Converting To Z-Scale Couplers - Is It Worth The Effort?

[Kisatchie]

And as for the slinky effect... Apparently MT corrected that by moving the position of the internal spring.

Micro-Trains makes N couplers with springs in front of and behind the boss (the part that sticks up in the coupler pocket and which the coupler shanks fit over). It doesn't matter where the spring is, you still get the slinky effect.


Hmm... Kiz gave me a
Slinky for Christmas...

[randgust]

Are you talking about N or Z couplers?

I just can't see MT redoing their coupler molds to make them larger. All of them or just certain ones? Which ones?  Are 1023s still the same size as the ones made 40 years ago?  Do you have any measurements or photos showing the size difference?

Absolutely.   Duel.   Micrometers at .003 paces.   If you go back to the '70's, the 'standard' MT knuckle height that was on 1023's in the coupler height gauge was .090.  Not coincidentally, that's EXACTLY what current-run 903's and 905's Z-scale knuckles run - .090 height on the knuckle.   If I check my older MT 1000 truck mounts, they are .090, consistently. 

I just got two more Intermountain cabooses with NEW body-mount MT's on, and the knuckles measure .100.  .010 higher at the knuckle than the older ones.   That's hardly noticeable, but it is there, same on the Atlas Shay.   What blew my mind was trying to install the new low-shank coupler (threw bag out, can't remember the number) on the Trix caboose project and the knuckle was so high it blew my mind, I ended up taking them back off the caboose because they just looked huge and didn't work well either and substituted old 1023's from the 70's with a .090 head.   I pulled those new ones out of the drawer and just measured them at .110.  Then I compared that to the same low-shank coupler that's on the back of my Atlas 2-6-0 (same mount) that I did back about 2004 and it measures .090 at the knuckle. That's .020 higher that what it used to be for what I 'think' is the same coupler.    I'll have to rig something up to photo this but man, it's really noticeable.

[DKS]

As I understood it, MT increased the height of the N scale knuckle to reduce the incidence of separations in long trains.

[Kisatchie]

I just got two more Intermountain cabooses with NEW body-mount MT's on, and the knuckles measure .100.  .010 higher at the knuckle than the older ones...

If the cases the Intermountain cars came in don't advertise having Micro-Trains couplers, then the couplers are most likely the recent Chinese knockoff couplers.


Hmm... I'm gonna knock
off early today...

[randgust]

Got two ATSF cabooses for Christmas (CCS6086), and they have the "Genuine Microtrains" sticker on the box.  Keep trying, micrometer doesn't lie.

I'd heard the same thing and read this on the forums - that they had increased head height.   But until today, I hadn't slapped a micrometer on the heads to compare current N to current Z.  The fact that 'legacy' N measures the same on head-height as current Z astounded me.   The knuckles are larger from the top and shanks are shorter, so there's some advantage, but at least to my perceptions, this explains a LOT on why I'm not particularly headstrong over converting to Z; I'm halfway there anyway!

Since I never had problems with original MT's since I did my own RDA head-trimming anyway, that probably explains why I get along well with a mixed bag of Z's and N today.    I'm probably about 80% "legacy" MT couplers, I'd guess, with the smaller .090 heads.

While I'm a firm devotee of magnetic uncoupling, mostly truck mounts, and at least a 'compromise' flange height, you guys have got me firmly in the ride height camp, I think that makes more real payback to appearance than a lot of other things for the level of work involved.   I've pretty much got every flatcar and gondola already done, looking at the worst of the boxcars next.  If you can get the body height down, using the Z's is a lot easier to reach the right coupler height as well.

[ednadolski]

I really like the appearance of the Z couplers but need to know if it's worth the effort.

That's a decision about how to spend your modeling time that only you can answer for yourself.

For myself, the switch was well worth it, not only for appearance but also to eliminate the infamous 'slinky effect'.   BTW, the slinky is inherent in all MT couplers, including the Z scale ones, because of the design of the spring.  The only way I've ever found to eliminate that is to use a coupler that does not have a centering spring.

I use the Z scale coupler sold by Lee English, which is also sometimes called the "Bowser" or "Full Throttle" or FT coupler (for historical reasons).  To use this with N scale requires a custom coupler pocket.   Or, with a 00-90 washer, the coupler also can be installed in the body-mounted factory pocket on the ExactRail cars, Athearn 2790 hoppers, and a few others. see this post for details:   https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg346515#msg346515


Appearance-wise, this post shows some installations of the Z coupler with the etched brass pocket:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg318267#msg318267



Here's one of Gary's hoppers:



And here is an installation in the Exactrail factory pocket:




This is a 62-car train that has been entirely converted to the Z coupler, inducing all the locos:  (note too, the centerbeams have been lowered as part of the conversion)

Not a valid youtube URL


HTH,

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

For Ed and I, the answer is an unqualified yes, but it does take time and money.  YMMV. 

Ed, the things that most blows me away about your video (among many) is that 5 Kato units can manage a 62 car train on that grade. I don't think they could on mine...

My thinking at the moment is sit back and wait a bit, possibly until 2015. We have multiple coupler projects at least mentioned on TRW that will appear to bear fruit about then. Admittedly, I'm mostly waiting word if the Bowser Z coupler production issues have been resolved...

They have been resolved to the extent that they likely ever will be - you can order them direct from Lee English.  Minimum order is 50 though, so this option is definitely still in the boutique class.

[peteski]

Randy,
thanks for the coupler size info. So, this is going back to before I got N scale MT couplers (in the mid 80s).  Basing on your explanation, it is not the like the entire coupler was enlarged - only the height. That would be something that would be only noticeable when viewed from the side.  TO be honest, I thought you meant that the coupler was enlarged in all dimensions.  The height increase of 0.010" doesn't seem like all that much to me. Especially when comparing MT couplers (even the current version) to the giant McHenry or Bachmann EZ-Mate couplers. I guess that I would have to see them in-person to really see how visible the change is.

Come th think of it, I have couple packages of old Kadee N scale 40' underframes with body mounted 1023s. I'll have to dig them out. If those are old enough, I will be able to compare the older coupler to the newer one to see the difference myself.

I would be really leery of using IM model's couplers as a reference. For example their AC-12 paperwork states that they use MT couplers, but the actual couplers are some generic couplers (which seem to be based on MT design, along with some slight adaptation from other knuckle coupler brands). The difference is subtle, but those aren't MTs.

[nkalanaga]

I'll add my bit to the debate.  I checked three couplers:  An old pair of Kadees on an Atlas gon from the 70s, a new pair of MTs on a GS gon (truck mounted) bought within the last few years, and the coupler on my height gauge, also from the 70s.  I don't have a micrometer, but putting the two gons on the track the coupler knuckles are the same height.  The knuckle on the gauge is taller than either one.  Since it's likely to be OLDER than either one, that seems a little odd.

I'll agree with those who say not to use IM's new couplers as a comparison.  Having looked at them, I'm sure they're NOT made by MT.  Mine work fine, there's nothing wrong with them, but they're not from the tooling.

[peteski]

I'll add my bit to the debate.  I checked three couplers:  An old pair of Kadees on an Atlas gon from the 70s, a new pair of MTs on a GS gon (truck mounted) bought within the last few years, and the coupler on my height gauge, also from the 70s.  I don't have a micrometer, but putting the two gons on the track the coupler knuckles are the same height.  The knuckle on the gauge is taller than either one.  Since it's likely to be OLDER than either one, that seems a little odd.

There might be more variations than originally thought.  I just did some quick measurements.
I have a Kadee height gauge with a 1023/25 coupler in it. Bought in the 1980s.  Its coupler knuckle is 0.110" high.
I then measured truck-mounted coupler from a recent release (last month's).  Its couples knuckle is 0.104" high. That is shorter than the older 1023. But I don't think that this coupler comes out of the same mold as 1023/25.

[Chris1274]

I would be really leery of using IM model's couplers as a reference. For example their AC-12 paperwork states that they use MT couplers, but the actual couplers are some generic couplers (which seem to be based on MT design, along with some slight adaptation from other knuckle coupler brands). The difference is subtle, but those aren't MTs.

They don't operate as well as MTs either. Some of the couplers on my IM trinity hoppers bounce right off each other.

[muktown128]

Maybe Joe can shed some light on what changes were made to the MTL couplers and when...

Scott

[Chris333]

(Joe's voice) That was before my time (Joe's voice)

[randgust]

My coupler height gauges are old enough that the coupler boxes all say "Kadee" on them.  And the heads measure .090 in height, as well as a lot of my older truck-mounts.

I've had a lot of these long enough that they are on their second set of wheels.

[peteski]

My coupler height gauges are old enough that the coupler boxes all say "Kadee" on them.  And the heads measure .090 in height, as well as a lot of my older truck-mounts.

I've had a lot of these long enough that they are on their second set of wheels.

My gauge is also Kadee (not MT) and it is blackened (not silver bare metal). But I know I bought it in the 80s.  As I mentioned, the coupler head is 0.110" high.  But the current couplers used in MT have shorter heads (0.104").  I'll have to dig through my Kadee parts to see if I can find one of those older couplers.

If I didn't specifically look for it, I would have never noticed the size difference between 0.110 and 0.104 heads.  Even knowing that they are different, it is barely visible to me when they are placed next to each other.