Good idea. The split shank works well in N as is but due to the size constraints it would be difficult to develop a spring arrangement like the Kadee No.5 uses with offset leaves for the shank halves that would be robust enough for daily use and maintain alignment over a period of time. Designing a N coupler along the lines of the No.5 wouldn't work either as the movable knuckle would be far too fragile.
Interesting discussion about a problem that has existed and will continue to exist until we can obtain the attention of the coupler manufactures and help them understand the problem, which includes track problems, incline problems and all the other little layout hickups that get built into a layout. Should not be difficult for a designer to take on the challenge and solve the problem.
I believe much of the problem comes from the compromises made to allow magnetic uncoupling. It is really cool when it works but how many folks actually use magnetic uncoupling? I know my dad did on his HO layout but I know of very few applications in N scale. Most layouts I have operated on use the pick method of uncoupling and on most NTRAK setups there is very little if any planned uncoupling. Just hitch em up and go until it comes apart somewhere.
This has evolved into a most informative discussion. I don't use magnetic uncoupling, and doubt that I ever will. The pick method works just fine. Mny years ago, I "popped" a few MT coupler springs. They were gone forever, of course, and the hobby shop was closed, so I wadded up some tissue, and stuffed it into the void. Not as sophisticated as Sandro's solution, but it worked for a while. Maybe I should try it again.
Magnetic uncoupling... I think you'll find that quite a few folks use magnetic uncoupling - I know I do. Even on my 2ft. by 4 ft. portable railroad, I'd be damaging the scenery and structures if I had to rely on manual methods. "Grease-em" graphite lubricant works wonders on MTL couplers. :cat:
I've only operated on one railroad that had a scheme for making the magnetic Uncoupling feature work properly.... Jeff Otto has a huge HO layout that has under-the-ties magnets that are moved off-center to disable them when you don't want to uncouple. This eliminates the inevitable false uncoupling with the fixed magnets that happens on any layout that I have run on that uses them, no matter how sparingly or carefully located. In N the propblem I have is that the existing magnets are too thick to use Jeff's scheme... a wire-actuated slide to disable the magnet force. The electro-magnet ramps are fine but require huge holes to be cut into the roadbed and are fussy to mount. There are not any compromises to make in setting up couplers for magnetic operation vs. manual.... unless you go to a solid scale dummy that requires you to lift the car to couple and uncouple. You still need a centering spring and, if you are going to want automatic coupling and use uncoupling picks, some method to return the coupler to a closed position so it stays coupled. The only "compromise" is the magnetic pin, and in my mind it is not a huge problem as long as it is in a coupler that has vertical stability (doesn't droop so the pin catches on switch rails and crossings) and the pin hole holds it in place. A properly designed coupler pick will work fine with both automatic and semi-automatic couplers. The magnetic feature of Micro-Trains N couplers actually works better than their HO Kadee cousins... if only we could solve the problem of having magnetic actuators that can be turned on and off to eliminate unwanted uncoupling... and at a reasonable per-installation cost. If anyone has professional knowledge of magnet or magnetic coil design I'd love to work with you on a product design to solve this problem..... Charlie Vlk Railroad Model Resources
Magnetic uncoupling. I can think of two situations that it would be useful (IMHO): Inaccessability (as Thirdrail brought up), in my case it would be a high level layout (or deck), and/or behind/inside buildings. The other case would be a hump yard. Kool, but the simulation of proper inertial effects would be a major PITA. My realistic preference would be semiautomatics: like Intermountain or MDC had (MDC's suffered from abysmal die work and having a very floppy mounting on the early versions). Price should be _good_. I'd have almost 800 body mounts to do/redo. Strength? Metal. Since the above probably won't happen, I'm looking at Z couplers. MT903 are straightforward, but the 901 Marklin conversion looks even better: longer shank, even more compact mounting, no slinky. I can see them as being usable in extended cushion housings. Hmmm, I wonder if Talent even has 300 packs of 901s in inventory? Bob in IDaho
I always found the old first generation Kato couplers worked great. They coupled automatically and could be uncoupled with a pic. I sure wish they still sold them.
I actually use these springs on ALL of my cars , as I do switching on some slight grades. Not only do they take out the slack action and reduce un-coupling but they tend to hold the cars on the grades. Oddly enough , I do not find it makes the train much more difficult to pull , but then my layout only runs about 10 - 14 cars on any given train. I love those little springs!!! Mike
Russ: You can still find those first generation Kato couplers at Train shows and sometimes on EBay. It's just a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Stay cool and run steam......
Same here. I've installed one on every car in my freight fleet. Works perfectly! :thumbs_up: Boxcab E50
:tb-biggrin:I keep all my wheels clean, by useing an old tooth brush," stiff one " I lay all my cars upside down in a foam cradle, and run the brush back and forth, and as we all know, keeping the track clean helps,, My trains run as smooth as slik no jerking and the like..
Pheew. That took some reading. My solution, every 5 hours of running time, i take my cars and place them upside down in a foam cradle and run an old tooth brush [ stiff ] over the wheels back and forth. Belive me that gets rid of crud in the radius of the flange. And keeping ones track clean is important as well.. Now that slinkey has gone.... Or Yo Yo all gone...
Unfortunately not, using 1015 body mounts only means the slinky effect occurs when backing up, instead of going forward. Regarding the original post, I do use all body mounted couplers, and I do weight all cars to NMRA specs and I do use magnetic uncoupling successfully, consistently on a switching layout. Initially one might assume that give that weighted cars have more mass, and thus more inertia, at least nominally, that it would help reducing the slinky effect. I have found that even with an MT resistance spring on one wheel of each car, in some switching moves, with some cars, I still experience the slinky effect when backing up even a few cars. Obviously, using a resistance spring on every car it not a viable solution, yet the slinky effect does rear its head even with that extreme option. I have read a few posts of enterprising modelers attempting to diminish the spring travel in MT couplers by varying methods, but I have never read any long term results of those efforts and thus cannot judge their relative merits. Given the design of MT couplers I had concluded that 'slinkyness' it is an inherent design issue, and I had hoped that the McHenry coupler, or a similar design, would eventually prove a more viable long term solution. But to date, the production of variations of the McHenry have been moribund and I remain unwilling to commit to a coupler that might just be a figurative passing train in the night. Cheers, Bill
Brian and of course everyone tuned in, Out of sync with the progressive thread currently in progress but hear me out. I'ma impressed with your presentation and the way you articulated it. All my operating freight cars have MTL truck, wheelsets and knuckle couplers. The "Slack" is indeed exaggerated but not so far... off from the 1X1 foot scale. I'ma not going to get into a disucssion here about the "Yo-yo effect" or "Slinky" other then to say it aptly describes the exaggerated "Slack". Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I look forward to seeing how "We" all solve the percieved problem. Now we return you back to the present discussion. I pull 30, 40, and 50 car freight trains up and down my two percent grades without any uncouplings or derails. Unless, yep, your right there is an exception. I bump the train layout or get edgy and make a quick change on the throttle. Both can jack knife a train quite nicely. I generally run my Analog DC trains with Momentum on so that if I do make a sudden change on the throttle it nudges it down slowly. For pic's see my signature and click on the link. Go to, #6 Construction, a short slide show. Just some thoughts.
Bryan: Nice analysis. I would say you can probably use this as a lecture in engineering mechanics, machine design, or possible for a senior design course. That way you won't feel so bad about how you spent your time this morning!!!
No argument there Topsy, clean track and wheels are important, but that's not what this thread is about. We're not talking about herky jerky due to dirt and electrical contact issues; this is about the dreaded Slinky, with clean wheels and track and free rolling cars, especially with long trains on downhill grades, and so far there's no fix without other compromises like "brakes" and drag and mixing couplers. Herky Jerky and dreaded Slinky are technical terms with very specific meanings... Just my two cents, Otto, who conquered the herky jerky but not the slinky
I am one of those who has enough Z-scale MT, body-mounted coupler cars to put together several "long" trains. Since I left Ntrak and headed out on developing my own modular design, I don't run "long" trains anymore, but...I don't notice any slinky effect on my Z-scale coupler equipped trains...either short or long. My passing sidings on my home layout limit me to trains of 113" or less (about 30 40' cars with a Big Boy and caboose), but in my Ntrak days, I regularly pulled trains of 60 to 75 cars...all equipped with MT Z-scale couplers (is that considered "long"?) and I never noticed any slinky effect. Interestingly, last night as I was repairing one of my code 40 turnouts that got damaged being hauled from the last train show I attended, I was using a ballast car with new brown MT trucks and low-pro wheels to test it. All by itself, it had the slinky effect! I can only attribute this to a wheel being out of round as the trucks and wheels are brand new. It didn't derail, so the test of the repaired turnout was successful! Could it be that on some trains, a few cars with out of round wheels are exacerbating the slinky effect? Could be. I'll be interested to replace the wheelsets on that car with FVM or BLMA metal wheelsets and see if the slinky goes away. One thing for certain, couplers were not the cause of the slinky effect on that single car. Cheers! Bob Gilmore
Okay my two cents here. Adding resistance to the last car wil stop the yoyo'ing. Now this is no problem for the transition modeler as they use a caboose and therefore it is easy to know which car has the greater resistance. But the problem remained for the modern modeler with no caboose. That is till now. Get to know the Firefly FRED. This is an EOT device that is entirely truck mounted. It uses track power thus it needs wipers which adds resistance. A guy in our club has patented them and has sold a ton of them. He is selling on Ebay. Now modern modellers can just locate the car with the FRED and know which one has the extra resistance. The good thing is the system is flexible. You can take the truck off the car and put it on another one. It is completely self contained. I think he is selling them for $25. Another way to reduce the yoyo effect is to add weight to your cars. I am seeing more and more people increasing the weight of their rolling stock, some of which is too light to begin with.
