Author Topic: TSC coupling improvements?  (Read 1003 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bill H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +38
TSC coupling improvements?
« on: November 18, 2018, 06:00:23 PM »
0
Group:
I remember when the TSC couplers were released, there was some discussion about thinning the "fingers" a bit to try to improve coupling without the application of ten finger bang'em together leverage. I tried a few sample packs as I liked the looks, but as I do operations, I needed to have them couple better than I was ever able to achieve. Since their release some time ago, news about the TSC couplers seems to have subsided. Has anyone gotten them to couple reliably without significant running them into each other or ten fingers?

Cheers,
Bill
« Last Edit: November 18, 2018, 10:01:26 PM by GaryHinshaw »

C855B

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8211
  • Respect: +1145
Re: TSC coupling improvements?
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2018, 06:23:56 PM »
0
Yes. Rule #1 - use the extended shank version whenever possible. They take much less force to couple. Rule #2 - alignment seriously matters. When they're even slightly misaligned, most of that force is getting the faces to slide into alignment.

You may not ever be able to get kiss coupling of a single car like we can do with the regular MTL, but I've come pretty close.
...mike

http://www.gibboncozadandwestern.com

We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents. We just don't tell anybody. -Bob Ross

wcfn100

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 7855
  • Respect: +673
    • Chicago Great Western Modeler
Re: TSC coupling improvements?
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2018, 12:44:47 PM »
0
If you don't mind being a guinea pig, something that works for the welded coupler modification is to slice the ring right next to the shank.



For the welded coupler, I only have to slice the left part because there is no centering.

I tested the above modification to make sure everything stay together enough in the coupler box.  It seems to work and does loosen everything up which will provide a softer couple.

Jason

Bill H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +38
Re: TSC coupling improvements?
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2018, 05:17:51 PM »
0
Hi Jason:
I'll give it a try...

Cheers,
Bill

Bill H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +38
Re: TSC coupling improvements?
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2018, 02:29:21 PM »
0
Jason:
Tried your modification with both the short shank and long shank versions and it did improve the coupling almost.... As others noted, the long shank has a bit more flex and seems to work better, but I am really not interested in moving all my coupler box holes back to get close coupling.

And frankly, I realize that reasonably soft coupling was not the design criteria for the TSC, so I guess I was hoping against logic as I am not exactly a fan of slinky.

Nonetheless, I am surprised as to how little swing either coupler has in the coupler box. I was seeing some cars lifting off the track in a FT pattern #5 crossover due to a lack of swing in the coupler.

With reality setting in, I guess I will have to look elsewhere. TSC seem to be fine for operating within their design criteria, but not for my use in operations. Hello Bowser Bucklers?

Kind regards,
Bill

w neal

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1048
  • Respect: +145
Re: TSC coupling improvements?
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2018, 11:14:47 AM »
0
Glad to see you came to that conclusion on your own. I was hoping it was not just me. They are good for photography and thing like close coupling F units, but theu are not good for opetations. I can deal with the looks of the old ones, if it means less frustration for operating.
Buffering...