Next up, couplers

[mecgp7]

We have seen a ton of improvements in N scale in recent years from track to motors to low profile wheels. Next needs to be couplers. I purchased an N loco recently that had been upgraded with MTL Z scale couplers. They looked so much better than the N scale version and are compatible with the existing N scale versions. I'm wondering how hard it would be for the various companies to change the tooling for the size of the couplers without making changes to the coupler boxes, etc.?  If one considers the MTL 1015/1016s, it looks like all that would need to be changed is just the actual size of the coupler and everything else could stay the same including the "arms" of the couplers.

[ednadolski]

Our very talented and prolific David K. Smith has announced the Protomate coupler:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=26118.msg263239#msg263239

It turns out that changing the coupler is a very involved and expensive task.  Beyond simply making it smaller, there are factors such as reliability, body mounting, and eliminating the slinky/pogo effects.   It's a lot more than simply reducing the size.


Some of us have experimented with using the Full Throttle Z-scale coupler in N scale, tho it definitely is a "some assembly required" effort.

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg206834#msg206834
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg250868#msg250868
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg250919#msg250919

Here is a finished car with the FT Z couplers installed:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=26740.msg272335#msg272335



Cheers,
Ed

[jagged ben]

To me the biggest obstacle to using Z scale or otherwise scale-sized couplers is the problem of vertical uncoupling; that is, one knuckle popping over or dropping under the other.  This problem is bad enough with N scale couplers, especially Accumates with the smaller vertical face, that I simply dread how much of a problem it would be with smaller coupler faces in general.   Gary's work is beautiful, but I know that on the club layout I run on my trains simply wouldn't stay coupled.  (I realize that it is partly due to less than perfect trackwork, but it would take many years to fix all the slight problems on the club layout.) 

I do not understand why none of the manufacturer's have ever tried adding a small lip on the bottom (or top) of the knuckle to prevent this from happening.  The prototype has something akin to this.  This seems to me to be the solution.  I hope David's NZT coupler will have something like that. 

[Philip H]

I have precisely 2 cars mounted with the Full Throttle conversions (!) and as long as you set them to rid approximately in the middle of a proper height MT, then everything works fine.  Of course, I only have two set this way - patience is only a virtue for me sometimes.

[ednadolski]

I do not understand why none of the manufacturer's have ever tried adding a small lip on the bottom (or top) of the knuckle to prevent this from happening.  The prototype has something akin to this.  This seems to me to be the solution.  I hope David's NZT coupler will have something like that.

This sounds like excessive vertical play from the couplers in the pocket.   It might help to try some shims to take up the extra room.

The 'lip' on the proto is to hopefully reduce damage in the event of a derailment.   I'm not sure if it is desirable as a general 'solution' for model couplers, since it really would just be masking other problems that should be fixed.

Ed

[robert3985]

Okay...my butt is sitting on my head.  Seems like modifying a coupler (or any other functional part) to compensate for bad trackwork is counter-intuitive.  Seems to me that the current excellent trend towards finer standards (low-pro metal wheelsets w/narrow treads, separate grabs, etched details, body mounted couplers, correct car heights, etc.) has been LONG in coming, considering that when N-gauge began back in the '60's, it was a toy, intended to be set up by kids on carpet, so none of the above were going to add to the reliability of trains rocketing around a loop of track on shag carpet, nor would they be appreciated by the kid twisting the throttle.

To introduce a new coupler in N-scale (as opposed to N-gauge) that has a big booger hanging off of it to keep it from uncoupling because some people are not capable of laying track well enough to keep their trains coupled up, is catering to the wrong crowd...it's catering to the "let's set it up on the carpet" crowd.

If your present, oversized N-gauge couplers work okay on your club's lousy trackwork, then you already have a solution to the uncoupling problem...big, oversized couplers!

Those who are capable of being careful enough to lay track that is even enough so Z-gauge couplers don't uncouple (a LOT of people)  will be able to use the same sized couplers as N-scale couplers.  That's the crowd the new couplers are going to initially appeal to, and, I believe...it is who they are intended for.  Correct me if I'm wrong DKS.

To develop a near scale-sized coupler that also is cosmetically much more prototypical looking than anything presently available and also cures the slinky problem of MT couplers...THEN to expect DKS to add a highly non-prototypical wart on it in order to keep trains coupled on highly substandard track is...I'm sorry...I don't have socially acceptable terms to describe this request...

Sheesh!! 

Cheers!
Bob Gilmore

P.S.  If the size of coupler faces was a huge problem with the rest of the the model railroad community, then Z-scale trains wouldn't work with several brands of knuckle couplers presently available.  Odd that they all seem to keep trains coupled up with the vast (VAST) majority of people who use them...'x-cuse me...I'm ranting...

[bill pearce]

Good point, Bob. If smalller couplers were such a problem as many forum-ites seem to think, why is Z scale still on the market?

[Zox]

To introduce a new coupler in N-scale (as opposed to N-gauge) that has a big booger hanging off of it to keep it from uncoupling because some people are not capable of laying track well enough to keep their trains coupled up, is catering to the wrong crowd...it's catering to the "let's set it up on the carpet" crowd.

I think you over-estimate the size of the "booger" needed in N scale to help couplers remain centered on each other. "Reverse draft angle," in particular, is a phrase that comes to mind.

Also, "requires nigh-perfect trackwork to remain coupled" isn't the kind of feature you really want to advertise.

[peteski]

If smalller couplers were such a problem as many forum-ites seem to think, why is Z scale still on the market?

Maybe because it is used on .......wait.......wait ..........ummm,  Z-scale trains?  Novel idea, isn't it?   
After all, wasn't their original purpose? 

[robert3985]

I think you over-estimate the size of the "booger" needed in N scale to help couplers remain centered on each other. "Reverse draft angle," in particular, is a phrase that comes to mind.

Also, "requires nigh-perfect trackwork to remain coupled" isn't the kind of feature you really want to advertise.

"Small coupler faces" were mentioned, if I recall correctly...meaning that the present crop of Z-scale couplers used for N-scale applications are too small in several modelers' minds to compensate for crappy trackwork.  A "small lip" was mentioned as a solution to a problem that even oversized Accumates have on jagged ben's club layout trackage (which he says are "small" problems). 

First off...if it looks like a booger, smells like a booger, tastes like a booger....it's a booger.  Its size is irrelevant.  Read DKS's review of Z-scale couplers and determine for yourself if he's not concerned with "boogers" after looking at photos of the "flaw" in MT's Z-gauge coupler.

I am not aware of any advertisements for any couplers that say they need perfect trackwork.  Are you?    AND....the whole point of my rant was that both N-scale and Z-gauge knuckle couplers DO NOT require "perfect" trackwork to function properly.  If "perfect" trackwork was necessary for couplers with small coupler faces to work, then Z-scale model railroading would not be growing exponentially like it is...it probably wouldn't exist if that was such a huge problem.  Evidently, small coupler faces don't have a lot to do with a reliable coupler.

My own experience on a club layout, as well as on my own layout, is that the MT 903's I'm replacing most of my N-gauge couplers with, work just as well as the N-gauge couplers do, and the 903's  look much much better since they are sized prototypically in 5 out of 7 dimensions (from my own comparison with prototype couplers).

Here's a photo of a 903 coupled up to a scale-sized and proportioned brass dummy coupler while double-heading a couple of Key USRA Light Mikes.


Although the modules which comprise my layout, and others' modules owned by club members, do not have "perfect" trackwork (okay...it's ALMOST perfect!), when a problem occurs, the trains usually derail long before they uncouple.

As a point of fact, in my experience, uncoupling problems are rare...almost to the point of being non-existent.

Logically, any problem with trackage that consistently uncouples N-gauge couplers, or Z-gauge couplers is not a "small" problem, and is on the far end of the bell-shaped curve.

If a problem exists on my layout where trains uncouple all the time at a certain location, or derail all the time, I/we (logically) take care of the problem rather than decide to use pizza cutter wheelsets on everything, or big couplers to compensate for the crappy trackwork in that spot.

If I were a member of jagged ben's club, I'd make sure I raised the subject often...to fix the track...unless, of course, if it's an outcome-based club where everybody feels good rather than one that adheres to rules of operation and maintenance.

I'm putting my trust into DKS's design goals and genius for the miniature for a better N-scale coupler, which is why I'm not converting over to 903's at such a rapid pace as I was before I became aware of his efforts.

Cheers!
Bob Gilmore

[ednadolski]

... a scale-sized and proportioned brass dummy coupler ...

Got any extras that need a good home? 

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

I think the real challenge with any coupler is enforcing a standard height, and the smaller the coupler face, the greater the challenge.  I think that's the main point Ben was really making (and Ed was reinforcing), so let's not castigate his club for what was on offhand remark about their track.

I myself have set aside the Full Throttle project (somewhat to Ed's chagrin...) because 1) I'm concentrating on the layout build, 2) the FT couplers are not readily available without expensive trucks, and 3) DKS's Proto Mate will supersede it (I hope!).

-gfh

[Nato]

         I have mounted Microscopic (Micro) Trains ZED /Nn 3 couplers to various cars ever since they were released. No not all of my rolling stock has em,best looking conversion on Atlas shortie covered hoppers which came (come) from the factory with a body mounting pad on the ends. Back in the days when I ran long trains on Krappy N Quack (Trak) layouts I had no problem with a string of Z coupler equiped  cars sandwitched between N Scale Truck Mount Couplers coming uncoupled. I do have to agree with Bob/Robert lousey track work should be corrected in clubs to a club set standard ,if members do not have the skills to lay the track on their module then a A-Hat with the skills should be willing to help. Of course (this will set folks off) ,modular layout standards,especially N Trak should be changed  to Code 55 track,pick your brand,Peco,Atlas, ME.The Z Scale couplers look great on the pilots of Kato E-8/9 diesels replacing the original long leingth Kato unit on old locos,and they work just fine when the locomotive is a trailing locomotive coupled to a long 16 or so car train. I'am looking forward to D K S's new couplers when they are released. Nate Goodman (Nato).Salt Lake, Utah.

[jagged ben]

This sounds like excessive vertical play from the couplers in the pocket.   It might help to try some shims to take up the extra room.

It's due to many, many different things, depending on the car or locomotive.

The 'lip' on the proto is to hopefully reduce damage in the event of a derailment.   I'm not sure if it is desirable as a general 'solution' for model couplers, since it really would just be masking other problems that should be fixed.

I fundamentally disagree with you. 

First, I don't have the ability to fix all these "other problems" on the club layout, nor am I to blame for them.

Second, I am not keen to spend hours and hours and hours futzing with the couplers on all my cars and locomotives to get it right.  You're telling me that there would be no benefit to a better designed coupler that wasn't as sensitive to these problems?  You're simply wrong, in my not so humble opinion.  If someone comes up with a better N scale coupler product, I'll buy it.   No need for you to discourage them from trying. 

You've given no reason why a coupler with the feature I've suggested isn't desirable.   Basically you've just said that it isn't necessary if we spend hours futzing with our equipment.  Well, I don't want to spend hours futzing.  I want to install couplers and run trains.

[jagged ben]

If your present, oversized N-gauge couplers work okay on your club's lousy trackwork, then you already have a solution to the uncoupling problem...big, oversized couplers!

No, it isn't really a solution, for two reasons.

1) MT's coupler doesn't really work okay.  Or rather, it works okay, but not well.   I know, it's been the gold standard in N for a long time.  But the RDA isn't very reliable, there's too much vertical play in the coupler pockets, and the 1015 in particular is bad at handling slack action between locomotives (albeit better than Accumates). 

2)  I want scale couplers too! And you're nobody to tell me I shouldn't get them!