McHenry coupler boxes now being sold - experiences with the McHenry couplers?

[Bill H]

Group:
I just noticed over on N Scale Supply that they are now selling McHenry coupler boxes. I know those couplers sort of went "cold" not long after their release. Aside from their appearance and some experiencing self ejecting springs, I thought that time the lack of a coupler box for most installations was a major mistake. But these boxes are $2 a piece, certainly looks like a huge opportunity for a Shapeways product.

Does anyone have any long term experience with the couplers? I am still not happy with the MT slinky effect, don't like Accumates, and the TSC don't work for me in operations.

Kind regards,
Bill

[peteski]

Group:
I just noticed over on N Scale Supply that they are now selling McHenry coupler boxes. I know those couplers sort of went "cold" not long after their release. Aside from their appearance and some experiencing self ejecting springs, I thought that time the lack of a coupler box for most installations was a major mistake. But these boxes are $2 a piece, certainly looks like a huge opportunity for a Shapeways product.

Does anyone have any long term experience with the couplers? I am still not happy with the MT slinky effect, don't like Accumates, and the TSC don't work for me in operations.

If you are looking  for automatic magnetic uncoupling I think that the McHenry (or other "boxing glove" couplers like Bachmann or Scale Trains), are nowhere as reliable as MTL couplers.   I think there is a reason you don't hear much about them or hear modelers give them praises.

[Bill H]

Pete:
Never said I was looking for automatic uncoupling - far more interested in reliable coupling. TCS couplers are OK on a unit train or exhibition, which was their design, but they are not an option in operations, they take magic ten fingers to couple reliably.

Of course, i have heard some complaints that the McHenry's are OK for non magnetic surprise uncoupling as well.

Wish the Bowser Bucklers were more available...

Cheers,
Bill

[Kev1340]

I've a fair number of freight cars and locos bought with McHenry couplers. They operate reliably for me (I don't use automatic uncoupling), indeed I've had far more problems with 'licensed' micro-trains couplers as used by Fox Valley and Intermountain.

It is true the McHenry coupler is chunkier than MT but it doesn't bother me enough to change them.

Cheers,

Kev

[peteski]

Pete:
Never said I was looking for automatic uncoupling - far more interested in reliable coupling. TCS couplers are OK on a unit train or exhibition, which was their design, but they are not an option in operations, they take magic ten fingers to couple reliably.

Of course, i have heard some complaints that the McHenry's are OK for non magnetic surprise uncoupling as well.

Wish the Bowser Bucklers were more available...

Cheers,
Bill

Sorry Bill - I guess I did read more into your original question than what you meant.  As I see it, the larger the coupler head is, the more reliable it will be (as far as vertical misalignment goes.  But McHenry's overall design (with the easily lost external knuckle spring) in itself, is prone to being unreliability in the long run. Or at least bothersome, if the springs have to be replaced from time to time.

If you want to maximize coupling reliability you could go back to the original Arnold Rapido couplers.  After all, those are still standard couplers worldwide (except for USA).  My NTRAK club member uses them on his 100+ hopper train for reliability on our far-from-perfect NTRAK layout trackage. 

[Bill H]

Pete:
Any thoughts on why the Bowser Bucklers never gained traction. They seem to answer most of the questions, reliable coupling, decent size, no slinky etc.

Kind regards,
Bill

[peteski]

Pete:
Any thoughts on why the Bowser Bucklers never gained traction. They seem to answer most of the questions, reliable coupling, decent size, no slinky etc.

Kind regards,
Bill

Never gained traction?  Are those the Z scale knuckle couplers which @GaryHinshaw uses (after he designed etch-brass coupler pockets for them?  Gary has a lengthy thread on them.  He can probably give you more details, but I think the main reason is that they were marketed as Z scale couplers and not offered individually for retail sale.

[Bill H]

Pete:
Yes, Z scale, with coupler boxes that work quite nicely in N. Even the MT Z scale, when used in N still exhibit slinky...

Followed Gary's thread for the entire time, and revisted a few times. Not much interest lately.

Kind regards,
Bill

[peteski]

Pete:
Yes, Z scale, with coupler boxes that work quite nicely in N. Even the MT Z scale, when used in N still exhibit slinky...

Followed Gary's thread for the entire time, and revisted a few times. Not much interest lately.

Kind regards,
Bill

Well, not much interest because those couplers are not easy to find (and not coupelr boxes are available for them).  Only Bowser knows for sure what that it.

[nkalanaga]

My McHenrys work well enough that I don't replace them, at least on the cars with body-mounted couplers.  The truck-mounted McHenrys are replaced with MT, usually 1025s.  I save the McHenrys, just in case, as replacements for ones that come apart.

My biggest problem was that, when the pin falls out, the knuckle follows, and there goes the spring.  I've never been able to get a spring back on the things.  I had several early ones do that, but newer cars seem to be more reliable.

[muktown128]

I knew I should have asked Lee English about the availability of Bowser buckler couplers when I saw him at Trainfest yesterday. 

[nscaler711]

I usually add a dab of ca glue to coupler where the spring sits and have yet to lose a spring. It also makes the spring a tad stiffer as well so I have had less pull a parts, go figure.

[Tom L]

I would think that Accumates would work with these, as well. On my Athearn Airslides, I replaced the McHenry with Accumates and they drop right in. I don't like the McHenry because of the shank length and the spring.

My main complaint with Accumates is the long shank, so maybe using these boxes and mounting them a little further back would give a coupling distance equivelent to MT 1015s and have more clearance with the smaller box.

Might be useful is some situations

Tom L
Wellington CO

[GaryHinshaw]

Pete:
Yes, Z scale, with coupler boxes that work quite nicely in N. Even the MT Z scale, when used in N still exhibit slinky...

Followed Gary's thread for the entire time, and revisited a few times. Not much interest lately.

Kind regards,
Bill

I still have a keen interest in the Bowser couplers.  

I've been using them for a few years now and they have really performed well on my layout (with long trains and 2.2% grades).   They tick all the boxes I care about:
☑ Smaller size - similar to MTL Z scale,
☑ Inter-operable with all standard N scale couplers - MTL, Kato, Accumate, McHenry (but not Tru-Scale),
☑ Reliable - no spontaneous uncouplings when there is slack in the train,
☑ Low profile coupler box - makes it easier to lower the ride height on many cars,
☑ Short shank - no exaggerated car spacing,
☑ No slinky effect - yeah!
☐ Magnetic uncoupling - not available, but this is not important to me,
☐ Simple supply chain - oh well.
I believe Lee is still willing to sell these in bulk without pockets (see this post for his contact info), and I am willing to source pockets for those who want them (PM me).  I'd also like to look into an option where people can order pockets themselves directly from PPD etching.

[ednadolski]

Just to save folks some searching, here a couple of quick reference links on the LEZ couplers.   First, a few pics of some installations:

(Funny -- the Photobucket links came back and now have a watermark! 

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg318267#msg318267


This one shows the styles of frets that were on the latest etchings:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg319095#msg319095


HTH,
Ed