Using Z scale couplers in N

[chicken45]

How many of you use Z scale couplers in N?
Are they more fragile than N scale couplers in operation?
I use them on the fronts of steam, on my cabin cars where they make a huge difference. Also on my flat cars because they are smaller to clear the wheels.

How/when do you all use them?

Is the 905 the all purpose universal one?

[VonRyan]

I have one on the marker-light end of my brass N-5c that I cut from a Marklin F7 conversion kit. (the kind where you unscrew the marklin truck frames and screw on the MT ones)

It is there for decoration, and the only downside is that Z scale couplers tend to couple with the two piece Kato couplers quite easily (bad for DCC N-Trak layouts if all your operators aren't completely focused on their trains) as opposed to MT N scale couplers that need to be rammed if you want a kato coupler to couple with it.

Although not exactly to-scale, the McHenry couplers are quite nice in how they operate and especially in how they look with the prototypical molding, which of course would benefit if they figured out a way to eliminate the Kadee-esq spring on the side of the coupler.


-Cody F.

[ednadolski]

How many of you use Z scale couplers in N?
Are they more fragile than N scale couplers in operation?

I've been using the Bowser Z-scale coupler for N scale, in a custom coupler pocket designed by Gary H. and myself.   The coupler is plenty strong for N-scale use, as can be seen in this video:  Not a valid vimeo URL
There is an onging thread with details on this topic here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg313560#msg313560

Is the 905 the all purpose universal one?

I don't know about 'universal', but I stopped using the 905s years ago since they suffer from the same pogo/slinky design flaw that is inherent in all Micro-Trains couplers.    As a result of the pogo,  I consistently get undesired uncouplings on my MT-equipped autoracks, particularly when descending grades at low speeds.   The Bowser coupler has no spring and thus does not have any pogo/slinky issues.


Ed

[Loren Perry]

I have a twelve-car brass Santa Fe Super Chief train set that I bought back in the early 1990's at Allied Trains in Los Angeles and had to use Micro-Trains No. 905 Z-scale couplers to achieve prototypical close coupling with the rubber diaphragms. Being brass, the 12-car consist is a heavy train and I've yet to have a single false uncoupling in all the years I've run it including up stiff curving grades.

And BTW, your video of Tehachapi Loop is as perfect as anything I've seen in N-scale on video. I've actually been there, seen that, and heard those sounds in real life. It's like watching a home video of the real thing. Exceptionally well done, including the outstanding modeling. Brings chills to the spine!

I've been using the Bowser Z-scale coupler for N scale, in a custom coupler pocket designed by Gary H. and myself.   The coupler is plenty strong for N-scale use, as can be seen in this video:  Not a valid vimeo URL
There is an onging thread with details on this topic here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg313560#msg313560

I don't know about 'universal', but I stopped using the 905s years ago since they suffer from the same pogo/slinky design flaw that is inherent in all Micro-Trains couplers.    As a result of the pogo,  I consistently get undesired uncouplings on my MT-equipped autoracks, particularly when descending grades at low speeds.   The Bowser coupler has no spring and thus does not have any pogo/slinky issues.


Ed

[DKS]

http://whiteriverandnorthern.net/clinic_10.htm

[chicken45]

Nice. DKS, which do you use? the 905?

[nkalanaga]

I have 905s on a bunch of Nn3, including 30 car unit coal and are unit trains.  I also have them on 30 Atlas ore cars, and they work fine there.  The locos and caboose have N couplers, and the two work well together, false uncouplings are rare, and there's plenty of swing for the curves.

On  the other hand, I have 18 inch curves, an N ore car is shorter than many of my Nn3 cars, and lighter than some, so they SHOULD work well!

As for using them on long mixed freights, or on steep grades with heavy trains, I would have my doubts.  They're simply not as strong as the standard gauge couplers, and tend to uncouple due to the plastic bending under severe stress.

As for curves, I have them body mounted on 50 ft Nn3 passenger cars and narrow-gauged RS3s, and they'll take a 10 inch radius curve.  They don't like it, and truck swing can be an issue on some freight cars due to the narrow wheelsets, but the couplers will work.   They work on my 43 ft flatcars, with no wheel clearance problems.

[randgust]

I use them as standard equipment on all my Climax kits and prebuilts, as well as the tiny V&T ore cars.

I also use them as standard equipment on 'lead locomotive' pilots on consists where I can.

If the height is set properly, no problems.  I also rebend the trip pins and they also delay-uncouple just fine, even mixed with regular MT couplers.

I like the assembled ones.  Darn pricey though!

[muktown128]

I like the assembled ones.  Darn pricey though!

+1

I wish they were available in bulk packs.  I use them on my PRR cabin cars.

Scott

[chicken45]

+1

I wish they were available in bulk packs.  I use them on my PRR cabin cars.

Scott

Heh. They make a huge difference on our cabins! No going back!