The Home Machinist!

There seem to be no extant standards for couplers in any scale other than for the centerline height.
There is no assurance that any purchased couplers will mate with any others.
Examination of couplers reveals a significant variation in knuckle opening, tightness upon closure, and rotational capability between vendors past and present.
Have any clubs a dimensional or performance standard for couplers?
Just wondering ...

Hi Andy,

Attempts have been made, John_S posted this awhile back: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=103231&p=351996&hil ... rs#p351996

Brook

BAdams wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:47 pm Hi Andy,

Attempts have been made, John_S posted this awhile back: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=103231&p=351996&hil ... rs#p351996

Brook

Thanks, that is what I was looking for.

There isn't unfortunately, it would be nice if there was. I'm just making sure I buy all the same couplers. Interestingly enough, I'm building in 2" scale and found that the couplers for 1-1/2" scale are oversized and are perfect for 2" scale compared to scaling down prototype drawings.

of all the couplers on the current market, I have not found any that would not work together. mcc/titan is the only coupler i had issue with coupling to other brands. but they normally just need a wiggle to drop the pin

It's a shame what some manufactures think what a coupler is suppose to look like let alone how it should function. Most variances are made with the knuckle profile. There thinking is to make the fit sloppy enough so equipment can go around a 10 ft. curve. In doing so the knuckle has shrunk in size and the profile has morphed into something unrecognizable. Most couplers work great with themselves, it's when you start mixing them together that you run into problems. I would like to see some kind of standard for profile of coupler head and knuckle.
My opinion only. It may be worth 2 cents but then again it may not.

Jeff

Brook, et al.
So if we use the 1963 GGL standard dimensions as a start ...
(a) Can anybody at GGLS verify the performance of couplers meeting those dimensions, and
(b) Do any of the commercially available couplers come close?
I too would like to see some kind of standard for profile of coupler head and knuckle.
Andy

an issue with the idea of standardizing couples. I can already hear

you copied my coupler

from some

At Ridge Live Steamers we use Tom Bee cast iron, and steel, RMI, Mercer, Little Engines/Live Steam Parts, LS, Super Scale and MCC/Titan and they all couple in any order without any problems at our card order meets.

Tim

The only real problems I've ever had with couplers was with some of the old Miller Backyard Rails, the old square looking couplers. They won't hardly couple with anything else without some pretty extensive modifications. I had a couple of pairs of them on some equipment, but have gradually replaced them all, except for one coupler, which I have modified so that it will work. They haven't been made in a very long time, and it is quite rare to see them anymore.

Every once in a while I have a MCC coupler that will be a little bit too tight for the locking bar to drop, but a slight modification is not hard to do to make the knuckle open up just a little wider, and then they all seem to work fine together. I think it is a lot smaller problem now than it was 40+ years ago.

That was the problem I had with my MCC coupler. The knuckle, as cast, has just a slight impression where the drop bar should fit. you have to mill it out to work but how much. I think i have it working now.

it appears that mating isn't the greatest challenge, It is keeping the things coupled, especially upgrade, on a curve.