Charlie Vlk's N scale couplers?!

[Dave V]

I would be interested to know how these differ from the NZT Protomate.

[nkalanaga]

A scale-size, MT compatible N scale coupler is quite practical.  After all, MT's Z/Nn3 couplers are the right size.  If you want one that LOOKS like the actual prototype castings that would be more difficult.  I'll settle for a scale-size drop-in replacement. 

I'm a little surprised that MT doesn't just tool a Z coupler in a 1015 or 1025 style box.  It wouldn't be hard, as the only parts needed would be the top and bottom of the box, and it would be installed exactly like the existing N couplers.  I'd rather have the 1025, but today the 1015 would probably sell much better.

[peteski]

I'm a little surprised that MT doesn't just tool a Z coupler in a 1015 or 1025 style box.  It wouldn't be hard, as the only parts needed would be the top and bottom of the box, and it would be installed exactly like the existing N couplers.  I'd rather have the 1025, but today the 1015 would probably sell much better.

I think that you're forgetting that only very small minority of N scalers want scale couplers or go to the lengths of replacing stock couplers with ones that are more to scale.  Most N scalers are more than happy with whatever coupler is installed on the model at the factory.

I asked MT to tool up a drop-in replacement MT coupler for those terrible Kato knuckle couplers.  I thought that this for sure would make sense, as I saw others on the forum unhappy with the performance of Kato couplers (especially in passenger cars).  But MT didn't take the bait.  I think true-scale MT couplers are in the same category as that coupler or as PRR steam locomotive models:  they are wanted by a small-but-vocal minority.

[wmcbride]

I want them ... and I am usually very quiet and well-behaved.

[Kisatchie]

I think that you're forgetting that only very small minority of N scalers want scale couplers or go to the lengths of replacing stock couplers with ones that are more to scale...

That's true for me. I'd need THOUSANDS of more-to-scale couplers to convert my (packed away) Micro-Trains-coupler-equipped rolling stock. Not worth the expense for me to do that.


Hmm... too many hyphens,
Kiz...

[Sokramiketes]

I would be interested to know how these differ from the NZT Protomate.

Yes, I think we're all interested in what a Protomate is.

[peteski]

I would be interested to know how these differ from the NZT Protomate.

The way you composed this question seems to imply that you have already seen Protomates (and you just need to see Vlk coupler to compare them).

[nkalanaga]

Peteski:  Very true that scale couplers would appeal to a minority.  That's why I suggested the simplest way I could think of to make them.  No new coupler required, just a new box, and it's fully compatible with the current couplers.  If a customer wanted to try a few they wouldn't have to change the cars at all, just take the screw out, swap the boxes, put the screw back in.

[robert3985]

Several years ago, I took it upon myself to go down to the Utah State Railroad Museum at Union Station in Ogden specifically to measure prototype couplers and compare those measurements with MT Z-scale couplers.  Although nobody says the MT Z's "look" realistic, they were almost exactly "on" in five out of six measurements (don't ask me what I measured...I don't remember anything but the results). 

Personally I was very surprised by the result, and it spurred me on to more quickly convert as many cars and engines as the coupler will fit...which is most of 'em.

Then, along came the Bowser/Full Throttle couplers and the etched pockets, and DKS's promise to have a revolutionary, scale-appearing, no-slinky-effect coupler, and now I'm hearing about Charlie's new coupler design.  Needless to say, my MT conversions have virtually stopped, except on my kit-bashed cabooses because I'm waiting to see how this all pans out.

Here are a couple of photos that this thread might find interesting:

Photo 1: MT Z-scale couplers on my kitbashed first-try UP CA-1 caboose:


Photo 2: MT Z-scale couplers will couple up with scale-sized dummy couplers.  MT N-scale couplers won't:


Additionally, you can see for yourselves that the MT Z-scale couplers are really close to prototype overall size.  Too bad they "slinky" and that MT won't make 'em with different shank lengths and mounting protocols.  Ah well, their loss.

[Big Train]

The idea of asking MT to manufacture drop-in Z/Nn3 replacement couplers for their line of draft gear boxes currently available is a good one. Maybe if we start on on-line petition or a email campaign MT might view this as an option.

Much like MT used to provide two different wheel sets to allow the option of using "pizza cutters" or fine scale a while back, they could include a Z Scale coupler as a drop in option. That would certainly save MT from having to provide two different coupler installation kits to reduce their cost.

I sure those of us who are that concerned with prototypical accuracy already have the skills to replace the couplers in any draft gear box. I mean look at the level of detail in robert3985's image above.

My question is has anyone run long trains, say 50 cars plus for sake of argument, using Z Scale couplers exclusively experienced any "unintended uncoupling" during operation?

FWIW, I still think the MT coupler is the best for all round use and I haven't seen anything as reliable as far as a functioning coupler is concerned. And the replacements I've seen (except for Unimates) don't really provide any additional advantage except being cheaper mostly. The original Intermountain was a disaster when coupled with MT's. The current Atlas aren't too bad, except for the draft gear boxes that fall apart when you look at them, along with Athearn. With Atlas couplers, I add a drop of ACC on the draft gear box to ensure it stays together.

The other thing is MT certainly has the marketing clout and are available at almost every hobby shop worth buying model railroad supplies.

[Scottl]

I for one, am in complete hold pattern as far as couplers go.  I want to see what emerge from DKS, but the FT coupler looks to be a strong contender.

[robert3985]

Back in my Ntrak days, I could pull a 60 car mixed freight without any breakage or spontaneous uncouplings with MT Z scale couplers.  Nowadays, my trains are limited by my passing sidings to a length of 9' 7.5" or one Big Boy, 30 40' cars and a caboose, so MT Z's are just fine for that except for the appearance and the dreaded slinky effect.

[towl1996]

  It's been shopped around to a few companies... one even made it so far as to be rejected by a contractor in China when proposed.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement if you ask me.   

[nkalanaga]

The longest train I've run with Z couplers is 30 cars, but I have several of them.  Atlas N ore cars work fine, with regular N couplers on the locos and caboose, including switching the train at the loading facility.  These aren't the heaviest cars around, but it does make a nice train, and doesn't seem to have any problems.

I've also run 30 car narrow gauge freights, both ore and coal, with similar results.  Again, these are short light cars, but they seem to stay coupled during stops and starts.  The 903/905 couplers work better downhill than the drop-in Marklin replacement couplers on my NG ore cars, but I doubt anyone here is using Marklin 2-axle frames in N scale...

[peteski]

I just saw Sokramiketes column in the N Scale Enthusiast magazine where he mentioned that Arnold/Hornby is not going to use the new (assuming Vlk) coupler design on their U25Cs due to design problems.  Does this mean that the Vlk coupler is dead?  That would be too bad - I would have love to see another knuckle coupler in N scale.  Still hoping for Protomates...