Next up, couplers

[jagged ben]

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.

It would be a lot easier for me to just install new, better designed couplers, were they available.  That was my point.   I don't know why people have to rag on my club's trackwork or my coupler installation abilities because I made a suggestion that might lead to a better coupler.  (If you think it would be a bad idea because of coupler operation, please say so, but I don't think anyone has said that.)

I guess you think it's easy to just fix track in a club, I question whether you have much experience with a club.  We have a whole list of needs and wants to prioritize.  We have areas of the layout to finish with new track and scenery, re-placement of older faulty wiring, a detection and signal system going in, and a weekly open-to-the-public schedule that for 9 months out of the year generally precludes shutting down the mainline for the MOW gang unless absolutely necessary.  Nobody is going to mind if I fix problems with track, but it's hours of my time and I'm committed to other projects there as well, and nobody else is going to do it unless they feel strongly. 

[Chris333]

Vertical play?

You guys must be running snap track layouts on the living room carpet!  I go through crazy lengths to make sure my layout is flat and level, then I glued down cork. After that I sand and plain down the cork to make sure it is perfectly smooth and level. Then after the track is down I will file and sand each joint so again it is smooth and level.

How about the people with bad trackwork, buy the bigger couplers?

When you install Z scale couplers you need to center them right down the mold parting line with a N scale coupler.

[Chris333]

Ben,

I feel bad you have to run your trains under those horrible conditions. But seriously making scale couplers to work on bad track work is not really a solution. If you want "scale sized" couplers you have to start thinking about "scale sized" track work.

Look at how thick a coupler is and you realize just how un-level track would have to be to un-couple cars. I mean I don't think I could purposely lay track that out of wack. A couple of wacks with a ball peen hammer might do the trick I guess. 

[Sokramiketes]

I've long been a proponent of smaller, more detailed couplers.  I've also experienced the nature of modular layouts both on the Ntrak side and now with Modutrak's tighter standards.

I don't think the height of the face of the coupler is the issue.  Slop, deflection, slippery coupler faces, and mold lines are.  The length of your train and the pulling weight can have an effect... just like bad trackwork. 

A shelf coupler would hold the train together but would be a pain to uncouple... think about working passenger car diaphragms being in the way. 

What we need is more friction in the coupler mating surfaces.  Imagine if you could lightly groove the inside surface of the coupler.  Picture running an 00-90 tap into each coupler to create a series of fine threads in the mating surface.  The grooves on interlocking couplers would lock tight under pulling, should still allow you to pick up a car to uncouple and remove from the layout, and would stay coupled through some pretty rough trackwork.  And best of all, the coupler could have all the detail of the prototype without warts or blobs or shelves hanging off it. 

I bet two of Bob's brass scale couplers lock would lock nice and tight and have sufficient friction to work even better than Z scale 905's.  To carry that idea one step further, Kato's Kinematic couplers have the smallest dimensions ever.  They work because friction is 100%!

[peteski]

  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.

Set people off?  Well, I think you are trolling.
Why in the world would you bring the rail height into this equation?!?!   Where is your logic?  The rail height has absolutely no bearing on either coupler reliability or on the quality of the trackwork!

Code 55 can be laid down just a crappy as code 80!  Actually using "peteski logic" I would venture a statement that it is actually easier to construct smooth trackwork using code 80 track. Why? Because code 80 track is more rigid so it will be harder to kink or dip the track while it is being installed! 

I do agree that c55 track looks much, much better than c80 but I still think that for modular layouts, it makes more sense to use sturdier track. If you belong to N-Trak (and either own a module or help to set up the layout) then you know the repeated abuse that the track ends have to endure during setup and tear down.    Yes I know how sturdy Peco c55 track is and that would be a good choice for modular setups but it's appearance (tie size and spacing) is just as sucky as any c80 N scale track.

Anyways, none of this has any bearing on the topic at hand. 

[Catt]

I seem to recall at one time there were folks assembling the MTL N scale couplers that were substituting small pieces of foam rubber in place of that damn little spring.Has anyone else heard of this or tried it even?As I recall the only thing it did was stop the coupler bounce that was caused by the coil spring.But then that was the whole idea.

[GaryHinshaw]

What we need is more friction in the coupler mating surfaces.  Imagine if you could lightly groove the inside surface of the coupler.  Picture running an 00-90 tap into each coupler to create a series of fine threads in the mating surface.  The grooves on interlocking couplers would lock tight under pulling, should still allow you to pick up a car to uncouple and remove from the layout, and would stay coupled through some pretty rough trackwork.  And best of all, the coupler could have all the detail of the prototype without warts or blobs or shelves hanging off it. 

I love this idea.

And please, let's avoid Holy Wars over track in this thread, please.   

[peteski]

I seem to recall at one time there were folks assembling the MTL N scale couplers that were substituting small pieces of foam rubber in place of that damn little spring.Has anyone else heard of this or tried it even?As I recall the only thing it did was stop the coupler bounce that was caused by the coil spring.But then that was the whole idea.

Yes, but it wasn't foam rubber but a slice of a plain old rubber band.  That idea has merit but I don't like the fact that in few years time rubber bands get hard or they turn into goo. Either way, they have to be replaced. I can't imagine doing that kind of maintenance to 100s of couplers.  However if one could figure out a way to find some way to slice some silicone rubber, that might work. Silicone rubber does not age like regular latex rubber.

[Scottl]

This is an interesting idea, replacing the spring in MT couplers.  How about silicon, like the material used in cooking utensils? 

[peteski]

This is an interesting idea, replacing the spring in MT couplers.  How about silicon, like the material used in cooking utensils?

I guess that would work (if it is flexible enough). I was thinking more in line with flexible fuel lines for glow-engine powered RC models.  But tubing would be more difficult to slice into flat "springs" than a flat piece of silicone.  I suppose one could get some silicone caulking, spread a layer on piece of wax paper then cut it onto strips once it hardens.

The rubber band coupler "springs" are not my idea. Someone (I don't recall who) posted this on the Atlas forum and I think I also seen it mentioned here.  I am just trying to improve upon the idea by suggesting a more durable material.  Personally I have no problem with slinking, so this is purely theoretical pondering on my part. 

[ednadolski]

I seem to recall at one time there were folks assembling the MTL N scale couplers that were substituting small pieces of foam rubber in place of that damn little spring.Has anyone else heard of this or tried it even?As I recall the only thing it did was stop the coupler bounce that was caused by the coil spring.But then that was the whole idea.

I've tried that, in both the N and Z scale MTs.   Yes it reduced the bounce but I would also get random uncouplings whenever the slack ran in.   I suspect that the automatic uncoupling function would be compromised too.  Seems there is just too much room in there for it to work reliably.

Ed

[Catt]

Seems to me the best fix would be to clone the HO couplers from KaDee right down to the whiskers.One thing I've found that helped on the NTRAK we used to have was smooth the contour of the inner side of the knuckle and preferbly leave the surface finnish a bit on the rough side to take advantage of the friction.

[peteski]

Seems to me the best fix would be to clone the HO couplers from KaDee right down to the whiskers.

Um, isn't that what McHenry coupler is?  The whiskers are plastic but the rest is just like the H0 Kadee coupler. Except that it is way too large for my taste.

[Alaska Railroader]

For those who want to track the progress of the Protomate couplers by David K Smith he has a blog dedicated to the subject...
http://protomate.blogspot.com/

[Ike the BN Freak]

Um, isn't that what McHenry coupler is?  The whiskers are plastic but the rest is just like the H0 Kadee coupler. Except that it is way too large for my taste.

The N scale McHenry is a smaller copy of the HO version.  And McHenry had the whisker couplers long before Kadee did. When the patents for for the Kadee couplers ran out and everyone and their mother started to make knuckle couplers, bachmann and McHenry had similar couplers.  Eventually Kadee created a coupler that didn't need the flat brass spring and had it as part of the couplers shank.


But for N, I deal with the slinky, I hardly ever notice it, but I have the springs on all of my cabooses. I just wish N was more body mounts than it is...one day I'd like to convert everything I have to body mounts.