A Trainboard Challenge!! Let the braintrust design the perfect coupler!!

oldrk Feb 8, 2011

  1. brakie

    brakie TrainBoard Member

    1,186
    1
    27
    Agreed but,my biggest thing about those couplers there is no slinky action to kill the illusion of a moving train.

    Here's my observation.While switching cars on my "Dining Table Central" yard setup I notice even at slow switching speeds the slinks slink their way down the track and the McHenry's and the Accumates doesn't.Now to my feeble mind there is a lesson for MT there and here it is..Seeing Accumate and McHenry can produce a slink less coupler why can't MT?

    I love their cars but,I'm not all that happy with their slinky couplers.
     
  2. Rasputen

    Rasputen TrainBoard Member

    565
    186
    27
    Since we are designing the perfect coupler, I think the trip pin should look more like an air hose, ie round cross section with a glad hand on the end.

    I also hate the slinky action and the band-aid "fixes". My n-scale conductor keeps spilling his coffee and getting motion sickness...
     
  3. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    Originally Posted by mark.hinds

    I experience no slinky effect, as I follow MT's advice, and put a damper spring on each car, and 2 on each caboose. True that this makes cars less free-rolling, but that gives an excuse for more engines. :)


    Yes but the important thjing is...........................IT WORKS!



    And you have just such a coupler. It is called a McHenry. They work on the same principle as the Kadee #5 HO coupler. And having tried the McHenry's I say you can have them. From what I gather the HO guys don't like them either. The MTL coupler is not perfect but it works. That is the important thing.
     
  4. brakie

    brakie TrainBoard Member

    1,186
    1
    27
    Inkaneer,Here's the thing..We shell out good money for these couplers..Why should we have to fix MT coupler design fault at extra costs?

    No,its past time MT steps up to the plate,takes responsibility for a age old flaw and redesign their coupler without the slinky action.It can be done as McHenry and Accmate has shown.
     
  5. mark.hinds

    mark.hinds TrainBoard Member

    131
    0
    17
    Well everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would only support this if it could be done without damaging the automatic (magnetic) coupling/uncoupling reliability already exhibited by the MT couplers. No other manufacturer has been able to do this yet.

    Mark
     
  6. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    9,511
    5,673
    147
    Oh, I know I should stay out of this one. To late, I already jumped in earlier. Time to sound off again.

    Slink, slink, slink? Let's try Slack, Slack, Slack.

    And get over it.

    Although, I would agree that what I've seen is a slightly over exaggerated "Slack".

    You'd be amazed what a little shot of Gap Filling CYA will do to an over active spring.

    I prefer the "Slack" action I see with my train equipment over the lack of. I don't need my trains running like toy trains. I want them running like the 1X1 foot scale, the real deal.

    Yep, me thinks I discovered a new way to win and influence friends...grin!

    I just know, I will hear about this when the club operates trains in San Diego this weekend.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2011
  7. kermat13

    kermat13 TrainBoard Member

    85
    0
    8

    There is no flaw in the couplers----your cars are not protypically weighted--protypically weight your cars and they won't slink. Until you weight your cars protypically--I say this is a flaw in your cars and not the coupler
     
  8. brakie

    brakie TrainBoard Member

    1,186
    1
    27
    Indeed not since only my cars with MT couplers slink...Its a flaw in the coupler design and that's MT's responsibility to fix-not mine..
     
  9. brakie

    brakie TrainBoard Member

    1,186
    1
    27
    BarstowRick: Slink, slink, slink? Let's try Slack, Slack, Slack.

    And get over it.

    -------------------
    That doesn't work for those of us that has real railroad experience..A train with that much slack action would have broken knuckles and a fired engineer..

    There is no excuse for the slinky action.
     
  10. kermat13

    kermat13 TrainBoard Member

    85
    0
    8
    Don't buy them--if your complaining they are not protypical enough for you--but your not will to submit that you are not protypically weighting your cars--then you have no argument.

    Again--I am willing to buy your flawed whole microtrains trucks with couplers at a quarter a piece---fair price for your flawed equipment
     
  11. brakie

    brakie TrainBoard Member

    1,186
    1
    27
    Agreed..The MT uncoupling is superior to other brands but,Accumate isn't that far behind and the new McHenry works to well when passing over a magnet you get a instant break in two and for me that's a turn off..

    Of course I've had a break in two at slow switching speed with slinkies thanks to the slinky action.
     
  12. mark.hinds

    mark.hinds TrainBoard Member

    131
    0
    17
    There **"may be"** no excuse, but you can't be sure until someone comes up with an alternative design which works at least as reliably as MT, for those who like "automatic" coupling/uncoupling (see my previous comments). The "slink" you are concerned about comes from the longitudinal spring, which servers both to center the coupler and also to close it when it leaves the magnet. Although as you say there there are other ways to achieve both of these functions, none of them have so far proven to be as reliable for automatic (magnetic) coupling/uncoupling as the current MTs.

    So I guess I share your goal, but not your irritation with MT for not yet achieving it.
     
  13. brakie

    brakie TrainBoard Member

    1,186
    1
    27
    That's your opinion and you're titled to it but,when I buy high dollar cars and pay added costs for couplers I expect those coupler to perform smoothly and MT doesn't do that.

    Again why should I add a band aid fix for MT flawed couplers?

    Nope,no way..That's why I am Field testing couplers hoping to find a working coupler so I can utilize the real solution for the slinky problem-the trash can..I stopped buying MT couplers and leaning toward the Accumates since these have operated flawlessly on my dining table switch yard..
     
  14. mark.hinds

    mark.hinds TrainBoard Member

    131
    0
    17
    Kermat13, I was under the impression that MT cars were already weighted to standard (NMRA?) weights. My observation is that the "slink" in MT couplers is due to the centering spring, and not the weight. I fix this with the damper springs on the axles, at the acceptable (to me) cost of more friction.

    Have you had success in reducing slink by adding more weight, and if so, how much?
     
  15. brakie

    brakie TrainBoard Member

    1,186
    1
    27
    Mark,Here's what irritates me the most..I think most will agree.

    We shell out mega bucks for cars,locomotives,structures,track,scenery vehicles,DCC,Sound etc,etc only to have the illusion of a miniature railroad ruin by slinky action of the MT coupler.

    When you are pulling ahead from a switch at a scale switching speed and you see the last car or two bouching back and forth POP! goes the illusion.
     
  16. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    9,511
    5,673
    147
    Back again,

    I don't believe the weight is the issue. NMRA wants you to overweight the cars causing more drag then is necessary. I've yet to see them set a standard I'd agree with.

    As far as real railroad experience, well... does coming from a family of rails count? I used to hear about slack causing all kinds of problems. One story had it, the slack threw a brakeman clear off the caboose. Left half a train behind on a siding that caused the train to roll backwards fouling the main.

    I do agree with Brakie, in that the kind of over exaggerated slack we see would cause problems as described. Slink? Well, as a kid I played with a slinky and I'd have to say we aren't there yet. Resembling perhaps... maybe... but not even close.
     
  17. brakie

    brakie TrainBoard Member

    1,186
    1
    27
    BarstowRick,Here's one thing I forgot to mention-getting old I suppose..

    As a observation during switching moves on my DT RR(Dining Table Railroad)..When a Atlas or Athearn car with stock couplers is on the end of a cut of cars and the slink action is minimized.I'm still scratching my head over that one.Of course there is no slink on a shove.
     
  18. kermat13

    kermat13 TrainBoard Member

    85
    0
    8

    Brakie is arguing that his couplers don't preform to his standards, and I contend his cars are not protypically weighted. Please don't misunderstand the difference between protypically weighted and NMRA standards.

    NMRA is not a protypical weighting. It is designed for best performance possible, and weighting to NMRA hasn't failed me yet.

    But if you take a coal hopper with 100tons of fully loaded of coal and try to scale it down and be prototypical it just isn't possible. So Brakies logic that MTL should preform prototypically is as flawed as his non-protypically weighted cars he runs.

    We are MODELING railroads, Everything can't be protypical. MTL couplers are probably the best N scale has at this point as far as reliability and performance.
     
  19. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    9,511
    5,673
    147
    Are we putting words in Brakie's mouth. He explains himself clearly to these ears and eyes. Grin!

    Brakie and of course all tuned in,

    Slink minimized, in a reverse move? Now I'm scratching my head...what?

    Slack on the other hand will play out it's role whether or not you are making a reverse or forward move. It can be seen in a train that is negotiating a series of rolling hills or as a train crests a grade and starts downhill or hits the bottom of the hill and starts to stretch out as the engine leads the train up the grade. Same thing happens with my trains as they negotiate the layout.

    Either way this discussion can go in any direction at any time.

    Prototypical Weight, in my opinion is a non-issue. Trains run empties, loads where the weight fluctuates, cars that operate at load and for the most part we do the same thing.

    NMRA standards, are simply a guideline and not the holly grail. They don't work for me as I tired of horn hook couplers during the early years I had HO layouts and I had no respect for the N scale Rapido Couplers. I saw Kadee and Micro-Trains step to the plate, set the standard and watched as NMRA basically turned their backs on them. You can't beat what MTL brought to the train table.

    Last I heard MTL is working on the alleged, badly named, "Slink" effect and it's my understanding that many of the newer coupler sets they produce won't "Slink" but there is what is hoped to be a realistic "Slack".

    Fun stuff.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2011
  20. Bevale

    Bevale TrainBoard Member

    131
    8
    10
    So I still can't figure out who is actually taking up the challenge of making a better coupler...

    A little less conversation, a little more action!! :pcool::pcool::pcool:
     

Share This Page