The "slinky slack" action just drove me crazy.

[babbo_enzo]

Ha all,
I know this is an old question already discussed, but, please, can somebody post back some suggestions again?
I've so many cars with MT couplers and I don't want to replace it with a different brand at this time.
Given that new couplers like the one from NTZ or Mr.Viking if I remember well, are not here now...
HOW TO cure this effect?
Thanks for your patience!

[djconway]

One solution I tried -- replace the spring with a piece of rubber band. Cut a 1.5mm x 0.5mm x 0.5mm piece, and replace the spring.
I have noticed a few things with this "fix":
  1 - magnetic uncoupling does not always work, since the rubber band is stiffer than the spring.
  2 - the rubber bands will crumble after about 2-3 years (this caused me to halt the tests - with 800+ pieces of equipment replacing rubber bands was going to be a major pain in the ___.)

[Lemosteam]

Wonder if a dab of silicone would work in place of the rubber band.  it would never deteriorate.

[Kisatchie]

Micro-Trains makes some very tiny springs (loosely coiled) that you can put between an axle tip and the truck sideframe (in a caboose, for example). This causes rolling friction at the end of a train which helps prevent the slinky effect.


Hmm... what'll they think
of next...?

[babbo_enzo]

Yesterday I operate on a friend switching layout, and here, for example the slack was horrible on a short train composed of 4-5 cars. I must said that more slack was noted during "push" action.
This is a reason why I don't think that adding friction to a single car like a caboose will help, but modify each car is the way to go.
Interesting the silicone idea ... but, before destroy some couplers ...  wait for more personal experience

[dmidkiff]

I've been putting the spring in in the transverse direction of the couplers as I rebuild and body mount them.  You loose the self centering of the coupler, but the knuckle and shank still open and close correctly.  This also still allows the coupler to have slack back and forth, but I have not noticed any slinky effect with the cars I have done.

Doug

[ednadolski]

HOW TO cure this effect?

Many have tried, but there is no 'cure' because the design is the cause of the issue.  Short of replacing the couplers, the best you can do is a 'band aid' approach.  IF a straightforward fix were possible, then MT could have implemented it long ago and saved everyone a whole bunch of angst.

I tried most of the various 'fixes' which may sometimes work in a narrow set of cases but inevitably lead to other problems.  Plus when you mess with every single coupler, each one becomes its own 'one-off'.  At the end of the day, changing to a different coupler (the LEZ in my case) was the only 'cure'.  Some folks may call that 'extreme', but I run very long trains on steep grades and sharp curves with no slinky and with far fewer unwanted uncouplings.

HTH,
Ed

[babbo_enzo]

Sorry but ... what's a "LEZ" coupler?

[ednadolski]

Sorry but ... what's a "LEZ" coupler?

That's the Z-scale coupler produced by Lee English (from Bowser).  Gary Hinshaw and I have been using it for N-scale with the custom photo-etched coupler pockets that we have designed.   More info here:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg346515#msg346515

The coupler has no integral spring, and hence no slinky action.

Ed

[randgust]

The coupler spring is in different locations on different MT couplers.    You might want to take a look at this to see what I mean, but depending on the style of coupler used, your 'spring action' may either in in tension or compression.    I'm not sure which is worse here.   

http://www.micro-trains.com/Coupler%20diagrams.pdf

If the spring is BEHIND the post its going to bounce as you first pull, if it is in front of it, it tends to bounce as you slow down/go downgrade.  A normal body mount would be behind, the 1015/16 on the locomotive would be in front, follow me on that?

I use the retainer springs on cabooses myself, and on select cuts of light cars that work together; like 4-5 car cuts of the 50-ton hoppers that bounce all over without some resistance, and my tiny little 25' log cars.   I put a tiny bit of Vaseline on the end of the axle point to keep the spring on there while I install it in the sideframe instead of chasing springs all over.   That's mostly to prevent false uncoupling for me while switching, I do use full magnetic features on everything.

Having spent enough times on trains and in cabooses, if you've ever been whipsawed in a caboose with slack run-in and run-out, you'll know it's not entirely unprototypical.  And I've seen standing trains 'push back' as brakes release and the cushion underframes react.  Actually, the most violent action I've ever had was in 4-wheel bobber on the Strasburg during a photo freight - a 15 car train, no cushion underframes on those old cars, steam power, and they didn't call it a 'bobber' for nothing - orders of the day were SIT DOWN and HANG ON.

[babbo_enzo]

That's the Z-scale coupler produced by Lee English (from Bowser).  Gary Hinshaw and I have been using it for N-scale with the custom photo-etched coupler pockets that we have designed.   More info here:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg346515#msg346515
The coupler has no integral spring, and hence no slinky action.
Ed

Yep, I remember now this 3D, very interesting! Coupler is similar to McHenry but so much better dimensions! Good to know it and maybe I will do a try in future. Thanks for info, Ed.
By the way, do you use manual uncoupling? How they operate in a switching session?

[ednadolski]

I don't do much switching (layout is built for railfanning) but I use a small screwdriver or other tool to uncouple cars.

Ed

[Doug G.]

This has never really bothered me that much and I just put one MT spring on one side of one axle of each caboose and it controls it well enough.

Uncoupling by hand isn't too bad but I will never have couplers that won't automatically couple without the car(s) moving.

Doug