Coupler choices?

[6axlepwr]

I do not mean to bring up something that has probably been hashed out over and over again, but coming back to N-Scale I would like to understand your reasoning for what coupler choice you use.

I am at the point right now where I could go either way. Standard MT 1015/ 1016 or the MT True Scale Coupler. I have a few of both. Testing them I find the following.

The original 1015/ 1016 are a little larger in scale, they give a slinky effect in trains, but to their advantage they couple together real easy without pushing the car being coupled. They open and close together easily so that if I was switching and coupling onto one car, the couplers open and close on each other without any noticeable movement of the single car being coupled to.

The newer TSC is really cool looking with the scale head. he operation is nice and they uncouple pretty easily. My concern with these are that if I am switching a single car out and I am coupling to it I find that the car gets pushed a bit before the knuckle opens and the car couples. This is in slow speed switching. Give a little more force to the locomotive and the car does not move as much before coupling.

So curious on to what you thoughts are on the couplers you are using and why you use them.

Brian

[learmoia]

I'm at the same point as well..

I was really excited about the TSC but the lack of functional coupling was kind of a deal breaker.. (but they look so much better.. )

So for ease of use, switching operations (and becoming the de facto industry standard).. I'd say I'd end up going with 1015s..

Two other options...
GEOMON Coupler (if you can find it).. a 1015 copy with a very fine detail coupler head.
https://store.sbs4dcc.com/NGOEMONRealisticNScaleCouplerfromJAPAN1pr.aspx

N-Possible coupler
https://n-possible.com/
This guy is working on a modified mechanism for lighter coupling..

I think with a 3d Printer in hand, you could bridge the gap with the TSC..

~Ian

[C855B]

Brian, when you were here with Tom we just had that one train running the big loop with the 4500GTEL. If we knew then what we know now, I could've demo'ed the TSC for you. I'm gradually converting everything I can to TSC, my particular priorities being close-coupling and no slinky with long trains.

Your assessment is basically on-point. Coupling to a single car in normal switching operation is a challenge. However, I ran some tests when the TSC was new, and there was a big performance difference between the short- and long-shank versions. Bottom line was the long-shank, when properly centered on the car, needs almost as little coupling force as the standard MTL. Speaking of proper centering, there's very little tolerance for misaligned couplers; one or both a little off will simply bounce away.

I try to put long-shank on everything I possibly can, but unfortunately I've yet to convert a loco where there's enough room for the longer box without the box protruding beyond the pilot. Everything seems to be sized for the 1015 box, which is the common denominator used for the short-shank TSC.

For uncoupling I use a dental explorer. It takes very little force, just place the point into the (admittedly tight) gap and let the weight of the tool separate them.

[bbussey]

If you're planning on hands-free switching operations, particularly at slow speed, then the standard MTL product line is the best option.  The True-Scale line is best for aesthetics purposes, and for close-coupling of MUs that never will be separated during operation.  The MTL/AccuMate hybrid coupler that Broadway Limited uses gives you the same MTL functionality more or less without the oscillation, but BLI doesn't offer them separately. And all of the MTL clones tooled in China do not work as smoothly as the originals.  The second best functional option which also has a reduced size would be the Arnold Hornsby coupler installed in their SW1 and U25C models.  But they are not a stock item either and are impossible to come by.  Unfortunate, as the Arnold coupler box has the same dimensions as the MTL 1015.

[peteski]

Just to give full credit, the MTL compatible knuckle couplers used by Hornby/Arnold and more recently by BLI, are based on RMR coupler design by our own, recently departed Charlie Vlk.

Explanation about that coupler's origin is in https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=37134.msg446307#msg446307
And a discussion about the BLI and Hornby/Arnold couplers is in https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=51455.0

Those couplers are compatible with MTL, then couple almost as easily as the MTLs, and (while still oversize) they look better than MTL.  Too bad they are not available for sale other  than in the respective companies models.

[ednadolski]

A couple (no pun) of quick thoughts:

- The standard MTL TSC.  Scale-size, manual only, no slinky.  OOTB however it is very stiff, so hardly usable for switching. As a scale coupler they get harder to see/operate over time (I use a pointy metal dental pick fwiw), so best use case is a high (sternum height or more) shelf with <12 or so inch reach-in depth, and lots of good light.   (I am getting a prescription for hobby glasses which I think will also make the task more enjoyable).

- There is the @turbowhiz version of the TSC.  This solves a lot of issues (tho not everything) but currently is made of unobtanium. I am hopeful that will change soon.  You could try asking Andrew directly or perhaps he could help you put together some of the sample versions on your own.

- @GaryHinshaw and I have been using the LEZ coupler for some time now, with a custom pocket that is either etched brass or 3D printed.  There is a long-running thread on this. The couplers are still (AFAIK) available from Lee English, at least for the near-term.  They solve the slinky and are closer to scale but not exact.  They work well in long trains but for switching tho they are a bit stiff and often need a slight push to connect onto a freely-rolling car (think of a prototype car without its brakes set).

- Some folks use the MTL 905 Z-scale coupler.  These are basically a smaller version of the 'standard' MTL and work the same, including both the soft coupling as well as the slinky effect.

- N scale operational Sergent-type coupler - Intriguing idea, but does not exist and likely would be hard/costly to make.

With MTLs some folks use drag springs or other techniques to reduce the slinky effect, tho these often introduce other undesirable side effects (such as limited train length).  Other couplers like the ScaleTrains, Accumates, McHenrys, Kato, etc, have their own sets of issues that make them less than desirable (IMHO), and I just replace them as a matter of standard operating procedure.
 
Bottom line - all N scale couplers have their trade-offs, and anything beyond an OTS MTL will take some fiddling.

HTH
Ed

[ednadolski]

The original 1015/ 1016 are a little larger in scale, they give a slinky effect in trains, but to their advantage they couple together real easy without pushing the car being coupled. They open and close together easily so that if I was switching and coupling onto one car, the couplers open and close on each other without any noticeable movement of the single car being coupled to.

I've found that if the car is free-rolling enough, then even the MTLs can push rather than connect.  Added weight or drag may help (YMMV of course.)

Ed

[pedro]

I would add the MTL 905 to the viable options list. Functionality + smaller size. Still slinkys though. Reliability in switching is priority #1 for me, so I’m sticking with the MTL standard. Path of least resistance. I’ve made a conscious decision not to notice/care about the slinky.
Every option has a compromise.

[6axlepwr]

While I am leaning toward the MT TSC. I have not truly tested them out fully. My thoughts and theory are exactly what Mike mentioned about the longer shank coupler being the one to go with. The longer shank will give just a tad more flex.

I simply like the scale head look of it and I really do not want the slinky effect. I have to fully agree with Ed though that no matter which way I go, I am going to have to make a trade off or compromise. It is just part of the hobby. Same went for HO for me. If I painted my couplers, they did not operate exactly smooth. The knuckle stayed a little stiff. Unpainted, they coupled without a problem. So goes it in N-Scale. I am just going to have to make the compromises that are acceptable to me.

The other factor that is in favor of the TSC for me is I will be rarely switching a single car. My layout is switching long cuts of cars. In the staging yard, I do not care if I have to help the coupling along.

This conversation is really helpful. Thank you!

Brian

[randgust]

I'm using fully magnetic uncoupling quite successfully, but if a car is actually in switching rotation (and not eye candy in a fixed train) it has to be MT.  But over the years, looking a my older cars, the size of the knuckle sure grew from the originals.   

So on anything that gets a lot of camera and video work (diesel and steam couplers, my Climaxes, etc.) I've found the Z 905's really do an excellent job.   If you rebend the trip pins lower to pick up the magnets they work fine with regular MT's, delay, the works.  I've really started to use them on all my logging equipment trains that the big couplers just look enormous.   But I wish (Joe) that there was a way to fit those in the truck-mount boxes as my HVRR has 8" curves and a 40' car still has to have truck mounts.   I'd like to see the 905's made a lot more versatile without investing a ton into new dies, I hear ya.

The only time I'm defeated is when I've got a pilot coupler or something close-clearance where that box is just too long, but that's rare.

I'm really not sure why this hasn't become more popular.   It's standard equipment for me particularly on locomotive pilot applications where it will fit.

I also run a relatively long train consist on my ATSF layout, with sharper curves than I'd like, on a 2.5% grade around a 13" radius 180-degree curve.  That's enough force to pop old MT's apart vertically, and even stringline some longer body-mount piggybacks.   I've had to either buy or modify every single regular MT coupler I own to RDA standards to stop that.   You'll break a head off now before those cars will part, and my 18-car train of 89' pigs behind 3 F45's doesn't part either.    No other couplers need apply on that.   I'll pull apart everything else but a Unimate/Red Caboose on that consist.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Just add some handbrakes to your cars and your problems will be solved!

[ednadolski]

While I am leaning toward the MT TSC. I have not truly tested them out fully. My thoughts and theory are exactly what Mike mentioned about the longer shank coupler being the one to go with. The longer shank will give just a tad more flex.

Another option in that direction is @wcfn100 's modification to the TSC, using a 3D printed pocket:  https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=40370.msg498377#msg498377

For myself, I had some difficulty getting the 'weld' part of it right.  As always it is a YMMV.

Ed

[haasmarc]

Two things:

I like the 905's.  They seem to work better than 1015's when remote uncoupling.  What I really need is an offset version like a 2004.  Flat cars and cabeese when lowered really need that offset to align properly.  It seems I haven't found the magic tweak to make 1015's or truck mounted couplers work real reliably when doing remote uncoupling.  Randgust, I might need some of your wisdom 

Second, any word on the DKS/Lemosteam coupler?

[wcfn100]

For myself, I had some difficulty getting the 'weld' part of it right.  As always it is a YMMV.

Yeah, that part I never enjoyed.  There's probably another solution to pin those two pieces together.

Jason

[GaryHinshaw]

- @GaryHinshaw and I have been using the LEZ coupler for some time now, with a custom pocket that is either etched brass or 3D printed.  There is a long-running thread on this. The couplers are still (AFAIK) available from Lee English, at least for the near-term.  They solve the slinky and are closer to scale but not exact.  They work well in long trains but for switching tho they are a bit stiff and often need a slight push to connect onto a freely-rolling car (think of a prototype car without its brakes set).

HTH
Ed

I have been very happy with the LEZ's for some time now.  They are still available directly from Lee English, but that may not last forever.  We're still on our own for pockets, but 3d printing has made that pretty easy now.  This is definitely a niche choice though.  Happily these couplers are compatible with standard N scale couplers, so using them is not an all or nothing proposition.

If the Protomate and/or the Npossible ever become commercially available, I will be giving them serious consideration.  But with 100's of cars and locos to convert, making a switch may not be in the cards in my lifetime, given the long list of other hobby tasks I'd like to accomplish.