Looks like we may have a winner here - the McHenry Coupler

[3rdrail]

At least the review just put up by N Scale Supply seems to think so. I'm gonna have to try these!

Read it here:

http://www.nscalesupply.com/ath/ATH-McHenry.html

[Dave V]

Finally!

I'm gonna replace all my Crapumates...!

[Mark5]

I have some Athearn new releases on order, I'll wait to see them. But this is encouraging!

[Denver Road Doug]

Why do we view a coupler that is bigger than the two other major players as a "winner"?

Are we to believe that after 30 years (or however long Micro-Trains couplers have been around) that technology and materials haven't advanced enough that we could get a better functioning, better looking coupler that was slightly SMALLER rather than LARGER?  (in other words, at least CLOSER to n-scale???)  I will concede that from the side, with the detail showing (which is a plus, don't get me wrong) it doesn't look bigger like the overhead comparison shot does.  I'll even go so far to say that if the reviewer hadn't noted it, I MIGHT not have thought the McHenry to be any larger....but certainly in no way smaller, either.

It doesn't have to be actual n-scale...I'll take function over form EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.  But, I simply cannot believe that even 10% smaller could not be acheived fairly easily while keeping all the other goals in their sights.

If by "winner" you mean better than Accumates, then I certainly cannot argue.  Especially if the magnetic uncoupling is improved.  But geez, if we are happy that something is better than Accumates then I think n-scale just took a couple of steps and/or ten years backwards.

I do think they look better, and if they are magnetically functioning they will be great competitors to Accumate and maybe Micro-Trains.  But a tad smaller would have been a "winner" in my book.

[tom mann]

These things suck in HO scale.  The springs fall off too easily.

[up1950s]

Curious as to what method of centering ? Is the slinky gone with these ? What about total slop between 2 cars , compression to tension , are these better ?

[Puddington]

I'm not sure that I don't like the look better than either the "junk-u-mate" or the MT coupler; it looks "more meaty" and thus a bit more prototypical to these middle aged eyes. If they work as reviewed and they are economical; they would be a welcome replacement for the oft broken and non functioning Junk-u-mates....

[DKS]

I don't understand how they could be considered better-looking. They may have somewhat better proportions overall, but good grief, that spring on the side...! How can anyone ignore that eyesore?

[Erik W]

I like to looks of them as far as proportions go, but they are definitely bigger than the MT coupler.  That's going in the wrong direction in my opinion.  My entire fleet has Z scale couplers though, so any of the typical N scale couplers look too big to me.

Erik

[tom mann]

I wonder if the HO and N couplers are the same size??

[DKS]

My entire fleet has Z scale couplers though, so any of the typical N scale couplers look too big to me.

Same here.

Sure wish these guys could do for N what they do for HO: http://www.sergentengineering.com/

[wm3798]

It says they fit in the Accumate box... that should translate to no slinky.
Yes, they look a bit bulkier.  Yes there is a spring.  Jury will remain out until I see one up close and personal.
I'm not as concerned about the size.  The comparitive photos don't look that far off that they would upset me.
My main concern is function.  If I get reasonably close coupling, no slinky, and reliable operation, I'll take it being comparable in size to the others.

But I wonder if suddenly MT will be the price leader... I can buy their 10 packs of kit couplers for under $10... will McHenry be as generous?  I don't think I would want to assemble those, though with those little springs....

Lee

[Nato]

  As a Mc Henry Coupler Tester I can now come out of the Closet. Some of us regulars on the Yahoo! N  Scale List were asked by Jim Hinds if we were willing to test a new coupler (manufacture not named). I suspected these would probably be Mc Henry. First couplers us testers were sent have long leingth shanks so when placed under transition era and older cars they looked like modern cushoned couplers & draft gear. Yes they do easly retrofit into the Atlas Crap (Accu) mate boxes. The second batch we were sent for testing reciently were suppose to be improved. They have shorter shanks like an MT short leingth coupler. No they definately are not closer to a sacle size, but the knuckels are smaller than Accumate and about the same size as MT. We tested them in everyday use and E Posted our expierences back to Jim. They worked mostly ok although during an op session one MT New Haven box car kept uncoupling in a train. That car was removed only to have another car seperate where the Mt car had been removed so a further check confirmed that the car that was uncoupling was not the MT cars, but a Con Cor Covered Gon with Accumate trucks converted to the Test Couplers.                        I expierenced no problems with any of the other cars with test couplers . Cars back up fine through switches, uncoupled over a magnet on my branchline. Does not appear to be slinky effect, but I was running the cars mostly mixed together with Accumates and MT's not trains of all test couplers. We were given enough only to convert 12 cars the first test and 5 the next test. I couldn't tell if improved ones were any different. My final conclusion, they are pretty nice couplers,but they are goung to have to offer body mount ones like MT1015/16 and with different shank leingths short,medium and extended.               We still need a scale sized coupler in N the size of the MT 905 Z/N n3 but with different options, under slung, body mount, truck mount,short & long leingths,but the new Mc Henry's atleast give us another choice. Nate Goodman (Nato). Salt Lake, Utah. "Testers are still on my cars."

[Denver Road Doug]

But I wonder if suddenly MT will be the price leader...

If they're smart they'll raise their prices.  With "competition" like they have, they'd be crazy not to.

[sd80mac]

Could the reason the McHenry coulpers look larger be because we're so used to looking at the MT couplers?

-sd80mac-