Quick Coupler Comparison

[peteski]

Cool!  Thanks, @peteski - I’ve enjoyed this resource in the past; thanks for sharing!

To find it, select “How to” from the home page and then scroll down to the “locomotives” section.  Your coupler article is the fifth one down… has “MUST SEE” next to the article.  (It’s titled “N scale coupler evaluation”)

Thanks again!!
Jim

Ah, now I see it. Thanks! I would have never thought of looking under the Locomotives section! I did look in How To, but probably scrolled right by it.

[turbowhiz]

No Sergents?    
 
ed

Hrrmmm Sergents....

Being scale, they will be under the length of the ALL of the N scale boxing gloves!

A standard MTL N scale coupler works out to scale HO from head base to knuckle face based on some quick measurements. Crazy.

I'd never looked at the Sergent CAD before, but I finally loaded it up for interest this evening. I overlaid my design (rescaled to HO) on top of the Sergent, and they are effectively identical, which hopefully implies we both got it right.

I've been wondering what the appetite is for a HO scale uncompromised appearance coupler that operates like a model coupler. Sergents are super cool and all, but it really feels like they're a bit too "real" for most in terms of their operating characteristics. I don't like that you need to hold the magnet ball to make a cut personally.

I've got some examples coming, so I'll update the comparison with a Sergent (IMW technically) along with a classic Rapido, just cause.....

Any other requests?

[Mike C]

  @turbowhiz I love the Sergent couplers on my HOn3 cars ! The first time I tried to run a train with the stock 714 couplers I was so disapointed . The cars were bouncing all over the place ! They are made to couple like the real thing but it ain't always easy . I'm mostly a runner so they work great for me .

[NtheBasement]

Looked at a few reviews of the MTL true scale couplers and decided not for me.  They look great and close coupling can't be beat.  However, they are also great at detecting uneven spots on your track because they uncouple on the slightest height difference, and the close coupling means you can't run them on small radius curves. They couple only under high force and the target for your uncoupling needle is tiny.  So no for switching layouts, less than perfect trackwork and tight curves.  Yes for realism and running without switching.

[ednadolski]

I don't like that you need to hold the magnet ball to make a cut personally ...... Any other requests?

How about working cut levers?     (asking for a friend )

Ed

[robert3985]

Looked at a few reviews of the MTL true scale couplers and decided not for me.  They look great and close coupling can't be beat.  However, they are also great at detecting uneven spots on your track because they uncouple on the slightest height difference, and the close coupling means you can't run them on small radius curves. They couple only under high force and the target for your uncoupling needle is tiny.  So no for switching layouts, less than perfect trackwork and tight curves.  Yes for realism and running without switching.

Generally Speaking:

First, this needs to be said: "Superdetailing requires more involvement, more work, more caution and more money."

Since I started converting all of my engines and cars to MTL TS Couplers a few years ago, I've been very happy with the results...and much more happy than staying with either MTL N-scale and/or MTL Z-scale couplers.

Yes, N-scale scale-sized couplers are going to be more finicky than bigger, toy-like "N-scale" couplers simply because of the smaller coupler face, not from a lack of mechanical functionality.  This means that if your properly/consistently positioned MTL TS couplers are uncoupling on your trackwork, it isn't a coupler problem, it's a track problem.  My MTL TS's stay coupled flawlessly because I started out in N-scale back in the late 1970's using what I thought were the best track laying practices and taking the extra care, extra time, and laying out the extra bucks to use the best N-scale track available at the time (Rail Craft Code55) and hand-laying all of my turnouts and all of my Code40 trackage.

So, if your cars are uncoupling because of the humps, bumps and ski-jumps in your trackwork...it's not the fault of the coupler.  Hopefully, the flaws in your track will be only in a few locations, which should be relatively easy to fix.  If you're using sectional track, then you may very well have more problems, because each rail joint is a potential problem and there are a LOT more rail joints in sectional track than with flex.

For my use of the MTL True-Scale Couplers, the vast majority of my TS coupler conversions are with modified TS couplers and Jason's ( @wcfn100 ) modifications to the long-shank coupler halves, along with his custom coupler boxes...which I now print with my own 3D printer (with Jason's blessings) since Shapeways went belly up (yeah yeah...I know they have reincarnated but I don't have a need for them any longer)

MTL True-Scale Coupler Limiting Factors:

The two main limiting factors (for me) using stock MTL TS Couplers are (1) The extra coupling force needed to couple short-shank TS couplers and (2) The extra-fugly MTL TS coupler box.

Other limiting factors are: (3) Over-simplification of the coupler detailing which includes the distinctive voids in the prototype coupler sides, (4) Not many options for mounting since the types of coupler boxes is very limited (5) and, the way-oversimplified brake hoses if your gonna keep using the stock coupler box. Lastly, (6) since body-mounting is really the only option for MTL TS Couplers, extra-small track radii and/or extra-long cars will probably cause problems.

MTL True-Scale Coupler Solutions:

It must be noted that the main TS problem with needing too much coupling force, is with the short shank version.  The long shank version requires very much less coupling force, and if left unmodified should be used as much as space permits on both rolling stock and motive power.  Visually, they both appear pretty much the same with a short coupling distance, except the coupler boxes are different lengths.  Generally, I only use the short shank version on my motive power where mounting space is limited, the long shank version on motive power if possible, and the modified long shank TS's with Jason's coupler box on everything else.

The one caveat using Jason's coupler box is the coupler body modifications eliminate centering, and that creates a more involved coupling process actually closer to prototype than with self-centering couplers, but, I like the extra involvement, which gives me more of a "feel" of prototypical practices (which is one reason I decided long ago to not use Magne-Matic uncoupling). However, if you use Jason's coupler modifications and can print his custom coupler box, there is no solution to no self-centering.

Also, for smaller radii and/or longer cars, Jason's coupler box needs to have the coupler opening filed so that it's a bit wider than the unmodified version.  Since my mainlines minimum radius is 24" and my industrial/light usage branchline trackage's minimum radius is 18", I am not too concerned about tight radii.  Also, except for my passenger cars, the vast majority of my rolling stock is 50' or less since I model between 1947 and the end of 1956...so, extra long cars aren't on my layout.  BUT, if smaller track radii and/or extra long cars are what you run, then maybe MTL TS Couplers aren't gonna work for you unless you're ready to develop and 3D print your own coupler boxes.

If you'd like to read up on how to make the MTL True-Scale Coupler work, then read Jason's excellent TRW thread here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=40370.0

MTL True-Scale Coupler Advantages:

First, (1) and this is important, MTL True-Scale Couplers totally eliminate the dreaded "slinky effect" since there are no fore/aft springs in the design.  All trains run smoothly at all speeds and in all applications, with no "herky-jerky" slinkying at all.  This happens with both the stock coupler boxes and Jason's coupler boxes, making for a very prototypical overall train appearance when it's moving.

(2) The MTL True-Scale Coupler really IS scale sized, so your cars and engines are gonna look much more massive (aka realistic), and on top of being correctly sized for N-scale, they also look very prototypical especially from the top and/or 3/4 views from the top.  MUCH more realistic than even MTL's 905/903 Z-scale/Nn3 couplers, which are quite close to being generally a prototypically scale size also.

(3) Body mounting your MTL TS Couplers will increase overall reliability when pushing your long train...or even your short train.  Maybe it's a combination of how they couple also, but for sure, body mounting is a more reliable method for backing movements which on an operating layout are inevitable.

Okay...now for the near perfect N-scale coupler...

N-Possible Couplers:

Since I haven't had the opportunity yet to purchase or use the N-Possible scale-sized, prototypical-looking N-scale coupler, my opinions are from extensively reading what's available here at TRW and watching Youtube videos of them in operation.

I am very happy to say that the N-Possible Couplers are fully compatible with the MTL True-Scale couplers, but, like the TS couplers, the NP couplers aren't compatible with any other non-dummy N-scale coupler...which is fine with me.

The N-Possible Couplers have all of the advantages of the MTL TS couplers and none of the disadvantages including having to print custom coupler boxes, having to modify the basic coupler mechanism inside the box, having to body mount them and not having them self-center when modified.  Most important, is that the N-Possible Coupler has a very minute "kiss" coupling force required and is extra simple and easy to uncouple.  Also several coupler shank lengths are available, which should eliminate small radii and extra-long car length problems....AND...NO SLINKY!! 

Also, their prototype appearance is enhanced greatly from the side by including the prototype coupler body voids that are so evident when looking at real couplers.  ALSO, the included NP brake hose is exponentially better detailed than the included MTL TS over-simplified brake hose.

The only minor drawback I see with the NP couplers is that when viewed directly from the side, you can see the double shank very plainly...which is the space between the upper and lower halves of the coupler body.  I can live with that.

Conclusion:

It's pretty evident that MTL isn't going to do any more work on their TS couplers.  What you see is what you are gonna get, and if you want to improve them, it's gonna take education, time, effort and a steady hand...along with a 3D printer to print your own coupler boxes.  Okay, I'm willing to do that, but...for the vast majority of N-scalers, it's too much effort...they're just gonna live with a funky-looking design and the slinky effect.

However, along comes @turbowhiz with his N-Possible Couplers...and solves, or vastly minimizes all of the TS Couplers' limiting factors, keeps all of the TS Coupler's advantages, and adds several important advantages in the design and implementation of his new N-Possible Coupler! 

You will note I have not even mentioned "normal" MTL N-scale/Z-Nn3 Couplers or their clones...because they are OBSOLETE.

My conclusion and what I am going to act upon as soon as possible, is to convert every car and engine that I own, or will own, to N-Possibles when they become available, because, if they live up to what I'm reading and watching, nothing else touches them, in either appearance, or in functionality.


So, that's about it for now.  My main gripe is that since I've been concerned about N-scale couplers looking halfway prototypical since I got into model railroading back in about 1975...it's taken 50 years, that's half a century, to finally get the coupler N-scale has needed and wanted for even longer than that...and, I'm hitting 76 at the end of the month.  I've got a firm belief that without 3D printing technology improving as much as it has in the last five or so years, the N-Possible coupler may have never been developed.  I only hope that present 3D UV resin technology will provide for long-lasting durability without embrittlement from continual UV exposure over time, but...time will tell...and as long as they stay durable for another 20 or so years, that's long enough for me!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Maletrain]

Still waiting for the n-possible-to-buy couples before drawing any conclusions - not to say I am not excited by the prospects.

But, there is a big gap in the trackwork standards between what robert3985 does and what I encounter at my club and expect to encounter on T-Trak modules.

So, I am wondering how far the N-possible couplers can go toward becoming the new standard for the hobby, as the Kadee/MTL couplers managed to do over the Rapidos and horn-hook versions of the past.

I am anxious to get some N-possible couplers to convert a test train for my home layout, and will also take it to the club, where the real torture test will occur.

I am pretty sure that I will want to use them on my home layout.  But, I still wonder if I will  need to have separate sets of rolling equipment for home and elsewhere - at least for the "elsewheres" that don't have really high standards of track work.

Maybe the N-possibles will eventually force the overall improvement of layout track work?

[turbowhiz]

N-Possible was born out of solving the faults in the TSC. Which I believe I've done and then some. My benchmark is the traditional MTL coupler, which I feel I solidly outperform as well.

Generally Speaking:

The only minor drawback I see with the NP couplers is that when viewed directly from the side, you can see the double shank very plainly...which is the space between the upper and lower halves of the coupler body.  I can live with that.

@robert3985 , your noted drawback isn't actually a thing with the production parts. The TSC derived prototypes ended up a little "gappy" in cases, but the production coupler solves this issue. All split shanks other then the Kato coupler and the N-Possible coupler have visible shank gaps.

The N-Possible knuckle shank is lapped. This serves two purposes; First of all it solves the cosmetic shank gap issue. But it also strengthens the knuckle shank. This along with no draft angles and fundamentally more rigid material allows for the N-Possible coupler to outperform traditional MTL couplers (Yes, RDA ones) on dodgy trackwork. In a like for like uneven scenario (i.e. same car same base heights), the MTL will slip under stress before the N-Possible will. If you have REALLY bad (and I'm talking fuel tank/pilot dragging) track, you do have more range on a traditional MTL coupler, so you might stay together under light stress (i.e. very short train) where mine will come apart.

Here is the proof:

ALL of the examples here are with LONG shank couplers, which will show any gap the in the most unfavorable way.

Kunkle Side: Absolutely no viable split shank, nerveless any gap!



Retainer Side: You can see the split shank, sure. But not a gap.



I'm going to be transparent about the transparency of the material. They are very opaque, but the super thin walls in places can show transparency under extreme lighting scenarios...

Untreated stock coupler on this car sub-optimally installed (spring is acting on under torsion to pull the shanks apart) under normal lighting...



Lets backlight it to the extreme:



The transparency of the lap allows for you to see a gap, yes. But the lighting is extreme to do this, not really a "real world" problem unless you're doing a lot of macro shots of couplers, like me. And the gap is no worse then any other split shank coupler either I'll note.

If you paint/graphite coat the coupler, you solve this issue too:

Generally Speaking:

So, that's about it for now.  My main gripe is that since I've been concerned about N-scale couplers looking halfway prototypical since I got into model railroading back in about 1975...it's taken 50 years, that's half a century, to finally get the coupler N-scale has needed and wanted for even longer than that...and, I'm hitting 76 at the end of the month.  I've got a firm belief that without 3D printing technology improving as much as it has in the last five or so years, the N-Possible coupler may have never been developed.  I only hope that present 3D UV resin technology will provide for long-lasting durability without embrittlement from continual UV exposure over time, but...time will tell...and as long as they stay durable for another 20 or so years, that's long enough for me!

The original development of the spring mechanism involved absolutely no 3D printing. I rather quickly got myself a resin printer (I've had a FDM since 2013) however after the initial prototypes as it was far too painful to hand modify TSC boxes. The conclusion that 3D printing was the go-forward manufacturing strategy came about much later, when I somewhat accidentally discovered the mechanical properties of my 3D printed prototypes were significantly better then the TSC's. It still took some improvements in both printers and materials to make it a reality for production, but here I am.

I will add that I've done some testing around the stability of the material; Its impossible to know where it will be in 20 years. The most extreme test so far was to leave some couplers on the dashboard of my car for a few months, and didn't find them materially changed afterwards. Yes, there is some UV filtering from the windshield relative to direct exposure so the sun, but its still allowing ~50% through based on my Chiti Systems 405nm UV meter.  Hot/cold exposure, hot enough to melt the plastic container they were in... Does it mean they will hold up for 20 years? I can't say for sure. I figure most models aren't typically exposed to UV light sources, as people don't tend to have their trains around windows.

[garethashenden]

But when though?

[turbowhiz]

But when though?

I'm meeting w/the packaging tooling guys this week for them to do a show and tell; Assuming things are what they claim, acceptance would be imminent, which mean that I can start retail packaging in earnest very soon.

Still months behind where I wanted to be, but I'm balancing a whole lot and I've determined stressing and burning myself out isn't productive.

[Chris333]

Draft angle, tooling guys. I thought these were going to be 3D printed?

[turbowhiz]

Draft angle, tooling guys. I thought these were going to be 3D printed?

I'm meeting w/the packaging tooling guys this week for them to do a show and tell; Assuming things are what they claim, acceptance would be imminent, which mean that I can start retail packaging in earnest very soon.

They are. Packaging tooling... I'm not into counting out tiny parts, or attempting to hire for the same.

[Spades]

I think the gap is very visible in the photos also the side sill of the flat car in the photo is 7/8" tall.  I think the split will be invisible in real world conditions.  Couplers and trucks are the first things to be weathered.

Turbowhiz, I look forward to trying the couplers.