Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[johnb]

Hey.. Stupid Idea...
I just realized that the coupler is held in place by a pin that is separate from the mounting hole...

So fitting the coupler into a 1015 box could mean an alternate 1015 box cover that has the scale coupler mounting pin and spring tabs included.

and a new coupler box for the truck mounted coupler could be another option that may be a good thing....an easy way to convert an Atlas ACF hopper....

[wmcbride]

I've been waiting for a smaller coupler like this (no slinky and no trip pin to cut) for 36 years.

Having a version that drops into all my "newer" cars that came with with body-mounted couplers is, I think, pretty important and I encourage it.

[sirenwerks]

Me lkey so far, but I definitely agree with early comment on box size the observation that they're shiny.  Casting them in a matte plastic would help us cut down on paint to remove the shinola.  Want real world feedback on performance though...

[peteski]

Ok, I have thought this through.  All of the other MT couplers are produced using simple 2-part molds. I should not expect this one to be any different, and I can't deny that it looks closer in size and general appearance to the AAR coupler than any other currently available N scale coupler.

Maybe deep down I was just resentful that they never listen to my idea to produce a drop-in MT coupler conversion to replace the unreliable Kato knuckle couplers. I would still love to see that one made.

[wazzou]

I think if they were totally cast in a matte finish, it would make what is possibly an already hard to couple coupler even more difficult.  I think we may need a slick mating surface to couple cars.
I really would like to see a video of a single car spotted in a siding with a train trying to make a joint without pushing the car to the end of the track to make said joint.

[johnb]

Me lkey so far, but I definitely agree with early comment on box size the observation that they're shiny.  Casting them in a matte plastic would help us cut down on paint to remove the shinola.  Want real world feedback on performance though...

when there is only one car, it is easier to put a finger on the roof since it can(not always) roll back. Uncoupling was real easy with a micro screwdriver. They are simple to put them together. In fact, my 10 year old daughter who is clumsy put some together when I converted my Kato/Atlas GP35. If I can figure out how to convert certain cars, I will convert my fleet.

[railnerd]

     schwinnng!

[nkalanaga]

For the "1000 car" poster:  I have almost that many, and at least 900 of them have 1025 couplers.  A few of them I know, from experience, will NOT take a 1015, mostly cars with the mounting screw directly over the axle on 100-ton trucks. 

On the other hand, the lack of magnetic uncoupling won't bother me, as I have never used it.  I do have a magnet, somewhere off the railroad, but haven't seen in in years.

I bet they'd look great on my ore car unit train.  It already has 903s, which do work with N scale couplers, so replacing all but the end couplers would be practical.

[OldEastRR]

Deja vu ..... taking the couplers off the cars you have, putting on a different kind that won't work with them, as the old couplers pile up. Jeez, I went through this with converting from Rapido to Kadee ... now do it again? With "conversion cars" to join the two types until I can afford a zillion replacement couplers? I pass.
I guess it's time for the next generation to enjoy that experience. I'll buy a few for A-A loco hookups, and to replace a few Unimate-couplered strings of cars. I have no dread of the Slinkies. But the coupler is an interesting evolution, for the next generation of N scalers.
What I wonder is how this is going to work out for the manufacturers who make their own coupler boxes but use MTL guts for the couplers? They sell the cars with MTLv.1s, and include MTLv.2s in the box? Like the old rapido/Kadees add which you want did?
The upside I see for everybody is converting modelers can sell their discarded MTLv.1s easily, and others can get them at used-coupler prices.

[peteski]

Relax Al. I doubt there will be a mass conversion going on when these get introduced.

Majority of average model railroaders are happy with whatever couplers come on the model from the factory. I also don't think manufacturers will jump on this  bandwagon either.  MTL has a patent on these new couplers so that will further limit the adoption. Look how long it took for manufacturers to stop using Rapido couplers and migrate to knuckle couplers (and only in US since the rest of the N scale world is still happily using Rapidos).  I'm pretty sure that you are safe sticking with the old MTL couplers for the rest of your lifetime. 

[Scottl]

I guess having transition cars with a new coupler on one end and a conventional on the other could help at clubs and on mixed trains.

My hope is that the cost will be reasonable.  Changing an entire fleet at current MT prices is not trivial, and for me would be a low priority. The lack of compatibility with older couplers could make for a paralytic adoption dilemma in some cases.  Compare this to metal wheels, which can be incrementally adopted with no operational limitations.

Regardless, assuming the coupling works well then I think this is a great product and one that I will try at first opportunity.

[chicken45]

Ooh.  Will this be my K4 and M1a/b pilot coupler solution?

[hminky]

Looks like they could be mounted in existing boxes by adding a lug for the coupler in front of the mounting lug.

Harold

[SP-Wolf]

I'll be giving these a try. My biggest concern would be hands free coupling. Uncoupling is not an issue in most cases on my layout. So, when these are released I'll convert a handful of cars. Then go from there.

Don't over analyse it - just play through!!

Thanks, Joe and MT!!
Wolf

[Sokramiketes]

Is the design perfect?  No.  But this represents an ability to move in the right direction.  The gathering distance needed to couple to the N scale knuckle coupler is a hindrance for scale size designs.  When you make something compatible, certain dimensions have to get stretched... so you either make it larger but at generally the right proportions (McHenry) or stretch a few dimensions to make it sorta close but distorted (New Arnold/Rapido/Vlk coupler).  Neither has the perfect look because both have tried to be interim solutions.

I don't know why the new "True Scale" coupler from MTL wasn't truly scaled from a real coupler.  (I mean, it's par for the course, so I'm not surprised either...   )  But, it can start a movement toward an entirely new set of base dimensions where other companies could make closer scale couplers that are compatible with this new range, with better detail.

It's like Sargent offering their scale Type E coupler in HO, but also having a really cheap plastic, less detailed, but compatible one-piece dummy coupler that allowed massive conversions to happen quickly, with detailed couplers going on as time and money permitted. 

MTL has the ability to mainline these new couplers, and allow the progress to follow.  Probably no other company could have started this revolution.  I hope it takes hold like we all think it might.