Okay, I tried these on an ABBA set of FA/B1's as well as the MT heavyweight cars operating on an Ntrak layout. The results were predictable. The couplers would separate more readily than regular MT's at module junctures. Many of our older modules had the dreaded 'ski jump' causing the couplers to disengage (one would ride up over the other). On good track work they worked well. But I would say they are definitely not Ntrak friendly. That was more or less a given due to their scale size and Ntrak's less than ideal track work.
Vertical positioning is absolutely critical with the TSC, and decent trackwork as well. The track doesn't have to be PERFECT, but vertical displacement WILL cause a problem. After conversion, I always make a couple passes around the layout, and most of the issues raised were caused by a height difference and cured by shimming.
Blaming the couplers for inadequacies of the modules seems backward reasoning. I prefer Jim's approach. Rich K.
It sounds like the club needs to do some track maintenance. Maybe a clinic is in order. A train should be able to make it around the layout regardless of what couplers are on in.
We see no need to reinvent the wheel. The modules in question are 'legacy' modules and were the very first ones built. They are approaching thirty years old and are still serviceable. The regular MT couplers Unimates, Accumates, McHenry's and Rapido couplers do just fine. People in the club own a lot of rolling stock and no one is interested in investing money to change perfectly good couplers for the TSC's. I gave the TCS a try to see if they would be a replacement for the Unimates I used in my ABBA lashups of FA's and Sharks. It was an experiment and I got my answer. The Unimates have given me yeoman service through the years and really close up the gap between units. They are a bear to couple but once coupled they never separate. So no change over to the TSC's here and if any of you who do make the change you can send your older MT couplers to me. I promise to give them a good home where they will well cared for. Thank you in advance.
"Back in the day" the Kato factory unilaterally redesigned the couplers for the second run of smoothside cars and the Budd car release. Besides the random auto disassembly feature (bad) they were small (good) but had correspondingly shorter vertical gather distance and had a tendency to uncouple even on reasonably good NTRAK module transition pieces (very bad). I think the MT coupler knuckle height/thickness has to be maintained for any RTR interchange coupler. Under controlled conditions the smaller coupler is okay but demands very tight track standards. Modules, even new ones built to tight tolerances still have to deal with less than ideal setup conditions like uneven floors and there is a limit to how good alignment and level can be controlled for weekend setups. It is nice to have some operational ability with a coupler that isn't HO size and doesn't ruin our otherwise scale models, especially in photos. Charlie Vlk (Who still has Anold Rapido couplers to convert!!!)
I bought four packs of these hoping to solve some body mounting problems. Now I have even more problems. I bought both long and short shank packs. MTL couldn’t be bothered to countersink a hole for a flat head 00-90 screw on the TS draft gear box like they have on a 1015 draft gear box. On rolling stock where the outboard axle sits below the mounting screw, I have no clearance since I am forced to use the 00-90 pan head screw. I installed these in several legacy Kato and Atlas locos which have a 1015 coupler pocket. What MTL doesn’t tell you, is you have to use a 1015 draft gear shim above the TS draft gear box to get these to sit at the correct height and fill the coupler pocket, while using the OEM coupler clips. They are a tighter fit and have more parting lines on the moldings which have to be shaved off with a modeling knife. It took me 45 minutes per loco; when it should have taken 15 minutes max. I then moved to some Life-Like FA units. I have body mounted Unimates on them currently for close coupling. Installed the TS short shank couplers and the spacing is more than the Unimates, so I put the Unimates back on. I did install the TS couplers on the front of the A units and they do look nice. I also installed them on the front of some LL Erie Builts with success. Then I moved to some MTL heavyweights hoping to reduce some gap. I removed the factory couplers, and installed short shank TS couplers. The coupling distance wasn’t close enough for my liking, but was improved. Now this is where the nonsense starts. I then moved to some MTL ACF 4650 hoppers, these have tabs on the bottom of them which interface and center a 1015 draft gear box. The tabs do not line up correctly with a TS coupler box and the screw hole is located in the wrong spot. It wouldn’t have mattered anyway since the screw hole is not countersunk for a flat head 00-90 screw. I also tried some 100 ton MTL General American Airslides. Same issues, factory mounting holes in the wrong location, no countersink, etc. Basically any 100 ton hopper or unit train gondola, these won’t work, which is what I was really buying them for. It was ironic the MTL TS coupler had the most mounting difficulties on MTL rolling stock. They do look nice on the legacy Kato and Atlas units and on the front of LL cab units. They took way too much time to install, as I had to finesse the 1015 shim in the coupler pocket with the TS draft gear. MTL advertises these are a drop in fit for a 1015 coupler, which isn’t really true as the dimensions and notch locations of the TS draft gear and 1015 draft gear are not in the same places and the TS has no countersunk mounting hole. Overall, so far, I have found these couplers to be of little utility. They need to start offering some other types of draft gear box designs.
Certainly the most eloquent of oils to smooth the waters of discontent. As one who has amassed models over a decade plus, and only occasionally en-trains them, even less so now, having just lost a great layout friend and host/ mentor, I'm willing to give T-S a try for the recommended uses. Dave
Companies (like soaps/ detergents/ oils/ cosmetics and a gazillion others) have cross marketed and branded and rebranded themselves stupid in order to catch market share and deny others same. Why oh why would that be a negative for MTL if they are designing, mnfring and w/saling and retailing all the components and keeping a solicitous salivating public on the hook? dave
Because each coupler requires a commitment to production time and facilities. Neither of which, if the manufacturers are to be believed, is abundant in this hobby industry. A lot of the none brand name products you see at Aldi's and other discount stores are made by brand name companies only because they have excess production capacity. But when demand increases and push comes to shove guess which product gets priority, the brand name or the non brand name?
