Why does MTH include a dummy front coupler for a steamer?

It is included for the purpose of double heading.  Lionel also includes one with their scale sized steamers.  If the flash up is functioning properly, there should be very little tension between the two engines.

Happy railroading,

Don

Thanks Don,

That was the answer I was hoping for, but I think I will watch the steamers I have in mind run near each other, for a while, before I risk it. Won't quite look like the 4 Big Boys at Trainstock, but it would be fun!

Marty,

before I risk it

What's the "risk"?

Both MTH and Lionel have included the over-sized claw, that can replace, the scale coupler on the front of certain locomotives. 

I had done this connection between an older Weaver Pennsy H10 and Pennsy L1s, on O54 curves. It works without the claw on the front of a decent looking locomotive. Both locomotives pictured have been upgraded to EOB speed control and can easily be combined as a consist with a Cab1 controller.

Barry, Barry, Barry

I really wish you lived close enough to go get a beer together, or play with trains. Did you really need to ask that after the "Can I adjust scale MPH" thread? I think my only MTH anomally is the upgraded PS1 to PS2 GP9. I believe my steamers matched beautifully, but I want to be sure. Without (please without) going down this path, I am going to doublecheck the tape in the GP9. Who knows, I may be a length off.

Mike CT

Thanks for the pics! Iguess the message is if you can match the speed and find a way to connect them, they can be in a consist. I guess my remaining fear is torque on the lead coupler. It's a Christmas floor layout. The dog, and occasionally the errant Human, has been know to assist in rather abrupt derailments. I'm not saying these should be built to withstand that abuse, just that I need to take it into consideration. 

Being that torque is a rotational force, the coupler doesn't experience any as it is not spinning.  Therefore you don't need to worry about it.  Sorry, I'm a mechanical engineer and it bothers me when people use the wrong terminology.  Shear and tension would be the concerns at hand, shear on the bolt holding the coupler and tension on the coupler finger.  Neither of which would ruin the locomotives.  Worse case is you can't get the broken screw out of the front of the locomotive which means you'd never be able to put it behind another locomotive.  And the only way you could ever get anywhere near the levels of force to inflict that kind of damage is if you are running them at full speed and then the rear locomotive stopped dead.  And as I've never seen that (If a locomotive gears lock up at that speed, it'll still skid a bit, even with traction tires.  Been there, done that.), I think you are good to go double heading.

But I do feel your pain on damage.  3 Christmases ago my cats decided the tree looping train would be a good place to have a tussle.  Woke up in the morning to a locomotive on it's side and the rear coupler finger broken clean off.  The little 0-6-0 finished it's Christmas service pulling the train backwards that year.

I installed mine and double head.  Seems strong enough to me.

.....

Dennis

Prior to up-grading my "fleet" to all Kadee O-Scale couplers, I previously doublehead  two MTH C&O H-8 Alleghenies hauling my 65 car C&O two-bay coal hopper train using the provided dummy coupler. Never had any issues, and even ran them that way in conventional.

AHA Mr Engineer! I believe I was referring to the torque placed, on the coupler, when a dog, or clumsy human caused an abrupt derailment, ie: tipping the loco. Which, I think, would put rotational stress on the coupler. 

"I guess my remaining fear is torque on the lead coupler. It's a Christmas floor layout. The dog, and occasionally the errant Human, has been know to assist in rather abrupt derailments."

My daughter is an Engineering major at MIT, she would assure me, it isn't a character flaw to insist on the precise use of language, while ignoring the possibility of implied meaning in the rest of the communication. 

In my mind, the  worst case scenario was snapping bits off the front end of a premier steamer.  Any damage there and I'd have to hope MTH still produced the proper bits and had them as repair parts, rather than manufacturing stock. This dummy coupler seems to have very little rotational play to allow it to slip from the other coupler. I'd be relying mostly on the forgiveness of the tender coupler on the lead loco. Having stopped typing and gone to stare at the coupler mount, it has a little more oomph (sorry, I don't know the engineering term  , so the problem probably isn't a problem.

So you see, it wasn't that I misused a term, it was that I didn't understand the system.

As to the cats, yep. My trains are at risk if I get lazy and park them under the window. We leave a clean path through the layout, to the window and she uses it. It's my fault if I leave a loco under her window, but I did it this year and of course, it was the berk, right where she lands. Only damage was a lost handrail. Snapped it at the insertion points.

Note: I edited the original post and have notes, to start the layout doubleheaded, when the track comes out, the weekend before Thanksgiving! Thanks all

This relates to a question I asked Andy at the MTH booth in Raleigh this past Sat. I am interested in knowing if I could double-head the MTH Imperial PRR Duplex that was sold last year in two road numbers and currently available. In their catalogs, MTH talks about how the PRR double-headed these engines. In fact, up until the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway in the 50's, PRR move iron ore from Erie Bay to Mt. Carmel PA for eventual delivery to Bethlehem Steel in Bethlehem by the Lehigh Valley Railroad. From Erie to Northumberland, only one engine was needed for a 100  iron ore car train with one duplex. However, due to a grade bewtween Northumberland and Mt. Carmel, they added 3 more engines, two in back and two in front. I have seen videos of this train and you cannot imagine how much black smoke the 4 engines produced!!

Sorry I digress, but now you know why I want to doublehead these engines. When I discussed this with Andy, he said the major problem with the front coupler on an Imperial engine is that the coupler will swing pretty wide on the narrow curves these engines are designed for. This is not an issue for me as I would run them on minimum O-72 curves. So..has anyone ever put a working coupler on the front of a Railking or Imperial steam engine? What type of coupler did you use and how did you attach it?

One last tidbit. despite the fact that the iron train was a famous PRR train, MTH has never made a multi-car set of iron ore cars. Hard to figure.

Thanks, Paul

Methinks you worry too much.

.....

Dennis

I put a working Weaver 700 series coupler on the front of a Lionel 0-8-0, not being aware Lionel had made another version of the same loco with a working front coupler.

I was wondering what I might use to make a spring centering one for pilot application

on other locos?  The next exercise will involve cramming a two wheel pilot truck and

the coupler under the pilot deck of one of these 0-8-0's.