MT 905 zscale couplers in bulk

[Rivet Miscounter]

Missed this the first time around, but I'd be in for a pack of 40, if the price was reasonable.

[muktown128]

Put the spring in front of the post on one end of the car and behind the post on the other end.  This should negate or balance out the slinky effect.   

[CRL]

Spring in front, spring in back, doesn’t matter. You have 2 couplers facing opposite directions, so one coupler is in compression and the connected coupler is not.

The only time this is noticeable is on the last car in the string. Increase weight of car will help dampen the effect or install retarding springs on every car. You’ll just be able to pull fewer cars per engine.

[vekelly09]

The 1128-1133 couplers (t-shank) are sprung so that the spring is only engaged during compression.  They are my go-to couplers for that reason.  I converted a lot of cheap Atlas-Austria trucks instead of buying MT -- 1128s are almost a drop-in for these.  I can absolutely confirm that there is no slinky effect during mainline use on level track or upgrades.   I do see some slinkiness during backup moves or on a steep downgrade.  The fact that the trucks are not quite as free-rolling as MTs may also help here.

I also have a bunch of MT cars, and I do have to worry about slinkiness with these.  I agree about the retarding springs -- I use 2 in each caboose, which seems to smooth out a whole train of about 15 cars.  Adding weight may help or hurt; it depends what the resonant frequency of oscillation tends to be for individual cars.  If all your cars "slink" at the same rate you have an even bigger problem.  Physics!!

Cheers

[Mike C]

 Someone in, I think , the HOn3 IO group mentioned using 2 springs in his Kadee 714 couplers to get rid of the slinky issue . I haven't tried it yet ( thinking of using Sergent couplers ) , I wonder if this would work in N scale ....Mike

[GhengisKong]

I have successfully used a cut down Kato coupler spring to eliminate slinky effect in several applications.