Weekend Update 12/20/20

[bbunge]

Ran the homemade B&O coal drag at the best of the B&O venues on the Bantrak layout.   The museum had a good number of non-train vendors there, including a dance/performance studio that was providing live music. 

Bob

[bbussey]

Honestly Bryan, in my experience the cars will slink, regardless of the location of that spring.  You have observed otherwise?

Truck-mounted couplers and the 1023s have springs in the back.  All "modern" MTL couplers have springs in the front.  Very little oscillation for me.  Plus, every caboose has two axle springs.  That was the trick needed back in the day to reduce the oscillation and I've kept up the practice.  The bulk of my passenger equipment has working diaphragms which eliminates the oscillation there.

[bbussey]

...For springs behind the pivot, if I replace the spring with the knuckle spring from an HO #5 Kadee, no slinky and the coupler still works properly. YMMV

That's a neat discovery.  Good to know.

[Mark5]

I've been observing when I get the "slinky" or "pogo" effect with MT couplers. This is what I have seen so far: If the spring is in front of the pivot, no slinky. If it is behind the pivot, then I get slinky. For springs behind the pivot, if I replace the spring with the knuckle spring from an HO #5 Kadee, no slinky and the coupler still works properly. YMMV

Cool, does anyone know if that would be this spring: https://www.kadee.com/ho-scale-couplers-c-274_276_284/622-ho-scale-knuckle-spring-for-standard-head-couplers-p-416.htm

[reinhardtjh]

I've been observing when I get the "slinky" or "pogo" effect with MT couplers. This is what I have seen so far: If the spring is in front of the pivot, no slinky. If it is behind the pivot, then I get slinky. For springs behind the pivot, if I replace the spring with the knuckle spring from an HO #5 Kadee, no slinky and the coupler still works properly. YMMV

Cool, does anyone know if that would be this spring: https://www.kadee.com/ho-scale-couplers-c-274_276_284/622-ho-scale-knuckle-spring-for-standard-head-couplers-p-416.htm

Looks like it.  On the page for the #5 coupler it lists the knuckle spring as part #622

https://www.kadee.com/ho-scale-couplers-c-274_276_284/5-ho-scale-no5-universal-metal-couplers-with-gearboxes-medium-932-centerset-shank-p-245.htm

Package Includes:

    (2) Pair NO.5® Metal Couplers - Medium Centerset Shank
    (2) Pair #634 Centering Spring NO.5® Style
    (2) Pair #232 Gearboxes
    (2) #622 Knuckle Springs

[nkalanaga]

I'm with Peteski:  They all slink, just under different circumstances.   Except, maybe, the T-shank couplers, but I don't have enough experience with them to judge.

The 1023/1025 and the truck-mounted couplers are the same coupler, just in different boxes.  That's why I bought a bag of 1025 boxes to recycle the removed truck-mounted couplers.

As for the thickness of the box, the 1015/1016 box is a little thicker than the 1023/1025, although they both mount at the same height.  The 1015 was originally designed for diesel locomotives, where a shorter box was needed, and the thicker box didn't show.  It works fine for freight cars, I just don't like the way the box looks under the end of the car.  I think part of it is that the shorter box allows a gap between the back of the box and the body bolster, which emphasizes the height.  In any case, I've been using the 1025s fo so long I'm comfortable with them.

Other manufacturers, such as ESM and Intermountain, who make their own boxes, can make them thinner, and they look fine.   I have no complaints about how they work.

I never heat-seal my 1025s, and never have.  Once they're screwed on, they can't come apart.

For those with wide curves, the truck-mount boxes are the same thickness as 1015s, and can be body mounted, although they're a little wider, and limit truck swing more.  Screw them on, and then remove the retaining clips, and they work fine.  I have a few sharper industrial sidings, so that wouldn't work for me, although I have done it on cars with inset trucks, where wheel clearance isn't a problem.

[cjm413]

Cool, does anyone know if that would be this spring: https://www.kadee.com/ho-scale-couplers-c-274_276_284/622-ho-scale-knuckle-spring-for-standard-head-couplers-p-416.htm

I believe "standard head" would be a reference to the #5 rather than the smaller #58...

[cjm413]

I'm with Peteski:  They all slink, just under different circumstances.   Except, maybe, the T-shank couplers, but I don't have enough experience with them to judge.

The 1023/1025 and the truck-mounted couplers are the same coupler, just in different boxes.  That's why I bought a bag of 1025 boxes to recycle the removed truck-mounted couplers.

As for the thickness of the box, the 1015/1016 box is a little thicker than the 1023/1025, although they both mount at the same height.  The 1015 was originally designed for diesel locomotives, where a shorter box was needed, and the thicker box didn't show.  It works fine for freight cars, I just don't like the way the box looks under the end of the car.  I think part of it is that the shorter box allows a gap between the back of the box and the body bolster, which emphasizes the height.  In any case, I've been using the 1025s fo so long I'm comfortable with them.

Other manufacturers, such as ESM and Intermountain, who make their own boxes, can make them thinner, and they look fine.   I have no complaints about how they work.

I never heat-seal my 1025s, and never have.  Once they're screwed on, they can't come apart.

For those with wide curves, the truck-mount boxes are the same thickness as 1015s, and can be body mounted, although they're a little wider, and limit truck swing more.  Screw them on, and then remove the retaining clips, and they work fine.  I have a few sharper industrial sidings, so that wouldn't work for me, although I have done it on cars with inset trucks, where wheel clearance isn't a problem.

The truck mount boxes work on the 122 00 010 series Greenville 60' auto parts cars after removing the weird and counterintuitive downward metal protrusion that serves no purpose aside from mounting an underslung 2001 coupler in a 1016 coupler box. (I'm at a loss to understand what objective they had in mind other than to make people thank the person that invented the hacksaw???)

The truck mounted boxes aren't pretty to look at, but they are no worse than that @#$& metal blob, and they do free up a pair of 2001's in 1016 boxes that are very useful for lowering the Atlas 60' Precision Design box to a more acceptable/less comical ride height

[Mike C]

Honestly Bryan, in my experience the cars will slink, regardless of the location of that spring.  You have observed otherwise?

 In an online discussion I saw where some people were using 2 springs in each coupler in the HOn3 Blackstone cars . I wonder if this would work in N scale ?

[ednadolski]

in my experience the cars will slink, regardless of the location of that spring.

Anything with a spring will slink under the right conditions, it's a pesky physics thing.  I've even had P:48 couplers slink, if they have a spring in the load path.

Ed

[peteski]

Anything with a spring will slink under the right conditions, it's a pesky physics thing.  I've even had P:48 couplers slink, if they have a spring in the load path.

Ed

UNless of course the spring requires more force to compress than the load on the coupler. But that defeats the purpose of the spring.

[ednadolski]

UNless of course the spring requires more force to compress than the load on the coupler. But that defeats the purpose of the spring.

True, in that case it woulnd't be much use to make something with a spring that stiff.

I was really rather surprised at how strong the spring was in those Protocraft couplers.  I found that I had to remove the spring and then resort to shims, to add a bit of friction to keep the couplers from just flopping around.  The prototype doesn't use centering springs (tho some have a cushioned underframe to minimize damage), otoh one coupler weighs something like 300 lbs. and it's quite hard for one man to move it when needed in order to make a coupling.

The Kadee 805s on some of the Atlas O cars are quite stiff - you really have to bang the cars together fairly hard, or they will just push each other away.  It's like they expect each car to weigh several pounds.  Even adding weight does not get rid of the slinky, it just takes a different speed to make it slink.


Ed

[nkalanaga]

The main time I notice the slink in 1015s is when pushing, which makes sense, as that's when the spring is compressed.  My switching requires a fair amount of pushing, so it shows.  If ones operations consist mostly of pulling, the 1015s probably won't show it.

[nkalanaga]

I wonder if the Kadee 805s were designed long enough ago that they were intended to work with the old O scale stuff?  Some of those cars did weigh "several pounds".

[Cajonpassfan]

I finally managed to get the remaining correct “transcon” cars for my ATSF ‘49 Chief trainset...the new Kato NYC 10-6 and 4-4-2 Pullmans. Pic’s below, more in my “LA Division” layout engineering thread.
Otto K.