ExactRail switching to MTL couplers on N scale line

[asarge]

I'm sorry guys, this is more about the supply of McHenry's vs the supply of MTL couplers. Mchenry's are made in China and if there is a shortage, Athearn will definately get first bill. I'd be willing to bet the farm that EXR decided that even if MTL are more expensive, at least the have a stable source and don't have to stand in line. I'd bet there was a supply shortage or at the very least the threat of a supply shortage and EXR wants to get stuff done for one big reason......cash flow.

[Brakie]

I'm sorry guys, this is more about the supply of McHenry's vs the supply of MTL couplers. Mchenry's are made in China and if there is a shortage, Athearn will definately get first bill. I'd be willing to bet the farm that EXR decided that even if MTL are more expensive, at least the have a stable source and don't have to stand in line. I'd bet there was a supply shortage or at the very least the threat of a supply shortage and EXR wants to get stuff done for one big reason......cash flow.

A good point..

And in that light I wonder if the slow  N Scale releases was due to couplers or other parts?

I not exactly thrilled about the move to MT couplers due to the slinky action.

[Bob Bufkin]

Lot of talk about skinky action but If the couplers are body mounted does it also do this? 

[asarge]

And in that light I wonder if the slow  N Scale releases was due to couplers or other parts?

Lack of couplers or other parts like inserts or jewel boxes has delayed more than one manufacturer's release.

[bbussey]

Lot of talk about skinky action but If the couplers are body mounted does it also do this?

Only when pushing.  The springs are relaxed in normal operation.

[ednadolski]

Lot of talk about skinky action but If the couplers are body mounted does it also do this?

Only when pushing.  The springs are relaxed in normal operation.

Actually body vs. truck mount is irrelevant to the slinky action.   It's a matter of the energy that goes into compressing the springs vs. dissipated in the friction of the wheels. So all other things equal, the mounting should not affect the energy transfer.

That said, things are not necessarily equal with truck vs. body.   Truck mount transfers more rotational force onto the trucks, so there will be more energy dissipated in the friction of the wheels against the railheads (drag) in the truck mount case.

Some MT couplers have the spring behind the center internal post and some have it in front of the post.   That will determine whether the slinky is seen when either pushing or pulling.  The spring is what stores/releases the energy, so the only way to get rid of the slinky is to eliminate the spring.   About the only other thing you can try to do is mask the slinky by changing the amount of friction (ie, drag) in the system.

Slinky Dog is actually a fairly good model --- he'll slink whether you push or pull, and in terms of the forces a train with springy couplers behaves a lot like a row of Slinky Dogs chained together.  Taking away the spring is the only way to make him stop slinking   ;D ;D

HTH,
Ed

[Specter3]

I just wish more rolling stock would head the way of EXR and go body mount for the couplers.

[wm3798]

I've only got two cars with McHenry couplers, and frankly I don't like them.  They look like boxing gloves, and have been problematic with random uncouplings.  The slinky effect of MT's is nettlesome, but not fatal.  I've been slowly body mounting the longer, heavier members of my fleet, and that does help.  The bouncy bounce is still there, but at least the cars stay on the track.

Lee

[Rossford Yard]

Actually an interesting discussion on several levels.

Regarding MT, when their patent ran out and competitors could copy their designs (what year was that?) we figured it would either keep MT prices down or allow someone to really hit it out of the park and improve the couplers.  Not sure either has happened as much as might be expected.

MT is still the standard to me, and they have made good tweaks - more body mounts, mid pro and low pro wheel sets, brown instead of black (still not sure they couldn't get a rust colored plastic) and RDA.

What is the coupler of the future - even better color, smaller size, but still as strong and compatible, electronic uncoupling built in DCC rather than using ramps?

The second part is that we have been hoping for a rebirth of American mfg in modeling.  Maybe this is the first example of reasons why the making of MR models should come back to these shores?  A longer shot, to be sure, but hopefully a start.

[Brakie]

I've only got two cars with McHenry couplers, and frankly I don't like them.  They look like boxing gloves, and have been problematic with random uncouplings.  The slinky effect of MT's is nettlesome, but not fatal.  I've been slowly body mounting the longer, heavier members of my fleet, and that does help.  The bouncy bounce is still there, but at least the cars stay on the track.

Lee

Lee,I find the McHenry coupler works to well when passing over a magnet while coupled to a string of slinks..

I also noted if the MTs are randomly coupled  to other brands of couplers the slink isn't as noticeable..I notice this recently while switching cars on my Dining Room Table switching yard.

I kinda like 'em but,still favor the Atlas Accumates.

[Denver Road Doug]

....16 HO cars vs.8  N Scale cars isn't exactly what I call "aggressive".I just wish they would do more N since I  really like their cars.

Depending on who you ask, the market for HO is roughly 4X that of N.  Definitely not less than 3X.  So relative to the market, Exactrail is producing twice as much n-scale as it is HO.   (or at least half again as much)

Yes, I know it's a chicken vs. egg deal...if the manfacturers produce 1:1 HO-to-N then maybe the N market share would increase.   Up until about the end of 2008, I actually thought the trend was heading that way.  But releases for N-scale have tapered off fairly significantly over the past few years after about 8-9 years of insanity.   This probably has more to do with...there's more decent-to-good tooling in Ho available to rerun, since investing in new tooling in a down economy is likely curtailed.   So that's a situation where the stronghold HO has kinda perpetuates itself a little bit.   

The thing N does have going for it is kind of this "critical mass" thing whereby as each new (RTR) model is introduced, you exponentially add market.  So the spine cars are a huge example of that....you've effectively added about a 15 year span of intermodal modelers to the fold that might consider n-scale now.   Add a CF7, and you've sucked in a bunch more ATSF guys.  Every Kato passenger set release adds and entire region of possible n-scale market.  HO doesn't necessarily have that room for growth.

I agree, I think Exactrail makes some nice cars. (even if they do get panned here pretty severely)   I didn't care for their 5161's because I'm an etched metal snob, (plus I had all the 5161's I needed already from IMRC) but overall I'm a fan of Exactrail and glad they are adding to the mix some fairly high end cars.

[Mark5]

I don't like the Mchenry's - they are too big for my eye.

I am actually considering body mounting Accumates as I body mount cars that are currently truck mounted.

Lee: have you been happy with all those Atlas 55 tonners that you body mounted Accumates on?

Mark

[Brakie]

Doug,I also model in HO and see the big picture-its a landside when it comes to HO releases..

Still, N Scale has a lot of blanks that could be filled by any manufacturer but,instead they produce more HO and sooner or later that feed bag will bust.I see a lot of older HO releases still in stock at some of the on line shops.

IMHO manufacturers may be overlooking a cash cow by not filling the N Scale blanks with the needed models..