0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I don't "hate" them, but, they cause problems and are just another thing ya gotta check when wanting reliably running trains on possibly substandard track like at NTRAK setups, especially when other clubs are invited to participate.Also, with loooong trains, MTL couplers have a tendency to tip up or down when under a really heavy load. This makes the drooping coupler's magnetic dongle too low, and it does catch on turnout frogs, grade crossing, etc.Although the dongles fill the gap between cars on the underside of couplers, they're connected to the couplers (not the car bodies like prototype air hoses) and, if left alone, are shiny, or copper colored and are not round. Although the "perfect" N-scale air hose hasn't been manufactured yet...y'know, one that has tiny magnets in the ends that couple together automatically when cars are coupled up, but are weak enough to easily break free when uncoupling (I think that wold be a detriment however when attempting to spot a car)...sooo, I'm pretty happy with MTL's True-Scale air hoses (not completely), and with N-Possible air hoses, although my faves are Precision Scale's and old BLMA ones.Incidentlly, the non-dongle air hoses don't cause problems because they don't droop or work their way out of adjustment...and, they look a helluva lot better. I prefer the brass ones, since the injection molded ones break fairly easily...but, they're a lot cheaper than brass and look just as good until they snap off.
Are all of your locos and rolling stock equipped with functional uncoupling levers?If not, how do you accomplish uncoupling in a prototypical manner?
Hmmm...did my post say anything at all about uncoupling in a prototype manner??....No. In fact, does it say anything at all about uncoupling??....NoHowever, since you brought it up, I find that manually uncoupling my cars using a tool (as opposed to embedded magnets under the track) lends itself to a more realistic "feel" since I have to do it in a "hands-on" manner rather than just stopping over a magnet, even though the actual operation isn't at all like the prototype's mechanical uncoupling process.I have no expectations to actually operate engines and trains mechanically identical to the real deal. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with that lack of expectation. However, I like to make my models look as prototypical as I realistically can, which includes progressively adding details which resemble uncoupling levers, air hoses, brake wheels and other items that, on my models, serve no function whatsoever other than to be purely cosmetic. That's why it's called "model" railroading, right?I'll assume you're attempting to make a point. For curiosity's sake, just what is it?Cheerio!Bob Gilmore
Most aspects of modeling involve compromises, to a greater or lesser extent.I find it interesting to observe in which of those aspects a given modeler is willing to accept significant compromises and in those for which they choose to be relatively uncompromising. I've owned MTL cars (and used their couplers) for over 50 years and found the magnetic uncoupling feature to be useful, especially when switching locations on a layout that were more than an arm's length away.Also, in over 40 years of participation in NTRAK, I've observed that numerous show-goers seem fascinated by watching hands-free magnetic uncoupling during switching operations.
If your primary interest is running "long trains at shows", the standard MT couplers are probably the best choice. They've been optimized for that, with half a century of testing and refinement.
Actually, when I started out again in model railroading, I did it because of a local NTRAK club's setup at a local mall. I joined, and I started a major re-fit of all of my newly purchased cars and engines over to Kadee N-scale couplers, which included the use of the Magne-Matic uncoupling feature, which I liked very much after over-weighting and including an axle spring on one bearing cone per car to eliminate slinky effect.After converting my entire roster of engines and cars to Kadee/MTL couplers, then replacing all of them with MTL Nn3/Z scale couplers, then starting to replace all of those with modified MTL True-Scale couplers & printed coupler pockets, I am now in the process of converting everything to N-Possible Couplers, which do not offer any sort of remote or magnetic uncoupling...which for me has no bearing on my preference since I started using manual uncoupling with an uncoupling tool in the early 1990's and N-Possibles uncouple very handily using a titanium toothpick as an uncoupling tool.My local club ditched NTRAK for more realistic and stringent standards, including an increased railhead-to-floor height, then, disbanded after our permanent setup location became unavailable. I developed my own modular standards, borrowing some from several different N-scale modular groups, and determined (with my grown son) a relatively high railhead-to-floor height of 52" ideally, with a +- adjustment of two inches either way to compensate for uneven floors. This height makes it much easier to see my trains close up, being a foot taller than NTRAK's 40" railhead-to-floor height, making manual uncoupling easier, and bringing industries closer to the front edge for easy access.Since in a good year, I only participate in one or maybe two trainshows, my modular layout stays set up in my home and I work on it only for my own satisfaction. Pleasing visitors, or onlookers at shows, is 100% irrelevant for me.Cheerio!Bob Gilmore
Author
Topic: Micro-Trains/Atlas Update - 1/20/26 (Read 15937 times)
