My rolling stock is about half and half Rapido and MT. I realize that Rapidos are out dated and don't look realistic, but my question only involves the ability to pull a load so how do Rapidos stack up for holding compared to MT couplers: Not near as good as MT or about the same as MT or better than MT?
I can’t believe this is coming up, it’s almost 2019. There are cheap couplers that hold insanely well, but look much better than Rapidos. Never Rapidos... never!
You could probably assemble a 1000 car train with Rapidos and pull it up a 10% grade with no uncoupling and no breakage. jpwisc is right -- they do hold insanely well because there are only two parts -- the coupler and a spring. The spring presses on the coupler's backside and allows the coupler to flex a bit. The whole assembly is as strong as the coupler pocket, which is mighty strong.
Rapidos can hold a train together of almost any length desired but that is dependent on how well they are molded and mounted. If the coupler, itself, is poorly molded with rounded edges, etc. it will have a tendency to slip upward which will, of course, cause unwanted uncoupling. If the mounting is poor with a weak spring or poorly molded pocket, the coupler can flop around, leading to the same thing (unwanted uncoupling). MT's can hold very long trains too, although there is a theoretical limit before the plastic starts to deform under stress and separating. I know I have read about 100 car (maybe longer) train lengths with them. They have to be mounted pretty precisely to avoid up/down uncoupling but that is all part of the process. Same with side/side uncoupling. They must be completely free to move side to side and front to back to avoid the knuckles coming apart. The lips on the lip shank must stay in constant contact, or very nearly so, with the back of the knuckles so the knuckles will not separate when there is slack in the train. All that being said, I personally started to convert to MT's when they first became available in 1968 and still use those cars and the MT's still work perfectly. And those are before the reverse draft angle was developed (I think they work just as well). Precise mounting is the key. Actually, to me, the ideal with MT's would be to have perfectly flat surfaces on the inside of the knuckle rather than a normal or reverse draft angle. There would be much less tendency to slip if the vertical height of two couplers are not exact. The strength consideration between the two is pretty much a wash. Doug
When I first started in N scale, my equipment was all Rapido equipped. I recall undesired uncouplings. I cannot say they were frequent, but they did happen. I remember times when the two did not mesh, vertically. Differences in cars, manufacturers and some times where after coupling, one had not completely dropped down into place.
Yup, all caused by poor execution of the design. The very early Arnold examples were really impressive, Very precise molding and the spring was intricate with the ends being larger in diameter than the middle, which I believe allowed the front-to-back stiffness to keep the coupler horizontal while allowing it to easily raise during uncoupling. The coupler pocket was relatively long compared to later on and Arnold, itself, changed to the more typical, simpler mounting of other manufacturers, partially leading to a little less reliability. I remember my early Atlas cars having very good characteristics too. Very sharp edges, both on the coupler itself and the pocket. Some other brands were actually pretty poor. I will also mention that, with either type, coupling on curves is not as reliable as model railroading print often claims. On very broad (19" or greater) yes, but not so much with sharper curves. Doug
I have run an unattended t-track display with an entire train of rapido couplers and it did not miss a beat they hold great, now when I put together a train of custom painted cars and high quality rolling stock I totally want mt couplers they have the realism and honestly when I was in a club running my train I had worked hard to put together I was put off by others running rapidos because of the effort I put forth to have a realistic train I felt that those who ran the rapidos were just running toys. It really just depends on your intent, in my case the t-trak use of rapidos worked well as kids would come up and poke the train and they were reliable when unattended. But when trying for realism they are lacking.
You’ll find them at the top of this page. http://foxvalleymodels.com/NParts.html They don’t release for squat, but if you are comparing them to Rapido, they stil come out ahead. I’m a MT fan myself.
I use MT simply because they're what is available. If I build the little GWR layout I'm thinking of for shows, etc., I'd just stay with rapidos, likely. As far as holding power, they hold quite well, generally.
Older MT's that don't have the RDA knuckle head will separate under heavy load. (RDA=reverse draft angle, a correction of the coupler molds so the 'fingers' on the knuckle tapered in instead of out, centering the coupler under force instead of popping it vertically). http://home.earthlink.net/~bhender730/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/rda_mt.jpg I had a devil of a time with MT's until I modified all my head to that standard with an Xacto knife. No problems since. You'll break a coupler off before it ever pops. All old MT's have that issue, you can look at the fingers of a coupler and see it. Fix ALL of them, and train separation issues disappear forever. I had particular problems with the long extension boxes, now I run 25 car trains of piggybacks up a 2% grade and all the couplers are dead-center with each other under heavy load. And like Doug said, there's Rapidos and there are Rapidos. Con-Cor had some of the worst, old Trix/Atlas, and even MT the best, but there were some real loosers out there in Rapidoland as well. There's always Caboose Hobbies (correction - Red Caboose) dummy knuckles as well, get a batch of those. They very nicely replace Rapidos and have different shank lengths, inexpensive. I use them for MU consists where I absolutely want no coupler issues, ever, and don't need to uncouple either. On freight cars you can leave the original trucks and just swap out the coupler, leaving the box and spring intact, if you want to go that way. I've had a couple cars where the trucks were just impossible to change that it became a good if imperfect solution.
Not to offend Randgust, but to avoid any confusion, Red Caboose (not Caboose Hobbies) was the original seller of the knuckle couplers. The Red Caboose n scale products section was purchased by Fox Valley Models, so the website jpwisc provided will be the correct one to purchase them. Just wanted to make sure yellow_cad knows they are the same coupler.
No offense, you're absolutely correct. AKA Unimates.... https://store.sbs4dcc.com/images/view.aspx?productId=4148 The T shank in that design is intended to be the same dimensions as a Rapido shank and fit into any box as a direct replacement for the Rapido, and re-use the spring as well. There are at least three different coupler shank lengths.
Hi Amanda, Being in Europe you probably see Rapido couplers in wide spread use, more than we do here in the States. I know a few others couplers like Dapol easi-shunt are becoming popular. The great idea in Europe is the NEM pocket, allowing modelers their choice of couplers that simply plug into the NEM pocket. It seems most of the European railroad video blogs I follow, the majority of modelers are still using the good old Rapido coupler. My first N scale train set in the early 1970's came with Rapido couplers. To me they worked about as good as the HO scale X2F couplers, they both had their good points and bad points. When I got back into N scale in the late 1980's, most locomotives and rolling stock were still coming equipped with Rapido couplers. What's funny is I just purchased a Bachmann RS3 factory equipped with DCC and Micro-Train compatible couplers, but low and behold there are also Rapido couplers in the package
Indeed! Most European models do in fact come with Rapidos, and some of them seem like replacement would be a challenge, to say the least; tiny 0-6-0t locomotives that are smaller than my thumb, and so on! When possible, I would gladly swap to MTs or another replacement (I believe the Dapol couplers are essentially just MTs) but on some models, it may be beyond my ability! I just got a Bachmann S4, DCC equipped and all too... and lo and behold, rapidos in the package! Seems some old habits do die hard. FWIW, my little S4 is a true gem, and runs wonderfully; how is that RS3?
In the mid 1960s, my brother who lived in Germany at the time, sent me an Arnold coach and a wagon for my 000 Lone Star layout. I thought the couplers were the greatest thing since sliced bread and eventually re-trucked much of my Lone Star fleet with Atlas trucks with Rapido couplers. Here is a Lone Star caboose with the original "Hook/Loop" couplers. They were far from any prototype.
