Preview of MTL new True-Scale coupler system

David, I will give them a few laps on the layout and report back when I can.

 

Understood. But, it could be a box that I build, using the existing pilot for the top, and fabricating the nessary parts for sides and bottoms. Actually, the mechanical necessities seem to be the pivot and the slots at the back that hold the ends of the "spring" arms. One potential issue is the vertical thickness of the two-part coupler shank and how that fits the existing slot in the pilot. Another issue is going to be clearance for the pilot wheels when the loco is navigating curves. That has been an issue for magnetic couplers, too. The solution for the magnetics has been to cut-off the back corners of the box. But, that might not be workable for the True Scales because those back corners look like they are necessary to limit motion of those "spring" tabs. But, maybe a short-shank version of the True Scales can be fitted far enough forward in the pilot to give adequate wheel clearance. No use speculating further at this time, but it is far too early to decide it can't possibly be done.

 

Ryan - Thanks for the heavyweight pictures! Those look great! I'm guessing these will also become the standard upgrade for IMR F units (rear of A units plus B units). The Red Caboose dummies worked well for that, but these should work even better.

 

Ok, so can those of you who have some of these show us how they compare to z-scale couplers?

What I want to see is:
A) how does the size of the two couplers compare
B) how does the coupling distance compare when both are mounted in the same location (e.g. Both are mounted using the mounting holes provided on MTL rolling stock)

The question really is ( since I won't convert several hundred cars all at once ) will I quickly be able to spot z-scale couplers ( which I already have ) over the true scale couplers in a photo or in a passing train that may have blocks of cars ( say 10 or so ) true scale couplers with z-scale couplers at the ends of the blocks.

Paul

 

Even a picture of a 905 by itself doesn't help.

Also, if you don't have a 905s to compare, you can't make the observation that the new coupler's are closer coupling.

I need comparison photos, like the ones already posted for the n-scale couplers.

Paul

 

Here is a 905 along side our True-Scale Coupler

 

Thanks Joe, That helps quite a bit.

Paul

 

Thanks for the True Scale to z scale comparison pictures.

For the longer-shank True Scales in the pictures, it looks like the distance from the mounting hole to the inside of the knuckle is the same as the z scale 905s. So, I would expect the distance between cars to be the same as with the z scale 905s.

So, I expect that the short-shank True Scales will couple closer than the 905 z couplers. That will be a nice option.

 

The long shanks may have limited appeal given the "spirit" of the product but I felt it important to at least have a second option.

 

Have any of the "beta" testers run coupled cars on a layout to check for unwanted uncouplings at the bottom or top of grades?
Likewise, over the sort of variable track quality you might find on an Ntrak layout.

 

Ryan has offered to do that on the top of this page.

 

Thanks Joe. Just to clarify, are the new Truscales in the top photos the long shank version? If so, could you post a photo showing a short shank truscale side-by-side with the 905? I think that is the comparison a lot of us are anxious to see.

 

No soup for you!! LOL. problem is they get scratched up when they are fed into the automatic loader. We can do it in Z scale because they are fed one at a time in the pinner. You can always fall back on black paint and a brush?
Joe

 

Here is the standard shank and the 905 next to each other.

 

How is the hands free coupling - ?
At the moment that is what would make the difference for me in purchasing or not. As I operate my layout. Using a pick to uncouple is not an issue - however - hands free coupling is a must.

Thanks,
Wolf