Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[nkalanaga]

My opinion, based only on reading this topic, is that, if switching is your bag, you'd be much better off using the Z/Nn3 903/905 couplers.  We know they work as well as the standard N couplers, if installed carefully, and they're almost scale size. 

[nscaler711]

So my question is @Shipsure or any beta testers out there will these couplers work with Katos? Kato couplers are already semi scale, and share a similar profile...
I only ask because I have never had a problem with Katos... And probably wont replace couplers on my locos...

[robert3985]

Um...Nn3 and Z Scale MTL couplers are one and the zame
https://www.micro-trains.com/index.php?route=product/product&search=Nn3&description=true&product_id=378

REALLY????       

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

In all honesty, I am leaning towards converting all of my modern equipment to the scale couplers AND using it on my switching layout. We don't worry about uncoupling with a skewer, I don't see the issue of using a skewer to hold a car in place by placing it against the other end and eliminating the slinky effect....

+1

...and no slinky sproing...boing...sproing...while pushing cars around in the yard!  A more than fair trade-off IMO.

Also IMO, the 0-5-0ing of coupling and uncoupling cars is more prototypical than letting a magnet do the trick.  Prototypically, coupling and uncoupling involves hands-on effort...so, the extra hand movements in N-scale to switch cars is a plus for me.  It's just not what we're used to.....YET

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

The whole point of a True scale coupler is for it to be, well, close to true scale for those of us who care about such things. You can't have it mate with other oversize knuckle couplers any more than you can couple MT's with Rapidos.
If you design it to couple with other knuckles, you have to compromise the scale size and have yet another oversize coupler; why bother.
Otto

+1

Well said!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[jdcolombo]

So to summarize the discussion so far (for those who join late and aren't up to reading 13 pages of posts):

1.  If magnetic uncoupling is important to you, then you can't use this new coupler.
2.  If you never use your hands or an uncoupling tool (or a bumper) to hold a car in place while coupling on to it, this new coupler is not for you.
3.  If you want a scale-size coupler that (a) looks great, (b) simulates close-coupling on the prototype, (c) is easier to install than an MT Z-scale coupler, (d) eliminates the slinky effect, AND (e) don't mind using a Rix-type tool for uncoupling, (f) don't mind holding a car in place if necessary to couple on another car or engine, and (g) don't mind replacing the couplers on your entire fleet (and (h) have all cars that would take an MT1015), then go for it!

I'm in category 3 sort of (I have a couple-dozen older freight cars that might be hard to convert; will have to think about that). YMMV.

John C.

[robert3985]

Count me as part of this group, I'm already used to the compromises required to operate with Z scale couplers and I'm looking forward to getting my hands on these new couplers to put a few theories into practice and see how much I can improve their performance.
I'm not expecting perfection but I think there is room for improvements... 

"Perfection" is indeed an elusive target!  However, I will also be doing some tinkering with these to see if I can get them to couple easier, as well as incorporating retarder springs (I have a million of them) on my existing freight cars.  Since my maximum train length on my layout is 9' (to fit into my shortest center passing siding) I'll only be pulling 30 to 35 cars.  The retarder springs shouldn't do anything negative whatsoever on trains of that length consisting of cars that need to be cut and switched.

Looking closely at the design of these, it appears to me that the "whiskers" are the culprit in the ease-of-coupling dilemma.  This will be the first area I'll be messing with on my first batch I purchase.  Should NOT be too difficult to thin up the whiskers a bit.  I don't think that friction between interior parts made of slick, self-lubricating engineering plastic is the problem, and lubing (except with Kadee Grease-Em or an equivalent...if there is one) would NOT decrease friction, especially with a wet lube.

Also, looks like there's gonna be a ready market for 3D printed coupler boxes and adapters to make these work on what they don't work on now.  I don't know what MTL's patent includes, but I hope adapter coupler boxes don't infringe...and I can't see how they would...but, the world of patents is an odd place so I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

"Rubbing my hands together in anticipation!   "

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[RAILCAT]

Thank you MTL for offering these, looking forward to installing these on my coal drags.

[Maletrain]

"Looking closely at the design of these, it appears to me that the "whiskers" are the culprit in the ease-of-coupling dilemma.  This will be the first area I'll be messing with on my first batch I purchase.  Should NOT be too difficult to thin up the whiskers a bit.  I don't think that friction between interior parts made of slick, self-lubricating engineering plastic is the problem, and lubing (except with Kadee Grease-Em or an equivalent...if there is one) would NOT decrease friction, especially with a wet lube."

I think of this about like I think of a "trigger job" on a handgun trigger.  There are two primary factors: friction and spring force.  The spring force is needed to make things function properly, and cannot be reduced a whole lot.  But, friction is not necessary to function and should be reduced as much as possible.  And, since the sprinag force needs to be able to overcome friction as well as perform the needed functions, it can be reduced some after the friction is reduced to minimum.

Reducing friction involves smoothing surfaces and lubrication.  I am not going to assume that the mass-cast coupler parts are as friction free as possible. Flash is obvioulsy going to hurt if it is on contact areas, as will surface irregulatities. And, Delrin is  not a slippery as graphite.  So, I am going to concentrate on smoothing and then polishing contact areas, then coating them with graphite. 

When things slide against each other with minimal friction, then I will look into thinning the "spring arms" if I am not satisfied with the coupling action.  Those arms, along with the pockets they fit in the coupler box, provide the forces needed to center the coupler and to keep the knuckle closed unless being levered by pushing it against the knuckle on another coupler (one of the areas where friction needs to be minimal).  I am already wondering if those spring arms are going to subject to fatigue from lots of flexing, and become the Achillies heal of this design by breaking often.  So, I am going to be very careful about doing anything to those arms.  Smoothing and dry-lubing them should not be a problem.  But, I suspect that thinning them needs to be done in ways that do not concentrate the flexing stress into smaller sections of the arms.  So, my first attempt would be to thin the arms by tapering them slightly toward the end.  But, from only looking at the pictures, I am not sure how the clearances between the spring ends and the pocket boxes affect the various functions of the coupler.  And, I notice that there are slight recesses in the surface where the spring arm connects to the pivot ring on the long-shank version, but apparently not on the short shanki version.  Those recesses look like stress risers to me, so I wonder it they are there intentionally for some functional purpose. I am going to need to actually play with these in my hands to understand exactly what is important to the functions before I will know if I can reduce the spring forces enough to matter without affecting function of longevity.

[jpwisc]

I look forward to getting my hands on some and trying them out for myself in some real life applications on my own layout. I already know I'm in for some for photo shoot purposes. Once I try them in person, I will share my findings with the group.

[ednadolski]

Also IMO, the 0-5-0ing of coupling and uncoupling cars is more prototypical than letting a magnet do the trick.  Prototypically, coupling and uncoupling involves hands-on effort...so, the extra hand movements in N-scale to switch cars is a plus for me.

I think if you wanted to get any more prototypical with coupling, one would have to go to Proto:48, where it is possible to have functional pins, pin lifters, and knuckles (and even magnetic air hoses and working brakes!  ).   Plus with my aging eyes I can even actually see what I am doing... 

For N scale, I want to run very long trains in 'railfan' mode, with close coupling and no slinky.   So for me these MTs are just what the doctor ordered.  My only real decision is if I want to switch over the cars that I have already converted to LEZs, but that is something I can defer.

Ed

[Mark5]

This is a great move by MTL - finally a more proto option that will be readily available.

Kudos to MTL.

[JoeD]

As Bryan and others have said this is being provided as an option or an accessory not to replace the existing coupler.  I think the standard for size and shape was established long before some of us were born and it is what it is.  If you need to do hands free with a smaller coupler, the 905 is a great option, one I have used for most of my time at MTL.  I wanted to give you guys something that would make your consists look more prototypical, closer coupling and hold together when you run them at affordable prices.  I had no illusion that those who focus on switching puzzles or have tons of yard work would blindly switch over.  I can't tell you the exact force required to couple cars, but it doesn't take much.  Older couplers that have been used a bit seem looser and I have successfully bumped into a single car and coupled hands free...take from that what you can I guess.  God gave us fingers, so I am not opposed to using them when I play with my trains .  I know others have higher expectations for their N scale modeling and I respect that and hear your wishes.  We are also working on limits of manufacturing when it comes to material thicknesses and the like.  Thinning down the whiskers might give you better "whisper" coupling  but we are at the limits where they are given the geometry.  This is also not the be all, end all either...consider it the first shot and as we progress new solutions may present themselves. 

I had in mind club and show runs, no slinky oversized couplers, mu'd locomotives, unit trains and competition models when we designed this coupler...all of which I think these address nicely.  The body mount version seemed the best to lead with because it would work in a ton of applications and with other manufactures engines out of the box, but also see a wider need for shanks that fit existing truck mount couplers an we are looking at that.  I had considered doing scale draft gear boxes, and unlike the unfortunate comment by one notable member alluding to a core incompetence being expected, talked long and hard about that.  I think its something that should be done, but if we did it out of the box that same person would have accused us of making a product that required too much shimming and fiddling to work.  So we can't be all things to everyone.  I hope you all see it for what it is and help us make it better. 

I do like the idea of getting to the point where we could include them with cars...probably the weathered ones would be most appropriate.   I have a list of ideas for expanding this, depending on sales and acceptance and will keep everyone posted as we move forward.  I also want to thank the beta testers who to the man went above and beyond evaluating this for us.  The feed back was honest and helpful and allowed us to move forward with something we felt good about offering.

[jmlaboda]

Prototypically, coupling and uncoupling involves hands-on effort...

Wanna bet?  Hate to say it but if you do, you loose...

Norfolk Southern has had a device that allows the operator of a helper set to automatically uncouple the helper from the train simply by pushing a button (shades of electro-magnetic uncoupling).  To learn more read here (this devise is also in use on eastbound coal trains heading to Norfolk where helpers are required to help overcome ruling grades):

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/67016.aspx

[wcfn100]

Looking closely at the design of these, it appears to me that the "whiskers" are the culprit in the ease-of-coupling dilemma.

I don't think the whiskers are the problem.  In fact, I think making them weaker will make coupling harder to do.

I think the issue is just the fact of trying to couple two closed faces together.


Jason