MTL True-Scale Couplers - Recommended Height?

[Scottl]

That photo is very helpful to understand what is going on with these couplers.

Is the stiffness of those whiskers part of the coupling force?  Could you thin them a bit to reduce the force?   

The case looks like something that could be thinned with brass if a person wanted to

[reinhardtjh]

Is the stiffness of those whiskers part of the coupling force?  Could you thin them a bit to reduce the force?   

See here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=39941.msg494637#msg494637 (the attachment pic in the post doesn't survive the quoting)

For what it's worth, I started to experiment with the coupler, in an attempt to try to reduce the coupling force.  The force required to couple 2 cars together is not that great, but it is higher than MTL's standard coupler.  Anyway, the sketch below shows what I did.

(Attachment Link)

This did seem to significantly reduce the coupling force.  Initial results showed that taking the material from the "outside" of the finger spring did not otherwise affect the function of the coupler.

I submit this post as a starting point for others of you who may also want to experiment.

[nscaleSPF2]

We just had another "Verne moment" / meltdown.

He read this:  "Guess what? MTL gauge is not accurate on Micro Engineering Code 55 track. The gauge dogs are riding on the spike heads."  Then he grabbed the 2 MTL-1055 gages from the shop (one 30 years old, the other recently purchased) and a scrap piece of Atlas code 55 rail.  Dam, mike is right, he mumbled. 

Next, he measured the thicknesses of the gages, from where the top of the rail should be to the top of the gage, which is where the top of the coupler should be.  Both were exactly 0.270".  So he asked to use my computer to look up what this dimension is supposed to be, on the MTL website  https://www.micro-trains.com/publicfiles/mtl_couplerdiagrams.pdf

Lessee, 1015-1 WITHOUT spacer should be 0.293".  What?  According to the chart, 1015-1 WITH spacer should be 0.279".   He hissed something like:  This.  Doesn't.  Make.  Sense.  You should know that a lot doesn't make sense to Verne.

The next thing I know he grabs a piece of paper, a pencil and my calculator.

The last time I saw him today, he had a scrap piece of aluminum in his hand and was headed into the back of the shop.  I don't know where this is headed, but it probably isn't going to be pretty.

[C62-2]

If the shims are 0.3mm thick, it seems like the two numbers on the MTL diagram are mixed up.

[nkalanaga]

Yes, those should be reversed.  Without the spacer, the "proper" mounting height for the 1015 is 0.004 inches higher than for the 1025.  Since that's about 5/8 scale inch, I mount them the same.  Most of my mounting is accurate to about 0.01 inch, so anything less than that is within the usual errors anyway. 

[nscaleSPF2]

See, this is exactly what I was afraid of.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

You give the guy a drill press and a cross-slide vise, and he thinks he can make anything.  MTL identification used without permission.

Verne claims that he found a Chinese company that can make these for 39 cents a piece, plus shipping.  He figures that he can sell them for $19.95 each.  I told him that this wasn't going to happen.  He's lucky if he doesn't get sued by MTL for patent infringement.  This was when the tensions escalated, as I showed him that the MTL gage, used on our code 55 rail, is almost exactly the same height as his gage, 0.280" above the rail.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

At least he seemed to be slightly relieved that he won't have to re-shim the 100 cars and 20 locomotives on which he installed the MTL 1015's.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Alls well that ends well, or something like that.

[chicken45]

See, this is exactly what I was afraid of.

(Attachment Link)

You give the guy a drill press and a cross-slide vise, and he thinks he can make anything.  MTL identification used without permission.

Verne claims that he found a Chinese company that can make these for 39 cents a piece, plus shipping.  He figures that he can sell them for $19.95 each.  I told him that this wasn't going to happen.  He's lucky if he doesn't get sued by MTL for patent infringement.  This was when the tensions escalated, as I showed him that the MTL gage, used on our code 55 rail, is almost exactly the same height as his gage, 0.280" above the rail.

(Attachment Link)

At least he seemed to be slightly relieved that he won't have to re-shim the 100 cars and 20 locomotives on which he installed the MTL 1015's.

(Attachment Link)

Alls well that ends well, or something like that.

Put this in the running for "post of the year." I seriously lost my ***** reading this.

[learmoia]

Okay... so according to an AAR publication the height range is:
Freight (all I could find)
32 ½” - 34 ½” Empty
31 ½”- 33 ½” Loaded
Measured from Top of Rail to Middle of Knuckle 

So.. that would put the 'range' in N scale from 0.196875 to 0.215625

With that said,  the happy medium is 33" or 0.20625

Something to consider..

~Ian