Grapevine, Texas NTS 2023 - Announcements

[samusi01]

Was there any info on the timing of the JTC/Vlk coupler release?

My impression when speaking with them was Q4/23... could be quite wrong on that but it didn't seem that far off.

[Mdrzycimski]

Yes.  JTC told me the end of this year for the coupler release.

[peteski]

Was there any info on the timing of the JTC/Vlk coupler release?  The photo suggests that 10 packs are already available, but there is no info on the JTC web site yet, nor in any of the usual online outlets.  JTC has a solid track record for delivering, so this news has my full attention.

Just want to mention that if that coupler has a shank design similar to what was used on Arnold S1, it will be "slinky". I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Funny that JTC calls it VRK (I know, it is an acronym).  While modelers were calling it a VLK coupler, Charlie uses the name '"RMR" for it.  Nice that Charlie and Mark get the credit for its design. We had a good discussion about that coupler in https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=51455.0

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks guys, good to know these are imminent.  JTC definitely has a proven track record for delivering.

@peteski , thanks for the reminder about that thread.  It will be interesting to see of the VRK uses a centring spring like the Arnold model or a cast spring like the BLI model.  Perhaps @JaxTerminal could comment.  Here is a quick shot comparing a standard MTL (bottom), the RMR (middle) and one of the LEZ's I've been slowly converting to (top):



Here's a side view showing that the LEZ and RMR are about the same height (and the RMR looks better from the side):



I'm very happy with the LEZ, but their limited availability is concerning, and the lack of a box means conversion is slow (at least for me).  If the VRK is well made; reliable; does not slinky (too much?); comes in a variety of styles from a proven manufacturer; and offers drop-in-place conversion with the newer body-mount stock, then I will be sorely tempted to convert en masse.

I have ~400 cars and ~40 locos on the layout, with couplers from at least 8 manufacturers*, and spotty inter-operability is one of the biggest frustrations I have.  Fingers crossed!

* MTL, MTL clone, Kato, Scale Trains, McHenry, Accumate, LEZ, AZL.

[ednadolski]

If the VRK is well made; reliable; does not slinky (too much?); comes in a variety of styles from a proven manufacturer; and offers drop-in-place conversion with the newer body-mount stock, then I will be sorely tempted to convert en masse.

Hopefully it couples more easily than the LEZ, which was always kinda stiff.  Wasn't a problem for me when I was mostly into running long trains, tho with switching ops, smoothness now is a larger factor for me.  Plus, the LEZ is seemingly living on borrowed time.  That being said, I am also with @robert3985 in hoping for a small a box as possible, but we shall see.

It will also be interesting to compare vs. the N-Possible (plus perhaps even eventually the Protomate).

(Generally tho, I have stopped holding my breath on N-scale couplers.  If I want couplers that are reliable and work really well, I'd have to go to the HO Inventive Models (Sergent successors)).

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

Agreed on all counts Ed.  The big difference between the VRK and the N-Possible (and Protomate) is that - suddenly - there is an excellent chance I can have them in my hands by the end of the year. 

Also, given the size of my fleet, and my commitment to ops, I'm very concerned about the all or nothing aspect of the N-Possible.  There is really no hope that I could convert my on-layout stock between sessions, and if I don't that throws a pretty big monkey wrench in the system.  Never say never though...

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I just can't start converting to a new coupler unless:
1. It does not use a metal spring.
2. It comes in several shaft lengths. 
3. It Comes in under slug shanks.
4. Will readily fit inside a 1015 box, or Accumate/McHenry boxes.
5. It just works.

Some of my equipment is already on its fourth set of couplers. lots of newer cars have a coupler box built in, but with no provision for the pins MTL uses to center the coupler with metal spring.

[peteski]

Hopefully it couples more easily than the LEZ, which was always kinda stiff.  Wasn't a problem for me when I was mostly into running long trains, tho with switching ops, smoothness now is a larger factor for me.  Plus, the LEZ is seemingly living on borrowed time.  That being said, I am also with @robert3985 in hoping for a small a box as possible, but we shall see.

It will also be interesting to compare vs. the N-Possible (plus perhaps even eventually the Protomate).

The VRK (like the RMR version Atlas used is oversize, but should be compatible with all the N scale oversize couplers, and with the MTL and LEZ Z scale couplers).  That makes it easier to adapt them when one has a large rolling stock collection.

The MTL TSC and the N-Possible couplers have scale size, but are incompatible with other knuckle couplers. At least that is what i recall reading.  So converting to those will be a much larger task.

I do agree that it would be better if those couplers came with smaller boxes (like MTL 1023), but it seems that the larger style MTL box has become the standard one used in most rolling stock (truck- and body-mount).  Back in the '70s the 1023s were direct fit for body mounting on the Kadee Micro-Trains diecast boxcar floor. The floor  included a mounting pad with a screw hole already present for the conversion.  Back in the '80s I used 1023s to do body mount conversion of dozens of Atlas boxcars.  The smaller coupler box does look better than the 1015-style boxes.

[peteski]

I just can't start converting to a new coupler unless:
1. It does not use a metal spring.
2. It comes in several shaft lengths. 
3. It Comes in under slug shanks.
4. Will readily fit inside a 1015 box, or Accumate/McHenry boxes.
5. It just works.

Some of my equipment is already on its fourth set of couplers. lots of newer cars have a coupler box built in, but with no provision for the pins MTL uses to center the coupler with metal spring.

The Protomate prototype drawings shown to us had a metal loop spring without slinking, and without the need for the pins on the shank.  Personally I don't like the plastic whisker springs because they are either too stiff, or lose their springiness over time.  To me metal is the way to go.

[robert3985]

As to the possibility of Peco introducing an "American Profile" line of N-scale Code55 track...

I would hope they'd be able to do it using their imbedded Code83 rail protocol.  Why?  I've never viewed this as a major problem, and it opens up the possibility of close to scale sized tieplates and spikehead details since these would be purely cosmetic.

I've never liked the overly complicated Peco turnouts...any version of them.  Prototype turnouts, that have tons and tons of actual weight rolling over them, are NOT complicated machines, and why Peco keeps insisting on over-complicating things is beyond me.

Which is one reason I think ME #6's are the best N-scale turnouts available, because they are the closest to both prototype sized and hand-laid turnouts...and are simple.

If Peco decides to go with real Code55 rails, this does NOT automatically mean that pizza-cutters won't work on them.  Pizza cutters run just fine on old Rail Craft Code55 flex, and on newer Micro Engineering Code55 flex, both with functional "spikeheads" holding the rails to the ties.  Just got to make the spikeheads short enough.  Pizza cutters work fine on hand-laid Code40 PCB track too, so with Code55 rails you've got at least 0.015" to work with as far as any rail attachment spikeheads (hopefully they'll look like spikeheads) they decide to do.

I'm not impressed with their mockups.  Lots of things wrong with them, including the too-wide under-the-rail between-ties stringers, which are wider than the railfoot.  Why is that?  No good reason I can see other than sloppy design.

I'm not about to tell a company that they shouldn't make a new N-scale Code55 North American track product because it's not Ntrak compatible!  Joiner tracks are crap and aren't needed as my own modular design shows very well and as the modular standards for Free-oN show.  It's 1970's thinking.  Joiner tracks are lowest-common-denominator thinking, and are the main problem areas for Ntrak setups as anybody who has ever set up an Ntrak layout knows very well.  Get rid of 'em...

If Peco decides to actually look at prototype drawings and design their track and turnouts to both look realistic and function realistically, then there's no need for joining "real" Code55 rails to embedded Code83 rails...and if there happens to be, it's not a big deal.

As for "robustness"...since I've been using Code55 flex and hand-laid Code40 PCB track since the late 1970's on portable modules and my portable modular layout, I've never...NEVER...had a problem with any lack of durability with either Code55 or Code40 rails.  In fact, the main problems with track durability in Ntrak were due to the loose rail on Atlas80 trackage.  But, I don't walk around with my knees on my layout, nor do I drop hammers or anvils on my track.

Frankly, I don't really care how Peco does it, as long as their flex has correctly sized and spaced ties with near-scale-sized tieplates and spikheads...and that their turnouts are simplified to a much more prototypical/hand-laid look.

We'll see...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore 

[peteski]

I've never liked the overly complicated Peco turnouts...any version of them.  Prototype turnouts, that have tons and tons of actual weight rolling over them, are NOT complicated machines, and why Peco keeps insisting on over-complicating things is beyond me.

Could you expand on this Bob?  What is over-complicated on those turnouts.  My friend's layout has all PECO turnouts (c55 insul- and electro-frogs) and I don't really notice anything about them that would be complicated.  I actually prefer the look of the frogs made from continuous rail (not separate metal castings).  Shinohara C70 turnouts were also made that way. The guard rails are plastic, but I don't find that too objectionable as those are usually rusty in 1:1 turnouts).  The throw bar is not ideal, but I don't see any over-complication.

I have no experience with the recent metal/plastic unifrogs, but to me they are totally unnecessary and complicated (and look like crap), but other than seeing photos of them I have no hands-on experience.

[Sokramiketes]

I bet he's looking down and smiling!!!!! 

One wonders if Charlie Vlk's getting more done upstairs than he was downstairs!  Now he can pretend to be the voice of god!  LOL

[Sokramiketes]

Yes, the beauty and robustness of Peco Code 55 has been the embedded, double base Code 80 rail. 

1) Rail joiners go on below rail level and get hidden in ballast!
2) There is more rigidity to the track
3) Completely scale size spike heads can be molded

And it's still about 20 secs of work with a rail nipper and file to trim the excess rail to allow it to join with other Code 55 products.

But, if it's robust and scale, man, I won't need any other track product.  So fix that throwbar situation on the mockups too!

[nstars]

Could you expand on this Bob?  What is over-complicated on those turnouts.  My friend's layout has all PECO turnouts (c55 insul- and electro-frogs) and I don't really notice anything about them that would be complicated.  I actually prefer the look of the frogs made from continuous rail (not separate metal castings).  Shinohara C70 turnouts were also made that way. The guard rails are plastic, but I don't find that too objectionable as those are usually rusty in 1:1 turnouts).  The throw bar is not ideal, but I don't see any over-complication.

I have no experience with the recent metal/plastic unifrogs, but to me they are totally unnecessary and complicated (and look like crap), but other than seeing photos of them I have no hands-on experience.

The unifrogs are also very good. We have both the classic electrofrog and the unifrog. The older insulfrogs did create some problems (shorting at the frog and wheels picking the frog) but not the electrofrog and unifrog. ‘Officially’ the electrofrogs are not DCC friendly but we never had any problems with it. We’re using DCC since 1994 and with many different brands of rolling stock. The nice part of the unifrog is that it is DCC friendly and powering the frog has been made very easy. And they remain very sturdy.

Marc

[mike_lawyer]

I am really hoping the Peco North American line is made right.  The biggest things for me is to meet NMRA specifications right out of the box, have an isolated frog for powering, and a stong robust throwbar plastic, and North American tie spacing.

Bottom line is that in this day and age, we should have turnouts tthat work flawlessly right out of the box, with maybe only minor tweaking necessary here and there.