Even cars running light--his cars still aren't protypically weighted. :tb-biggrin: Lt weight of a coal hopper taken from here http://nicksuydam.photoshelter.com/...HnkxiRmFoR5ROoFu_oHGJbnJpYlJwBAAi.IZA-&GI_ID= Lt Wt 50200lbs so in N scale that would be about 313lbs. So since it's probably impossible to have a 313lb car in N scale--the couplers with slink will have to do since there are no prototypical cars
Slink minimized, in a reverse move? Now I'm scratching my head...what? ------------------------ Ok..Let's see if I can explain it better. When I am pulling out of a switch and there is a Athearn or Atlas car on the end of the cut with stock couplers I notice the slink is minimized. Of course when the slack is ran in on a shove there is no slink action because the cars are being pushed not pulled. ----------------------- Kermat13: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. ------------------------------------ My Atlas and Athearn cars equipped with stock couplers isn't prototypically weigh either and there is no slink action at all so,your argument is what??? Void perhaps except for MT couplers? ------------- We are MODELING railroads, Everything can't be protypical. ------------- Doesn't wash.. Our trains should move as smooth as the prototype with no slinking.HO can do this, this,Lionel can,, S Gauge can and G Scale can but,why not N Scale equipped with MT couplers???? Should we be willing to settle for anything less? I surely hope not.. ------------------------- MTL couplers are probably the best N scale has at this point as far as reliability and performance ------------------ They're only the best because we accept something that is flawed and say "wow" what a great coupler.
Not everyone can agree on what "better" means in this context, and I think much of the discussion has revolved around these different preferences. You can't design something until you agree on your requirements. Now if the requirement is to get rid of the oscillation but still retain the reliable automatic (magnetic) functionality of MTs, then I think we have defined a very challenging design problem. One of the main issues is the non-scale gravity and frictional effects at 1:160. Another is cost. The ideal would be if someone could come up with a modeler's quick fix to MT couplers to get rid of the oscillation. Count me out on that; I'm happy with the axle damper springs. (Note that a secondary benefit of springs, for me, is that it keeps uncoupled cars in position when left on grades...).
Solved your own problem, when are you selling off your N scale. There is twice as much room for HO scale couplers to do fancy things--your dealing with a small scale
To say that "MT couplers are the best couplers around" is a fair statement, but it's also just like saying (at least for those of us here who are Americans), "The USA is the greatest country in the world." Well, yes it is, but (and regardless of your political beliefs, you have to agree, generally speaking), there are still serious problems in this country that need fixing! Likewise, MTs are the best couplers in N scale, but they still have serious problems that need fixing.
nscalerone, these have been made available as a quasi-separate item: Will Wright of Full Throttle has arranged to sell truck+coupler without wheels at a reasonable discount, but this was through a special arrangement he made with the manufacturer, Bowser. He may still have some available, and continued interest by N scalers might prompt further developments towards a more N-scale specific product. You can send him email at: dewaa128@aol.com and inquire, if you're interested. (He has already agreed to have his address posted here, and he's quite excited about the interest that has been shown so far.) I agree with Tony's point that the knuckle spring could be a weak point. In my limited testing to date it has not been an issue at all, but more experience is certainly called for. It is worth noting that the spring turned out to be too stiff to allow automatic uncoupling, so that feature, which was part of the intended design, did not pan out. But at least the spring is likely to be fairly robust. Cheers, Gary P.S. I'll comment on mass (even though I shouldn't...) As far as I know, there is no widely accepted recipe for scaling mass, but a sensible one would be to keep the density fixed, so that mass would scale like volume. In that case, I calculate that a 100 ton load would scale to 0.78 oz. in N scale. I believe the NMRA standard for a 50' car is 1.06 oz. So they are actually pretty close. The alternative would be to scale the density, but that would mean a 100T prototype load would be 100T in N scale too. That would be cool!
Some people are like Slinkys. They don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs. Is this the "Slinky" of which you all speak? :tb-tongue::tb-biggrin::tb-biggrin::tb-biggrin: .
SLINKY SONG What walks down stairs, alone or in pairs and makes a slinkity sound? A spring, a spring, a marvelous thing! Everyone knows it's Slinky. It's Slinky, it's Slinky, It's fun, it's a wonderful toy. It's Slinky, it's Slinky, it's fun, It's a wonderful toy. It's fun for a girl or a boy. You are ALL welcome. Now...you all can go bang your heads against a wall trying to get that little jingle outta your heads...LOL:tb-biggrin: * There really was a "Slinky Train"...so I dont understand why the fuss over it now...LOL :tb-biggrin: .
As Gary stated before, weight doesn't scale linearly. It scales with volume. Volume consists of length x weight x height. Each dimention needs to be scaled. So the volume of a real car is 160 cubed multiplied by the volume of the model car. A 100T car is 200,000 pounds. Divide that by the cube of 160 (4096000) to get a volumetric equivalent which equals .04882813 pounds. In ounces that is - .78 oz (not quite a full oz of weight) We are not running our cars too light. Rick still does not understand what slinky is. I'm not going down that path again so just let him continue believing what he wants. Eventually I will take video of a train demonstrating slink for him and maybe he will understand. Slinky is not something that happens in a real train, period.
Seriously though....WHy does the coupler itself...NEED to move back and forth on the post within the box? The spring is a centering spring. I have been here examining an MT coupler...this front to back movement on the peg inside makes no sense to me. More then likely I am missing something obvious...hmmmm .
mtntrainman, Curse you and your slinky song.:at-wits-end: it's slinky, it's slinky, it's fun,:we-twitcy:
The spring also acts on the upper and lower halves of the coupler to resist the tendency of the coupler to open over the magnets, and to close the coupler when it is no longer over the magnets. I think MT has several variants of the N-scale mechanism, however, as the 1021 has a spring in back of 2 T-shaped upper/lower coupler pieces, and the 1027 has its spring surrounded by these 2 pieces. In both designs the function seems to be similar however, which is to push the 2 pieces back into a neutral (closed and centered) position. Mark
I have no idea why they decided on using a spring many years ago.. The technology for a improve coupler has been shown by McHenry..It needs to be fine tuned since it's nothing more then a miniaturized KD #5 coupler..
And that is what needs to be changed, real couplers aren't split in half lengthwise, it may have been the only way to go 40 years ago but I think it's time to at least look into something better. No one is saying it shouldn't work as well as a MT coupler, I think that would have to be an obvious requirement. If Mchenry and even Bachmann can do a miniature version of a Kadee surely Micro-Trains could do it even better, maybe it's about time they got their R&D team out of the closet where they've been hiding since the 1970's.
I tried rolling a string of MT coupled cars down the stairs and couldn't see the fun in it at all, people must have been more easily amused in the 70's.
Understand all that....thnxs. But WHY does it need to move in and out of the box to accomplish this? I am seriously going to cut some styrene and glue it behind the coupler...to block the coupler itself from moving back and forth...just to see what transpires. I know the coupler halves arent protypical tb-rolleyes BUT...the loudest cry afoul is the "slinky". Stop the coupler from moving back and forth...no more slinky effect. Sounds to simple to me. Yea...I am a simple minded SOB :tb-tongue: .
If we think back on the beginning of N scale, the Rapido couplers were spring loaded by a lengthwise spring behind the T to enable them to move up and down to uncouple and then recenter in the vertical plain. I would hazard a guess that at the time, a similar design probably seemed like a logical way to go. As I see it, except for the oversized knuckle, split longitudinally coupler assembly, slink effect, fake shiny 'air hose' and black or brown artificial colour, the M/T's couplers are perfect. My solution to the problem (mainline running) is a masonite cleaning slider under the caboose, there, now I've solved everyone's problem. We are modelling railroads and unfortunately compromises exist, we will never have a perfect world, henceforth we will never have perfect models. Once you put more than one person on the design phase, everything will be backwards, one person, and one person only can design the perfect coupler, but he/she will be the only one that sees it that way.:tb-wink:
