I am aware of the true scale coupler but I understand it will not couple with the traditional Mcro Train coupler. That kills it for me.
Paul D
N scale Washita and Santa Fe RailroadSouthern Oklahoma circa late 70's
Micro-Trains made the true scale coupler. It's a little smaller than their standard coupler.
It may or may not be a advantage, but the couplers still together and no way to uncoupler them. A good way for cars that won't be cut as a unit.
https://www.micro-trains.com/true-scale-couplers
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
I have a few covered hoppers from ExactRail that came with McHenry couplers. I will check them to compare with the slinky effect on MT couplers.
My problem with slinky-ing is when I am switching. Watching the car being pushed and it reacting like a bobble-head was always my complaint with N-Scale. Replacing the MT's with McHenrys solved the problem.
Harold
hminky Forgot to answer your question, yes the 905 is smaller but it will slinky just like all the other slinkies. The z-scale has half the vertical coupling area and there might be a problem on rough track. Harold
Forgot to answer your question, yes the 905 is smaller but it will slinky just like all the other slinkies.
The z-scale has half the vertical coupling area and there might be a problem on rough track.
PED I am not trying to put a N coupler in a Z box. I am considering a Z coupler in a Z box (aka...the 905 set). I have a 1015 and it would be a tight fit. Just wondering if a Z (905) box is narrower than a N 1015 box. I do have a 1023 and I can see that it is slightly narrower than a 1015. Although it it has a much longer box than the 1015, I can deal with that. The main reason I am trying to avoid the 1023 is that it uses an old design that has the spring on the back side of the mounting post thus the loco is pulling against the spring vs a newer style 1015 where the loco is pulling against the mounting post. The 1023 has a bad slinky effect (worse than a 1015) in a long string of cars such as I will be using for my hoppers.
I am not trying to put a N coupler in a Z box. I am considering a Z coupler in a Z box (aka...the 905 set). I have a 1015 and it would be a tight fit. Just wondering if a Z (905) box is narrower than a N 1015 box.
I do have a 1023 and I can see that it is slightly narrower than a 1015. Although it it has a much longer box than the 1015, I can deal with that. The main reason I am trying to avoid the 1023 is that it uses an old design that has the spring on the back side of the mounting post thus the loco is pulling against the spring vs a newer style 1015 where the loco is pulling against the mounting post. The 1023 has a bad slinky effect (worse than a 1015) in a long string of cars such as I will be using for my hoppers.
Yeah, right, thread a string through an N-Scale coupler spring.
Put a knife or razor blade between the coils
To get rid of the slinky effect I replace the MT's with McHenry's, they fit the MT coupler boxes and couple and uncouple magnetically just like the slinkies.
To keep springs from getting lost when flying. Run a piece of thread through the spring. Holding both ends of thread assemble coupler. After assembly remove thread
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
PED You must like pain.
You must like pain.
OK....
Chuck - Modeling in HO scale and anything narrow gauge
trwrouteplace a very small piece of styrene rod inside the coupler spring. This helps the slinky effect.
.
Kadee HO scale #4 couplers came with a small metal pin to install in the spring for this reason.
I never successfully installed one.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
trwroute I would use the 1023. The Z box is much smaller, but I prefer the size of the 1023. One method that i have used in the past is to place a very small piece of styrene rod inside the coupler spring. This helps the slinky effect. If the styrene is too long, the coupler won't work like it should, so it's a little trial and error to get it where you want it.
I would use the 1023. The Z box is much smaller, but I prefer the size of the 1023.
One method that i have used in the past is to place a very small piece of styrene rod inside the coupler spring. This helps the slinky effect. If the styrene is too long, the coupler won't work like it should, so it's a little trial and error to get it where you want it.
You must like pain. I have enough problems with the tiny springs taking off on their own without complicating stuff by trying to put a piece of rod inside the spring at the same time. Would take 3 pairs of hands for that manuver and the one set of hands I have are not very steady as it is.
I think I will buy a Z scale coupler and check it out before I jump on the 1023.
If you get this figured out, it will also be useful for something else -- dual gauge.
In HO/HOn3 we use the HOn3 714 Kadee in its box to serve standard gauge. Next to it in a pilot mount is a M-T N scale 1025 (IIRC) offset to the side away from the third rail. The draft gear is just small enough the two boxes can be fitted close toegther and then couple with their repsective gauge cars on dual gaige track.
Dual guage is tricky to operate due the mass disparities between narrow and standard in HO. It'll be ikely be worse in smaller scaes.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I am pretty sure the N couplers will not fit in the Z coupler box.
I have seen articles where modelers interested in closer to scale appearance equip all their N scale cars with z couplers. The z couplers will work (couple/uncouple) with the N couplers.
There are also several styles of "Universal Body Mount Couplers" to consider. The box is a different design ans a little narrower.
I want to body mount some couplers to a set of N scale open hoppers I have but I am concerned that the box size for a N scale Micro Trains 1015 coupler may interfer with the wheels on a sharp turn. I am curious if I can reduce interference by using Z scale couplers (#905). I don't have any Z couplers to compare with. I know the #905 Z scale coupler itself is smaller than N scale but that is not where I expect an interference problem. I need to know if the Z scale coupler mounting box is smaller than a N scale coupler box.
Anyone have an answer?