Intermountain Responds

[ryan_wilkerson]

NOW that would be something to look forward to.

I'm guessing it was a copy/paste error from "metal wheels" or a carryover from a larger scale.

[signalmaintainer]

I'm guessing it was a copy/paste error from "metal wheels" or a carryover from a larger scale.

You guessed wrong.

What N scale needs is an operating scale coupler that looks and acts like a real coupler, sans the lift pin, which would be impractical. No trip pins, no slinky, no visible springs a la McHenry, no resorting to Z scale couplers, no boxing gloves, no odd shapes, no dummy couplers -- none of the work-around, compromised nonsense of the past 50-plus years.

If IM makes it out of metal for N scale -- which I favor based on prior experience in HO with KD 5s and 58s -- or MT makes it out of Delrin, or some as-yet unknown enterprise figures out how to make it out of recycled cat kitter, I don't care -- just get us on par with HO and O.

[Mark5]

Look forward to? Why would (die-cast) metal be better than slippery plastic (Delrin)? It is lot like we routinely break the plastic knuckles pulling 100 car trains.  The roughness of the metal would make coupling harder.  MTL even recommends not painting the couplers for smoothest coupling.  Some things that companies come up with  (in the name of being different) just don't make sense.

Kadee HO couplers have been metal forever. Not sure if that can be scaled down to N though.

[Englewood]

Operating lift pins. We need operating lift pins.

[signalmaintainer]

Operating lift pins. We need operating lift pins.

Only if they're steel! No substitutes

[signalmaintainer]

Only if they're steel! No substitutes! 

[ednadolski]

What N scale needs is an operating scale coupler that looks and acts like a real coupler, sans the lift pin, which would be impractical. No trip pins, no slinky, no visible springs a la McHenry, no resorting to Z scale couplers, no boxing gloves, no odd shapes, no dummy couplers -- none of the work-around, compromised nonsense of the past 50-plus years.

A genuine, to scale coupler in N scale would probably be too small for a substantial number of N scalers.  Plus you immediately run into the incompatible-with-all-other-existing-couplers issue.  Taken together these present a formidable barrier to real-world adoption.  But if you wish, you could go ahead and try to adapt the Sergent design, since that has been released to the public domain, and even the CAD files are available to be downloaded.

WRT slinky, that is also to some degree a consequence of free-rolling wheelsets.  I’ve observed slinky oscillations in HO and O scale cars, as well as N, even with no springs in the couplers at all.   (Having springs in the couplers does of course make it a lot worse, given the right conditions.)

Ed

[CBQ Fan]

Real trains have a slinky effect in the real world. I would be interested to see drone footage of a real train demonstrating this and compare it to a similar perspective of a model train comprised of each style of coupler.

[Mark5]

Real trains have a slinky effect in the real world.

True. I think when most people complain it is the excess "slinky effect" that they are referring to.

[CBQ Fan]

True. I think when most people complain it is the excess "slinky effect" that they are referring to.

That is exactly why I am interested in the comparison, to see how excessive compares with the prototype.

[Tad_T]

That is exactly why I am interested in the comparison, to see how excessive compares with the prototype.

The AD&N’s mainline had several miles of this type of terrain. I bet it took a lot of work from the engineer to reduce the “slinky effect” this run.

[Missaberoad]

That is exactly why I am interested in the comparison, to see how excessive compares with the prototype.

If prototype trains had as much slinky as microtrains couplers have they would be all over the ground...

You notice an excess of cushioned drawbars in a train but you dont see cars bouncing like MTs do...

And slack running in and out is different.

[thomasjmdavis]

True. I think when most people complain it is the excess "slinky effect" that they are referring to.

Maybe what we need are N scale functioning tightlock couplers.

[nkalanaga]

The big reason "slinky" is more noticeable in N scale is the time factor.  The springs react much faster at small scales, so the movement is more noticeable. 

Movie special effects crews have a similar issue with gravity.  A scale model simply falls faster than it should, based on the scale factor, so falling models have to be filmed at a higher speed, to get the fall time right.

True scale couplers would have another issue- curves.  A prototype GP38 will go through a 140 ft radius curve, according to the GM Operator's Manual, June, 1970.  That's 10.5 inches in N scale, so running one on an 11 inch radius curve is prototypically practical.

Coupled to a 50 ft boxcar, the limit is 302 ft radius, due to limited coupler swing.  That's 22.65 inches, so most model railroads couldn't run the combination.

I once saw the Yakima Valley Transportation electric railroad in Yakima, WA pull a 89 ft flatcar around a city intersection curve.  The car would go, no problems with the trucks.  But they had to disconnect the brake rigging from the trucks, then tow the car around with a chain, which blocked the intersection for some time.  I was in 6th grade at the time, on a school field trip, so had a great view from the school bus seat!

[ednadolski]

That is exactly why I am interested in the comparison, to see how excessive compares with the prototype.

/>
Note esp. the centerbeam and the cars that follow.

I don’t have one of the prototype, but I don’t think one that did this would stay in one piece for very long.

Ed