Rumors of Protomate’s demise are greatly exaggerated!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

@Ed Kapuscinski , Sure if that could be cast in the injection molding process, ans i'd be worried about the coupler derailing the low profile flanges at the top of an incline.

Just need some nano technology or something, right?

[Sokramiketes]

If I was not clear, yes normal oversize couplers will handle such conditions without issue for the most part. BUT, if a new, scale sized head were developed it would not be able to deal with such issues due to the reduced vertical contact area and the number of de-couplings would increase dramatically, which would have a negative effect on coupler reliability from the customer's POV.

I'm going to push back on this one a bit.  The MT TSC has a smaller head, heightwise, but because the couplers lock more securely, they seem to have more friction to hold them from splitting vertically.  Less slop also means less of a tendency to pull one over the other in long, weighty trains.  I know "reverse draft angle" helped this a bit.  But there are other factors than simply the height of the coupler. 

I'm always frustrated by the 1015 box when mounting couplers.  It's always in the way of the trucks, or a reasonable ride height.  One of the reasons I was dabbling with the 905 Z couplers for years was simply because the box fit better.  And Jason's TSC near-scale box is simply a dream to mount to any flat surface.  It's never in the way and almost always at just the right height.  Appearance is almost secondary to ease of installation, so if I had to argue for one key feature on these Protomates it would be a 905 size coupler box instead of 1015 monsters. 

[robert3985]

I'm going to push back on this one a bit.  The MT TSC has a smaller head, heightwise, but because the couplers lock more securely, they seem to have more friction to hold them from splitting vertically.  Less slop also means less of a tendency to pull one over the other in long, weighty trains.  I know "reverse draft angle" helped this a bit.  But there are other factors than simply the height of the coupler. 

I'm always frustrated by the 1015 box when mounting couplers.  It's always in the way of the trucks, or a reasonable ride height.  One of the reasons I was dabbling with the 905 Z couplers for years was simply because the box fit better.  And Jason's TSC near-scale box is simply a dream to mount to any flat surface.  It's never in the way and almost always at just the right height.  Appearance is almost secondary to ease of installation, so if I had to argue for one key feature on these Protomates it would be a 905 size coupler box instead of 1015 monsters.

What he said....

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Lemosteam]

I'm going to push back on this one a bit.  The MT TSC has a smaller head, heightwise, but because the couplers lock more securely, they seem to have more friction to hold them from splitting vertically.  Less slop also means less of a tendency to pull one over the other in long, weighty trains.  I know "reverse draft angle" helped this a bit.  But there are other factors than simply the height of the coupler. 

I'm always frustrated by the 1015 box when mounting couplers.  It's always in the way of the trucks, or a reasonable ride height.  One of the reasons I was dabbling with the 905 Z couplers for years was simply because the box fit better.  And Jason's TSC near-scale box is simply a dream to mount to any flat surface.  It's never in the way and almost always at just the right height.  Appearance is almost secondary to ease of installation, so if I had to argue for one key feature on these Protomates it would be a 905 size coupler box instead of 1015 monsters.

First and specifically, I made no mention of any specific coupler having issues in the conditions I mentioned, nor could I comment on the TSC, operationally. To say that any coupler never has issues with what I identified is a stretch as well.

To your second point, the Protomate doesn’t even need a box or lid if you look at the design long enough. The critical elements are the pivot post, its diameter and height, and the front edge relative to the post. A screw with a washer is enough to trap the coupler and spring, so it can integrate into just about any design.

[brill27mcb]

Now that's "thinking outside the box"!

Rich K.

[chicken45]

For the uninitiated.

I wonder if I could recreate that. 

(Attachment Link)

Jason

Thank you. Sometimes I think you're the only one who gets me! LOL

[ednadolski]

If I was not clear, yes normal oversize couplers will handle such conditions without issue for the most part. BUT, if a new, scale sized head were developed it would not be able to deal with such issues due to the reduced vertical contact area and the number of de-couplings would increase dramatically, which would have a negative effect on coupler reliability from the customer's POV.

Believe me, I well appreciate the value of perception.  Your point does seem to presume that customers in general would not know enough to distinguish between problems due to a new coupler and those caused by their own bad trackwork, and thus would conclude that the new coupler was "unreliable".   Some (perhaps most?) do know but will nonetheless continue to rely on the coupler to mask the problem because they are unwilling or unable to address the issues with their track -- yet that brings me back to asking what would motivate such modelers to take on the cost + effort + risk of adopting a new coupler, given that their existing (and likely large) installed base already works well enough for them.  ("More prototypical appearance" or "no slinky" doesn't sound to me like a compelling enough factor, but that's just my own biased opinion.)

Oversized couplers can handle mask only a certain subset of bad track and/or other conditions.  You've mentioned one specific instance, but what other ones do you intend the Protomate to handle?   Of those, which if any do you plan to test/verify specifically? (ie, will a 0.020" misalignment work but not a 0.025" like C55 to C80?  or 0.030"?  more?  What size misalignment is an MT coupler expected to handle mask reliably anyway?)  What about the myriad other factors such as car length/weight/overhang, coupler swing, shank length, track curvature/gradients, and so on?  All those factors affect the perception of reliability as well, but it quickly becomes impossible to design for or test all of them. Legacy compatibility is a can of many worms.  Or is this really a matter of support by anecdote: i.e., make whatever we think, and presume it should not be a problem (unless and until someone reports otherwise).

This is not at all to berate the point (tho I'm sure it comes across that way). I'm just pointing out to be careful about what criteria you want to target for the PM, because too may requirements will unnecessarily constrain and stifle the ability to be innovative.  Given the size, variability, and longevity of the MT installed base,  it seems IMHO unrealistic to presume PM would/could/should have any notable impact on that, and the PM will work best as a specialty/niche item rather than a general replacement product.

All JMNSHO and FWIW    

Ed

[Lemosteam]

All good points and thoughts. As I said before, there is currently one Protomate, and until that is vetted to the point that I am satisfied that it can work, under whatever circumstance, track, car body, etc., it is still in its prototype stage.

I suspect, though that while I am shooting for compatibility, there is room to imagine all sorts of possibilities, niche or or otherwise.

Maybe we can wait to pass judgement on the Protomate’s size, looks and performance until my testing is complete?

Although there may be those that think that I am wasting my time with a product that some modelers may never use, it may simply be another, maybe even better?, choice for those modelers that choose the Protomate.

I can only presume my own cofidence in something I have designed (based on DKS’s concept of course) and prototyped, and tested myself to date.

I will say this though, @wm3798 is right, there is room for innovation, reasonable size and looks, and at least equivalent reliability in the coupler market.

I also want everyone to know that I do not take any of these comments personally.

[DKS]

Maybe we can wait to pass judgement on the Protomate’s size, looks and performance until my testing is complete?

Make no mistake, the coupler will be thoroughly tested under the widest practical set of operational circumstances. While some suggestions that have been presented in this thread are sound and will be taken into account, there has also been some over-the-top speculation as well as some "downvotes" from certain nay-sayers (as we've expected).

The ProtoMate will not be a be-all end-all solution for absolutely every application, just as it will certainly not satisfy every modelers' needs or tastes. Nor was it ever designed or expected to be. But know that, if it is indeed successful, there are plans for additional options and products.

I will only add there are a great many details that have not been touched upon in this thread out of necessity. Were John to spill all of the beans, it would not only have the potential to short-circuit future plans, but also open him up to even more negativity. If the product doesn't sound like your cuppa, then please refrain from deploying your wet blankets, since it's not intended for you. If, on the other hand, you are interested in it, please feel free to contact John privately.

As I've said before, I trust John completely. My job here is done.

[narrowminded]

From my little corner of the world all I can see is the concept being sound and beautifully simple while addressing the major issue(s) with modelling train couplers.   From here on in it's detail execution and then the hardest part, funding for production.    Good luck with all of it, John and David!

[Sokramiketes]

First and specifically, I made no mention of any specific coupler having issues in the conditions I mentioned, nor could I comment on the TSC, operationally. To say that any coupler never has issues with what I identified is a stretch as well.

To your second point, the Protomate doesn’t even need a box or lid if you look at the design long enough. The critical elements are the pivot post, its diameter and height, and the front edge relative to the post. A screw with a washer is enough to trap the coupler and spring, so it can integrate into just about any design.

Oh no, continue on and I wish you much success and many future variants. Just sharing what is important to me, and that’s a smaller coupler box.

[JMaurer1]

Any updates?

[Wolf N Works]

Any updates?

I was just wondering this as well.

[Lemosteam]

Confidential testing of the prototypes are underway.

Can’t rush the results and/or design iterations!

I will be showing soon all of the scenarios/parameters that will allow the coupler to be used with or without an MT coupler box.

[peteski]

If possible, it would be nice to have these come with their own slim coupler boxes (like the MTL 1023/1025).  Just a hint . . .