I've always made certain of the car weight, then installed drag (one per car) springs. For me, the problem was resolved.
I can't figure out this multi-quote thing... Point353 asked if I knew whether the trip pin color had been changed while wishing (as I do) that it were black. I'm actually not sure either. I've never done a comparison of earlier to later releases. I suppose I should do some homework... but I'm already writing the UMTRR for August. (Or I should be instead of writing this.) I do know that in some cases, MTL has OEM supplied trucks with couplers that have the trip pins blackened to other companies for use on their cars. This has prompted more than one question as to why they don't do this on the production for their own use. Meanwhile, I continue to get the black Sharpie out to color the pins on my couplers. I find that to be a bit easier than paint, and a fair amount faster. DKS has stated that he has a patent on his coupler design so MTL would not be able to directly copy that, or probably the "look and feel" either. But I think it will be an uphill battle for a newcomer to take any market share away from established players, including not just MTL, but Accumate, McHenry and whatever Bachmann is using these days. I would draw a comparison to the Sergent Engineering couplers in HO Scale: look good, operate well (using a strong magnetic rod), and are not adopted by many as far as I know.
I knew I'd seen black. They also had, perhaps still have a steel/gray colored trip pin in some conversion kits.
Done this on most of my cars and all of my cabooses, works like a champ. But then again I don't have any grades. Been doing this for years, Also works like a champ!
I didn't complete the survey because the answers I wanted to give were not available to me. The first question about how much of your rolling stock uses MTL couplers gives the options all, some, or not at all, my answer would be most but not all. So couldn't answer that one. The second, what other brand do you use most? I could honestly tick all the options but have to pick one over all the others. So couldn't answer that one. Five and six ask if you would prefer scale size or other attributes over hands free coupling and uncoupling. I don't need hands free uncoupling but I think hands free coupling is a necessity. So can't answer those two. In my experience these type of surveys never allow you to give the answers you want.
It would seem MT is in a tight spot though if they are considering a new coupler design. • Should it be backward compatible with the current design? • Should it be compatible with all other brands that are compatible with the current design? • Once released, should they be installed on all new rolling stock going forward; ease they into production over time; or let the modeler decide if they want to convert their inventory over to the new design? Of course, this wouldn't be the first time MT has made such a bold move. Yet, what headaches are ahead if a totally new design is in the works?
I'll certainly give them credit for asking for input, even if (as has been noted) some of the questions involved a close-enough kind of answer. What would be interesting would be to see the ideas they et in the last, open-ended question; I threw in a request for the "shelf" style couplers seen on tank cars. It will be worth watching for what they do with the feedback.
In retrospect, if Kadee, now Micro-trains, had not been around when I began modeling in n-scale about 1973-74 when I was 34+ year old and in graduate school, I would not have continued in n-scale. They were the most appealing option to me compared to the "then standard" coupler equipped rolling stock. Now 40+ years later, I continue to purchase Micro-trains rolling stock and coupler conversion options. Like any manufacturer, they must be innovative just to maintain a share of the market. I am optimistic about what they will offer.
While having my early morning first cup to get a pulse I went into my box of couplers and trucks just to look at the trip pins and jog my memory. Now I haven't bought any for quite a while maybe about five years. However I did find the bulk packs of unassembled 1015s all had the nice dark colored trip pins while the packs of truck mounted couplers all had the danged shiny copper trip pin. I can't speak for what is the norm now since I haven't bought any for a long while, but it does seem strange to me that on one hand you have the modeler preferred nice dark trip pin while on the other you have that danged copper pin. And speaking to the comment on the slack action while running I hate to say it is something that I have never experienced or witnessed in observing some of the typical long consists on many Ntrak set ups, or my own running of longer trains. I have seen consists take slack while starting but not the ebb and flow while running. What I have seen is the slight jerkiness of some locos as they experience intermittent power loss due to track dirt or other conditions. Very subtle but visible to my old eyes and I have seen that exhibited on a number of videos that I have viewed on what appear to be nice layouts. Couple that with some heavy cars with free rolling wheels, and the effects of momentum, and now you can have the pogo stick operation. Some too heavily weighted cars in a consist can magnify that effect and I have three gondolas that I had purchased somewhere at a show. Nice with wood inserts but enough excess weight between the three of them to equal an old Concor PA in weight. The excess weight plus momentum can be big trouble cresting a grade and momentum plus gravity kicks in. If I can't manage to get rid of whatever someone put under those after market interiors and substitute a more reasonable weight those three cars will end up in stationary service. I don't blame the MTs for any back and forth motion while in motion but other factors instead. And the run in effect with a long consist going downgrade can be simply cured by the little pack of axle springs that MT carries being applied per directions to the caboose or end car carrying the FRED.
Suggest that those of you having trouble with question 5 send an e-mail directly to MT to let them know there is a problem for some?/most?/all? of us. I cannot change the info that the page automatically enters for that question.... I am using FireFox 31.0 browser that may, or may not, have something to do with the problem. Here are the people at MT to inform of whatever problem you are having. eric at micro-trains.com joe at micro-trains.com ben at micro-trains.com For some reason I was unable to enter the e-mail addresses in the correct format???? So, be sure and replace the space at space with @.
Aside from the NZT coupler, there's also the "Charlie Vlk" coupler due on the Hornby/Riv/Arnold U25C. One wonders if anyone's been buying many couplers these days, waiting to pass judgement on the new ones. If the new kids on the block (no, not them) can be competitive on price and compatibility, MTL will need to raise the bar.
Ease of installation, broad range of application, and reliabilty/operating qualities. Yes. I can certainly see how they'd need to make a definitive statement.
I've been studying the N-scale "coupler problem" for a long time, as many out there have. (1) First, I was expeditiously refitting MT Z-scale couplers to everything I had for a few years...body mounting all of 'em. I actually went down to the Ogden Union Station which is also the Utah State Railway Museum and took measurements off of prototype couplers there to see if the MT Z-scale couplers are anywhere close to the "right" size. They are. They're right on in several dimensions, with only one dimension being a bit big. I don't remember the number of measurements I took, or what dimension they're off, but, they are very close to being prototypically sized. But, I've stopped doing my conversions, in anticipation of the David K. Smith's and Charlie Vlk's couplers, hoping they would be much better in nearly all respects. Still twiddling my thumbs however. (2) I've never been much aware of nor cared too much about the "pogo stick" effect until I started doing switching on my layout. My mainline trains almost always have a brass caboose on the end that doesn't roll very well, so the trains would stretch out, eliminating the pogo effect. However, when I switch...boing boing boing...it's really evident. It need to be eliminated. (3) Kadee...when they introduced their new N-scale couplers, didn't care if they were backward compatible with the prominent Rapido coupler. I ran several "transition cars" for years until I'd converted everything to Kadee/MT, with a Rapido coupler on one end and a Kadee on the other. Worked okay. So, today, I hope for a really N-scale coupler that works like the real thing...like the Sergeant coupler in HO...but at the same price point as present MT N and Z scale couplers. If they're not compatible with anything else out there...I don't care. (4) If they introduce a new coupler that operates and looks prototypical (manual coupling and uncoupling, no centering spring) I would be smiling ear to ear, and converting every engine and car over to it. If they also introduce magnetic brake lines which attach to their new, scale sized and prototypical appearing mounting box, that would be plain AWESOME. (5) It's good to know somebody at MT is finally getting the message. Now, in order to keep up with the rest of the N-scale industry, they need to re-think their priorities as far as ride height, body mounted couplers, low-pro flange profiles, separate details, including etched and 3D printed parts, and several road-specific models...especially cabooses and different tank cars. (6) Lastly, N-scale needs a prototypical looking (size, dimensions and overall "look") dummy coupler with several mounting options. Seems like this would be much simpler than a functional coupler and production costs in injection molded warm gray, along with a couple of prototypical looking body mounting fixtures would be relatively simple. Go for it Micro Trains! Just my two bits worth.... Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
A person affiliated with MTL posts to one of the other forums and takes a considerable amount of flak from those modelers who seem to believe that “no product is ever a close enough replica of the prototype.” If MTL does introduce some version of a closer-to-scale coupler, it’ll be interesting to see if this fanatical faction puts their money where their mouths are and buys it – or will they simply continue to carp about any shortcomings it might still have.
I think your second sentence might be behind MTL's survey and possibly looking at a new coupler. Sales of couplers must be down with all the manufacturers of American N scale now using knuckle couplers of some sort that at the very least work well enough that swapping them is not the priority it was back in the good old days when the first thing we all did was get rid of the Arnold couplers that everything except MTL cars came with. Someone at MTL must have realised that after 40 years the rest of N scale was catching up with them coupler wise and it's time for something new before they get overtaken.
I think you'll find that plenty of us in the "fanatical faction" spend a lot more money than the average N-scale model railroader. Looks like the continued carping about shortcomings, otherwise known as pointing them out, attempting work-arounds or mods, then posting such where someone else can benefit...is working in the N-scale manufacturing community with such improvements as code 55 track and turnouts, DCC widely accepted, DCC sound, separate detail items such as grabs, platforms, hitches and running boards, cars and engines being developed and manufactured that are much more specific and accurate, road specific details on cars and engines, body mounted couplers, scale ride height, metal low-pro/thinner wheelsets and more. Obviously, the critiques we fanatics publish are improving the scale. And the rivet-ignorers don't care, but ironically are also benefiting from the trend. Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
Could you please explain how we 'rivet-ignorers' are benifiting from all these 'improvements' ? The manufactures are passing along the cost of producing all those 'improvements' you mention onto the consumer. I for one dont see how higher prices for the 'new and improved' models is a benifit. Enlighten us....please. Thnxs.
This topic is drifting dangerously. Let's back away from the group-speak and argumentive posts and comment on the original point of the post.
