Looks like a great new coupler design! How is this relevant to correcting the existing issue with the MT design? I'm trying to avoid another coupler conversion on all my rolling stock. Maybe you can afford to, I can't. Jerry
I believe that if my idea will work it would be alot cheaper to implement. I also want to point out that my approach to limiting compression of a spring has been used in other non model rail roading applications. Jerry
Because of the design of the MT coupler, the spring has to be able to compress for the automatic coupling to work properly. Inserting a solid object in to limit the spring movement will also stop the automatic coupling from working correctly.
Tony went and said TWO THINGS, I agree with? What's going on here? He stealing my thunder? I think I alluded to, or said directly there was another option.... at least twice, in posts here. Well, it's ok this time... as I agree. You can go out and buy any old look alike, Toy Train, knuckle coupler to solve this percieved problem. LOL And he's right about how the Micro-Trains coupler works. Actually he is a go to guy... when you need good advice and information regarding our favorite hobby. Just don't tell him I said so. Me...I'ma just a stubborn SOB. LOL I want all of you foaming, N Scalers... in Na-Na land to sit down, take a deep breath. Are you sitting down yet? Good. Otherwise you are going to be picking yourself up off the floor. One thing I do agree with and don't like. Yes, I said I don't like. When trains are on the down hill run, I've seen the last three cars in a train slam forward and then backwards. Several of you have chimed in about this. Although this is typical and protoypical the action is "Over Exaggerated". This much slack action... you don't see on the real railroads. Why, because if this kind of action started up the brakeman would torgue the brake wheel down tightening up the brakes on the crummy, so the train is all but dragging the caboose. They don't want flat spots on the wheels so it doesn't lock up the brakes. In effect stretching the last cars on the train. You did sit down...right? Pick your chin up off the computer key board. How do I solve the problem? Thanks for asking. COL I have older freight cars that have a substantial amount of drag. No, they don't have MTL wheelsets or trucks (Older toy train trucks). They are placed in front of the caboose and the drag...slows the slack action down, stretching the cars out, taking up the slack, to something reasonable. In essence giving me the realism, I desire. If the crummy starts to rock a take a big stick and slam it down....no, I wouldn't do that. I'd use on of those springs, MTL provides, in one of the wheelsets. Replicating the conductor tightening up the manual brake on the crummy. Forgive me for my stubborn streak but it will be forever called "Exaggerated Slack" on my layout. Yes or No, I don't like exaggerated slack. I for one prefer that it be realistic slack. Now, not later, NOW! All you idiot foamers, toy train enthusiast, NOW you can pick up your chin, peel yourself off the floor and get back to your toy trains. Grin. Kidding of course...sort of. Yep, feeling a bit better this morning.
As much fun as it is to 'poke the bear' or troll at Rick, there's your answer. I'm basically doing the same thing. My old Trix and Atlas cabooses were equipped with one one of the Kadee drag springs per car. Not much drag, just a bit, and it really minized the coupler bounce at the end of the train. On my shorter locals, I have a caboose that has two - there's some switching on mild grades and the darn thing kept rolling off without it. If I'm careless on downhill train handling on a long train I can get some pretty good bounce going yet, but to me if I can control it with the throttle, that's prototypical. Since I started illuminating cabooses with Richmond Controls sets, I'm putting Kato caboose trucks under them, and those roll like oil. Whoa... yeah, now I have some serious bounce going on, so one spring goes back in again. I have a couple light car sets for local freight that drive me nuts because they are so light they bounce apart even over my tiny uncoupler magnets - mostly empty 35' 55-ton MT hoppers. Since I have dedicated 'cuts' of those cars, each cut gets one spring. We're not talking a lot of situations here. I use magnetic uncoupling, no stickers here. I think the Atlas couplers are trash, basically, they all get replaced. I mean, you can argue this thing until you're blue in the face, but I can put in one of those retaining springs and test it in a lot less time than it took to type this, and if you don't like it it comes right back out. I found an easy technique to keep them from flyin' all over the place, I dip one end in a bit of Vaseline before I apply it, that grease 'sticks it' to the axle end so that it doesn't drop off while I am reinserting the axle in the truck. I was going to have some fun here and tell Rick that the only problem I have is pulling trains downhill over turnouts... naah, we'll let that ride. I'm one of those damn engineering types that actually buys them, not runs over them..
My idea was to partially limit the spring compression (dampen), so that the spring can still do its job as intended yet eliminate the slinky effect. I will try my approach as soon as I can buy the fishing line and provide an update as to my findings. It would follow then that Ken's short piece of rubber band if cut too long does the same thing. He did say "some of the couplers may not line up in the center as with the spring, but as I have no problem with tapping the coupler with a skewer to line it up, it is no big deal to me and the running performance is so much more realistic it is worth the few times I may have to do this. I figure I will change out the rubber band piece if any one does it on a regular bases". Wish me luck, as it might just work. let's face it I have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Jerry
Randqust wrote: ""I was going to have some fun here and tell Rick that the only problem I have is pulling trains downhill over turnouts... naah, we'll let that ride. I'm one of those damn engineering types that actually buys them, not runs over them.. "" LOLOLOL Good one! I expect engineering types to call them Turnout's....they don't know better. Heeheehee. I do agree with Randqust, and the way he has solved the "Exagerated Slack" problem. He too, is a go to guy who is very creative at solving problems. Ken, you paying attention here. Grin! Do remember, you don't want to poke the bear to often, you might wake up Cranky! Darn that George, pulling the same trick they did on Jimmey Kimmel. Ken, best of luck with your adventure... Every time I 've tried to mess with MicroTrains couplers I've ended up with a disaster. Let us know how it works out.:frustrated: That goes for Iron Horse, I'd be interested in how your ideas work out.
This has been a little twisted fun to read.Religion, Politics, Couplers, track and paint, they will all start a skirmish. As for me, I agree with a previous poster, and notice very little bouncy bounce with cars that have been converted to FVM or BLMA wheel sets. Nor do I see it with MT body mounted couplers. It is all just the slack in or the slack out with no other modifications. I would also say the trackwork also has an effect. When I had Peco turnouts on the layout, there was some bouncing in the turnout. When they were replaced with handlaid turnouts, that all went away too. There were also sections of track with what I would call micro-dips that produced some bouncing, but again, replacing the track took care of that too. Good wheel gauge, good wheels and tight turnouts and solid trackwork make the bounces go away.
Thanks Rick. As you know I am very determined and quite resourceful. This will require some steady hands and good eyesight, which btw ain't getting any better with age. I also like your term exaggerated slack and would like to add "unwanted" to your catch phrase. And thanks for keeping it real and fun! Jerry
Let's face facts. MT has sold a lot of couplers over the years and not too many people are going out and ditch the MT's for some new coupler. Fine if you are just starting out and have few cars but if you are like me and after collecting for a few decades, your car fleet numbers in the hundreds, the MT couplers represent a very substantial investment in money. So some solution has to be found that addresses the issue but keeps the MT coupler. In some circles it is called a "work around". Two solutions are available, replace the spring with either a stronger one or some other material to inhibit the compression/extension or to add drag to the rear of the train. Neither solution is without its downside. Of the two I favor adding drag. Substituting the spring impacts the delayed uncoupling but then most people do not use this fearture because of unwanted uncouplings when going over the magnets. So they use coupler pics. But there is also the issue that this has to be done twice to every car. The more cars the more labor intensive. Adding drag is a lot simpler as only a few cars, like cabooses, need to be so equipped. But modern modellers do not use cabooses. That is why I recommended the use of the FireFly Fred EOT. Running without a caboose requires that the last car be equipped with an End Of Train warning device. Typically such devices in models have the electronics and possibly a battery mounted inside the car requiring that car to be always at the end of the train. Not a flexible solution. But the FireFly Fred solves that in that it is totallly truck contained and picks up power from the track. That requires the truck have some form of wheel or axle wiper system and that adds drag on that truck. Being totally contained in the truck it can be moved from one car to another very easily simply by switching the trucks. The end result is that the entire fleet of cars does not have to be altered and you modern guys need an EOT device anyway so it solves two problems. So how do you find out which car has the Fred? Just put the cars on the track and watch for the one that has a blinking red light. This solves the problem with a minimal amount of time and money expended. Here is the link I posted earlier: http://www.ebay.com/itm/N-Scale-EOT-FireFly-FRED-/130612644374 As a disclaimer I have no financial interest in the FireFly Fred but I do know the guy who makes them as he is a member of our club. I have bought them and use them on my modern equipment. For more information
I'm not sure how much more economical a solution that is. Let's say you have 5 or 6 trains that need one of those; at $25 (+ shipping) a pop, that's still a $150+ price tag.
So, speaking of alternatives, what's the status of NZT's ProtoMate coupler project? Haven't heard a thing since last Spring. http://www.model160.com/n-scale-news-blog/nzt-announces-new-n-scale-coupler/
Option #3... Enjoy running our trains and live with the little bit of 'slinky' effect like we have for how many years now ? It's cheaper and its really not all that bad...seriously !!
What? What? What did George say. Darn medications are getting to him. Quoting a friend of mine: Jim 157, "It's your railroad, you make the rules and number one is have fun" If you don't like a certain type of knuckle coupler then for sure find a way to fix it. Whether you solve the problem by modifying the coupler, using resistance or drag in the wheel sets, a EOT unit (I admit I don't know how this works...but will investigate it) or the spring provided by MTL. That's up to you. You have some "Go To Guys" here that have fiddle farted around with all kinds of options and have shared some sound advice. You can exclude me in that list. To start off with Ken the OP, Dave aka Sharkman, Randqust, Tony Hines and not to offend anyone but there are those who participated here that no doubt have first hand knowledge aka hands on experience. My point... has been all along. If you are going to model a railroad then why not use the jargon or lingo of the Rails (Railroad Employees). Call it what it is. Now our engineering types I would expect to hear them use the professional terminology, espeacially as they try to solve the problems of model railroading. Kind of like this you can be a Toy Train Enthusiast, which I believe we all are at heart. We can step it up a notch by immitating the real world, 1X1 foot scale. Or go balistic and be a nuts and bolts counter... prototyper. The choice is yours. Define your fun by what is important to you. Summarization: Follow Jim's suggestion, "Number one is to have fun". A shout out of thanks to the Rails that participated here and shared their stories. I do hope you pay attention to what they've shared. Salute. A shout out of Thanks to George for the fun. Nothing like a Saturday night. LOLOL:teeth:
Last I heard it was going to happen this year but that was last spring or Summer. Whether it will debut this year we shall see. Hopefully it will be supported unlike the McHenry coupler. If only it had come with a coupler box and in a "T" shank with different shank lengths like the Unimate dummy couplers it might have made some inroads on MT. But it only mimicked the MT and Accumate and had a larger coupler head to boot. Same with Bachmann's coupler. So maybe there is some sort of technological barrier to making the coupler head smaller and still functional.
If you are running 5 or six trains at one time you still need 5 or 6 EOT devices, don't you? So what is more obvious the yo yo effect or the absence of a red flashing EOT? MRR Rule #1 applies so you decide.
Well I'm back from the R & D department, aka dining room table with some rather disturbing news. My test bed loco was a Kato MP36PH I received for Christmas and had not put a decoder in yet. The rail cars were a couple of Atlas two bay airslide hoppers with MT talgo style trucks (added weights removed) on the tail end of the train and a couple of 53' box cars at the head. The dining room table provided a nice loop with two foot of straight away using Kato Unitrack. I had to run the train at a crawl in order to get the hoppers to start jerking to and fro with unwanted exaggerated slack. Success they clearly demonstrated the problem! I proceeded to install a short piece of 80 lb fishing line in the adjoining couplers of the pair of two bay hoppers and ran a test. I then ran the train and the hoppers did the same dance. Failure! Now to the disturbing part, I installed a short piece of rubber band allowing for hardly any movement of the coupler to and fro. I ran the train and the hoppers did the same dance. Failure! What the heck! Now I'm asking myself do I even know where the unwanted exaggerated slack is coming from. So I watch the two hopper's couplers more closely and low and behold there it was. All the slack and jerking action was occurring between the two knuckles of the couplers. So I proceeded to roll up some scotch tape (sticky side out) and slip it in between the coupler knuckles. I ran the train and the hoppers behaved perfectly. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about the amount of gap / slack between the coupler knuckles, so failure! So why do the MT1015's work? I thought it was the difference between the rear draft and forward draft design and it maybe in part. Upon closer observation you will notice that the knuckle of the MT1015's and other forward draft couplers such as the 2001's and 2004's have a slightly larger knuckle and therefore less gap / slack. Holy cow Batman! The clear and obvious fix for this problem is drag either by adding more weight, using springs on the truck axles or a FRED. Before considering converting your fleet of rolling stock over to a new coupler design you may first want to get a pair in your hands and check for gap / slack then try them on a light weight pair of cars placed at the end of a train. If they pass the test great! Jerry
It seams that everyone is getting the "slinky" action when they are pulling a long train. I am getting the slinky action when I am doing yard work, the model railroad type, not the outside type, with only three cars being pulled. So a sprung trucked caboose or FRED will not help my situation.
No, You do not need an EOTD. A red flag in the coupler works just fine ( even on the prototype ). Paul
