Rumors of Protomate’s demise are greatly exaggerated!

[Chris333]

How about test it and see if it works before changing the size?

[peteski]

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?

I'm all for a more realistic looking coupler, easily installed in MTL coupler box, compatible with other N scale knuckle couplers, and slink-free, even if it is oversize.   Protomate - bring it on!  But if it was not compatible with other knuckle couplers? Then it would be a on-starter for me.

[Lemosteam]

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?

All, I have no intention of quitting.

If it's not obvious, this is merely one of the first steps in a long prototype developmental phase, hence the FUD printings and manually wound springs, etc.

I started this thread at the risk of all prior and recent comments.  My job is to sift through all of them, and make the best decisions for the Protomate's goals. So rather than defend or retort, I'll just let the discussion continue, so long as it stays civil- all good designs must be critically approached.

Remember too that this forum is in fact a very limited scope of the MRR population, in the sense that we really have no real idea of who likes what. In fact, my Keystone Details products have proved this to me personally.  Things that I thought would be very popular are not, and others that I thought would not be popular are, and most certainly have not made me a millionaire.

I have been a mechanical designer in Product Development for 36 years, and while I am not discouraging an attempt at a scale size coupler for N (unless it infringes on the claims of the Protomate's patent, of course), I think it is functionally impossible at this stage of technology and materials.  The TSC fell prey to this IMHO with respect to the spring features that force folks to modify them for normal use. You see, prior to DKS contacting me, I was literally designing a scale sized coupler in CAD, and I simply could not see a path to a durable, functional design at that point.

That said, to have a working prototype at this time is beyond what I had thought could be done for even this size.  The delicacy of the functioning features are tiny to begin with.  Function and size aside, not only does the coupler have to work, it has to be able to withstand the loads of a train, and all of the dynamic conditions that come with that. 

In our scale track error is magnified dynamically.  For instance. a 0.020" rail difference at a joint is like making a train wheel travel over a 3.2" rock (where the rock will not move), or a vertical transition from an incline back to horizontal that is too quick (& vice-versa), could be enough to completely disengage two small couplers depending on car geometry, etc.

-There are few modelers that can make completely perfect track, and I am not one of them.

In all practicality, compatibility is king WRT to the market, and like @peteski said, we have no idea how many TSC are out there and likely never will, and that's OK.

I think that everything I have shown to date is a strong indication that Protomate can work.

As a curious designer, I will over time, investigate other avenues for the Protomate to follow down, but before that can even be a possibility, a rigorous prove-out of this design must occur.

Carry on.

[Maletrain]

I see the potential marketing path for some sort of Protomate coupler starting as a niche and gaining popularity so that it can eventually become an option for major manufacturers.  For that to happen, it has to (1) have the merits that appeal , and (2) have somebody who is willing to make an initial investment in the manufacturing process to be able to produce large quantities by injection molding to satisfy a niche market. 

So, my question is really whether that step to make injection molded parts is financially doable for a niche market.  It seems that MTL originally thought so when they produced the TSCs.  But, maybe they don't still think so.  But, maybe that is because they came out with a much less functional design than what the Protomate at least aspires to be.

So, at this point, I am not convinced that this just can't happen.  Glad Lemosteam is going to keep working on this.

[learmoia]

Just wait till everyone figures out all they need is a Photon S and some Neolube and they can make whatever size coupler they want.....

[wm3798]

Yes, my comment was in no way intended to dampen enthusiasm.
And without projects like this on the frontier, what progress would ever be made?
Consider that well into the first decade of the 21st Century, Atlas was still providing Rapidos as the standard coupler in their otherwise outstanding locomotive models.

Expand the scope to things like interior passenger car lighting, added on metal details, special lighting effects in locomotives (separate number board lights, ditch lights etc) and you can trace them all back to the crude wheel wipers and incandescent bulbs, progressively more delicate mouldings, and the dawn of DCC.  Someone had to want something better, and be the first to experiment.

There also had to be scoffers and close enough is good enough, which if you look at the sales of yellow beer vs. craft ales, it's obvious that the market overall can be pretty easily satisfied.  But prototype fidelity and customizing parts will always be an important part of model railroading, which still contains within it a high degree of craftsmanship and actual modeling.

The timely demise of MT's patent rights, and the advent of McHenrys, Accumates, etc. was the first leap.  And with all the other advances brought by laser cutting, 3D printing, and of course, high quality digital photography, information sharing, a better looking, functional and easily installed proto coupler is a logical next step.

It is a risky business to be the innovator, or even the improver, of a new item.  And I salute those willing to do the work.  But I'll still be over here in the corner flying my old stuff around in circles, and gleefully  accumulating more of it!

I suspect if the high detail bug ever bites me, I would shift my focus to a larger scale where such efforts are more readily available and apparent in the finished work, as has been demonstrated by @Dave V and @davefoxx .
Lee

[Maletrain]

Just wait till everyone figures out all they need is a Photon S and some Neolube and they can make whatever size coupler they want.....

Even if that were true, there would still be a lot of people who would buy the couplers instead of taking-on the task of setting up a 3D printer.

Even for those who would like to DIY the design, remember that Lemosteam is using Shapeways at this point because of dimensional control issues, so I don't expect just anybody with a 3D printer would be guaranteed success, even if they had Lemosteam's final design files.

And I don't think printed couplers dipped into Neolube are going to have the strength, durability or easy coupling of a Delrin coupler of the same shape.

And, don't forget the springs.  That was MTL's downfall with the TSCs, and something that Lemosteam is still working on.

[Mark5]

And without projects like this on the frontier, what progress would ever be made?

Agreed!

Consider that well into the first decade of the 21st Century, Atlas was still providing Rapidos as the standard coupler in their otherwise outstanding locomotive models.

Lee, Atlas Accumates are Y2K (2000) 

Mark

[chicken45]

Max said I could have all the black juice from the hose as long as I wore a blindfold. 

[wcfn100]

For the uninitiated.

I wonder if I could recreate that. 

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Jason

[ednadolski]

...  a 0.020" rail difference at a joint is like making a train wheel travel over a 3.2" rock (where the rock will not move), or a vertical transition from an incline back to horizontal that is too quick (& vice-versa), could be enough to completely disengage two small couplers depending on car geometry, etc.

-There are few modelers that can make completely perfect track, and I am not one of them.

A 0.020" track bump is actually more severe than force-fitting code 55 to code 70 rail without a transition joiner, yet few of us would expect our trains to perform reliably in that sort of scenario.  The relevant point here is that it's not the job of any coupler to mask issues with trackwork, geometry, or such. 'Perfect track' is hardly needed, otherwise we all should be buying cars with pizza cutter wheels because they sometimes hide problems with oversized frogs or poorly-fitting module joints.

Clearly the ProtoMate is a non-starter, so why waste any more time on its development?

The Protmate coupler is a great idea, and should be developed on its own merits without (shameless pun) being derailed over the size of the coupler box or other issues that are not really about how to make something that works well for its intended function.  (My own $0.02 is that it is probably easier in the long run to make it work first as a smaller size and then scale up into a larger one, rather than the reverse.)

Whether PM becomes a go-to coupler for most modelers is something only time can tell, meanwhile we be wary of over-burdening the idea with trying to address widespread adoption or other such factors out of the gate (esp. considering that we all seem to agree that we don't have much reliable info on what modelers and/or manufacturers might actually want).

Ed

[Lemosteam]

A 0.020" track bump is actually more severe than force-fitting code 55 to code 70 rail without a transition joiner, yet few of us would expect our trains to perform reliably in that sort of scenario.  The relevant point here is that it's not the job of any coupler to mask issues with trackwork, geometry, or such. 'Perfect track' is hardly needed, otherwise we all should be buying cars with pizza cutter wheels because they sometimes hide problems with oversized frogs or poorly-fitting module joints.

Ed

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.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

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.

Well... shelf couplers for all?

[Lemosteam]

Well... shelf couplers for all?

@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.

[Lemosteam]

Making tiny torsion springs!