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

[DKS]

Kinda think the size difference is pretty obvious, myself...

[BCR 570]

Hi Doug:

Some useful and interesting comments have been posted here.  I have used the Micro-Trains #905 couplers in a few applications where a closer to scale coupler was much better (ie. 40 foot flatcar, Minibox, Atlas ballst hoppers) or in a few applications where they helped to solve a ride height vs. coupler height problem.  Most of my installations seem to work well, although at present I have only been able to test them mid-train going up and down my 2.3 per cent 16" radius helix.  A couple of my installations have not worked well in that they do not stay coupled.  I have been unable to determine why.

A couple of challenges I see with using the 905s exclusively are adapting them to all of one's various locomotive fits, and how to mount them on modern cars with cushion draft gear (in which case the etched pockets are likely the ticket).

For your application, you will need to begin with changing enough locomotives and cars for a test train to see if your installations perform well enough for you, and if you are okay with uncoupling the smaller couplers.  I can tell you from considerable experience operating on other people's layouts that problems with couplers becomes frustrating quite quickly. While smaller couplers are definitely a notable improvement in appearance, one has to consider the time and cost of conversions, and the potential trade-off in performance if they do not work as well for you.  The latter consideration should not be underestimated.  As keen as I am to get as close as possible to the prototype, I have come to appreciate that when fully immersed in an operating session, things like the size of the rail or in this case the size of the couplers pales in importance to how well everything actually operates.

For those of us constructing layouts on which to run our models, perhaps the real goal in our hobby is to seek that delicate balance between how good the individual models and layout components look, and how well it all operates.


Tim

[peteski]

Kinda think the size difference is pretty obvious, myself...

I was talking about the 0.110" vs. 0.104" coupler head height (as those are the only two I was able to compare myself).

[Guilford Guy]

After switching from HO I started converting my few pieces of a N scale equipment to full throttle couplers. I love the close coupling and the scale size but for switching operations they seem a bit too stiff to operate reliably. I've held off on recent conversions save for passenger equipment and locomotives until the DKS couplers show up on the scene. Despite my subpar track work(perfect track coming soon!) I haven't had any problems with them uncoupling in service. Visually there's no comparison and I'm hoping to hold reliable ops with the DKS couplers, but for my purposes the current couplers just don't cut it.

[nkalanaga]

As far as I know the truck mounted couplers are 1023/1025s.  At least, they fit perfectly in the 1025 draft gear, and as far as I know, no other MT couplers will.  In the past I've also used 1025 parts to repair broken truck-mounted couplers.  Whether they come from the same tool I don't know, but it seems unlikely that MT would go to the expense of making a duplicate just for that. 

On the other hand, they sell a lot of couplers, so it's very possible they have two or more tools, in case one needs to be worked on.  They do wear out.  That could explain why there are different sizes made at about the same time.

Peteski:  Mine is also one of the blackened gauges.  And, no, I've never noticed the difference in heights either.

[ednadolski]

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

The etched pockets came out to $1 per car, plus IIRC the couplers were $1.60 per pair.  I'm not sure what the current prices are for the assembled MT 905.  The body mount effort is probably comparable,  except that I have been able to install the etched brass pockets with CA,  which probably would not work for the plastic body MTs.

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.

All metal wheels, plus speed matched locos (BEMF turned off).


Ed

[peteski]

As far as I know the truck mounted couplers are 1023/1025s.  At least, they fit perfectly in the 1025 draft gear, and as far as I know, no other MT couplers will.  In the past I've also used 1025 parts to repair broken truck-mounted couplers.  Whether they come from the same tool I don't know, but it seems unlikely that MT would go to the expense of making a duplicate just for that. 

On the other hand, they sell a lot of couplers, so it's very possible they have two or more tools, in case one needs to be worked on.  They do wear out.  That could explain why there are different sizes made at about the same time.

Peteski:  Mine is also one of the blackened gauges.  And, no, I've never noticed the difference in heights either.

Hmmm...
So now we have 3 different knuckle heights:
Old (randgust ande DKS): 0.090"
Newer, 80s vintage (on my height gauge): 0.110"
Current (from one of my freshly purchased MT releases): 0.104"

Interesting...
I guess that it might make sense to ask someone at MT about this.

My theory is that when MT redesigned their molds to reverse draft angle (RDA), they reduced the knuckle height to 0.104".  All my 1023s are from the late 80s and 90s (before the RDA redesign).  That is assuming that today's 1023s are the RDA design (but I can't verify that).  However if the same molding as in 1023s is used in truck-mounted couplers, then my theory would make sense (those couplers are RDA).

[nkalanaga]

To get back to the original question, I'd say it's a question of interests.  If your main interest is running trains or doing switching, and reliability is more important than appearance, you're probably better off sticking with the N couplers.  That's also the cheapest and easiest option. Being both cheap and underpaid I will keep mine.

If your a "model railfan", like to take pictures of your trains, or enjoy building/detailing your equipment, then the Z couplers will make your models look better, and are probably worth the effort.

For what it's worth, the only standard gauge equipment I have in regular service with Z couplers is my train of Atlas ore cars.  30 cars, and they run fine, but the main reason for using the Z couplers was close coupling.  I didn't want drawbars, or huge gaps, so needed a small, short coupler.

All of my narrow gauge has Z/Nn3 couplers, and 50 ft cars with body mounted couplers work fine on 10 inch radius curves, although that's probably about their limit.  My main diesels are Atlas RS3 shells on MT SD40-2 chassis, which gives almost exactly the same truck centers, and they also work on 10 inch curves with 905 couplers.  Operationally, the only reason for staying with the N couplers is if you run long trains and need the strength.

[6axlepwr]

After examining some Lee English couplers (thank you Ed), I find them to be the most robust of all the Z-Scale couplers. They look as though they can handle a long train without breakage and also appear to be the ones that will last the longest without any breakage.

So I was thinking for cars with cushioned pockets. Using tbe LE couplet. Why not just permanently mount it in a box ? Get a box 3D printed and then cast a bunch of them. Fit the coupler in and glue the box shut. No need for multiple screws.  One for securing the box to the car and one for the coupler boss.

Brian

[mark.hinds]

Continuing the slightly off-topic discussion of MT RDA dimensional differences, here’s another.  It doesn't impact scale appearance much, but the thicker “tip” of the RDA knuckle inhibits reliable automatic uncoupling, as they tend to “catch”.  Here’s an image showing the difference, and my personal fix for this issue. 



MH

[nkalanaga]

MH:  Interesting.  I have so many old MTs that I hadn't really looked at the newer ones, but they do seem less inclined to couple, especially to each other.  I just put it down to the new cars also having new (clean) wheels, and more easily rolling away rather than coupling.

Maybe we need hand brakes on our cars.  That's part of the reason the prototype doesn't have trouble coupling to a single parked car - it SHOULD have the brakes set!

[randgust]

Huh, I'll have to look at that head thing, Mark.

I have noticed that the new ones tend to hang on uncoupling; like the heads are too fat (wide) or something.  Old ones work better.   It's noticeable enough that I've taken to replacing wheels and hanging on to the old trucks just for the truck-mounted couplers.

That 2004 on my caboose project couldn't be yanked apart with an electromagnet, and that was a first.  Those things are damn powerful and pull anything else apart I own.  That's what got me going on the changed head dimensions, something is going on here, then when I compared it to old ones, hey, away you go.

I think I bought my first coupler height gauge about 1975, it's blackened and marked "Kadee".

I've never had the need to investigate if the Z coupler heads are RDA, anybody know?   I don't subject mine to enough pull stress that I've particularly cared.

I'm about as stunned as the first time I had a new set of MT wheels fail a track gauge; visibly wider, yet cast in one piece.    How can that happen?   Other three axles in the same car were OK, did measure out differently.

And 'Amen' to brother Tim, I second that.   The balance between operations and appearance is tough.  In my case I'm always willing to experiment, but if it compromises operation/performance, operation wins on my layout.    I remember having a 'guest appearance' of a BLI PA1 on my layout with sound; between the fine flanges, big feet,  and the erratic pickup, it was the best-looking, worst-performing locomotive I've ever seen.

[DKS]

While the MT Z couplers do offer somewhat improved cosmetics, I've not found them to be very reliable. The problem I have with them is that they do not always couple easily, and it took me a long time to find out why they would sometimes just bounce off one another as if they were battering rams. Then I did some careful study under a microscope and found what I believe to be the "fatal flaw": a slight ridge in the face of the knuckle. When ridge exactly encounters another, the knuckles fail to slide past one another. Worse, as far as I can tell, all Z scale couplers appear to have been pulled from the same tooling--I have yet to see any that differ from one another, from the earliest to the newest batches. Unless I'm wrong (I hope someone can prove otherwise), it means every coupler has the same flaw.

Here's the culprit:


tooling flaw

[ednadolski]

If your main interest is running trains or doing switching, and reliability is more important than appearance, you're probably better off sticking with the N couplers.

I've found the Lee English Z couplers (a.k.a. Bowser or Full Throttle... it would be easier if there were just a single name to identify them)  to be more reliable for me than most other N-scale couplers.   When it comes to unwanted uncouplings,  I have had more problems with Accumates (which seem to let go whenever they feel like it), Micro-Trains (because of the MT slinky, the autoracks will uncouple when the train is going downgrade at low speed), and the Kato factory couplers (a consist of several ES44ACs that would not stay coupled).

The only time the LE Z couplers let go on me is when I haven't installed them properly, i.e., mismatched the height.

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

Completely agree with this^.   A well installed FT/LE* coupler is at least as reliable as any other I have ever used, and they're pretty straightforward to uncouple with picks.  While I'll always be interested in the next great coupler, it will have to be pretty special to make me want to switch away from these.

* FT/LE = Full Throttle / Lee English.