Thoughts on Couplers.. Body Mount vs Truck Mount -- MTL vs TSC/NPossible.

[learmoia]

I'm starting to get my fleet 'up to snuff' for Operations and Switching and I put together a few test trains for the layout.

This adventure started as a test to say if my layout's track work could handle the small sized Npossible Couplers.

First train was Truck Mounted Couplers (Stock from the factory cars).
Then Body Mounted Couplers (MTLs)
And finally Body Mounted TSCs.   

The first thing I noticed - Body mounted couplers had a CLEAR advantage over truck mounted couplers.

MTLs did fine (but Plastic Atlas wheels and Kato Track don't seem to mix well on shoving movements.)

TSCs did good too (except for crossovers on cars 50' over due to the design) 
This week on stream I made fused TSCs with free swing so I can test those.

But I'm concerned if the size of the TSC/Npossible is going to hinder operators on the layout with switching.

I'm curious if there is anything that Npossible would improve upon over standard Micro-Trains couplers related to switching operations other than no slinky.

~Ian

[basementcalling]

Have you tried body mounted MT Z scale couplers? My few cars I switched out to 903s were bullet proof even with the MT wheels. On a switching layout you don't have to worry about the train getting too long and heavy for the smaller plastic faces to be strong enough to hold.

[NtheBasement]

What were the CLEAR advantages?

[randgust]

I've done a lot of Z couplers and totally agree.  Huge visual improvement, they work with regular MT's, rebend the pins and they magnetically delay and uncouple, all good.
What's ironic is how the regular N couplers have 'grown' since I started N.  They are bigger and bulkier, for sure.  The original N couplers are more like the size of the Z on the vertical dimensions.   New 11-104's look like boxing gloves compared to the originals.

Now, for switching, with smaller heads, you need to tightly control the centering tolerances.  The big question is whether or not you are trying to reliably couple (or magnetically uncouple) on curves.   On small layouts, such as mine, truck mounts have a distinct advantage there as they do a better job of keeping the couplers on a curve centerline.  But try to push 50 cars with truck mounts and something will torque over.  I'm getting away with 30, unless there is a light car up front.   And I've had major problems with body-mount 85' piggybacks (short shank Atlas) stringlining on a heavy train on a 13" radius curve where the MT piggybacks right in front of it (truck mounts) have no issues at all.  The Atlas cars got banned.  That's the ONLY problem I've ever had with bodymounts in mixed service other than mixing MT standard passenger cars with Rivarossi truck mounts, those had issues as well requiring one end of the Rivarossi car be converted to bodymount.

I got to see those new couplers at Altoona last year, and then all fell silent.  Very impressed, I'd sure try some for performance in 'real world'.

[learmoia]

Ok a bit more clarity on my layout and operating plans.

The layout is about 25' by 30' with train lengths between 40 and 70 cars... (regularly shoving cuts of 15-20+ cars.)

Honestly I'm ruling out Z scale MT couplers because at that point.. With the lack of a bulk pack, i might as well go TSC/Npossible.

What were the CLEAR advantages?

Shoving cuts of 60' and 80' boxcars..

~Ian

[wm3798]

I have a really small layout with a switching area with lots of curves.  The best couplers for this situation is truck mounted, because no matter where you go, the coupler is centered between the rails. 
I don't use magnetic uncoupling, it's usually just me, so it's a barbecue skewer, a small screwdriver, or more likely, GHA (Giant Hand Action).

For me, performance is more important than appearance.  Allen Keller isn't lurking over my shoulder with a camera while I'm switching.  I have a few cars that are rippling with details and weathering, so when I'm taking still pictures, I try to remember where they are so everyone can labor under the illusion that I care about such things.



But in practice, I'm just as likely to switch my industries with a Minitrix 0-6-0 with Rapidos on it.

I guess in my advancing years, I've succumbed to the notion that form follows function, because when you try to go the other way round, you're almost always disappointed.

Lee

[NtheBasement]

Shoving cuts of 60' and 80' boxcars..

~Ian

I regularly shove 24 3-bay hoppers.  Only issue I' had was the car right behind the engine derailed on a 9 3/4" (tight) curve.  This happened using a loco that had a long shank body mount, which swung way wider than the truck mounts.  Other than that I've found MTL short shank trucks to be super reliable.

I have heard that with body mounts you don't want to couple a short car to a long car.  With truck mounts everything stays centered regardless of car length.

[OldEastRR]

For me, performance is more important than appearance.  Allen Keller isn't lurking over my shoulder with a camera while I'm switching.  I have a few cars that are rippling with details and weathering, so when I'm taking still pictures, I try to remember where they are so everyone can labor under the illusion that I care about such things.

Lee

Lee, you're a funny guy. (as in "clown funny", not "gangster funny") Must be a ton of laughs in person. P.S. Where'd you get the PB70?

[bigdawgks]

The best of both worlds is the "kinematic" coupler mount that is practically standard now on all European N scale stock. Unfortunately, like in many areas, North America is lagging behind in this technology. At least though we've figured out how to do wheelsets correctly (mostly, MTL has taken some steps backwards in that regard).

But body mount couplers are generally better for shoving as the forces aren't transmitted to the trucks, which can cause them to deflect or derail, or in extreme cases lose their bolster pins. If you have long/heavy enough cuts and really curvy trackwork they can indeed cause problems.

[jdcolombo]

I have heard that with body mounts you don't want to couple a short car to a long car.  With truck mounts everything stays centered regardless of car length.

This is not true in my experience.  What you absolutely do NOT want to do, however, is mix body mounts and truck mounts.   In general, I have found that the best operational performance is achieved with everything having body-mount couplers, for the reasons others have pointed out (e.g. not putting lateral force on the trucks in back-up moves).   But operational consistency also depends on having curves appropriate for the size of engines/rolling stock used, and not trying to do things like back a 50-car cut through #4 switches.  Small radius curves and #4 switches would, of course, be appropriate for dense industrial switching areas, but no prototype would try to switch a 50-car long cut of cars in such an area.

John C.

[nkalanaga]

Trouble coupling on curves is also prototypical.  It isn't at all unusual for the brakeman/switchman to have to manually adjust one or both couplers to get them aligned.

(Yes, I know, and agree, that "brakeman" is outdated, but "brakeperson" looks even sillier.  If there's another term commonly used by railroaders today I'd be happy to use it.)

[bbussey]

Body-mounts are better for operations, hands-down. As stated up-thread, the load is transmitted through the body instead of through the trucks. If you’re pushing a consist, the trucks will pivot under load. That’s one reason vintage flanges were so large, to help keep the trucks on the track under load.

With body mounts, you don’t need over-sized flanges. And if you keep the car’s center of gravity below the coupler line, you don’t need excessive weight to keep the car on the track either. The reason the ESM GSC Well Car performs so well under load in spite of its light weight is because of the body-mounted couplers and low center of gravity. There’s a load-testing video on the ESM YouTube page back from when we were perfecting the design where the empty model was pulled/shoved by a Kato GG1 dragging/against over nearly two pounds of weighted rolling stock around sectional track with 10” radius curves, with no issues pulling or pushing that load.

[bbussey]

[Bill H]

Body-mounts are better for operations, hands-down. As stated up-thread, the load is transmitted through the body instead of through the trucks. If you’re pushing a consist, the trucks will pivot under load. That’s one reason vintage flanges were so large, to help keep the trucks on the track under load.

With body mounts, you don’t need over-sized flanges. And if you keep the car’s center of gravity below the coupler line, you don’t need excessive weight to keep the car on the track either. The reason the ESM GSC Well Car performs so well under load in spite of its light weight is because of the body-mounted couplers and low center of gravity. There’s a load-testing video on the ESM YouTube page back from when we were perfecting the design where the empty model was pulled/shoved by a Kato GG1 dragging/against over nearly two pounds of weighted rolling stock around sectional track with 10” radius curves, with no issues pulling or pushing that load.

Absolutely agree. Especially if you are not running old school pizza cutters. My entire layout is code 40 with primarily ESM and a few FV wheels. No issues pulling or pushing - all cars are converted to body mounts, primarily 1015s.

[wm3798]

@OldEastRR I assume you're talking about the combine?  (I'm a tad rusty on my PRR nomenclature).  That's just an old Bachmann shorty.  It may even have people silhouettes printed on the window glass.  Nothing fancy.

Back to topic, I've done the big trains on the big layout thing, and I'll concur that body mounts can offer an advantage.  I converted all of my Atlas 55T cars by simply cutting the Accumate off the truck and gluing it to the sill.

http://www.wmrywesternlines.net/rs_atlashoppers.php

It vastly improved their performance.

But on a smaller layout, where you might be shoving 4 or 5  cars at a time, it really doesn't make much difference.  As for manual adjustments being prototypical, so are labor strikes, smashed hands, and hazmat spills.  I try not to model them, though.

Lee