I have been reading alot of threads about couplers, learning and just reading. I often read how z scale couplers are more appealing, why don't we all just switch?
$$$$ COST $$$$ Wouldn't be a problem if you're a beginning modeler in N scale and can change out the couplers on the rolling stock and engines as you get them... but... to retrofit entire collections would be prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers 'should' have downsized to Z scale couplers in the 1990's when the push to eliminate the Rapidos began. Unfortunately they chose to stay with the oversized N scale couplers. One reason given is the 'heftier' N scale coupler would be more resistant to damage... I guess if one is running 40+ car consists the Z scale couplers may not be able to handle the weight???
Couplers in most scales are at least somewhat oversized. For me, I am happy with the present size. Which has existed for how many decades now? I'd not be interested in spending time, nor any money to change. Boxcab E50
I put Z scale couplers on my locomotives for the look, but I don't think I would ever use them on all my cars. I really doubt they could handle the weight of a 40+ car train. As it is, they flex pretty good on the rear loco while pulling 30-35 car trains up the 2.1% helix on my layout. Now if someone were to make a Z scale coupler one out of metal... =) -Mike
N and Z scale couplers will couple together so you don't need to convert your whole fleet. I convert a few cars at a time, when I order anything I usually add a pack or two of Z couplers when you can get them. I've been concentrating on my steam era cars which I don't run in as long a train as my modern era cars, though I've converted 30 Athearn coalporters and have run them in the lead of a 50 or so car train on the Ntrak layout without problems. The prototype also has problems with coupler strength on long trains, thats why they use mid train or rear end helpers. Body mounted Z scale couplers with FVM metal wheelsets do improve the looks of any car. A stronger Z scale coupler, metal or otherwise (I think its more the design than the material) would be a good idea, better than going the other direction like the McHenry coupler. I'd like to see Micro Trains do a better range of Z scale couplers, eg;a Z version of the 1015, but like deep flanges (no, don't start that discussion again), there seems to be a perception among some that you need large couplers for reliable operation when what you really need is well laid track.
I agree that Z couplers would look better but i'm not going to change anytime soon. My N scale couplers work & look just fine for me. Dave
Interesting idea, I guess it has been discussed before but I haven't read every thread so will buy into this one with my thoughts. From what I've read those that have converted to Z scale couplers haven't had any problems with them and also with them coupling to N scale ones. I assume that those who have converted have body mounted the couplers too. So that would also help with the reliability factor as they would also have taken the time to make sure they are spot on I'm sure. However I don't know what effect that this would have on the minimum radius of your curves and switch angles. As far as them flexing and pulling apart on long trains I guess it depends on weight, grade, curvature, rolling resistance and length of train on how much stress is placed on any coupler. For example pastoolio sees some flex on a 30-35 but he is pulling them up a 2.1% helix so you have grade and curvature. Whereas Westfalen has run them on a 50 or so car train on an Ntrack layout which I assume is flat and has very broad curves and hasn't seeen any flex and as he states the prototype also have problems with coupler strength so I don't see an issue for me if I have to add a mid train helper depending on the grades, curves etc on different parts of my layout. To me it just makes it more prototypicle. Cost, well here's the thing. Remember way back when, when there was only Rapido couplers, then this Kadee company came along with a better looking coupler and unlike the N/Z couplers there was no way you could get them to couple together. Now, back then I was young and I got my start in N scale by purchasing a bulk lot of N scale items brand new at about half their retail value in about 1981. I got about 25 Locos (Trix mainly) and about 200 cars 98% of which were rapido fitted. The rest were some the few MTL ones available. So having no money it was a case of having converter cars between the MTL and Rapido fitted cars. So, as far as having to convert your whole fleet I don't think it is an issue you could either have converter cars or run N/Z coupled together. With what MTL did when they bit the bullet and brought out better quality equipment with no coupler compatibility was a brave move but the quality and detail sold themselves. There is nothing stopping a manufacturer today doing the same thing maybe they will, maybe the won't. I guess what I'm saying is if MTL released a car or cars or changed over I'd buy them. Reliability, well as Westfalen also said I'd have to agree with that statement. However, when I started out despite my best efforts my trackwork although acceptable probably wasn't good enough for Z scale couplers as I didn't have the experience I have today. My track laying and subroadbed takes forever. Although, having said that how do newbies who start out in Z get on? So maybe it isn't such factor. I guess also if I remember back to when I started having the odd derailment didn't seem to worry me that much. Neither did having European loco's pulling American boxcars around for that matter, back in those days it was just great to run a train. So, me personally yeah I'd go with them if they came out as a commercial release but I don't think I would convert my whole fleet. Cheers, Alan.
It's all in your personal preference I guess but as for me, I like the N scale size couplers that we have.
While I am sure there is a group of people who care a lot I expect there is no real reason. I also expect that the size difference does not show up at 3 feet. Where it would show up the most is in static pictures. For me? Yes, given time and money I'd pay someone to do up my 10 favorite locos and 25 favorite cars for photo purposes. Still, I can see how if a push was started now a transition to Z couplers could take place in 5 to 10 years.
This would definitely be my biggest concern - those of us properly addicted to long trains would definitely have to take a look at durability and strength. But can you imagine trying to assemble a Z coupler? I have a hard enough time with MT's in N scale - I can't imagine doing them even smaller.
Sounds like an HO topic, almost...........I have a lot of cars in HO with Kadee number 5s, and a growing number (until I went to N) getting equipped with number 58s. Any couplers getting replaced were being done so with Kadee 58s. Number 5s are reliable enough, IMO, and the 58s work just as well, but they're also scale-size, while the 5s are oversize. It's mostly cosmetic, really. Same way I look at Z couplers on N equipment. It would seem that changing to Z should be approached like our Horribly Oversize brethren handle swapping 5s for 58s. The more cars to be changed, the higher the expense, however. I don't see Z couplers on N cars any time soon, and definitely not without a price increase. And people think N stuff is high now.......
Agreed, but I can remember a time when all U.S. N scale apart from MTL came with Rapido couplers and wheels that make MTL's pizza cutters look good as standard. Z, or maybe we should say 'correct size N scale' couplers may be standard issue in the future just as knuckle couplers whether they be MT, Accumate or McHenry are now, as long as they are backwardly compatible with existing couplers I don't see a problem with a gradual introduction. Progress slowly marches on, but in the meantime something other than the MT #903/905 would be nice for those of us who want to do it ourselves.
I agree it's a personal choice. For me the present MT couplers are fine. I don't particularly like Rapido couplers because there the further est thing from real that I've seen yet in our hobby. But to go thru the expense of changing the majority of my present fleet to Z scale which in my opinion is tiny. No thanks, however Athearns recent release of the McHenry couplers does interest me. But then again it will/would be a slow conversion. And the only reason for that change is more prototypical look more solid coupling action, and last but not least it's not to tiny for large hands and older eyesight. Well that's my two bits
We had the same discussion at our club regarding Kadee #5's vs #58's.After finding out that scale appearance and smooth operations don't always have the same agenda,one member proclaimed "The real railroads wish they had #5's",thought that was pretty funny.
Would be nice if MTL sold their cars WITHOUT couplers and trucks at a reduced price . This way we don't have to spend twice for the wheels and couplers we want to end up with . They should sell wheeless trucks in bulk packs , just as they do the wheels . Snap together Z couplers ala 1015 style in 3 styles 1015 , 1016 , 2004 and in black and brown 10 pair packs would grow the Z coupler line . As far a Z not taking the load , one could just do 2 boxcars , and couple that behind the tender of a test train . See how good or bad it is for your track conditions and train load .
Another useless post by BarstowRick, Grin! Reflecting on the past to the present. It wasn't so many years back we were ranting, whining and crying...calling for train car providers of passenger and freight cars, to switch from Rapido (the ugly box like coupler) to the MicroTrains version. That's finally happening. YES! Down side, the knuckle couplers provided aren't all MTL. There are a number of competitive brands available. Most of the brand X kunckle (umm excuse me) knuckle couplers are good copies but don't function as well as MTL. There are coupling issues, staying coupled on down hill runs and couple poorly with other competitive brands. Within the ranks of the competition to MTL, you will find larger then scale couplers and many that lack working options and the realistic performance of MTL's. Personally, I'm very happy with MTL and the products they deliver. I've read and listened to the "Rants" and sometimes wonder if these same people have forgotten how long it took to get to this point. Are we spoiled and want everything...yesterday? "Well, yes as a matter of fact", as ordered by a fellow hospital administrative type. Unrealistic perhaps but yes some A types want it done... yesterday. As far as wheel sets? I'm installing MTL's low profile. The odd thing is I'm changing out older flanged wheel sets that make the "Pizza Cutters" look like RP25's. Progress has been slow but we are getting there. Yesterday, is gone and we need to work on today. The idea of asking MTL to produce train cars minus the couplers doesn't set well with me. The reason I buy MTL's train cars is because of their couplers. What? You want MTL to do what? Naw, I don't think so. In my opinion any negative press is counter productive. Press is press and even the negative turns into a free advertisement. Since people love controversy, ranting and whining they tune in. That said, in defense of my favorite ranters...calling for improvements is not a bad thing. Discussing it here is a good thing. If our fellow model rail friends in the industry are listening, much can be accomplished. I just don't think it is fair to bad dog or garbage dump the leader in the field. Non-other then our good friends at MicroTrains Lines. Thanks to MTL and their leadership in the past, we now have quality products hitting the market. That can't be a bad thing. MTL if you are listening don't change a thing. Well...That may not be realistic. I would like, as do others a new and improved low profile wheel sets. Still others who run tight radius curves and older equipment do need the "Pizza Cutters" and even some "Cookie Cutter" type wheel sets. There are those newbies and others within the ranks of model rails, who like it as is! I've been told the "Collectors", prefer the larger flange. Just not sure why. Yet, change that improves any of the products now on the market would be welcomed by the serious modeling crowd. I'm still in the process of switching out the Rapido (ugly duckling couplers) on my passenger and freight cars to the MTL's. I plan on using MTL's, Z scale couplers on the fronts of some of my steamers and lead F type units. As far as changing everything over to Z scale...I don't think so. I'm on a tight budget and this isn't my only hobby. However, if some of you are removing the MTL couplers from your equipment you can send them to: Rick Howland, P.O. Box 2597, Big Bear City, CA. 92314. I will gladly dispose of them for you...of course there is a small core disposal fee! Grin! That's my shout out on the subject. Take what you will and leave the rest behind. I think I'm done editing. Ummm maybe not! OOPs one more correction. Ok, I'm done. Grin! Edited add on: I own three HO and four N scale NMRA gauges. I use at least one of them daily. You got to have fun!
Well now, THAT would solve two problems at once- the couplers and the pizza-cutter wheelsets. :rolleyes2::rolleyes2::laugh::laugh:
Why doesn't the industry switch to Z Scale Couplers???? ....because most N Scalers are very sloppy when it comes to their track!!! Most don't even own an NMRA Standards Gauge (not opening up a can of worms here... but it is the only way to check if the track is laid correctly). Many don't want to lay their track so the wheels will stay on .... and would rather have deep pizza cutter wheels that tolerate gross defects in the rails..... Look at the track on average NTRAK setups.... most layouts will run through an entire weekend setup with at least one or two rail joiners on transition tracks UNDER the rail instead of on it.... One of the problems with more scale sized couplers is that they have 2/3 the vertical "gather distance".... holding power of the opposing knuckle interfaces...of the standard Micro-Trains coupler. While some of us can use them and appreciate the benefits in appearance.... the general marketplace wouldn't tolerate them, at least based on my experience, both as an employee and consultant in the industry and my observations as a modeler. Charlie Vlk Railroad Model Resources
