Closing in on truck/coupler combination. Thoughts?

[shawnleon]

By reading countless threads here on couplers, wheels and trucks I have answered most of my questions. Some of your comments have been enlightening and some comical! This is a hot button issue, I see, dating way back through RW history.

For trucks I like BLMA's 70- and 100-Ton offerings, which satisfies my desire for nice detail and metal wheels. (Craig, dude... I hope the market proves the need for bulk packs. I could go broke on trucks alone!)

For couplers I am going to give body mounting a try. The two options that are most attractive are McHenry N Scale and MT Z Scale couplers. I prefer the finer look of Z scale but wonder about strength. The reason I moved to N scale is the ability to run long, modern trains. Anyone have any experience with the durability of Z scale having to hold together N scale trains? If there's any doubt, I assume the safe answer is the McHenry.

I am treating today like day one! While I have a significant supply of freight cars, I haven't actually been hands on with most of them. As I increase my weathering skills, I see trucks/wheels/couplers as part of the package and want to make the swap at the same time.

Shawn

[bbussey]

... For couplers I am going to give body mounting a try. The two options that are most attractive are McHenry N Scale and MT Z Scale couplers. I prefer the finer look of Z scale but wonder about strength. The reason I moved to N scale is the ability to run long, modern trains. Anyone have any experience with the durability of Z scale having to hold together N scale trains? If there's any doubt, I assume the safe answer is the McHenry ...

The safe answer probably would be MTL N scale couplers.  They have a four-decade track record, and are less-likely to have their springs inadvertently pop out.

[Kev1340]

The safe answer probably would be MTL N scale couplers.  They have a four-decade track record, and are less-likely to have their springs inadvertently pop out.

Agreed, and although the McHenrys are ok, they are BIG! I have a fair few now on both Athearn and Exactrail cars, and I shall be swapping them for MT's just because I find there size (and coupling distance) unacceptable.

Cheers,

Kev

[ednadolski]

The two options that are most attractive are McHenry N Scale and MT Z Scale couplers. I prefer the finer look of Z scale but wonder about strength. The reason I moved to N scale is the ability to run long, modern trains. Anyone have any experience with the durability of Z scale having to hold together N scale trains? If there's any doubt, I assume the safe answer is the McHenry.

The issue that I've had in running long trains (30 cars and up) with both the N scale and Z scale Micro Trains couplers is not the strength, but the "pogo effect", where the cars oscillate against each other rather like a slinky while the train is moving.

This effect seems to be inherent in the MT coupler design.  It is caused by the internal spring of the coupler: every spring in every coupler is in line with the tension and compression forces within the moving train, so these springs are constantly storing and releasing energy while the train is in motion.  Under the right combination of speed, drag, friction, mass, etc, this energy transfer resonates and thus causes the "pogo effect".

AFAICT the only way to eliminate the pogo is to eliminate the springs.  I've tried disabling the springs in the MT couplers, but I've found doing that just inhibits the coupler operation too much, and leads to all manner of undesirable uncouplings.   The only option seems to be to use a coupler that doesn't have the internal spring, ie, the McHenry.   Accumates also have a spring-free design, as do Katos, and I don't see the pogo effect with these, but I have had other reliability issues with Accumates, and the Katos seem to only work in Kato cars/locos.

So I am in the process of switching over to body-mount McHenrys, but these are still pretty new so I don't have any firsthand experience to report.   However I have read some reports that sounded pretty good.  Aesthetically, while the McHenry is a bit oversize, it's not any worse than other couplers, and at least it looks more like a prototype coupler to my eye.

HTH,
Ed

[BN1970]

For what its worth I have been using Micro Trains couplers for over 30 years and they worked well with little failure, I currently have over 700 freight cars.  True Micro Trains couplers do have slack but so do prototype trains and at times when starting on a grade that can be a plus.  One other point to consider, as you get older your eyes sight gets poorer, unfortunately that's from field experience.  Some times larger can be better.  I do agree that body mounting your couplers is the way to go.

-- Brian

[shawnleon]

Thanks for the input folks. I failed to mention that I have experience with N Scale MTs on long trains I ran on NTRAK layouts. The slinky effect bugs me sometimes... which is why I took the McHerny under consideration. Decisions, decisions. Maybe I need to order a few options and see them side by side with my MT stuff.

Shawn

[inkaneer]

You mentioned you want to go with the BLMA trucks and McHenry body mounted couplers.  One thing unresolved is how the lowered body of the car will affect the coupler height. McHenry only makes a standard coupler [for now at least]. Also, the McHenry couplers do not have a coupler box.  They will fit an Accumate coupler box as well as a MTL box but you have to supply the box which means you have to buy the Accumate truck/coupler or the MTL coupler just to get the box.  The other alternative is to make your own.  Nothing is easy

[shawnleon]

You mentioned you want to go with the BLMA trucks and McHenry body mounted couplers.  One thing unresolved is how the lowered body of the car will affect the coupler height. McHenry only makes a standard coupler [for now at least]. Also, the McHenry couplers do not have a coupler box.  They will fit an Accumate coupler box as well as a MTL box but you have to supply the box which means you have to buy the Accumate truck/coupler or the MTL coupler just to get the box.  The other alternative is to make your own.  Nothing is easy

Completely forgot about the height factor. While I was aware of the need for coupler boxes, I don't think I was properly factoring that in. Looks like MTs and I will be sticking together longer!

[Nato]

      If there were different leingth Mc Henry's they would be nice,but so far one leingth . I have used Zed Scale couplers on some cars and locos. The Atlas PS short covered Cement hoppers have a pad for body mount and Z coupler works nice. No problems with long trains. Some of the model Power steamers easly convert to Z couplers on their tenders. Recient conversions done by me 2-6-0 and       4-4-0 locomotives.I had to use the plastic shims that come with 1015 couplers to get the height right. Years ago I installed Zed Couplers on the pilots of KATO E-8/9 diesels,when trailing behind a long train I have never had an uncouple. Nate Goodman (Nato).Salt Lake, Utah.

[shawnleon]

Thanks for all the feedback. I placed an order with Feather River for some BLMA trucks and MT stuff. It will give me a chance to test out some of the variables before I start moving forward with the entire fleet.

Shawn