Rumors of Protomate’s demise are greatly exaggerated!

[nkalanaga]

Peteski:  on most cars, you don't need a shim to change 1015s to 1025s, or vice versa.  The 1015s I have include a shim, but without that, they mount at 0.279 inches, only 0.004 inches (a little over half an N scale inch) higher than the 1025s. I consider them interchangeable as far as mounting height.

The reason for asking for compatible boxes is for all of us with dozens, if not hundreds, of cars that already have MT couplers.  I was using 1025s before the 1015s were thought of, and I imagine there are still a lot of them on other layouts.  Since the mounting height is almost identical, one box would replace both, as long as the mounting hole is in the right place.

[jugtown modeler]

I have no input whatsoever on the intricacies of design and engineering the Protomate. Just anxious to see it come to fruition.

With the (original) original announcement, I stopped buying MTL couplers with the hopes of this improved product making its way to market. Later, and under the impression that it had run into roadblocks, I had once again been buying up MTL for eventual replacement for consistency, etc. Really glad to hear that this is moving forward with an expectation of a better looking and performing product.

Is there an estimate of a timeline for this yet?
Should I consider selling off a stockpile of MTL couplers before the Protomate makes them obsolete or is it a few years off still?

If there is crowdfunding as a startup source, I would be interested. 

Appreciate all that has gone into and all that is going into this to further our railroading enjoyment. Thanks @DKS, @Lemosteam and anyone else involved.

[ednadolski]

I believe that Frank Sergent has now released the patent (and the CAD files)

Looks like the download link is still active:  http://www.sergentengineering.com/3DFiles/3DModels.zip

[Sokramiketes]

I'm getting into nitty gritty tooling comments...

The difference I see in appearance on the Goemon coupler is that the movable knuckle piece on the prototype couple is captured by molding a relief vertically.  This is that very front face of the coupler.  It's a movable piece on the prototype, as that's the only thing that opens.

In N scale we need the whole coupler to open from a pivot much farther back.  But what Goemon did is capture the look of the separate knuckle on the prototype.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Sokramiketes]

Peteski:  on most cars, you don't need a shim to change 1015s to 1025s, or vice versa.  The 1015s I have include a shim, but without that, they mount at 0.279 inches, only 0.004 inches (a little over half an N scale inch) higher than the 1025s. I consider them interchangeable as far as mounting height.

The reason for asking for compatible boxes is for all of us with dozens, if not hundreds, of cars that already have MT couplers.  I was using 1025s before the 1015s were thought of, and I imagine there are still a lot of them on other layouts.  Since the mounting height is almost identical, one box would replace both, as long as the mounting hole is in the right place.

My issue with the 1015/1025 mounting height is that it perpetuates the need to have the cars ride high.

The 903 Z scale coupler box is useful because you can lower the car and not have to inset the coupler mounting height to compensate.  1015/1023 is not useful to me, since I want to drop the cars at the same time. 

[ednadolski]

What is unusual is that some of MTL's competitors use genuine MTL couplers in their models, and they even advertise that fact.

Just speculating, perhaps they for some reason were unwilling or unable to roll their own, and/or perhaps there were some favorable OEM/licensing terms.   There is also some perception of value in a product if it can claim some form of authenticity over a competitor.   So I would tout it too

Ed

[cjm413]

My issue with the 1015/1025 mounting height is that it perpetuates the need to have the cars ride high.

The 903 Z scale coupler box is useful because you can lower the car and not have to inset the coupler mounting height to compensate.  1015/1023 is not useful to me, since I want to drop the cars at the same time.

Given these couplers are similar to Accumates or McHenry couplers in that they don't need a traditional coupler box to work, the need for an inset coupler mounting height can be negated by omitting the coupler box lid.

[learmoia]

Given these couplers are similar to Accumates or McHenry couplers in that they don't need a traditional coupler box to work, the need for an inset coupler mounting height can be negated by omitting the coupler box lid.

Any system where the coupler can function with only the "U" shaped part of the 'box' allowing you to mount the "U" box directly to the under frame of the car.

You can do it with micro trains and a 1015 box (more or less).. by trimming the upper centering nub on the coupler and trimming the center pin/hole on the box to be flush with the sides if needed.

~Ian

[peteski]

Given these couplers are similar to Accumates or McHenry couplers in that they don't need a traditional coupler box to work, the need for an inset coupler mounting height can be negated by omitting the coupler box lid.

ProtoMates do require a box. The centering spring ends have to rest on the side edges of the box for proper coupler action.

[Maletrain]

ProtoMates do require a box. The centering spring ends have to rest on the side edges of the box for proper coupler action.

True, but wouldn't a simple "U" bracket suffice, so no thickness between the top of the coupler arms and the bottom of the car?

[peteski]

True, but wouldn't a simple "U" bracket suffice, so no thickness between the top of the coupler arms and the bottom of the car?

Sure, anything that would hold the ends of the spring should work.

[cjm413]

Any system where the coupler can function with only the "U" shaped part of the 'box' allowing you to mount the "U" box directly to the under frame of the car.

You can do it with micro trains and a 1015 box (more or less).. by trimming the upper centering nub on the coupler and trimming the center pin/hole on the box to be flush with the sides if needed.

~Ian

It can be done with 1015's, but the spring makes it enough of a PITA where I'll use an Accumate instead

[Lemosteam]

ProtoMates do require a box. The centering spring ends have to rest on the side edges of the box for proper coupler action.

This is not a true statement. And I will prove this.

Again, as I stated up thread, there are only certain functional features that the Protomate requires. A pivot post of a specific diameter and height, a screw head larger than the post diameter, and two posts or a collar that the spring can react against, which can be on front of or behind the post (reverse the spring).

[peteski]

This is not a true statement. And I will prove this.

Again, as I stated up thread, there are only certain functional features that the Protomate requires. A pivot post of a specific diameter and height, a screw head larger than the post diameter, and two posts or a collar that the spring can react against, which can be on front of or behind the post (reverse the spring).

I understand John - thanks!  While a coupler box makes a convenient stop for the spring, it is not required.

[Lemosteam]

I understand John - thanks!  While a coupler box makes a convenient stop for the spring, it is not required.

Correct, also earlier versions of the design did not have reaction pins  behind the mounting post on the coupler halves.  The latest iteration will, for additional options installation options.

A person could also trim the box to simulate these features, leave the lid off and just use the screw to hold everything there.

IMHO the loss of the coupler box will allow for more truck rotation.