Very helpful video, thank you. I'm glad the spike rating was at the end -- 8/10 would have been misleading for the operation I saw. I would have taken 4 or more spikes off for not reliably coupling. After all it is a "coupler" so if it won't "couple" without ramming the trains together or using your hands... that's a big problem. Some flaws are worth a lot more than -1 spike, imho.
Way to go on this one. Calling it the way it is. The couples are really attractive and are so much more prototypical in size,but they have to work flawlessly. Its like the way it was 20 yrs ago... Nice video. Love all your stuff, especially the instructional basics, bravo!
It should also be noted that even the best couplers fail on rough track. Getting perfectly smooth track in N scale is time consuming, and a lot of layouts that have been in operation for years (or sloppy assembly) have track with bumps and dips. However, if running on such a layout I'd rather have larger couplers that run reliably than make a list of trouble spots that need fixing. As for my own layout, this is good info because it demonstrates the need for having accurate track on a layout.
These seem to have about the same operating considerations and issues as the Sergent Engineering couplers I use on my HO equipment. For me weight is the biggest help. I now fully subscribe to Mike Confalone’s massive “over weighting” of rolling stock. Modern locos seem to pull just fine, if not too well. I run 30+ car trains up 2.2% on handlaid track with Proto:87 wheelsets, and the weight massively improves tracking and virtually eliminates derailments. That weight helps coupling, especially single car coupling, and I suspect it would in the case of these. I’m not sure this is necessary or worth the trouble in N, but I will try them, however I love the Sergents in HO, tho I know they aren’t for everyone.
I've tried these every which way. They work if your track is absolutely plumb and the radius for curves and turnouts aren't very tight. They look outstanding on passenger equipment.
I was interested in these when they first were announced, but when I learned they were not compatible with existing MTL couplers (or even the Z scale MTL couplers), that was the dealbreaker right there.
Excellent video, Dan. Thanks for taking time to carefully demonstrate these couplers. Something we forget that attempting to achieve such precise detail can cause unnecessary frustration. These are still just toy trains and the bulk of layout vistors wouldn't notice the difference between a scale coupler and a rigid knuckle coupler when the train is moving....let alone to even think to look at the couplers. Jut sayin'....
I agree with most of the other comments here. They look great, but I have been painstakingly - with the emphasis on PAIN - converting all of my rolling stock to the magnetic couplers PRECISELY so I do not have to get my clumsy fingers near a running train. Any attempt by me to use the 0-5-0 switcher near an N Scale train usually results in a whole string of cars getting knocked over. That takes the fun out of things very quickly!
I am also in the process of converting some old junk I have to compatible knuckle couplers, and would not be likely to switch to these because I can't afford to and don't really have models worthy of that level of realism at this time. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for the review Dan. I have a switching layout so I'll stick with the regular MTL couplers. Putting the Scale couplers together seemed a bit easier than a pack of 1015's.
Dan, that was an incredibly useful product review. Many thanks! I'm disappointed that something wasn't developed that's still compatible with other couplers (like the Kadee HO, scale- couplers are). They seem like something that still has to evolve a bit more? Hmm...
These couplers are built for their aesthetics and functionality in unit trains or other applications where coupling and uncoupling is absolutely minimal. The experiments by the narrator and comments by some model railroaders demonstrate the purpose and benefits of TrueScale couplers completely elude these individuals: they're not in any way, shape or form designed for switching. You would have better luck coupling MTs to Rapidos.
I wish I had seen this video before buying these couplers. I bought 10 pairs of both the short and long shank versions to use with HOn30 and HOn2 mine tram equipment. I was immediately disappointed. They definitely require far too much force to ever couple on their own. It's really too bad, they're the perfect size for HO scale mine equipment and they look great on Grandt Line HOn30 Koppel ore cars. I've experienced a lot of decoupling episodes in grade transition areas or going over turnouts. I could see these used for static models, trains running forever on a perfectly flat loop or for photography, but on an actual layout with any level of operation they're not particularly useful. My experience is that the long shank version requires far less force to couple than the short shank version. It has a longer lever arm for the knuckles acting against the same spring as the short shank. With HO narrow gauge equipment there's room to mount the long shank coupler boxes deeper to maintain a prototypical close coupling distance. That said I'm scrapping these and going back to regular MicroTrains Magne-Matic couplers. It's been a frustrating experiment that cost me $40.
What works well with bachmanns EZ mate couplers? I just bought a kato AC4400cw and I need to change its couplers out for something that'll click with the EZ mates
The application on unit trains seems appropriate, although regular microtrains couplers would work (operationally) just as well. For the looks though, these are hard to beat.
Hey Dan. With the coupling problem, do you think maybe adding a bit of graphite power or something would help? Maybe the couplers aren't moving free enough in the coupler box?
Dan, I would be curious how the "Goemon" Japanese made couplers do. As you probably already know, these are a drop in replacement into the 1015 style MTL coupler box re-using the Microtrains box, spring, screw and magnetic trip pin. The detail is actually better, there will me slink in the train/draft gear, but coupling should be easier due to the spring.
Just bought a pair of these Guess they will be going in gabage. So now I still have Rapido on all my trains and do not know what couplers I should use for a more realistic look. Don't get me wrong Rapidos are working great but look like crap. Those look great buy work like crap. LOL Back to doing more research.
If you have uneven track or working with NTrak modules that are not even, these will not work. Similar to Kato couplers, these are very thin and uncouple often.
It is a new product and it's possible they will find ways to improve it before too long especially if they want this to become the new standard. It's always hard to supplant an existing dominant protocol/product. Think about how long it took for DVDs to overtake VHS as the standard video format.
Why bother? A lot of work to *downgrade* reliability on an already somewhat unreliable scale. Best used on display equipment that won't be moved or switched. Whole bunch of spikes off!
I tend to agree with your idea of putting these on derelict equipment for realism. Downgrading reliability is never good. If MT had released a standard height gauge for these couplers, that would help with the whole reliability aspect of operating with them!
Couplers in N Scale are already iffy at best for reliability in my experience... now you want to make them half the size, and I have to manually re-mount them for every car? Yeah... no. An interesting idea, but it's just not practical. Sadly I think the standard knuckle couplers is about as small as N Scale is going to allow for actual operation, any smaller and you eventually have to start battling with physics itself - as seen here with the struggling to couple a locomotive to a train.
That coupling failure scenario is worse than original HO Scale Talgos/Horn Hooks from back in the 60s. Realism and the five-fingered crane car management should never be used in the same situation.
Yeah we call that the 0-5-0 switcher. Just like Sergent couplers for HO scale, these couplers look real cool but are a bit of a challenge for operational realism and the assembly process.. I'm 99.9% certain that Dan will stick with the original Micro-Trains couplers.
They are not worth the time, effort or expense that it takes to install them. I will stay with my normal sized micro trains couplers thank you. At least they are reliable.
These look nice and are much easier to assemble compared with their Magne-Matic couplers. Not really worth it to me. I'd be happier if they would couple without needing manual intervention.
That's a definite case of "looks aren't everything".... I'm sure that N Scale has moved beyond 0-5-0 switching by now! Nice try, but they need more R&D. Carmine 🚂
Very helpful video, thank you. I'm glad the spike rating was at the end -- 8/10 would have been misleading for the operation I saw. I would have taken 4 or more spikes off for not reliably coupling. After all it is a "coupler" so if it won't "couple" without ramming the trains together or using your hands... that's a big problem. Some flaws are worth a lot more than -1 spike, imho.
Thank you for a great informative head to head review.
Way to go on this one. Calling it the way it is. The couples are really attractive and are so much more prototypical in size,but they have to work flawlessly. Its like the way it was 20 yrs ago... Nice video. Love all your stuff, especially the instructional basics, bravo!
Thanks for taking the time to watch and share your comments!
It should also be noted that even the best couplers fail on rough track. Getting perfectly smooth track in N scale is time consuming, and a lot of layouts that have been in operation for years (or sloppy assembly) have track with bumps and dips. However, if running on such a layout I'd rather have larger couplers that run reliably than make a list of trouble spots that need fixing. As for my own layout, this is good info because it demonstrates the need for having accurate track on a layout.
Magnetic couplers!!!!!
These seem to have about the same operating considerations and issues as the Sergent Engineering couplers I use on my HO equipment. For me weight is the biggest help. I now fully subscribe to Mike Confalone’s massive “over weighting” of rolling stock. Modern locos seem to pull just fine, if not too well. I run 30+ car trains up 2.2% on handlaid track with Proto:87 wheelsets, and the weight massively improves tracking and virtually eliminates derailments. That weight helps coupling, especially single car coupling, and I suspect it would in the case of these. I’m not sure this is necessary or worth the trouble in N, but I will try them, however I love the Sergents in HO, tho I know they aren’t for everyone.
I've tried these every which way. They work if your track is absolutely plumb and the radius for curves and turnouts aren't very tight. They look outstanding on passenger equipment.
Excellent demonstration. Illuminating and informative. Thanks!
Thanks for watching!
I was interested in these when they first were announced, but when I learned they were not compatible with existing MTL couplers (or even the Z scale MTL couplers), that was the dealbreaker right there.
Excellent video, Dan. Thanks for taking time to carefully demonstrate these couplers. Something we forget that attempting to achieve such precise detail can cause unnecessary frustration. These are still just toy trains and the bulk of layout vistors wouldn't notice the difference between a scale coupler and a rigid knuckle coupler when the train is moving....let alone to even think to look at the couplers. Jut sayin'....
Lots of people would take exception to the characterization of highly detailed precision models as "just toy trains."
I agree with most of the other comments here. They look great, but I have been painstakingly - with the emphasis on PAIN - converting all of my rolling stock to the magnetic couplers PRECISELY so I do not have to get my clumsy fingers near a running train. Any attempt by me to use the 0-5-0 switcher near an N Scale train usually results in a whole string of cars getting knocked over. That takes the fun out of things very quickly!
I am also in the process of converting some old junk I have to compatible knuckle couplers, and would not be likely to switch to these because I can't afford to and don't really have models worthy of that level of realism at this time. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for the review Dan. I have a switching layout so I'll stick with the regular MTL couplers. Putting the Scale couplers together seemed a bit easier than a pack of 1015's.
Nice honest review, looks great but to many negatives for me. I will stick with magnamatic MT’s
Well that was disappointing. I'll stick with the original Micro-Trains couplers
medwardbell Me, too! If they don't improve operation, the cost of replacing the couplers on all of my isn't worth it.
Dan, that was an incredibly useful product review. Many thanks!
I'm disappointed that something wasn't developed that's still compatible with other couplers (like the Kadee HO, scale- couplers are). They seem like something that still has to evolve a bit more? Hmm...
These couplers are built for their aesthetics and functionality in unit trains or other applications where coupling and uncoupling is absolutely minimal. The experiments by the narrator and comments by some model railroaders demonstrate the purpose and benefits of TrueScale couplers completely elude these individuals: they're not in any way, shape or form designed for switching. You would have better luck coupling MTs to Rapidos.
great review Dan, i may have some ordering to do
Reminds me of the Kato couplers.
Someone else had a similar comment. Thanks for watching!
Nice vid. May I suggest that adding a birds eye view of the couplers while coupling would be desirable.
Good idea!
I wish I had seen this video before buying these couplers.
I bought 10 pairs of both the short and long shank versions to use with HOn30 and HOn2 mine tram equipment. I was immediately disappointed. They definitely require far too much force to ever couple on their own. It's really too bad, they're the perfect size for HO scale mine equipment and they look great on Grandt Line HOn30 Koppel ore cars. I've experienced a lot of decoupling episodes in grade transition areas or going over turnouts. I could see these used for static models, trains running forever on a perfectly flat loop or for photography, but on an actual layout with any level of operation they're not particularly useful.
My experience is that the long shank version requires far less force to couple than the short shank version. It has a longer lever arm for the knuckles acting against the same spring as the short shank. With HO narrow gauge equipment there's room to mount the long shank coupler boxes deeper to maintain a prototypical close coupling distance. That said I'm scrapping these and going back to regular MicroTrains Magne-Matic couplers. It's been a frustrating experiment that cost me $40.
it seems the Tomix TN couplers works better than this. You should try it :)
I have ho use nothing my kadee couplers they sre the best coupler out there
What works well with bachmanns EZ mate couplers? I just bought a kato AC4400cw and I need to change its couplers out for something that'll click with the EZ mates
Thanks for the information. Not sure I am sold on them yet. They do look great though. Maybe I would use them on unit trains over Unimate Couplers.
The application on unit trains seems appropriate, although regular microtrains couplers would work (operationally) just as well. For the looks though, these are hard to beat.
If interested in switching more than proto gauge looks more like 2 or 3 out of 10 spikes imo
O gauge marx couplers available for purchase
Hey Dan. With the coupling problem, do you think maybe adding a bit of graphite power or something would help? Maybe the couplers aren't moving free enough in the coupler box?
Dan, I would be curious how the "Goemon" Japanese made couplers do. As you probably already know, these are a drop in replacement into the 1015 style MTL coupler box re-using the Microtrains box, spring, screw and magnetic trip pin. The detail is actually better, there will me slink in the train/draft gear, but coupling should be easier due to the spring.
Excellent review. Although they look good, they really need more engineering for better performance.
Yes, that seems to be the consensus at this time. At least in this comments section. Thanks for watching!
Nice video and review.
Thanks MGR! It's always nice to hear from you.
I wonder if these would operate better if they were made of metal rather than plastic?
I BUY MICRO TRAINS COUPLERS W/ TRUCKS . IM TO OLD AND CAN'T SEE THEM LITTLE THINGS. THEY WORK GREAT
wow...generous rating. I'll wait until they work.
Just bought a pair of these
Guess they will be going in gabage.
So now I still have Rapido on all my trains and do not know what couplers I should use for a more realistic look.
Don't get me wrong Rapidos are working great but look like crap.
Those look great buy work like crap. LOL
Back to doing more research.
I think you and John did a previous video at South Bay
We have done quite a lot of filming at the SBHRS. It's a great organization that does a lot of important preservation work.
They look nice, but.....I'll sick with the old ones, I know they work. Backroads Bob
Sometimes going with what you know makes all the sense in the book, Backroads. This appears to be one of those times.
If you have uneven track or working with NTrak modules that are not even, these will not work. Similar to Kato couplers, these are very thin and uncouple often.
It is a new product and it's possible they will find ways to improve it before too long especially if they want this to become the new standard. It's always hard to supplant an existing dominant protocol/product. Think about how long it took for DVDs to overtake VHS as the standard video format.
Why bother? A lot of work to *downgrade* reliability on an already somewhat unreliable scale. Best used on display equipment that won't be moved or switched. Whole bunch of spikes off!
I tend to agree with your idea of putting these on derelict equipment for realism. Downgrading reliability is never good. If MT had released a standard height gauge for these couplers, that would help with the whole reliability aspect of operating with them!
Couplers in N Scale are already iffy at best for reliability in my experience... now you want to make them half the size, and I have to manually re-mount them for every car?
Yeah... no.
An interesting idea, but it's just not practical. Sadly I think the standard knuckle couplers is about as small as N Scale is going to allow for actual operation, any smaller and you eventually have to start battling with physics itself - as seen here with the struggling to couple a locomotive to a train.
That coupling failure scenario is worse than original HO Scale Talgos/Horn Hooks from back in the 60s. Realism and the five-fingered crane car management should never be used in the same situation.
Yeah we call that the 0-5-0 switcher.
Just like Sergent couplers for HO scale, these couplers look real cool but are a bit of a challenge for operational realism and the assembly process.. I'm 99.9% certain that Dan will stick with the original Micro-Trains couplers.
They are not worth the time, effort or expense that it takes to install them. I will stay with my normal sized micro trains couplers thank you. At least they are reliable.
These look nice and are much easier to assemble compared with their Magne-Matic couplers. Not really worth it to me. I'd be happier if they would couple without needing manual intervention.
If it ain't broke, don't make a new coupler.
Dosen't seem good enough to do al of the work. I'll stick with the Kadee....
That's a definite case of "looks aren't everything"....
I'm sure that N Scale has moved beyond 0-5-0 switching by now! Nice try, but they need more R&D.
Carmine 🚂
That was kind of our reaction to it.
Moral of story. Don't use these couplers. Better off with rapido. LOL