You can count me in as that would be me as well. Look... I like the orignal MTL couplers "Slinky" and all. I get the realism I want from my trains. Realistic starts, stops and ways to bring a train in. Toy train enthusiast who like to put a train together and run it around in circles is OK by me and if this is what you've been looking for then knock yourself out. Besides dealing with blind scale...I can't see how the couplers look. So I'm pleased, as in very, very pleased with what I have. Like the first time I saw these in our local hobby shop.
I'll bet these will work and look great on my North Shore interurbans keeping them coupled on the tight elevated curves!!!!!
The issue I have has been no information about how they run with sharp curves, or long strings of cars. I might could see a dedicated string of cars of passenger cars using these if there was any performance information.
The slinky effect isn't realistic, its the bouncing the last cars in the train do as they run. Slack action is very different than slinky.
I am switching to the scale coupler so I don't have to watch the last 2 cars that I am switching having spasms as I pull them away.
The reason those cars bounce is because their rolling resistance is less than the energy in the compressed coupler spring. Therefore the spring wins. Increasing the rolling resistance of the last car will eliminate the bounce. I do it in one of two ways. I either use a caboose with increased rolling resistance or, on modern trains, I use a truck mounted FRED such as the Firefly FRED. This adds resistance and solves the bounce problem. Firefly Freds can be seen here: https://www.facebook.com/FireFly-FREDs-268530859850688/ The cost is $25 (with shipping) and is a lot easier and cheaper than changing out couplers. Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Firefly FREDs although the inventor is a member of my Ntrak club.
While that helps on a train that is running out on the main, it really doesn't help switching out the grain elevator
Ever try adding more weight to the cars? That will increase the rolling resistance. To me the whole issue of the bounce has become over blown. Could it be that N scalers have a hobby within a hobby? Maybe, for some of us our real hobby is complaining of issues either real or imagined and model railroading acts as a disguise for it. But hey, bottom line is that MRR Rule #1 applies. Its your railroad (also your money) do as you will.
I like taking photos of my engines up close. I railfan my own railroad, if you will. I also operate. The traditional N Scale couplers have always been a dead give-away in photos that it was N Scale. Using Z Scale couplers helped a little, but I already know how nice these look on my engines. The difference is night and day. I also operate my layout, and the force needed to couple these couplers is not much different than the N Scale knuckle couplers. The reduced slinky effect is a nice bonus. I'm also lucky in that my layout has reached full capacity. I owned more cars than I needed and I have been downsizing the fleet. I will only need about 120 pairs of couplers. By the time I get half done I expect there will be other manufacturers creating compatible couplers or conversions.
I agree. Real slack is much smaller, and is not active except for starting-up and slowing down. It is the springs in the MT magnetic versions that make the obvious "slinky" effect, and it is not limited to the last few cars. Because I want to run long trains, adding drag to cars, or even the last car, is not something that I want to do. The new True Scale couplers will have some slack. Whether it is scale-level slack, or more, or less, remains to be seen. If it is scale-level or more, then Rick can have his realistic train dynamics without the slinky effect while running. If it is less, then maybe elongating the pivot hole can provide the slack needed to mimic the prototype. We have much experimenting to do. Looking forward to getting started with that.
If the MT "slinky" effect was upscaled to 1:1 the poor train crew in the caboose would be throwing up through the windows, or worse, dead.
You guys are tooooo funny. I have to laugh. Yep, if the real guys ran trains like you guys do you'd for sure kill the crew in the caboose. Aiiyiiyii!!! You guys are OK, I don't care what anybody else says. LOL We each have our own personal perspective and beliefs about railroad operations. What's real and what isn't. I'm no different. On my layout with all the grades I have, I seldom see my tail end cars spasming. I control my train much like the hog heads on the 1:1 foot scale. I make sure my train starts out slowly, BUT under the control of momentum. Once the whole of the train is underway I can then increase the train speed manually. Going downhill isn't much different as the rear cars are smashing into the rear of the train and I seldom do see the affects a lot of you have complained about. So, I'm happy with my older MTL knuckle couplers. Obviously now, with this new coupler many hobbyist can be happy as well. I was never able to validate the slinky complaint on my layout. I've ridden trains and felt the slack, watched from the side lines and always felt that what I saw duplicated on my layout copied it perfectly. Not sure what everyone else is looking at. There again I don't run my trains like others do. Besides if you have rear end cars that are trouble makers there are other ways to resolve the issue. At a open house the BVMR's hosted I noted some of the action you talked about but I had multiple trains operating slowly over the layout. I wasn't controlling each train individually. It wasn't hands on as I was operating on Analog DC with one transformer controlling two or three trains. It worked out OK as it kept everyone's attention focused on the train meets, a train passing while the other was hold up on a siding and etc. Lot's of fun but not the kind of operations I like, when operating alone or with a friend; I wish you could of seen my dad bring a train in. I've never seen anyone bring in a train more realistically then he did. He used to point to the slack affect which some have called slinky and said, "That's just like the real trains." Once we requisitioned power packs with Momentum, particularly one with adjustable momentum he was in seventh heaven. Nothing personal you understand. No offense intended. Take what you want from here and leave the rest behind.
A lot of it comes down to personal preferences and what we're trying to do. Think (for instance) of "modelers" vs "operators." The joy of the hobby is that there is enough flexibility to allow all of us to fit comfortably within our chosen niche, whether that involves switching, continuous running or prototypical operations. And for that very reason, no particular product is necessarily going to have universal appeal.
They perform well, coupling fairly easily. They take about the same amount of force to couple as an Atlas Accumate to couple. The holding power is awesome. I have not gotten a set to let lose on a train yet. I think the car would break before these couplers do. Play between a pair of mated couplers is about .005" compared to .1" between standard MT couplers.
I think we're just gonna have to get 'em and try 'em, David. I have in mind my 108 car earthworm for a testbed - I already converted it to body mounts, and this would take it the rest of the way. And if I understand, this is pretty much the targeted type service for these. 'Twill be most interesting.
I have achieved what I consider to be operational stability. That is, my stuff operates reliably and I have made a great effort to ensure that. The key is to maintain consistency. Standardize everything you can. I standardized on MT truck mounted couplers with MT plastic wheels, cars weighted to at least NMRA standards, screws to hold the trucks on, etc. That did not come easy or quick. A lot of time and some money were invested to achieve that. Therefore, I see no reason to upset the applecart by changing everything to another coupler now. That being said, I will experiment with them for areas where I think there could be improvement. One of these is possibly replacing the Unimate couplers in my ABBA lash ups of F units, FA/B1's and Sharks. I was able to achieve very close coupling of these units with the Unimate couplers and the couplers worked flawlessly. Never had a breakaway between units so equipped. However coupling the units was a real bear as one unit's coupler had to lifted up over the other. This was made more difficult due to the close coupling distance between units. If I can retain the close coupling distance between units with this new coupler with the reliability of the Unimates with the added advantage of coupling these units by mere pushing them together then I will use them for that purpose. There I can see a tangible benefit but as a general refit to all of my rolling stock is just not worth it.
From what I see there is room for both styles with legitimate reasons for both. What would be the coolest would be one that does both but that's a challenge for another day. Miniaturization often introduces tolerance requirements that are difficult to the extreme even with improved manufacturing techniques. I think this is one of those times. But then again, I never really tried.
Well I decided to take the lunge on these. I was testing a couple of new Atlas SD60's just in from my favorite supplier, and on the first loop on the test track, one of the Accumates fell all apart. So it is into the trash with all Accumates
It remains to be seen if these will fit the Accumate box....and I won't know until my pusher restocks - first time I've ever been skunked by woo-woo-woo...
