Combining BLMA trucks/wheels

[coosvalley]

then go and make that coupler. But I have a feeling that not many modelers will buy your scale-coupler.

First, I will not be producing any couplers, ever. I don't know why you would say it like that. And would you somehow find it offensive if someone does?...You might be happy with the slinky effect, but I get the feeling that many are not, just read some of the previous posts in this thread!

Secondly, who says there are compatibility issues? ...I am talking about the need for more in-scale couplers, which seems like an obvious, and overdue, step in the quest for more in-scale N scale models. If the FT couplers can work, so can whatever else comes along, and I'm sure the imaginary(so far) coupler would take that into consideration.

If we didn't push for it, we'd still be getting rapido's on new rolling stock...But, if you still want to use them you have that option...The same would still be true if we get another coupler....

I seem to recall that the FT couplers held more weight than even MTs own z scale coupler without breaking. I guess we'll have to wait and see what "my" imaginary coupler will hold..

However, as I previously stated, I am converting to Accu-Mates, and not holding my breath for another option to arrive anytime soon....

[bbussey]

Pete is right — unless the resulting design will mate with the existing MTLs and MTL-compatibles, it would be impossible to make an injection-molded scale coupler and be profitable. It took 30 years for the MTL coupler to supplant the Rapido coupler, and during much of that time, Kadee/MTL offered their cars with both coupler types. Even today, MTL still offers the Bettendorf truck with Rapido coupler. So offering a mass-market scale coupler in this day and age that doesn't mate with the existing couplers is a money-losing venture.

[coosvalley]

Pete is right — unless the resulting design will mate with the existing MTLs and MTL-compatibles, it would be impossible to make an injection-molded scale coupler and be profitable. It took 30 years for the MTL coupler to supplant the Rapido coupler, and during much of that time, Kadee/MTL offered their cars with both coupler types. Even today, MTL still offers the Bettendorf truck with Rapido coupler. So offering a mass-market scale coupler in this day and age that doesn't mate with the existing couplers is a money-losing venture.

Secondly, who says there are compatibility issues? ..

 and I'm sure the imaginary(so far) coupler would take that into consideration.

[peteski]

The huge mistake I made was interpreting coosvalley's post incorrectly.  I thought he was looking for a true-scale-size (like Sergent in H0). I assumed that because we already have several oversize N scale knuckle couplers available, and couple more in the pipeline.  But it now appears that all coosvalley is looking for is a slightly smaller version of a coupler like McHenry.  Meh.

I also doubt that some pressure from modelers made manufacturers of U.S. prototype N scale models convert to knuckle couplers (as rest of the world still happily uses Rapidos).  Again, the big breakthrough was expiration of Micro-Train/Kadee patents for knuckle couplers. Once that happened, manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon of making similar (but less expensive and not as good) couplers and then the manufacturers started using those in their models.

[bbussey]

It wasn't pressure from modelers per se.  It was the consumers speaking with their dollars in showing their overwhelming preference for equipment RTR with the MTL coupler over those with the Rapido coupler.  While the expiration of the patents have allowed various MTL coupler clones to appear, there remain a number of MTL-compatible couplers on the market that are not based on the MTL design.  Atlas, Bachmann, Kato and Athearn are prime examples, with at least Atlas and Kato migrating to knuckle couplers well before MTL's patents expired.

[peteski]

It wasn't pressure from modelers per se.  It was the consumers speaking with their dollars in showing their overwhelming preference for equipment RTR with the MTL coupler over those with the Rapido coupler. 

Which manufacturers (other then MTL) were offering a choice of models with either Rapido or MTL coupler?  Before the patent expired that is.

What I'm confused about is that I thought that N scale Accumates were produced after the MTL patent expired. And I also do not recall Kato making the same model available in 2 choices of couplers allowing modelers to chose which coupler they preferred.  I'm also not considering the non-automatic couplers (which probably didn't violate the patent rules).

[ednadolski]

The one thing that scares me about using the LEZ/FT coupler, is that he/they could stop providing them to us separately, and the etchings are also a 1 man show(you!)...I would hate to have a fleet half converted and then have to find another solution...A few months back we were drooling over someones (Jim Six?) very nice proto looking N scale coupler, and you in particular were trying to drum up support. At the time, I said with NZT and another which I can't think of now coming we should probably wait...I now eat those words, as neither seems to be any closer to reality.

Why can't we get a better coupler option for N scale?.....It is sorely needed..For now, I've(mostly) converted to Accumates to eliminate the slinky, and although they are still oversize, stopping the slinky has made a huge difference, enough for me to stay in N scale and not go (back) to HO...

There were several recent attempts at an N scale coupler that I can recall:  the DKS/NZT Protomate, the Charlie Vlk coupler, and the Brian Banna Sergent-like coupler.   FWIW I don't seem to recall attempting to "drum up support" for any of these (not even sure what that really means anyways) but I can think several reasons why you don't (and won't any time soon) see the broad adoption of a new coupler:

 - The existing ones are "good enough" for most N-scalers.
 - Most N-scalers are not interested in anything that is incompatible.
 - Most N scalers are not interested in taking on significant conversion projects.
 - Manufacturers would be unwilling to install a new coupler on their products.
 - A truly 'scale' coupler (like a Sergent) would be too small for many modelers to operate (or even see in some cases)
 - Investment cost and lack of ROI are significant obstacles.

While it's true that the LEZ is one person, he does have an active presence in the Z scale market so it seems somewhat unlikely that this would just suddenly dry up (which of course could happen to any one, any time -- we did have the scare on that when it looked for a while like his tooling had gone kaput).  I've hedged on that by stockpiling enough couplers to last me for a while if it ever does come to that.  The etched pocket that I did was (and remains) a personal project and was never intended to reach any kind of market.  If others are interested, great, but the fact there too is that I've never seen anyone else other than Gary post pics of their conversions (and I still have leftover frets of parts that nobody wanted).  All that being said, etchings are hardly rocket science and it certainly would not be hard or costly for anyone to come up with something similar.

I think one piece of this whole situation is that there is no one-size-fits-all when to comes to couplers.   Perhaps ongoing improvements with 3D printing will lead to some additional options in the near future.

Ed

[ednadolski]

I have a feeling that not many modelers will buy your scale-coupler.  So, you won't make much profit ....

You could make a small fortune... the only catch is, you would have to start with a big one 

Ed

[bbussey]

Which manufacturers (other then MTL) were offering a choice of models with either Rapido or MTL coupler?  Before the patent expired that is.

What I'm confused about is that I thought that N scale Accumates were produced after the MTL patent expired. And I also do not recall Kato making the same model available in 2 choices of couplers allowing modelers to chose which coupler they preferred.  I'm also not considering the non-automatic couplers (which probably didn't violate the patent rules).

I didn't say there were manufacturers other than MTL that offered both MTL-compatible and Rapido couplers.  I said that there were manufacturers that started offering MTL-compatible couplers before the MTL patents expired.  The Accu-Mates were designed specifically to operate differently than the KD/MTL design in order to compete without violating the patent.   

[coosvalley]

Yea, I should have been more clear myself...I am really just hoping for a more in scale coupler that would not only be compatible, but closer to scale. I wouldn't say I'm looking for a smaller McHenry (I call them McHUGEy's). Actually, the best solution I have seen is the FT/etch conversions by Ednadolski and Gary. The best sounding solution, to me, was the Protomate, which remains to be seen whether or not it will happen(coming in 2014! ).

In another thread Bryan mentioned that MT could have made themselves a rigid shank combined with their knuckle, thus avoiding the patent expiration, and given themselves a no slinky, automatic uncoupling, and patent-able option. That would have been pretty sweet..Someone dropped the ball there!..

@ednadolski -- "trying to drum up support' may not have been the best choice of words. It was during the discussion about B. Banna's coupler, and I merely mentioned that with new couplers that were coming, I'd rather wait and see if the protomate/C.VLK options were any better before supporting a 3rd new option...And you said that they may end up never coming, which, is kinda what happened--so far.

[peteski]

Yea, I should have been more clear myself...I am really just hoping for a more in scale coupler that would not only be compatible, but closer to scale. I wouldn't say I'm looking for a smaller McHenry (I call them McHUGEy's).

tr

While it is not my intention to pick on you, what exactly do you mean by "more in scale"  MOre appearance-wise, more size-wise or both?


Appearance-wise it seems that McHUGELYs are fitting the bill.  Kato couplers are also surprisingly quite close in appearance to the prototype (especially in top view).

Size-wise any of the Z scale couplers would fit the bill.

If you want both size and appearance then you would need a totally new coupler. But to fit both criteria the coupler would most likely not be compatible with any of the existing knuckle couplers. That is the big issue.  I don't see such coupler being made in large quantities anytime soon (for the reasons already mentioned)

But we can all ponder stiff here. That is what TRW is for.

Several years ago I compared all the N scale knuckle couplers available at the time.
http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=52328

[coosvalley]

I meant more in scale size, though appearance is important too..I actually like the detail on the McHugely's "thumb", but the knuckle is just too big for me, it actually seemed like a step in the wrong direction to me, size-wise. I use MT Z scale couplers on certain cars, and I have not had any major issues there, with the exception to the slinky effect, but a car or 2 with MT Z's in a train of accu-mates is becomes hardly, if at all, noticeable.

The size of the mounting box is also an area that could use some love, and that's what I like about the FT/EdEtch(TM) solution. This is also a feature of the Protomate according to the announcements I saw...

[ednadolski]

I'd rather wait and see if the protomate/C.VLK options were any better before supporting a 3rd new option...And you said that they may end up never coming, which, is kinda what happened--so far.

The Protomate design has a global patent, so unless and until the owner either decides to produce it, or license/sell it to someone willing to pay for it and then produce it,  it may be a long time indeed before we see anything like it.

Ed


EDIT:  just so we can pine torment ourselves some more, here is the link to Brian's scale coupler:

[GaryHinshaw]

I'm still extremely happy with the LE/etch solution and would recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind an off-market product*.  That said, I have only converted a few dozen cars to date, and the prospect of converting them all seems remote.  Fortunately they are quite compatible with all other N scale knuckle couplers - otherwise I would not have started down this path.  So if the supply dries up, I will seek other compatible solutions for the rest of my fleet, but I will likely keep the cars I have converted as is and enjoy them.

-gfh

* There are two slight concerns I have about the LE/etch combo: 1) They don't reliably touch mate with MT N scale couplers; you sometimes have to lift one coupler to mate them.  This does not happen when mating with Kato, Accumate or McHenry's though.  2) By design, there is less slack in the couplers, so it can be harder to monitor pusher locos by reading slack.

[nkalanaga]

If size is the main criteria, MT's 903/905 works quite well with their N couplers.  If they would design a coupler with the 903 coupler, and a shank/draft gear box that would directly replace the 1015 or 1025, or preferably both, it would probably sell quite well.  Modelers could retrofit cars with the N version, and use the Z version where space is tight, while not having to convert everything at once.

Why do both 1015 and 1025 replacements?  Most people today seem to prefer the 1015, and it is a shorter draft gear, but it's also thicker than the 1025.  The 1025 actually looks better on many cars, and I've had several cars where 100 ton trucks wouldn't work with the 1015 coupler.  Even with countersunk flathead screws, the axles hit the screw, requiring either thinner axles, raising the car, or using 1025s with flathead screws.  A few hand twists with a 3/32 drill bit countersinks them nicely.

The two couplers use the same hole-end distance, and the mounting height is only a few thousandths of an inch different, so they're effectively interchangeable.