Hey Richie and of course all tuned in, My great uncle would describe riding in a caboose as riding on the end of a whip. He'd want you to know that. "Constant", I believe is what you used to describe the train at length, to the contrary. The train is never at a constant. Read on. As the train would move through a valley on the downhill side the caboose would pick-up speed and when the slack had been taken up it would slow abruptly with a thud. Most crews that road in the hacks and crummies had to hang on. Reported over the years many back and neck injuries due to the constant action of the "Slack". One reason why the cabooses were eventually pulled off. Sorry Richie, in my opinion there is no difference between "Slinky" and "Slack" or "Slop". It's one and the same. I do like your descriptive narrative as it adds dimension to the discussion. My great uncle a conductor for the ATSF, tells a story where he had just made himself comfortable in the caboose on the lower level and was waiting for the engineer to signal departure. The brakeman had just boarded the train and was standing on the rear porch of the caboose. The engineer blew two shorts indicating they were about to get underway. A fresh pot of coffee had been placed on the stove. With a lurch the engineer headed out of the yard as though a demon was chasing him. When the slack hit the caboose it sent the pot of coffee flying across the caboose smashing into the rear wall and spilling all over the floor. The rear brakeman who almost got thrown off the back porch of the caboose came in cursing and swearing at the engineer, only to have the level of intensity in his voice increase when he slipped and fell in the coffee on the floor. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt or burned. At the next stop my great uncle walked forward to have a few words with the engineer and pass out a few brownies. Oh, and those aren't the kind you eat...more like demerits. Now back to N scale: Go look at any of the other manufacturers N scale coupler pockets and you will find a spring. Don't stick this "Slinky Thing" on MTL...alone. They all build this spring into the coupler pockets and the same action can be seen. My earliest N Scale equipment with the Rapido couplers had the same spring in place and I saw the same "Slack" action occur. It's as close to the 1:1 foot scale as you can get. Real railroading, in model form. It doesn't get any better then this. You ok Richie? Aw shucks you don't have to agree with me. It is what it is!
Marty,Engineers was "shaking 'em loose" to insure all the brakes was release..He would give the engines enough throttle to move forward until the SLACK stop the engines..He would stop,reverse and shove against the train until the engines stopped..He would do this until the caboose started rolling on his last pull.The conductor would radio "we are moving back here engine 6122" and the engineer would reply "Roger,the tail is rolling-here we go!" at that the engineer would put the whip to 'em.
I avoided this thread at first, but I don't see a lot of people posting the reasons I think are key, so I'll add my $0.02. Availability is the big issue. With N scale couplers I can get trucks and couplers and bodymounts and stuff from more than one manufacturer for almost anything ever made. Z scale, well, I can get a 905, or a 905, or a 905, or a 905. I do believe that if more Z scales were available we would see more uptake. Standards are the second problem. I keep talking about NMRA standards. While I think most people mount Z's so the "center" on a N scale coupler (which may be the right answer) that's not a standard. We need standard heights for all coupler types, set by a real standards body. Lastly, the verticle play issue. I've had some N Scale couplers separate vertically on some bad NTrak layouts, so it is a real issue. I think RDA and similar designs can help reduce the problem, but track standards will have to be rasied. Now, with Atlas Code 55 doing as well as it is I think the world is primed and ready, but that's just my $0.02.
I agree with you on the point of availability, if the only N scale knuckle style coupler was the original MTL 1023/1025 most N scalers would probably still be using Rapidos. The NMRA take N scale seriously enough to draw up coupler standards, yeah right. Ntrak was and is a great part of N scale's development and growth in popularity, my club's N scale layout is made up of Ntrak modules and I have built many myself, but maybe it's time for Ntrak to update its standards to reflect modern N scale modeling instead of holding back development because some Ntrakkers claim they need truck mounted couplers and deep flanges (I don't for the reason mentioned below), it's a different world out there than when Ntrak started way back in the early 70's. Or maybe coordinators of Ntrak layouts should start turning away modules with questionable trackwork, there are standards after all, we are lucky in that all our modules are owned by the club or club members and we have a bit more control over standards as per the Ntrak manual and I happily run my body mounted Z scale coupler/FVM wheelset equipped cars.
Let's not kid ourselves, Ntrak isn't going to change anything as long as Jim Fitz is alive and kicking. But also, let's not have the tail wag the dog here. Not everyone operates on Ntrak or on layouts with Ntrak sized curves. There is a sizeable portion of the hobby that have layouts made with sectional track and minimum radius curves. To them truck mounted couplers are almost a necessity. Truck mounted couplers have several advantages over body mounts. They insure that the coupler is at a standard height. No need to add spacers to raise/lower the body or coupler. They insure proper alignment for coupling especially on sharp curves. They insure standard alignment. They are more forgiving of bad trackwork. Their only drawback is a potential issue with backing and the "slinky effect". The backing issue is overblown in my opinion. Members of our Ntrak club can back cars with truck mounted couplers and MT lopro wheels through Atlas turnouts with no problem. As for the slinky effect that is easily rememdied with more weight or the axle retainer springs. Maybe what N gauge needs is another higher standard for those who want things that are above the norm. A sort of "proto 160" if you will. This idea was already proposed on the A board with the problems inherent with the Accumate coupler and the perceived need to have the truck accept both the Accumate and the Rapido. Atlas has already divided its product line into the Trainman and Master lines and Peco also has their standard and finescale line of turnouts why not the same for track, wheels, couplers, or anything else. There was a movement like this in HO called "Proto 87" some time ago that advocated finer standards among which were thinner tread width of wheels and code 83 rail. Maybe it is time for such a thing in N gauge.
Why put the cart ahead of the mule? I am not at all interested in Z scale couplers since we need to fix the REAL problem..We need to get the manufacturers out of the "old school" truck mounted couplers and get them to body mount the couplers and then we can move on to coupler size.
And if you do that this hobby literally dies. Why? Because you leave out the new people who get their start with a trainset and sectional track and 9 3/4 inch radius curves who want to run modern six axle power and 89 foot autoracks. That's why. So let's not get so selfish that we lose sight of the big picture. This hobby is aging and we need new people and more of them to become involved. But this is not some "No child left behind" program. Body mounting couplers is not rocket science and manufacturers are starting to design cars with body mounting provisions if only a small hole or dimple for the mounting screw. Let the people who want to deal with coupler height, alignment and all the other things common to body mounting do their thing. Seems to me that if one is interested in body mounting couplers then they have acquired the skill level to do it or at least willing to try. Have we lost the modelling aspect to this hobby? People want manufacturers to do things for them rather than doing it for themselves. Some one tell me when did "See what I bought" replace "See what I made"? I can understand that for the new person who lacks the experience and has not developed the skills but not for the experienced person. Why is it we can cast our own shells and handlay our own turnouts but can't cut a coupler box off of a truck and center it on the car and attach it with a screw and glue? I always was told that if you really wanted something done bad enough you had to be willing to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself because in most cases that was how it would "get-r done". Rant over, I step off my soapbox now and return to the humble person I want to be.
Standards? Leo and of course all tuned in, This isn't meant to be of any offense to you personally. Just a look at standards from a different perspective and with a dash of history. I've sounded off on this subject before but maybe I can say this another way. The attitude of most non-NMRA types is "We don't need any stinking standards". We saw what the standard builders did with HO and the subsequent operational problems. Unless you are an absolute perfectionist and taken by 100% prototypical authenticity...all the standards in the world aren't going to impress you...nor are they needed. Over the years I've watched NMRA, the standard bearer, set all kinds of standards. I saw manufacturers ignore them...as well as many NMRA and non-NMRA types. You can have a body or group of people set standards but unless the majority of providers and modelers VOLUNTARILLY comply, it's a total waste of time. Getting everyone to agree on a standard is almost as tough as pulling teeth. Easier to train a dog to jump through a hoop. I'm almost certain from what I hear and read that we have a number of prototypical types that have switched from HO to N scale and want to bring NMRA with them. That's ok for them! However, just remember the majority of modelers do not belong to NMRA, and there's a reason why... this is the case. Then there is the problem of getting the model providers to VOLUNTARILY agree to a standard. You'd be taking away from them... what most consider to be their competitive edge. If you want NMRA to set a standard then by all means take it up with them. Do remember you aren't representing the majority of us in the hobby. If you get my drift. Here's a key to how a model provider thinks. If the majority of customers is buying IT the standard is set. If the majority of customers pass and leave the product sitting on the LHS shelves...the standard needs to be changed. As seen through these eyes...MTL is the STANDARD!~ Standard set! Now, I've got a layout where I SET THE STANDARD... and it wants my attention. Grin! Have a good day and make it a great day!
I don't think the hobby would die..Just put larger curves in the train set and kill the 9 3/4" curves in the process. Selfish? I think not-no more then asking the manufacturers to add Z scale couplers.. I am all for the advancement of the hobby since its long overdue. We need to step out of the dark ages.
My .05 worth (due to inflation): With all the diversity in couplers etc....how hard would it be for our LHS or fav online store to just GIVE the buyer a set of whatever couplers, OR wheelsets, OR trucks he wants with the purchase of that NEW $40.00 Passenger car, or that $300.00 Locomotive? I mean...come on...the guy spending that kind of money for one item aint the new kid on the block...he is an avid railfan! I'm not talking of giving away the store here...just a simple gesture offering ONE of the above items as a freebee on a NEW PURCHASE. ALL stores, online inculded, know their regular customers...they all have databases with the info. If you are buying piecework...why dont they cater to ya? Ya spend enough $$$ with em...whats a few bucks worth of couplers to em...your continued bussiness maybe?... ;-) On the other hand..if ya wanna buy em in bulk...pay the going rate. Sell em with Rapidos...who cares...any hard core railfan knows how to change em...he doesnt need his hand held. I've read where guys wont buy certain cars or locos because they have the wrong type truck , wheelsets, or couplers. LHS or online stores need to at least put forth an effort to further satisfy their customers...and starting with a simple thing like "What coupler, wheelset, OR truck, would ya like with that?" ...goes a long way in my mind. I don't think an "Industry Standard" on running gear would work...to many possibilties and preferences already out there. Like I said...just my .05 worth...ty
George/Mtntrainman and all tuned in, I think your idea is great and would work as a promo. Over the years we've had to purchase the couplers we wanted as a add on. Great for the hobby shops as it increases the sale and the profit margin. There was a loud cry, not to many years back, where most of us on various model train type websites called for the end of Rapido couplers and insisting that our beloved providers put on MTL's knuckle coupler. I'm sure you've noticed, certain providers still deliver the Rapido couplers, as standard equipment. The good news is most of our favorite providers heard the call and made the switch to knuckle couplers. As you might expect some poor copies showed up. Leaving many of us with no choice other then to buy MTL's. Not that I mind... as I prefer MTL's. Standards? And as if to prove my point regarding standards...there are those who don't want MTL's. More for me! Grin! While some things appear to have changed...nothing has really changed. Have fun!
I must be doing something wrong, I have a 4 foot Ntrak module with a two level oval branchline using Peco 9 inch radius sectional track and turnouts that I built to show that you don't need a large space for an operating layout. I run my body mounted/small flanged cars together with out of the box cars with no problems. I guess I'll have to adjust my cars or track so I have derailments.:tb-biggrin: Of course I don't try to run such things as autoracks on it either, I stick to nothing larger than four axle diesels and 50 foot cars because it represents a light branch line, and advise anyone asking advise on building small layouts to do the same. IMHO the trainsets with long cars and 9 inch radius track are starting beginners off on the wrong track, if you'll pardon the pun. They might have been a bit of a novelty to compete with HO in the early days of N but these days I believe they are one reason N scale is not always thought of as a serious modeling scale. Not many RTR HO models are designed to run on 15 or 18 inch radius curves these days like they were years ago.
