Rumors of Protomate’s demise are greatly exaggerated!

[Lemosteam]

@jugtown modeler , it is simply too soon to discuss production or availability timing, but your comment encourage me very much.

I have not thought about  a crowdsource at this point.  Recent similar events have left a bitter taste in many expectant form members mouths so I am leery. That would be a big risk. But I can tell you this, I would NEVER take the same approach as that person, and would have found a way to compensate 100% somehow, those individuals whom were shafted.

[Sokramiketes]

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

Doable yes.  On the fiddly and annoying spectrum for a moderate to large fleet couple option?  High up there...

[cjm413]

Doable yes.  On the fiddly and annoying spectrum for a moderate to large fleet couple option?  High up there...

Agree 100%

The Accumate coupler boxes that come with Atlas locomotives are much easier to use without the lid than the 1015 since they are not designed to have the lid snap into place. Off the top of my head, I believe this is also applicable to the McHenry coupler boxes from Athearn

Of course, the use of either one is contingent on not using 1015 coupler shanks.

[learmoia]

Agree 100%

The Accumate coupler boxes that come with Atlas locomotives are much easier to use without the lid than the 1015 since they are not designed to have the lid snap into place

Seriously?... Never thought of trimming the 'snap on' clip to be flush with the top of the box... 

The only boxes that don't work is where the centering tube is part of the lid.

[cjm413]

Seriously?... Never thought of trimming the 'snap on' clip to be flush with the top of the box... 

The only boxes that don't work is where the centering tube is part of the lid.

Working smarter > working harder.

In addition to saving myself some unnecessary work, leaving the 1015 boxes alone allows me to derive the benefit of a coupler box that snaps into place on applications where the lid is needed, e.g. Atlas locomotive pilots, and in some cases, as a substitute for the 2004 coupler box that otherwise needs the lid "welded" in place....which in turn, frees up a thinner 2004 box that becomes useful when the thickness of the 1015 box is a problem...

For those that don't mind Accumates (or McHenry couplers), these coupler boxes are the gift that keeps on giving.

[NSEGeorge]

For those that were wondering- the MicroTrains Line stickers on the boxes were required by the OEM license from MTL. We were happy to do it at deLuxe, as at the time, it was a good way to explain the increase in cost over the rapido-equipped trucks that we OEM'd from Atlas. At that time, Rapidos were still popular in the market, and the journey to body mount was just beginning.

If you will remember, we originally tooled the Woodchip car with a "pigpen" for a 1023 to encourage body mounting, and to take advantage of the full end of the car. We learned really quickly to mod the tooling to make it easier for truck mount couplers to work. You would think we learned from that, but no.  . With the twin tub Bethgon, we originally tooled it with half of a 1015 in the floor. Again, the truck mount contingent told us to remove it, and quickly.

It is a wonderful thing to see all of the development of proto appearing couplers and true body mount enthusiasm.

[peteski]

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

Unless someone has 5" radius curves, I don't think insufficient rotation is a problem in N scale. 

Oh, you probably mean for body-mounted couplers?

[peteski]

For those that were wondering- the MicroTrains Line stickers on the boxes were required by the OEM license from MTL. We were happy to do it at deLuxe, as at the time, it was a good way to explain the increase in cost over the rapido-equipped trucks that we OEM'd from Atlas. At that time, Rapidos were still popular in the market, and the journey to body mount was just beginning.

Thanks for chiming in George, but that still leaves me confused.

OEM License?  To me that would imply that MTL gave permission to the licensee to manufacture and use clones of the ML couplers. But in my experence, the gold sticker indicates that the model is equipped not with clones, but with the genuine precision-molded flash-free MTL couplers.

Plus, I would have thought that licensing would have no longer been needed when the MTL patents expired, yet I see those gold stickers on fairly recent models (like that BLI loco I mentioned).

[Lemosteam]

Unless someone has 5" radius curves, I don't think insufficient rotation is a problem in N scale. 

Oh, you probably mean for body-mounted couplers?

Winner winner chicken dinner. This still is the Protomate thread right?  

[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).

John, the above drawing does not show a possibility for the spring to be installed behind the pivot post.  So there is now a revised version which will allow for the spring to be located in front or behind the pivot post?

Also, if the spring's loop diameter is not tightly controlled (it is made slightly larger), or the pivot hole in the shanks is larger (introducing fore and aft play), the coupler will not center properly - it will be allowed to freely swing to the sides (which will also allow the coupler to open possibly indicing unscheduled uncoupling.

[NSEGeorge]

Peteski-  The license was not a manufacturing license, but a 'use' license. When a manufacturer purchased bulk trucks for use in a resale product, MTL required a sticker that they provided to be placed on the package. I haven't asked Eric lately if that is still the case that it is required, or now simply suggested.

Since their patents have expired, I suspect that one could indeed manufacture without penalty, but it is an expensive thing to tool a full range of trucks. Since deLuxe manufactured cars from several eras and requiring several different styles, it was more expedient to go OEM from MTL and from Atlas. It was an economic decision that allowed us to keep our money active in new project tooling rather than tooling trucks, couplers and wheels. If we had it to do all over again, we'd push for body mount harder. I think we were about 2 years too early.

[peteski]

Peteski-  The license was not a manufacturing license, but a 'use' license. When a manufacturer purchased bulk trucks for use in a resale product, MTL required a sticker that they provided to be placed on the package. I haven't asked Eric lately if that is still the case that it is required, or now simply suggested.

Since their patents have expired, I suspect that one could indeed manufacture without penalty, but it is an expensive thing to tool a full range of trucks. Since deLuxe manufactured cars from several eras and requiring several different styles, it was more expedient to go OEM from MTL and from Atlas. It was an economic decision that allowed us to keep our money active in new project tooling rather than tooling trucks, couplers and wheels. If we had it to do all over again, we'd push for body mount harder. I think we were about 2 years too early.

Thanks for the clarification George.

As for the clones/knockoffs,  I have seen at least couple of those.  They look almost identical to MTL. What gives them away is the rougher surface finish and some flash at the mold partying lines.  Basically they not as well made at MTL couplers are.

[Sokramiketes]

Also, if the spring's loop diameter is not tightly controlled (it is made slightly larger), or the pivot hole in the shanks is larger (introducing fore and aft play), the coupler will not center properly - it will be allowed to freely swing to the sides (which will also allow the coupler to open possibly indicing unscheduled uncoupling.

This, combined with the shorter "thumb" than a typical N scale coupler, could cause uncoupling issues.  Not so much in the straight pulling around a test loop of track, but an electrical short causing an abrupt stop and go bump, or poor train handling by an operator or some other jostling back and forth. 

Something to watch for in testing, anyway.  Probably solvable.

[ednadolski]

This still is the Protomate thread right?  

You're asking that, knowing that this is TRW?

Ed

[Lemosteam]

You're asking that, knowing that this is TRW?

Ed

I know, right??