Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[Missaberoad]

...While this product can be re-purposed for layout operation to some extent...

Count me as part of this group, I'm already used to the compromises required to operate with Z scale couplers and I'm looking forward to getting my hands on these new couplers to put a few theories into practice and see how much I can improve their performance.
I'm not expecting perfection but I think there is room for improvements... 

[Maletrain]

"Count me as part of this group, I'm already used to the compromises required to operate with Z scale couplers and I'm looking forward to getting my hands on these new couplers to put a few theories into practice and see how much I can improve their performance.
I'm not expecting perfection but I think there is room for improvements... "

Me too.  I am considering the possibilities of polishing certain areas, and lubricating certain areas, perhaps with Neolube or perhaps with one of those really slippery, plastic-friendly oils.

Still, I want to run long trains, so I am looking for minimal rolling resistance, which will make it hard to couple single cars with a loco.  Sticking the pick in the roadbed behind a car to be coupled does not seem like too big a deal.  I aleady have to do it with HO scale cars sometimes in our club's op sessions.  So, I will just want to make sure that it does not require a lot of force against the pick to get the couplers to connect.

[cjm413]

I don't really think these are aimed at people who buy monthly releases.

There's also the extent that a good number of cars in any given monthly release would need to be lowered in order to use these couplers.

[sirenwerks]

Eh?  I don't think I understand your comment.


The new coupler will couple automatically (maybe not with one car, although I think that might vary depending on the weight of the car, wheels, etc. - we'll need more in-field data on this), and can be uncoupled with a Rix-type tool.  This is basically the same kind of operation I've been doing on my layouts for 20 years.  So I don't understand why you think this coupler is limited to unit trains.  Nope.  It's not a Unimate; it's an actual operating coupler.  Should work just fine for the 1957 era of my layout, as long as I convert everything to this coupler.  That's the sticking point - you're not going to be able to convert a few cars at a time and have the converted and unconverted cars work together.  As Joe points out, you could use transition cars, but that's not going to work if you end up switching an industry where you have a "new" coupler trying to couple on to an "old" coupler.


But if everything is converted, these will work for switching duties (pending the "one car" issue, on which the jury is still out).


John C.

John, I get the fact that they don't play well with others.  Me neither.  But the drift I've read is limited coupling functionality; from the commentaries about using them dominantly for close coupling of lash-ups or unit trains which don't get uncoupled, and the comments that are anti-one car at a time coupling.  To set the record straight, maybe MTL would chime in with a clear statement or video correcting me.  Okay, let me go all fact checker on this.  Lot's of praise and woes about trading over and wows.


But two important inquiries were met with crickets from MTL:

You say "push the cars together". Does this mean by hand, or is the coupling force small enough for operators to still rely on normal switching movements? I'm perfectly fine with skewer uncoupling.

Appearance aside, which I think is more than adequate under normal operating circumstances...how well they couple in operation is much more important to me and the ultimate tipping point or deal breaker.

The only person to offer more than conjecturewas Bussey (an opinion leader I more or less trust and an actual tester), with:

As Joe stated, these are incompatible with any existing N scale knuckle coupler including the current MTL product line, and there is no way to adapt any of the existing coupler line to work with this new coupler.


Again — the intended purpose of this new coupler is for long-train running at shows and for more realistic photo ops.  You may find that attempting to couple to a single car with a yard switcher at low speed is not as effortless as with the current coupler line.  The couplers connect when you push them together by hand, but it takes more effort than with the existing coupler line.  They do not connect together as easily when attempted with motive power.


I like them a lot and they will work extremely well in the scenario that I will use them, which is for close-coupling multiple units.  They eliminate the need for drawbars, and they "uncouple" simply by lifting one of the units up.  It makes the storing of MU consists much easier.  But I won't be using them in operational situations.

Hence my leeriness about using them for regular switchin'.  Joe's comment "Simply pushing cars together" means what?  I read that as two cars being mated with some effort, not a car standing in a siding being coupled to another.  I like switchers and I like single car industries, as much as I like big ones, but I don't wanna get forced into constant 0-5-0 operations.  IMO, that will take the fun out of it.  Loopty-loopers and people who don't like yard work may love these, or people who like to manhandle their models.  Me? Not so much.  I don't wanna have to remember which end of my caboose or which loco has what coupler or what not.  I want to pick things up and put them down with relative ease.

"

[Missaberoad]

The only person to offer more than conjecturewas Bussey (an opinion leader I more or less trust and an actual tester), with:

Not to discount Bryan's opinion but @johnb gave an answer that was based on testing and "more than conjecture":

Well, that's what I was afraid of, and if that's truly he case, it will severely limit their use to coupling between engines and maybe some unit train or car block applications. A question for you Beta testers....if a single car won't couple, how many parked cars does it take for a reasonably realistic coupling?
Thanks, Otto K.

three of them worked well

[Smike]

  It eliminates the coupler oscillation.  It reduces the possibility of derailment.  It's better visually because the coupler is smaller and the coupling distance is much shorter.

That's exactly my motivation for wanting to convert to the custom Full Throttle z scale couplers, but the $$ kept me on the sidelines, the MT product should be spot on for me.

Running a 30+ car train down a helix with slinky couplers is frightening.

[bbussey]

Not to discount Bryan's opinion but @johnb gave an answer that was based on testing and "more than conjecture":
three of them worked well

Where does John's assessment contradict mine?  He basically said the mass of three cars was necessary for the cars to couple hands-free.  That means two cars or one car would not couple.

Also of note is that the test cars supplied were two 40-foot PS1s and two 50-foot PS1s.  Which I also tested.  Extensively.  The 50-foot cars are among the heaviest of the MTL models.  In other words, you won't be hands-free coupling a string of twin bay hoppers, or tank cars, or 36' reefers, or any other model that is on the lighter end of the weight scale.

[Missaberoad]

Where does John's assessment contradict mine?  He basically said the mass of three cars was necessary for the cars to couple hands-free.  That means two cars or one car would not couple.

Also of note is that the test cars supplied were two 40-foot PS1s and two 50-foot PS1s.  The 50-foot cars are among the heaviest of the MTL models.  In other words, you won't be hands-free coupling a string of twin bay hoppers, or tank cars, or 36' reefers, or any other model that is on the lighter end of the weight scale.

It doesn't contradict yours at all, my statement was in reference to @sirenwerks saying your's was the "only statement based on more then conjecture"
As I said I wasn't trying to discount your opinion and I don't think I said anywhere that it was wrong. My apologies if you read it that way.

[bbussey]

Fair enough.

My concern is that people are going to think this a functional replacement for the magnetic coupler product line, when they were designed for an entirely different purpose, and then react negatively toward the product when it doesn't perform switching functionality as well as the magnetics.  Yes, I think the new product is extremely well done and functions excellently in its intended purpose.  But I do not think it is practical to assume it is a viable "upgrade" to the current magnetic coupler products, be it MTL or the clones.

[sirenwerks]

So my interpretation was right.   

[learmoia]

Fair enough.

My concern is that people are going to think this a functional replacement for the magnetic coupler product line, when they were designed for an entirely different purpose, and then react negatively toward the product when it doesn't perform switching functionality as well as the magnetics.  Yes, I think the new product is extremely well done and functions excellently in its intended purpose.  But I do not think it is practical to assume it is a viable "upgrade" to the current magnetic coupler products, be it MTL or the clones.

FWIW... you guys are working with test samples of a new product correct?

In daily operation of Micro-trains N couplers installed by average N scalers (me). Mine don't always couple on their own at a force of a feather.. and they roll so freely that I've had MT cars bump knukles and roll....

Remember MT sells retarder springs to resist rolling enough to allow the Original N couplers to couple.............

-Ian

[johnb]

In all honesty, I am leaning towards converting all of my modern equipment to the scale couplers AND using it on my switching layout. We don't worry about uncoupling with a skewer, I don't see the issue of using a skewer to hold a car in place by placing it against the other end and eliminating the slinky effect....

[learmoia]

In all honesty, I am leaning towards converting all of my modern equipment to the scale couplers AND using it on my switching layout. We don't worry about uncoupling with a skewer, I don't see the issue of using a skewer to hold a car in place by placing it against the other end and eliminating the slinky effect....

Yup... +1...

~ian

[bbussey]

We all have different preferences.  Some will be happy with the functionality as is.  But for me, with motive power changes in catenary-covered New Haven a primary function of my layout, magnetic uncoupling is a must.

[johnb]

We all have different preferences.  Some will be happy with the functionality as is.  But for me, with motive power changes in catenary-covered New Haven a primary function of my layout, magnetic uncoupling is a must.

don't worry, it's only 12 volts