MR announces new coupler from JTC

[Maletrain]

Quite understandable.  Tho I wonder whether a group that is unable or uninterested in achieving something as fundamental as basic, reliable trackwork might regard any kind of new coupler as a non-starter.   Not much different, I suppose, than relying on pizza-cutter flanges to mask trackwork issues.

Ed

The trackwork is old Atlas code 80 with the snap switches converted to Tam Valley servo actuation (except for a few that aren't in-view).  It works reliably with what it was initially designed for.  But, adding finer scale things to operations now is revealing places where the standards were not met, or perhaps were met but are not sufficient.  My 2 Scale Trains locos are the only things that derail at that point where the gauge is too narrow, so I am the one who found that and will fix it.  But, I am also aware of some vertical bumps that might uncouple with couplers that have scale vertical dimensions.  Only testing is going to tell me if there is a problem, where, and whether it is too much trouble to fix.

That is (just) one of the reasons I want to build my own layout.  Doing that makes me the only cat in the heard.

[turbowhiz]

If your trains reliably stay together on the un-even track on your (club/modular/home) layout today with traditional couplers, then there is a very good chance they will still stay together with my scale couplers. If you’re having issues with traditional couplers at proper heights today on short/light trains, my scale couplers won’t improve things and will likely be worse. If you’re having trouble with heavier/longer trains, particularly with mixed brands of couplers even at correct heights on random cars slipping on marginal track humps (or just plain slipping on perfect track, i.e. Accumates), then you will likely find my scale couplers more reliable, unbelievable as that sounds.

My scale design is very capable on the edge; The couplers won’t easily slip even when there is minimal contact. Although the overall height is less than traditional couplers the effective operating height is in the same range. They are far less likely to slip in their operating range then other designs, so often they’re more reliable than traditional couplers in the same uneven track circumstances under higher loads, where many couplers will slip. The pre-production examples I'm testing now are markedly superior to my original prototypes in this regard (and every other regard too!), and those worked pretty well on the edge too.

I’m doing my best to make these couplers as universally applicable as I can; But keep in mind a true to scale design will demand an attention to detail. If you want high reliability on marginal track, you will need to be very serious about making sure your heights are spot on for example. No different then any other coupler to be honest. But I’ll say this: Fix your track not your trains! Attention to detail in trackwork is the basis of reliable operation, regardless of coupler.

Progress to market has been slower than planned. Some challenges on the supplier sourcing side have turned out to be a huge blessing in disguise, and the end product is going to be better for it. I’m at least 3-4 months behind schedule (they should’ve been on the market now). I’m in deep with pre-production testing now, so it’s getting closer but there is still lots of work to do before product is ready to go out the door.