Coupler choices?

[bbussey]

I'm using fully magnetic uncoupling quite successfully, but if a car is actually in switching rotation (and not eye candy in a fixed train) it has to be MT.  But over the years, looking a my older cars, the size of the knuckle sure grew from the originals...

Kadee/MTL "fanned out" the coupler head so that the body mounting height didn't have to be so precise.  They also added the bump on the side to help keep the knuckles in alignment when operating through the uncoupling process, and the reverse draft angle so that the mold lines wound interfere with the normal functionality of being pulled.

The 1015 family of couplers has the uncoupling spring in front of the pivot post, so the couplers only oscillate when being pushed.  The original 1023 design and the conversion kit couplers from that era have the spring behind the post, so they oscillate when the cars are being pulled.  An axle spring on each car does minimize the oscillation and still allows you to pull a prototypical number of cars per engine in a freight consist.

With passenger equipment, ALM and ALM-clone operating diaphragms eliminate the oscillation as the spring action of the diaphragms offsets it.
 

[sd45elect2000]

Yeah, that part I never enjoyed.  There's probably another solution to pin those two pieces together.

Jason

I use a tiny screwdriver and an aroma therapy candle.

Randy

[peteski]

The 1015 family of couplers has the uncoupling spring in front of the pivot post, so the couplers only oscillate when being pushed.  The original 1023 design and the conversion kit couplers from that era have the spring behind the post, so they oscillate when the cars are being pulled.  An axle spring on each car does minimize the oscillation and still allows you to pull a prototypical number of cars per engine in a freight consist.

Either design will oscillate while being pulled and pushed when some slack develops in the train as it travels on level track (since no track is really perfectly flat).  Just ask any of the "slack haters" here and they will confirm that.  Slinking only occurs when a train consisting of very free rolling cars isn't under either tension or compression.

[PJPickard]

I'd never heard of the LEZ coupler...so I of course googled it.

[turbowhiz]

@6axlepwr,

I’m as confident as I can be that I’ll be shipping N-Possible SCALE couplers this year.

They will be TSC compatible; If you decide to go the TSC route, you will have a more adaptable, functional option soon. Beware that unless you really extensively modify TSC’s that you might find certain car length/track/switch combinations will be problematic.

I was in a similar situation to yourself a couple of years ago, trying to figure out what coupler system to use myself coming from HO. I couldn’t accept the overscale N scale couplers, so I needed to find something better. Turns out that I had to develop it myself to truly satisfy my own requirements.

Andrew

[Spades]

I am a fan of the accumate, wish I could buy them in bulk. I also manually uncouple, so I trim the trip pins. This eliminates a lot of problems.

[PJPickard]

Andrew,

I really hope you get them this year...I am waiting to see before I convert a bunch of cars. I also replied on your youtube video.

[SAH]

I am a fan of the accumate, wish I could buy them in bulk. I also manually uncouple, so I trim the trip pins. This eliminates a lot of problems.

So, I'm NOT the only one.     Unhappy with MT slinky action and no longer willing to wait for for the ultimate solution I went 100% with Accumates.  I've become quite adept at figuring ways to mount them on all the rolling stock likely to show up in the era I'm modeling (1960 +/-).  There's only one style, which is a feature not a bug IMO.  After a half dozen ops sessions and lots of solo play time I'm very please with my choice.  But yes, I sure wish they could be purchased in bulk.