Rumors of Protomate’s demise are greatly exaggerated!

[Lemosteam]

Would the Z-sized version still be compatible with the other N-scale couplers?   If yes then is there any other intrinsic benefit to having the larger N-scale size, or does the Z-size serve both scales equally well?

Granted, that seems like a pretty big 'if', but I figured I'd ask anyways.

Ed

@ednadolski Although I have not studied that in CAD just yet, it is doubtful, as the N version mates well with most if not all brands in N (see images). A reduced knuckle for Z may not even be able to mate with the 905, much less any of the N couplers, depending on how much it can be reduced in size.

[Maletrain]

@ednadolski Although I have not studied that in CAD just yet, it is doubtful, as the N version mates well with most if not all brands in N (see images). A reduced knuckle for Z may not even be able to mate with the 905, much less any of the N couplers, depending on how much it can be reduced in size.

I think the current size is worthy of development and production, even if not scale size.  It certainly looks better, even somewhat oversized.  And it has no slinky effect!

But, if a "Z scale" or "true N scale" version could be made to work, I would definitely prefer those, even if they would mate only with themselves.  And, I think they would sell well enough to be commercially viable.  There was certainly a lot of interest, and some adopters, for the MTL TSC, even though it was not compatible with anything else.  If it had worked well enough, it would probably have had a lot of adopters.  A Z scale/true N scale Protomate looks like it has everything the MTL TSC has, so it should sell much better if it can be made to work much better.  I am with Robert3985 on compatibility - just make transition cars as needed.  The other factors are more important to me.

[ednadolski]

@ednadolski Although I have not studied that in CAD just yet, it is doubtful, as the N version mates well with most if not all brands in N (see images). A reduced knuckle for Z may not even be able to mate with the 905, much less any of the N couplers, depending on how much it can be reduced in size.

Thanks @Lemosteam, I'm glad to understand the compatibility picture even tho I'm of the same mind as @robert3985 and wouldn't find it a compelling requirement for myself.   

For compatibility it seems to me that the MT's would be a top priority by far, and the rest would constitute a fairly small bucket of 'others'.  In particular, it seems that non-operating couplers like Unimates or RCs would be of minimal interest  (are there really that many potential Protomate buyers who care about those?), while I am not sure where say Katos would fit on that spectrum.

If the intent is to some day convince manufacturers to include the Protomate with their rolling stock, then I can see compatibility as being essential.  To play devil's advocate on that point, it doesn't seem that convincing manufacturers would be an easy lift even if Protomate does turn out to be a better mousetrap:  witness Kato, Scale Trains, Atlas, Athearn et. al. who seem to want to roll their own no matter what (and they are already invested in continuing on that path).  Frankly, I'm not sure that's an effort that I would ever take on myself - but more power to anyone who might.

For a PMZ to be compatible with the MT905, I also wonder if that is a big enough bucket to make it worthwhile to consider changing (compromising?) the design.  Perhaps the lion's share of the market for PMZs would actually be N-scalers wanting a smaller, non-slinky coupler that operates well and does not need a disproportionately large coupler box...?

Modelers wanting to get rid of the slinky are still faced with an all-or-nothing, since any cars in a train with the MTs (either N or Z scales) are still going to slink no matter how many other cars in the train are equipped with Protomates (and the slinky still will 'ripple' thru those non-MT cars to some degree, at least the free-rolling ones).   In that case I'd likely be among the hold outs for the smaller coupler, since I would not want to convert twice (once to get rid of the slinky, and then again to get the smaller coupler), even if it means waiting (a lot?) longer for the smaller coupler.

WRT the coupler box size, this should be considered carefully, as in some cases it could be as much (perhaps even more) of a barrier to adoption as it is an enabler.   Witness the MT TSC.  I'm not sure where to find any reliable data on that one.

One last (random?) thought on compatibility:  the data on that which @DKS cites on his webpage is now on the order of +10 years old, and with more modern-day offerings like the STs, MT-TSC, etc. I just wonder how much that might have changed?   

Ed

[learmoia]

For those who want a Operational 'Scale' Protomate Coupler.. is it worth considering compatibility with other non scale couplers (beyond compatibility MT's TSC)?

For that matter.. with the regular size protomate.. is it really worth focusing on cross compatibility as sacrifice for visual design and functionality.

In my mind.. when choosing a coupler standard other than 'just stick with Micro-Trains', the LAST thing on my list is compatibility with other couplers.

Easy replacement installs on existing boxes is stop on my list, and it looks like you have that covered.  (For me, it was a HUGE disappointment with TCS)

Next thing is easy body mount options.. (Hoppers, Tanks, extended draft gear)

~Ian

[mmagliaro]

I just want to pipe in and make sure anybody reading this thread realizes that "Max's Black Juice" isn't made by me.
It's NeoLube.  I just bought a few gallons of the stuff and then repackaged and distributed it so people could get it cheaper than
the hobby stores sell it.
I'm watching this coupler with interest.  Not only does it look more like a real coupler in a nice size, the coupler *box* is significantly shorter than even the MTL Z from what I can see.  That would make it killer for steam loco pilots where there is often no room for the box if you want the pilot truck up in the correct position.

[peteski]

With all this discussion about making a smaller (or scale-size) version available, and that it would a viable venture, I would *REALLY* like to know the percentage of N scale modelers who currently use the MTL true-size couplers (or even MTL 905 and LEZ couplers for that matter) for all their N scale models.  I suspect that even combining all 3 of those couplers, the percentage of modelers using those woudl be less than 1% of the N scale modelers.  Think of all the effort involved in the complete conversion of the rolling stock. The average modelers (which makes up a large percentage of the total) does not want to get into such a conversion of their existing rolling stock, and having to to that to all additional rolling stock they will purchase in the future).

By the same token, I woudl really like to know the percentage of H0 modelers using some prototype size coupler, like Sargent (I don't even know if there are others).  Again, I think the percentage will be small, even though the coupler conversion is probably easier in H0, plus in the larger H0 scale the scale-size couplers will be more reliable (since they are larger than scale-size N scale coupler).

From my perspective, the "true-scale, incompatible with others coupler" crowd is simply a very vocal, but small minority.

[wm3798]

And I'm totally skewing the numbers in the wrong direction...


@peteski I agree with your premise.  There are modelers who strive for extreme prototype accuracy, modelers who strive for operational reliability for a large ops-oriented layout, and modelers who just want to run trains.  Pick two.  You're rarely going to have all three in the same guy.  Throw the concept of a modeling budget, and you have a fourth bumper that keeps us in our lanes.

Personally, when I had the big ops oriented layout, uber proto fidelity didn't matter nearly as much as reliability.  Of course, back then, the only real option was to go to Z branded 905s and the like.  But when everything I had worked (more or less) without the additional expenditure and the time required to convert literally hundreds of pieces of rolling stock, even that was a stretch.

When I look at @Chris333 's work, or even @davefoxx , I see small layouts where the attention can be focused on the more minute aspects of the scale models.  And as a result of the smaller layouts, the fleets are notably more manageable, and the scope of the operation more limited, so the investment in the mechanics that look fantastic is worth it, because you can get to the return much sooner.

So are hyper detailed, functional couplers for everyone?  No.  Are they then the purview of a fringe element?  I don't think so either.  People look for their niches in any hobby.  I know guys who have carved hundreds of duck decoys, but have never gone hunting.  As a hobby it's whatever floats your boat.  Is there enough of a market to produce these with any kind of margin?  Anybody's guess, but I suspect there probably is.  But I would have my doubts as to whether a major manufacturer stops everything they're doing and changes their entire line over to something as delicate (and wonderful!) as Protomates.

I wish you well in the adventure of it.

Lee

[Maletrain]

To answer your question about who would buy them, I will if they work and are sold in bulk. 

I have been working up to trying electromagnetic and permanent magnetic uncoupling to see if I really want to go there, but have been using a pick in HO and N enough that it has really just become an interesting engineering investigation - I am willing to give up magnetic operations, and might even take the trip pins off many of my couplers because they just don't work on the front of a steam locomotive without sticking out like a (1:1) sore thumb on my 1:160 models.

I am probably going to change couplers on a lot of my Ahearn and Atlas models one way or the other because the coupled distance is so large.  I have been looking at TSCs and 905s because they are smaller, and would go with the TSCs if they worked without a lot of tinkering on each coupler, but have been thinking 905s is what I will probably decide to use, provided they stay coupled while slinkying about layouts.

While I would like the scale size Z Protomate best, I would buy the current size if the scale size does not look feasible to develop or market in a reasonable amount of time.  The current size looks smaller and less "model" than the various magnetic couplers.  They really don't look that big next to the 905s.

The Protomates would first go on the locos and cabeese, where the ends are always visible, and on the other rolling stock that I want to switch often.  With transition cars, I could keep running things with original MTLS that are used in blocks, which would be a lot of "through" trains that don't interact with my branch line to a large extent.  So, I could spend the rest of my life slowly converting many hundreds of cars - especially the ones that slinky too much, first, while doing my switching with the Protomates, even if I settled on a smaller version of the Protomate that is not compatible with anything else.

In addition to getting rid of the slinky effect and looking better, I think the real keys to Protomates selling at acceptable levels are:

1.  they have to stay coupled when running in trains,
2.  they have to work well for switching,
3.  they need to be reasonably easy to assemble,
4.  they need to have a small enough mounting box to make it easy to locate them on rolling stock without interfering with trucks.

As I said before, selling them unassembled seems like the best plan, because that avoids a lot of employee cost and does not seem to be an impediment to the types of customers who would want them, because assembly seems quite easy compared to MTLs N scale and 905 couplers, which are already on the market in unassembled as well as assembled form, even though they are much harder to deal with that the Protomates seem.



 

[Philip H]

I want operationally reliable as close to scale couplers as i can get.  I have a switching layout, so YMMV.

[ednadolski]

With all this discussion about making a smaller (or scale-size) version available, and that it would a viable venture, I would *REALLY* like to know the percentage of N scale modelers who currently use the MTL true-size couplers (or even MTL 905 and LEZ couplers for that matter) for all their N scale models.  I suspect that even combining all 3 of those couplers, the percentage of modelers using those woudl be less than 1% of the N scale modelers.  Think of all the effort involved in the complete conversion of the rolling stock. The average modelers (which makes up a large percentage of the total) does not want to get into such a conversion of their existing rolling stock, and having to to that to all additional rolling stock they will purchase in the future).

By the same token, I woudl really like to know the percentage of H0 modelers using some prototype size coupler, like Sargent (I don't even know if there are others).  Again, I think the percentage will be small, even though the coupler conversion is probably easier in H0, plus in the larger H0 scale the scale-size couplers will be more reliable (since they are larger than scale-size N scale coupler).

From my perspective, the "true-scale, incompatible with others coupler" crowd is simply a very vocal, but small minority.

Pot, meet kettle... 

If as you say, the large percentage of N-scalers is not interested in conversions in any case, then then a Protomate or any other new coupler is basically DOA as far as that discussion goes, and it all comes down to a matter of dueling niches.

Ed

[peteski]

Pot, meet kettle... 

If as you say, the large percentage of N-scalers is not interested in conversions in any case, then then a Protomate or any other new coupler is basically DOA as far as that discussion goes, and it all comes down to a matter of dueling niches.

Ed

Ok, so the thought here is that the Protomate would not be sold or licensed to N scale model manufacturers for use in their factory-made models (like Accumate couplers are), but sold only for conversions?  Hopefully there will be market large enough to make that a viable venture.  I guess I was thinking "too big".

[learmoia]

Responce to the TSC proved that there was a market... But someone needs to get in and dominate the market with a functional easy install coupler.

Testing the waters with another small fish in a tank trying to play with other small fish when everyone loves the big fish in the tank is a waste of time.

[peteski]

Responce to the TSC proved that there was a market... But someone needs to get in and dominate the market with a functional easy install coupler.

Do we really know how well it sold?

[ednadolski]

Ok, so the thought here is that the Protomate would not be sold or licensed to N scale model manufacturers for use in their factory-made models (like Accumate couplers are), but sold only for conversions?

JMHO, I think that even if one could demonstrate an essentially 'perfect' coupler (i.e, reliable, compatible, non-slinky, cost-effective, yada yada) it still would be a pretty uphill battle to get widespread adoption among manufacturers.  For one thing, they are already heavily invested in what they are already doing, and it is a lot easier (and frankly a sound business choice) for them to play wait-and-see than abandon their existing plans and take on any substantial (and arguably unnecessary) risks with their sales models.  Then there are the actual costs of adoption, in terms of up-front investment (tooling etc) as well as ongoing cost (licensing, etc.).  You'd need a good answer to the essential question: what's in this for them to make it worth the change?

This too is why I don't fully buy into the "must fit existing MT coupler boxes" notion.  Even if many or even most modelers list that as a top priority, it's actually much more of a hypothetical question if asked when no such coupler actually exists beyond some set of designs (as was the case some 10+ years ago), and so I question how many would actually step up and do the conversions.  As you say, there are plenty of (most?) existing modelers with a large installed base for whom the existing couplers are 'plenty good enough' (including folks for whom size, slinky, etc. are non-issues) and therefore have little motivation to migrate onto something else -- presuming even for arguments sake that a compatible box makes that easier.  (Consider a scenario:  how hard it would be to go to the membership of a medium or large N-scale club and announce that the club is updating its standards to include a different coupler, and everyone had some X amount of time to upgrade some Y% their rolling stock if they wanted to be compliant? Yet could that happen without mandate, majority approval, etc...?)

I'm not saying any of this is for better or worse, just that this looks like a quintessential chicken and egg situation to me. Unless and until that changes, it does seem that from a purely product perspective this is much more a matter of a specialty/niche item in search of a general application, and trying to be too many things to too many people will make it harder than it otherwise need to be.

ed

[jpec]

Well, now that the experts have all chimed in, it's clear that John may as well just quit while he's ahead. Clearly the ProtoMate is a non-starter, so why waste any more time on its development?