Author Topic: MTL coupler survey  (Read 3835 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

nkalanaga

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 6517
  • Respect: +273
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2014, 02:44:54 AM »
0
Mike:  I don't have any of the 86' boxcars, but MT 89' flats will run on 16 inch radius with body mounted couplers.  All I did was cut the alignment pins off the arm, carve away enough of the arm that the wheels could swing, and glue the arm in place.  No new parts, no extra cost, and they run fine.

They won't work well with 40' boxcars on such curves, but 50' and longer cars work fine.  The prototype has the same problem with sharp curves and mismatched car lengths, so it doesn't bother me.

As for the survey, manual uncoupling is fine with me, as I use a homemade uncoupling pick. But like most of the commenters, manual coupling would be a deal killer!
N Kalanaga
Be well

reinhardtjh

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
  • Respect: +123
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2014, 05:24:46 AM »
0
Uh oh. There's a catch in there... "manual coupling and uncoupling". Not an "or". Manual uncoupling I don't so much mind, but manual coupling is a deal-killer. Scale size and appearance, close coupling and no "slinky" effect + "manual coupling and uncoupling" = dummy coupler.

This  +1
John H. Reinhardt
PRRT&HS #8909
C&O HS #11530
N-Trak #7566

ednadolski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2996
  • Respect: +351
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2014, 01:45:58 PM »
0
I can get my MTL-equipped autoracks to "accidentally uncouple" almost at will.   All I have to do is slow the train on a downhill grade to about 5 scale mph.   They will start to pogo and then let go.   It's definitely _not_ the track, no other cars in the +60 car train have that issue.

Wellllllllll... if they're stock with the truck-mounted couplers, this doesn't surprise me. IOW, it's not the couplers themselves, it's the slop of the too-long lever arm resulting in misalignment as stuff bounces around. I had a similar problem with 86' auto parts cars. Once the couplers were body-mounted, the problem vanished... as did their ability to run on anything less than a 20" curve. :facepalm:


Yep, they are stock.  The pogo does initiate the whole sequence, so in that regard it is the couplers, tho I don't doubt that misalignment is a contributor.

MTL couplers are after all intentionally designed to do hands-free uncoupling as a "feature".  It seems to me that the pogo at slow speed simply acts like a trigger for this "feature".  The couplers cannot tell the difference between the slack resulting from pogo action and the slack from a switching move, so they simply let go just as they are designed to.

Converting to body-mount will no doubt change the resonance point, so the symptom may go away.   And with body-mounts and +20" radius curves, everyone would have far fewer operational issues overall.  But still, as MTLs are designed to let go under certain slack conditions, the unintended uncoupling would still be a problem under the right circumstances.

Ed


Chulvis

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +5
    • http://www.featherrivertrains.com
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2014, 04:51:21 PM »
0
Again, to me the that question seems to indicate that whoever created this survey is no very familiar with model (and 1:1) railroading.  Even the 1:1 knuckle couplers couple automatically.  :facepalm:

I suspect you are right about that. Manual coupling would be such a large step backwards I can't even imagine a company considering it.



davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8398
  • Gender: Male
  • "I like trains!"
  • Respect: +1817
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2014, 07:23:45 PM »
0
If, by definition of "manual coupling," MTL means that you might have to center the couplers to get them to line up to couple, that would not be a deal killer for me.  The prototype has to do that, as do, I believe, HO Sergent couplers that have also no centering spring.  I single out Sergent couplers, because they're the most realistic couplers I've seen to date.  Unfortunately, they're not available in N scale (for obvious reasons).  If they were, I could live without automatic centering couplers.

Since the centering spring on some MTL couplers are the cause of the "slinky effect," I wonder if that's why they asked.  However, there's other options available (even in MTL's line) that allow the centering of couplers without the slinky effect.

DFF

General Counsel to the Laurel Valley Ry.
Member: ACL/SAL Historical Society
A Proud HOer

ednadolski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2996
  • Respect: +351
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2014, 12:25:56 AM »
0
I single out Sergent couplers, because they're the most realistic couplers I've seen to date.  Unfortunately, they're not available in N scale (for obvious reasons). 

The reason is actually because there are not enough N scalers interested in buying them.  Brian Banna recently made some experimental Sergent-like couplers in N scale that were absolutely brilliant.  However he could not find enough interested buyers to make it worthwhile to refine the design to produce sufficiently reliable operation.


Maybe it's just a matter of spreading the word in order to generate the interest, but that seems to be a classic chicken-and-egg situation -- not an easy thing to change in an industry that is more interested in promoting a "fast results" culture.   Too bad.

Ed

daniel_leavitt2000

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5343
  • Respect: +509
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2014, 07:18:15 AM »
0
Wow... if I knew he had something like this available, I would convert my entire collection: 2000+ pairs.

I think If there was a small lip inside the palm of the coupler, it would have a bit more push to close the opposing knuckle. I really like the design though.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 07:37:33 AM by daniel_leavitt2000 »
Dan's Train Company
Forcing grandma to make my trains since 2019.

coosvalley

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1366
  • Respect: +579
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2014, 09:37:56 AM »
0
I really dig Brian's couplers, but I think our coupler choices will improve soon, don't we have 2 new ones coming?...proto-max and proto-mate? I believe one is scheduled to appear on the U25Cs.....It seems MT is trying to retain some market share....But did they really need a poll to decide if "the slinky effect" is desired?..Who would want that? :facepalm:...

pjm20

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 849
  • Gender: Male
  • Modeling the mighty PRR!
  • Respect: +14
    • My Youtube Channel
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2014, 10:05:07 AM »
0
But did they really need a poll to decide if "the slinky effect" is desired?..Who would want that? :facepalm:...



 :D
PRRT&HS #8862
Modeling the PRR in N Scale
16mm Live Steam Enthusiast

Check out my Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/PennsyModeler

ednadolski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2996
  • Respect: +351
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2014, 12:38:53 PM »
0
Wow... if I knew he had something like this available, I would convert my entire collection: 2000+ pairs.

Well then I have to ask - are you willing to help make it happen?   Which basically means time and money and testing, and no guarantee of specific results or timeframes.

I'm willing to put into this (tho admittedly my funding levels are more limited lately).   I'm not sure we could convince Brian to pick up the torch and take the lead, but he might be willing to contribute all/some of his design, and perhaps act as an advisor.

Any other takers?

Ed

ednadolski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2996
  • Respect: +351
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2014, 12:41:34 PM »
0
I really dig Brian's couplers, but I think our coupler choices will improve soon, don't we have 2 new ones coming?...proto-max and proto-mate?

Yes but we have been hearing that for years.   Not that these can't or won't ever happen, the point is that they really aren't "real" until you have something that you can hold in your hand.

So don't expect anything in the near-term, and you won't be disappointed.

Ed

Shipsure

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1497
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +615
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2014, 01:13:47 PM »
0
We are just trying to get a read on the market...I think folks on Railwire may be surprised at what the customer base is saying to us which is why we wanted to formalize our research a bit.  Again, just asking questions and feel the market is wide enough for a number of different options.
Joe

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13379
  • Respect: +2716
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2014, 01:26:35 PM »
0
I think folks on Railwire may be surprised at what the customer base is saying to us

This scares me  :scared:

wazzou

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4285
  • #GoCougs
  • Respect: +406
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2014, 02:31:46 PM »
0
This scares me  :scared:


Yeah, like we liked it better when there was an option to be equipped with Rapidos.  :facepalm:
Bryan

Member of NPRHA, Modeling Committee Member
http://www.nprha.org/
Member of MRHA

peteski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 20984
  • Gender: Male
  • Honorary Resident Curmudgeon
  • Respect: +1896
    • Coming (not so) soon...
Re: MTL coupler survey
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2014, 02:34:20 PM »
0
We are just trying to get a read on the market...I think folks on Railwire may be surprised at what the customer base is saying to us which is why we wanted to formalize our research a bit.  Again, just asking questions and feel the market is wide enough for a number of different options.
Joe

Joe,
I hope that you will give a little RR tutorial to whoever created this survey while mentioning hydraulic brake lines and manual coupling.  Come on, that was pretty lame.  :facepalm:

BTW, the slinky effect was on the bottom of my priority list.  :trollface:  TRW members: Be afwaid!  Vewwy afwaid!  :D
--- Peteski de Snarkski

-"Look at me, I'm satirical!!!"
-"Look at me, I'm anal retentive!!!"
-"Look at me, I have the most posts evahhhh!!!"
-"Look at me, I'm snarky!!!!"
-"Look at me, I have OCD!!!"
-"Look at me, I'm a curmudgeon!!!!"