers a bit.

I dunno... Those sure are looking close enough to be mistaken to me!

(top being a Kadee #58 "Scale" coupler and bottom being scaletrains "N scale" coupler)

[GaryHinshaw]

Well, all I can say is that I'm super happy with the LEZ coupler, especially now that I have an easy path to a custom box for any occasion. 

The only minor complaints I have about the couplers themselves are that they don't "kiss" couple quite as easily as I'd like and they could look a little better.  But no slinky, a decent size, very reliable (no spontaneous decouplings) and they mate with all existing N couplers, so I don't need to convert en masse (which made the TSC DOA for me).  And custom-designed/printed pockets are the bomb.  I predict this will be common-place in 5 years time.

I should add: I agree that the ST couplers are reliable, and that's a big part of the equation.  They mate just fine with the LEZ's too. 

[MetroRedLine]

Without a doubt, the coupler situation is a real blight on N scale. The quality of todays models, such as but definitely not limited to the ScaleTrains offerings, really brings to light just how HORRIBLE N scale couplers are. It doesn’t matter what form they take on; they are all terrible.

As a convert to N scale (15 years ago), I will say that I am glad we're all (well, those of us that matter, lol), past the rapido couplers phase of our hobby. Those ugly things were the biggest thing that kept me from converting from HO.

[jereising]

I've got a 114 car grain train that's almost all TSC, and it's one of the best runners I've got - three units up front and one as a DPU on the rear.  I also run an articulated auto rack train that is all TSC.
Unfortunately because of the lack of M-T's development it looks like I have a couple orphans that will be difficult to sell off when I take the Sub down after the convention

[peteski]

As a convert to N scale (15 years ago), I will say that I am glad we're all (well, those of us that matter, lol), past the rapido couplers phase of our hobby. Those ugly things were the biggest thing that kept me from converting from HO.

While American N scale has pretty much fully embraced knuckle couplers as a standard, lets not forget abut the rest of the world where the good ol' Arnold rapido couplers are still the current standard.  Yes, they are ugly and totally unprototypical, but they do work reliably.  If you buy any European N scale models, you can be sure they still have Arnold rapido couplers.

[turbowhiz]

I've got a 114 car grain train that's almost all TSC, and it's one of the best runners I've got - three units up front and one as a DPU on the rear.  I also run an articulated auto rack train that is all TSC.
Unfortunately because of the lack of M-T's development it looks like I have a couple orphans that will be difficult to sell off when I take the Sub down after the convention

I'm curious... Since you have worked with the TSC's, in what way would you envision further development that would increase their popularity?

 (Making them "compatible" would only ruin them in my opinion, both in appearance and their current operating characteristics..)

[jereising]

from @turbowhiz: I'm curious... Since you have worked with the TSC's, in what way would you envision further development that would increase their popularity?

They need compatibility with existing coupler boxes.  Period.  I'm not gonna trash my excellent BLMA and other cars to add that coupler, but it would be easy if they had simply made the back end 1016 compatible.  Just the back end that goes in the box.  And no metal springs.  That would be the easy fix and would solve 99% of the issues.  On that articulated train I purposely allow the couplers to swing and it works well, only issue is you have to line them up before making the hitch, and that could be another fix, especially for smaller radius curves.  And then perhaps over - and underslung but that's beginning to be a lot of engineering.  But you must admit they look great.  and no slinky.

[ednadolski]

How many people would go all in a TSC type coupler if they worked?

Not as many as you might think, perhaps.  When you get to a truly scale-size coupler in N, they become rather hard for some folks just to see (esp. in poor layout lighting, which is all too common), let alone trying to stick a pick in between to uncouple them, or align them so that they couple smoothly. The size alone makes conversions trickier for some.  Being incompatible with everything else is a definite drag on adoption.

Well, all I can say is that I'm super happy with the LEZ coupler, especially now that I have an easy path to a custom box for any occasion. 

The only minor complaints I have about the couplers themselves are that they don't "kiss" couple quite as easily as I'd like and they could look a little better.  But no slinky, a decent size, very reliable (no spontaneous decouplings) and they mate with all existing N couplers, so I don't need to convert en masse (which made the TSC DOA for me).  And custom-designed/printed pockets are the bomb.  I predict this will be common-place in 5 years time.

I'm probably the only one aside from Gary who has run the LEZs on more than a small handful of cars, and I agree that they have some very good points.  On my old layout I could run a +60 car train up a >2% grade with curves as small as 16" radius very reliably without any problems. OTOH my cars with MT couplers would slinky/pogo like crazy, and uncouple themselves spontaneously on downhill grades.   I do agree that the LEZs typically operate a rather 'stiff', and you need a light touch to uncouple them (I'm still figuring out a tool to make that easier).  One thing I do when switching on the layout is set a small weight on the track behind a string of cars that is being coupled, a step I refer to as 'setting the brakes'

WRT the slinky, the LEZs have no spring in them to induce or exacerbate that kind of oscillation.  I love that I can watch my rolling stock glide along even at very slow speeds (equivalent to a scale walking speed) or watch a long train start up or crawl to a stop very gradually without the individual cars ping-ponging against each other like a kid's toy.

I'm not sure I agree that LEZs will ever come into common use, but that is a reflection of other factors than the couplers themselves.

I know that there would be many more scale modelers interested in N scale if the couplers weren’t so horrible…

I have to honestly admit that if I had not come across the LEZs that I very likely would have stopped doing N scale a long time ago.   In HO scale you have Sergent couplers, and in O scale you have Protocraft SGs (with working cut levers!).   If coupling action is your thing, you can't beat those, but that level of behavior is impractical to achieve in N scale.  Size does come with its trade-offs.

Ed

[ednadolski]

But you must admit [the TSCs] look great.

Of themselves, yes, modulo being able to see them since they are so small.   They do make for a rather odd juxtaposition next to all the chunky/oversized end details of most N-scale cars, including the dramatically oversized MT coupler boxes.   (It seems a bit strange, considering all the oversized components, to reduce the one critically operational component to a size that makes it harder to use.)

Ed

[Rivet Miscounter]

you need a light touch to uncouple them (I'm still figuring out a tool to make that easier).

Interested.

[GaryHinshaw]

(I'm still figuring out a tool to make that easier).

I've been taking used Micro-brushes (the white ones) and cutting the brush head off to make a fine chisel point on a stick.  The point slips right into the LEZ couplers and disengages them.

I'm not sure I agree that LEZs will ever come into common use, but that is a reflection of other factors than the couplers themselves.

I should clarify: I meant that 3-d printing custom designed parts will be commonplace, not necessarily the adoption of LEZ couplers (though that will certainly lower the barrier).

[pmpexpress]

Were the Multi-Max cars designed to accept either the Micro-Trains 1015 or 1016 Magne-Matic knuckle couplers (i.e., without any end user modifications) as was the case with previous runs of ScaleTrains locomotives?

[Jbub]

Were the Multi-Max cars designed to accept either the Micro-Trains 1015 or 1016 Magne-Matic knuckle couplers (i.e., without any end user modifications) as was the case with previous runs of ScaleTrains locomotives?

I would assume so. Looking at the coupler pocket cover, it does have the little hole that is needed for MT couplers to work. There is some piping detail that needs to be removed to get the cover off.