Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[learmoia]

Ian, how does the weight of the cars you are using for these tests compare to the NMRA standard?  I know from personal experience that this can make a big difference, especially when traveling over switches.

I'm using out of the box cars with no extra weight.  I don't believe in adding weight to improve performance (in most cases).. If your having derailments.. it's not because of the weight of the car.. it's track work, wheel gauge, truck swing, coupler issue, ect...

Most of which can be hidden by putting more weight in the car.

But so far, I'm using MT cars which (I think) are close to the recommended weight.

The tip issue would not be solved by weight..

If I had 2 locomotives, I'd have the same result.

~Ian

[C855B]

This may be worth considering:  I measured the thickness of the top of the coupler box, and mine were almost 0.030".  Some or all of the top can be filed off without hurting the function of the coupler.  It may be easier to do this than file the underside of the car.  In the past, I have tried to remove material from the undersides of cars, and getting the coupler horizontal can be problematic.

Absolutely! I am fabricating a lid out of .005" brass to save a whole boatload of work on a Bachmann 44-tonner. But like you said, if you have a flat, even surface to mount to, you can cut the top alignment pits off the box and everything will work fine... it's the flat, even part that's hard to get if you have to carve on it.

[pedro]

Has anyone else had problems getting these into the pilots on Atlas diesels? They require some filing on the sides of the box to get it to go in. This was the case with the RS-1s and GP35s (both relatively current China drives) I had on hand. Not a big deal, but I did break the thin bottom part of the pilot on a RS-1 trying to squeeze it in. I was able to re-use the Atlas flat-head screws on both.  I'm guessing the MTL -supplied screws are far too long for this particular application.

Not quite a "drop-in" replacement for 1015s, but I'm still really glad to have these. What a huge improvement.

[wmcbride]

Has anyone else had problems getting these into the pilots on Atlas diesels? They require some filing on the sides of the box to get it to go in. This was the case with the RS-1s and GP35s (both relatively current China drives) I had on hand. Not a big deal, but I did break the thin bottom part of the pilot on a RS-1 trying to squeeze it in. I was able to re-use the Atlas flat-head screws on both.  I'm guessing the MTL -supplied screws are far too long for this particular application.

Not quite a "drop-in" replacement for 1015s, but I'm still really glad to have these. What a huge improvement.

I put them in a C420. It was a bit tight but not that bad.

[wcfn100]

I got a few sets last week like what I see for the most part.  My main concern is trying to get a prototypical coupler pocket.  It looks like the short shank couplers are too short for this, so I'm looking at a long shank conversion.



I'm using the coupler hole for the screw and having a floating wedge to gain side to side motion.  I'm going to forgo the centering for now and see how it goes.

You can modify the MTL box similarly by removing the wedge from the box and replacing it with one that will pivot around the screw.  The one problem with that however is you can't tighten the screw as much as you'd like to keep the pocket from pivoting.


Jason

[chessie system fan]

The other day I tried to add a coupler to an Atlas GP38 but it wouldn't fit.  The box does need to be a hair narrower.

But if you're going to retool the box to fit most locomotives, you might as well make it look more like an actual locomotive coupler pocket.

[learmoia]

I got a few sets last week like what I see for the most part.  My main concern is trying to get a prototypical coupler pocket.  It looks like the short shank couplers are too short for this, so I'm looking at a long shank conversion.



I'm using the coupler hole for the screw and having a floating wedge to gain side to side motion.  I'm going to forgo the centering for now and see how it goes.

You can modify the MTL box similarly by removing the wedge from the box and replacing it with one that will pivot around the screw.  The one problem with that however is you can't tighten the screw as much as you'd like to keep the pocket from pivoting.


Jason

This was my first idea.. to have a floating spring board for the coupler to close but allow swing.. But what I first noticed as that many of the MT Coupler boxes don't have a back plate, so you'd need to attach something to keep the wedge from sliding out the back..

What if you kept the short shank pin in place with a two part box as you have designed
But added a screw hole to your wedge that pivoted on the 00-90 screw inside the box.
Assemble the box with the coupler in place.
Slide the wedge in to align the hole and insert screw.

Just my 2 cents.  ~Ian

[wcfn100]

This was my first idea.. to have a floating spring board for the coupler to close but allow swing.. But what I first noticed as that many of the MT Coupler boxes don't have a back plate, so you'd need to attach something to keep the wedge from sliding out the back..

Which is why mine has a back plate. 

What if you kept the short shank pin in place with a two part box as you have designed
But added a screw hole to your wedge that pivoted on the 00-90 screw inside the box.
Assemble the box with the coupler in place.
Slide the wedge in to align the hole and insert screw.

That's exactly what I'm doing, and described in my post, when using the MTL box. In regards to doing that on my coupler box, the problem is the screw then gets located at the axle where it will rub (I'm using the long shank).

Jason

[learmoia]

Which is why mine has a back plate. 

That's exactly what I'm doing, and described in my post, when using the MTL box. In regards to doing that on my coupler box, the problem is the screw then gets located at the axle where it will rub (I'm using the long shank).

Jason

The screw location isn't going to change, and is going to rub weather you use the short shank or long shank.. Unless you recess the bottom plate for the screw head and specify a flat screw head.

And my idea only works with the short shank because your long shank coupler is pivoting the coupler and block plate on the same screw

I was able to spin an Xacto blade in the bottom hole to widen the hole enough to sink the screw in just enough to clear the axle.

~Ian

[wcfn100]

The screw location isn't going to change, and is going to rub weather you use the short shank or long shank.. Unless you recess the bottom plate for the screw head and specify a flat screw head.

And my idea only works with the short shank because your long shank coupler is pivoting the coupler and block plate on the same screw

I was able to spin an Xacto blade in the bottom hole to widen the hole enough to sink the screw in just enough to clear the axle.

~Ian

The screw location does change because I'm using the long shank but with the couper face in the same location as the short shank so the screw gets moved back to the axle and because of this I can't design in the pivoting wedge.

I have thought about using a flat head screw but would really like to use the included screws from MTL.  And I can recess it because my coupler box is only .012" thick.

Regardless, I've ordered the box from Shapeways for testing and I'll go from there.  In the meantime I'm trying to get one of these into the Arnold SW-1. 

Jason

[nkalanaga]

~Ian:  I recess flathead screws on all of my 1025s.  Rather than using a knife, I use a 3/32 drill bit, spun by hand, to create the countersunk hole.  It doesn't "drill", as I don't push hard enough for it to dig in, but the end scrapes out a nice, neat area the shape of the drill tip.  It isn't quite the right angle, but close enough that the head misses the axle, and barely shows from the side.

The same method should work on these, and doesn't take nearly the care that doing it freehand would.  I have a new drill bit in my screwdriver case just for countersinking couplers.

[learmoia]

~Ian:  I recess flathead screws on all of my 1025s.  Rather than using a knife, I use a 3/32 drill bit, spun by hand, to create the countersunk hole.  It doesn't "drill", as I don't push hard enough for it to dig in, but the end scrapes out a nice, neat area the shape of the drill tip.  It isn't quite the right angle, but close enough that the head misses the axle, and barely shows from the side.

The same method should work on these, and doesn't take nearly the care that doing it freehand would.  I have a new drill bit in my screwdriver case just for countersinking couplers.

Thanks for the tip..

In regards to what Jason is working on.. I was speaking to the location of the predrilled holes in the MT cars.  Most of the bolsters put the axle right above the screw head.. but most coupler pockets account for this with counter sunk holes..

When your installing in any other car, you can put the screw where ever you want.. (or drill and tap a new hole in the MT car..)

Should have considered that in my reply.

-Ian

[MichaelWinicki]

I ordered both styles.

I'll use them between IM F's to start.

Not looking to convert the entire car fleet at this point... They would need to be a little more "forgiving" than what I anticipate them being.

[learmoia]

T-Track Trial Report:

Things went surprisingly well!!..

I set up a train of 7 cars.. Mixture of 40', 50' and 1 60' car.. (the 60' car had 1 truck mounted TC Coupler, and 1 Body mounted Coupler.

Pros:
The train ran great!!.. No undesired uncoupling!!
I ran the train around the entire layout in forward and reverse.. No issues.
The issues I found in testing some how worked themselves out on this layout.. or were unnoticeable.
Everyone was shocked by the size and were impressed by the performance.

Cons:
Fusing couplers with the welding method might not be the best idea.. I had one break.
Need to be perfectly aligned to couple. (think of any 'play' in the lateral motion of the car.. wheel gauge, track gauge, trip pin fit, ect)
They do take some force to couple.
-- Example.. I was using an Atlas S2 with sound, and I tried the pick hold method Joe mentioned.. The Locomotive could not produce enough force to couple cars.  The trick to coupling as a momentum impact coupling, but a light coupling might not work.  (I'll test this more..)
Coupling doesn't 'appear' to be much closer than normal cars.. Might be the nature of the coupler box that it comes with.
 
Overall impression is very positive in a display layout.. My hesitation is operations and switching. 

As I said before, there needs to be a bit of swing for longer cars, and I'll add self centering or lighter coupling.. or both.

~Ian

[peteski]

T-Track Trial Report:

Things went surprisingly well!!..

I set up a train of 7 cars.. Mixture of 40', 50' and 1 60' car.. (the 60' car had 1 truck mounted TC Coupler, and 1 Body mounted Coupler.

Actually that doesn't surprise me at all. T-Trak has inherently much better (smoother) trackwork than let's say NTRAK. No large gaps in the track between the modules or humps due to vertical misalignment between modules.  Instead of the track-laying quality depending on each individual module owner, the track is standardized.  Using Kato Unitrack with no loose connecting tracks pretty much makes the track bulletproof. The only possible problem could have been the tight curves or switches.