I have no wish to be contrary, but this is simply not true; it doesn't stop it on long MT coupler equipped trains on downhill grades. If it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I use brakes on the cabooses AND Masonite cleaning sleds on two cars ahead of the caboose and still have an occasional slinky bounce on the long downhill. And pushing the two sleds uphill is a drag, as is having to have the same cars at the end of the train every time. Regards, Otto K.,
An additional thought here. Those who do not like the yoyo effect have a simple solution. Switch to Accumate couplers. The yoyo problem is thus solved. Of course you now have other problems but, HEY, no more yoyo. But I'll take the MT couplers with the yoyo over the Accumates any day of the week.
Yo Ho Yo Ho a pirates life for me. Dadum dee dum da dee. Oh sorry, wrong post. You guys and your nick's for such action by the MTL couplers. Gosh! I like the "Slack" action, although a bit exaggerated but is very close to the same action you see on the 1X1 foot scale. May I suggest you need to stop by a rail yard and watch the action during some switching moves. Actually, I could see a bunch of model railroaders acting as an advocacy to reduce the slap and slack of the prototypes. Where will this eventually... end up? MTL Keep your knuckle couplers coming, I like the action.
I glanced over the thread and may have missed it, but was a stiffer spring inside the coupler suggested? This may disable the magnetic feature, but could give the modeler the option. Maybe even have suggested spring strengths depending on the modelers specific common train length. By the way I like to slowly take out the slack as my train departs and have helpers come up against the rear of a train and see the effects. As Rick said a couple times now, it does add a little prototype flavor to running the trains.
I must admit, I have no problem with the slinky effect. Granted my layout is flat with no grades abut I can see how grades might or would cause some concern. After reading about this slinky effect here and other boards and not really understanding why it such a concern I started playing around with some ideas. One thing I did was to double up the spring, might even try using three springs in one pocket. I just rolled them together and popped them in like one normally would. A lot of the times when you dump them out there will be at least a couple of them squished together already. Beside, if double or tripling them up would help the cost wouldn't be that much as they are not terribly expensive. Just a thought...
Great idea with the same effect. I will have to try this out on my 2% grades. Although my max train length is usually 20 cars with metal wheels I should be able to see a difference. In time though as I do not have the springs for this.
Bryan- I started to body mount z coupler sets on many of the cars in my fleet. I have a shelf layout and do a lot of yard switching so most trains are no longer than twenty to thirty cars in length. This hasn't given me any trouble except where I've mixed cars with n scale truck mounted couplers and cars with the z body mount and for the most part I haven't experienced a yo-yo or even a waddle. However, if your track work is uneven in the slightest (elevation-wise) you're going to loose part of the train. On the club layout that my friends and I run, we only use MT couplers as we've had problems with anything else. Best, Scott
I run MT trucks and couplers, trains of about 12 cars and 2% grades. I haven't really noticed the slinky effect except on my little logging caboose, yo-yoing along. I tried the MT spring on one axle and it eliminated the yo-yo but increased the drag of one caboose to that of about 8 cars... enough to cause slipping up the hill. I am now trying half an MT spring on one axle, just enough to create a little drag w/o noticing it on the grades. Seems to have lessened the yo yoing, but not eliminated it.
I have yet to see any "yoyo" effect on my 1.4% helix with up to 20 cars. The only variation in travel that i observe is where I have some poor track laying that varies in the horizontal direction where the cars move horizontally but not fore and aft.
I have all MTL truck mounted couplers running on Peco code 55 track. I do not see the slinky effect when going down hill, like many of you have seen. I see the slinky effect when I am sorting cars in a yard or spotting mutiple cars in a spur. Having said that, I don't think the spring on the caboose truck would work for me, since I do not have a caboose on the end of my cars when I am switching them. I will have to give the rubber insert a try.
That is somewhat odd. With the traditional truck mounted coupler the slinky effect is seen when going forward as it is then that the spring is compressed and the kinetic energy thus built up is then released. When pushing a string of cars the coupler spring is not compressed and thus there is no build up of kinetic energy. This is just the opposite with the body mounted couplers like the 1015's. There the spring is compressed when backing the car but not when pulling it forward. Adding more weight to the cars will tend to reduce, if not totally eliminate, the slinky effect. It will also aid in better tracking. Most cars weigh under the NMRA recommendations of .5 oz. + .15 oz. per inch of car length. With those specs a 40 foot car would weigh just .95 oz. Of course adding weight will affect the pulling power of your locomotives so you may have to add power especially when climbing a grade.
a lot of my cars are even heavier than the nmra recommendation. then add a drop of black paint to the axle points. this increases friction and rolling resistance enough to keep a train stretched.
I believe if your cars are in NMRA weight specs and you use the M/T axle springs, problems will be solved. Axle springs don't like me, though. For some reason, I just can't get the Damn things in there...YET !!! Some say it increases the drag of the train. Of course it does !!! So now you have the PERFECT reason to go buy that other engine you've been lookin' at !!! I have also heard of doubling the coupler springs. I also read somewhere a million years ago that there is some filing you can do inside the M/T knuckles to reduce the slack action. I have a 12 car BN long distance passenger train by Kato. I use Kato trucks with M/T 1128s mounted to them. No yo-yo thing at all, and two E8s pull it easily !!! Just tryin' to help !!!
Proper weight plus axle springs equals a heck of a lot of drag (hope your layout doesn't have much in the way of grades). Plus, it more or less means having to use a caboose. But what if you're modeling a modern-era layout? Which car do you load up with springs, and what happens when that car is dropped off somewhere during ops? The axle spring approach is really a band-aid for the problem, and not a very good one.
It would appear we would then need a better coupler option and it just is not there so maybe we should all hit the drawing board. PS this is a problem even in the real world trains. Mike
David Smith, I see your points. I really don't have any drastic grades and NOTHING leaves the yard without a caboose !!! I didn't mean "load up" any particular car with axle springs. I was thinking more like one spring per car. I don't think it would completely stop the yo-yo thing, but it would have to improve it some. Some people have suggested just switching couplers. That's not an option for me. Over 400 freight cars + 80 passenger cars + 150 engines, all with M/Ts = HELL NO !!! Would be nice to eliminate it, though. I think the caboose on my 35 car coal train probably travels twice the distance as the engines !!!
