Preview of MTL new True-Scale coupler system

Joe D'Amato Sep 1, 2016

  1. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    I used the body mount version. I put the short shank ones on the rear of the A units and the mid size ones on both ends of the B units. Had to enlarge the hole to use the universal mounting clip. Also had to use a spacer made from apiece of round plastic tube or an old Rapido coupler spring.
     
  2. randgust

    randgust TrainBoard Member

    3,493
    502
    56
    As long as we're in the 'if wishes were fishes' mode, man, would I ever like a short-shank, low-clearance Z coupler head. So that the box doesn't go back so far, which interferes with all manner of truck clearances on locomotives, lead trucks, you name it. It would be nice to just be the idiot here that doesn't know it's already there and I don't know what it's called. But for what I consider basic 'missing links' in the MT product line, that's one of them. Basically a 1015/16 shank design on the 905-sized head.
     
  3. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    In my opinion your best solution for this would be a McHenry type coupler with a "T" shank. The McHenry, although it was oversized, was never made in a "T" shank. Reduce the size and make a "T" shank and you are there. The MT, Accumate and now the Tru Scale coupler all have the pivot point somewhere along the shank of the coupler which puts it in the coupler box. The McHenry (and also the Bachmann coupler) has the pivot point in the coupler head itself. The "T" shank reduces the area needed for attaching the coupler to the locomotive. And for those who complain about losing that coupler spring a little dab of epoxy solves the problem.
     
  4. Point353

    Point353 TrainBoard Member

    2,879
    7,585
    71
    You'd think that offering the 905 type coupler knuckle in a 1015 style mounting box would have already occurred (or been suggested) to someone at MTL, but maybe not.
     
    barlowfaudio likes this.
  5. PeterAmling

    PeterAmling TrainBoard Member

    14
    1
    7
    This new coupler system comes at the perfect time for me, as I am beginning my major project to upgrade all my rolling stock to the proper ride height, correctly sized trucks with metal wheels, and body mounted couplers. It's going to be a big project as I have quite a variety of cars that all seem to need different modifications. I would definitely like to try these out and hope they can be my new coupler of choice since these look more prototypical than the 905s and LEZs that I am considering.

    I have a couple of questions and suggestions.

    1. From the original photos it looks like there are two coupler box sizes. It has been mentioned that one of them is the same or similar size as a 1015. What is the other box size?

    2. Could someone post a comparison photo of the True Scale to a 1015, 1023, 1027 and Kato? That would be much appreciated.

    3. I have started to lower all my Fox Valley cars, and noticed that adding BLMA trucks causes the axles to scrape against the 1015 box. I'm evaluating what to do about that, whether I need a different coupler box or if there is a good way to trim height off the 1015. Are the new coupler boxes the same vertical height as 1015s or could they be made slightly thinner with an optional shim to avoid scraping against the axles?

    4. The air hoses look great. Can they be mounted so that instead of going straight down they go towards the coupler? When real couplers are connected the air hoses meet underneath the couplers. This would give them a more prototypical look when coupled.

    5. Finally, I second an earlier request to have a black box with a brown coupler. It would be great to use a more reddish brown than what's used for the current brown to more closely mimic the rust color of real couplers.

    6. At some point, as the line expands, I would love a drop in replacement for Atlas, BLMA, Exactrail, Trainworx, etc. cars that come with body mounted couplers integrated into the car.
     
    nscaler711 likes this.
  6. sandro schaer

    sandro schaer TrainBoard Member

    2,020
    87
    43
    joe,

    they look great. however, how do they perform on a 150 car train ? are they as reliable/strong as the oversized 1015/2004/2001/whatever mt couplers ?
    if they couple as easy as the normal mt, rarely uncouple and easily hold a really long and heavy train then i consider replacing all my couplers.
    (>500 engines, >2500 cars)
     
  7. Joe D'Amato

    Joe D'Amato TrainBoard Member

    1,749
    352
    38
    Understand these are prototypical sized couplers so they work best on even track...I not sure of many couplers that will hold 150 cars, that may be too much to ask of any coupler except a drawbar :)

    JOe
     
    nd-rails and mtntrainman like this.
  8. sandro schaer

    sandro schaer TrainBoard Member

    2,020
    87
    43
    150 cars are no problem with standard mt couplers.
     
  9. randgust

    randgust TrainBoard Member

    3,493
    502
    56
    I've definitely seen enough for me to try them, particularly on some of the bitty critters and logging equipment that a conventional MT coupler just looks enormous on. I suspect we're all the 'muppet labs' for Joe here anyway, if he wants a focus group on testing and installing these we are likely it.

    The only thing MT as done that actually irritated me in the last decade was to totally drop the low-flange wheelsets, as I designed my V&T ore cars to specifically fit those wheels. I had to redesign my kit to even accept the new mid-flange design as they are just really..tiny... But, on the positive side, a batch of them coupled up with the Civil-war couplers (link and pin style) looks perfectly dandy, as the prototype never had knuckles either.

    But if you want a REAL all purpose coupler, take a look at the lead coupler on HVRR #5. The only thing that doesn't have on it is a 1 3/4" trailer hitch ball and a pintle hook.

    http://www.randgust.com/hv5b.jpg

    Standard knuckle, with a link and pin slot, and a separate low-level link and pin head. That was an OEM (Lima) option, too, that's not a logging railroad cob-job.
     
  10. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    +1 Our Ntrak club had 143 cars pulled by an ABBA set of LifeLike FA/B1's. Not something we do everyday but we will do 30-50 cars routinely.
     
  11. bremner

    bremner Staff Member

    6,266
    6,246
    106
    So.....I converted a pair of FVM boxcars to scale couplers....
    1. I just finished off a bottle of Cab Sav....
    2. I ran out of scale couplers....
    3. I had a pair of each of the standard and long shanks...
    4. I think that the long shanks look better.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Point353

    Point353 TrainBoard Member

    2,879
    7,585
    71
    By what process and criteria were the "beta testers" selected?
     
  13. bremner

    bremner Staff Member

    6,266
    6,246
    106
    To the best of my knowledge, exchanging Christmas cards, and having a daughter who likes trains.
     
    Stumpytrain, Pie39 and wmcbride like this.
  14. mtntrainman

    mtntrainman TrainBoard Supporter

    9,982
    10,808
    143
    I could have used a bunch of free new couplers. Half of my cars still have cRapidos on em...lol :p
     
  15. bremner

    bremner Staff Member

    6,266
    6,246
    106
    I got like 8 pair......I need like 100 more
     
    mtntrainman likes this.
  16. Point353

    Point353 TrainBoard Member

    2,879
    7,585
    71
    That must have eliminated most of the contenders.
     
  17. urodoji

    urodoji TrainBoard Member

    427
    128
    21
    Keeping a 143 car train together at all on an Ntrak layout is pretty impressive.
     
  18. DCESharkman

    DCESharkman TrainBoard Member

    4,396
    3,025
    87
    Thanks Jim! Their online orders are offline at this time. But I know where to go. I used the short body mounts on all mt Intermountain F units for the closer coupling. I still may be interested in the MT couplers if they are at a reasonable price point.
     
  19. DCESharkman

    DCESharkman TrainBoard Member

    4,396
    3,025
    87
    I have run a 95 car train on NTrak layouts with regular MT couplers and a buddy of mine runs even longer trains with MT couplers without issues.

    I am interested to see how these behave in different curves to make sure the distance reduction doesn't cause derailments in yard ladders etc.
     
    mtntrainman likes this.
  20. Jim Reising

    Jim Reising In Memoriam

    1,598
    758
    45
    I regularly run a 108 car earthworm with Trinity 5161s with all body mounts - the new coupler would seem to be made for this - but I really don't have problems even up and down 2%. And using DP on the rear...
     

Share This Page