Revised Scale Trains Couplers

[nkalanaga]

Peteski:  I agree with you on Kato couplers.  The only locos I have with them are my two SDP40Fs, which won't be doing any switching.  I put a 1015 on the front of one, so it will couple to the train, and left the other three for looks.

[Maletrain]

I'll side with Peteski here.  If you're gonna make the most detailed plastic N scale engine models ever offered, don't put a boxing glove on the front and rear and call it museum quality.

The problem with N scale knuckle coupler design isn't really what can be designed and produced with currently available technology.  The problem is how to manufacture a design that is cheap enough that people will pay for it in very large quantities.

MTL Z-scale couplers and MTL True Scale couplers are attempts to make them smaller.  One is compatible with existing knuckle couplers, but is not really scale size nor protoytpical in appearance, while the other is nearly scale size and prototypical in appearance, but not compatible nor magnetically operable.  We can take our pick, or wait for something even better.  Most seem to be waiting. 

If anybody has a  design that they think looks prototypical with respect to size and shape, plus can be operated magnetically and with a pick, please figure out how to manufacture it at a price that most of us will be willing to buy in large enough quantities to convert all of our rolling stock.  The last coupler to achieve a step like that in N scale was the current Microtrains magnetic knuckle coupler - and it was only going up against the Rapido coupler at that point.

[peteski]

Problem or not, ditch the giant boxing glove couplers!  Come on! 
The Arnold (Vlk?) couplers looked pretty decent, but less than perfect with compatibility and operation.
Then there is the coupler patented by DKS. Protomate? That looked very promising, but fizzled out.

My criteria are simple.  I don't mind it being slightly oversized or slightly prototypical. Just make it look semi-decent, work reliable (with other couplers, and magnetic uncoupling).  Because of my givens I don't expect the coupler to be true scale-size (just no "boxing gloves" please).

Actually MTL Z couplers are pretty much all that.  @robert3985 mentioned just how close to the scale size it was (and while the appearance is not quite right, it works for me).  Not ideal, but usable.  I'm even content with the MTL N scale couplers (and Goemon coupler looks pretty damn good, even if somewhat too large).  If Scale Trains used brown-colored Goemons, that IMO would be the shiz!

[wcfn100]

If Scale Trains used brown-colored Goemons, that IMO would be the shiz!

With the spring behind the post, isn't that the 'slinky effect' design?

Jason

[peteski]

With the spring behind the post, isn't that the 'slinky effect' design?

Jason

No Jason, either of the MTL spring locations results in slink (which I don't mind).  Liek I said, "not a perfect solution", but would work for me.  It is that very soft spring, and the split shank, which offer fairly reliable magnetic uncoupling (and a puff of graphite powder lubricant makes it even more better).

The problem with "slinkless" couplers is that they use either plastic leaf springs or knuckle springs to open the coupler. Both are quite stiff compared to the MTL coil springs.

[wcfn100]

No Jason, either of the MTL spring locations results in slink (which I don't mind). 

So that would be a yes, then?

Jason

[Cajonpassfan]

I thought the new couplers BLI put on their mikados showed a lot of promise; in terms of size, appearance and functionality, they are arguably the best couplers out there. Just one small problem: you can’t buy them and BLi’s more recent release, the SW/NW units, have what looks like MT clones. So much for progress...
Otto K.

[peteski]

So that would be a yes, then?

Jason

Yes, any N scale MTL coupler (including the T-shank retrofits) will produce the slinking effect (slink is inherent to the spring in-line with the shank design).  Regardless if the spring action occurs on the pull or push motion (with very-free rolling cars of course).  Since Z scale coupler have a similar design, this also applies to MTL Z scale couplers.

[ncbqguy]

Yes, the Hornby Arnold Rapido SW1 and U25/28C locomotives did use my RMR coupler design.   Unfortunately I was not involved with the implementation as some massaging of the tooling would have made it more functional.   The design was offered to BLI but as I don’t have any of the Mikados I can’t comment if the small BLI coupler has RMR roots.

There will be a further development unveiled in the near future that will achieve the operational, appearance and availability goals set in the RMR design.   

Charlie Vlk
Railroad Model Resouces

[peteski]

Yes, the Hornby Arnold Rapido SW1 and U25/28C locomotives did use my RMR coupler design.   Unfortunately I was not involved with the implementation as some massaging of the tooling would have made it more functional.   The design was offered to BLI but as I don’t have any of the Mikados I can’t comment if the small BLI coupler has RMR roots.

There will be a further development unveiled in the near future that will achieve the operational, appearance and availability goals set in the RMR design.   

Charlie Vlk
Railroad Model Resouces

Thanks for the update Charlie.  Yes, the RMR coupler (that sounds like an official name), seems to be a good compromise between appearance/size and reliable operation.  As we both know, the Arnold implementation looked good, but operationally left something to be desired.   The round cross-section uncoupling "air hose" twists way too easily out of alignment too.  I reviewed it in the SW1 thread.





When will the (perfected) RMR coupler be available?  Which company will be making it?  Hopefully it will be offered as a standalone product (not just included on the model rolling stock).

[Maletrain]

I am wondering if MTL is doing any redesign of their True Scale concept.  It seems to me that one of the major limitations of their current implementation is to make the springs that provide operation and centering out of the same material as the other coupler parts.  I am sure it is cheaper that way, but it has resulted in hard coupling.  I had planned to try replacing those springs with wire leaf or coil springs, but life is not letting me get to it.  I don't know how they could make it function magnetically, but that isn't a big issue for me, personally.  I think the biggest problem with marketability is that they are not compatible with existing knuckle couplers, so it is an all-or-nothing decision for modelers, unless they are willing to go back to using "transition cars" with different couplers on the two ends.  That would be a real pain for the folks who like to do "ops."

[ncbqguy]

The manufacturer will make all product announcements. 
Charlie Vlk

[peteski]

The manufacturer will make all product announcements. 
Charlie Vlk

Sounds very promising - thanks Charlie!

[Mark5]

There will be a further development unveiled in the near future that will achieve the operational, appearance and availability goals set in the RMR design.   

Charlie Vlk
Railroad Model Resouces

  Watching

[OldEastRR]

What about coupling ST to Bachmann couplers?