N-Possible Coupler Announcement (Nashville 2022)

[robert3985]

This is good news!  Although compatibility may be high on some N-scale modelers' lists, it isn't on mine.  I, frankly don't give a rat's weenie if they drop into various coupler boxes because coupler boxes are part of the it-doesnt't-look-prototypical problem.

Take the Micro Trains TSC's as a prime example of that.  Yeah, the coupler looks pretty good, functions mostly as a dummy coupler because the coupling forces are too great for easy coupling...which is a design flaw, which should be fairly easy to fix...but does MTL fix it?  No.  I guess too much invested in the injection tool, which is both bad engineering and bad marketing.

I use 'em, but...I modify them, use a different, more prototypical looking coupler box, and the coupling force needed is almost where it should be...almost.  So, I'm pretty happy.

If these N-Possible Couplers look at least as good as the MTL TSC couplers, and will mate up with them, and their coupling function force is just a bit less than my modified TSC couplers, AND, if they would include as an option prototypical looking coupler boxes...now THAT would be exactly what I'm looking for...and maybe what a lot of other detail-oriented N-scalers are looking for too.

I'll definitely be looking for them come this Fall...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[dem34]

Going to give em a try anyway. And on compatibility...Eh. Plenty of TTX boxes I can make into cheater cars.

[signalmaintainer]

This was a welcome surprise in my inbox..

Mine too.

[Jbub]

If they are as good as implied, I hope he is gearing up for high production rates.

Agreed

[ednadolski]

It’s been a year since the initial unveiling of the N-Possible coupler, and I’m sure you are wondering just what has been happening.
 
I’m pleased to announce that development has progressed to the production phase now!

I expect to have product available this fall.

@turbowhiz  friendly bump.... any time frame/update/info you could share?

TIA,
Ed

[wmcbride]

This is good news!  Although compatibility may be high on some N-scale modelers' lists, it isn't on mine.  I, frankly don't give a rat's weenie if they drop into various coupler boxes because coupler boxes are part of the it-doesnt't-look-prototypical problem.

Take the Micro Trains TSC's as a prime example of that.  Yeah, the coupler looks pretty good, functions mostly as a dummy coupler because the coupling forces are too great for easy coupling...which is a design flaw, which should be fairly easy to fix...but does MTL fix it?  No.  I guess too much invested in the injection tool, which is both bad engineering and bad marketing.

I use 'em, but...I modify them, use a different, more prototypical looking coupler box, and the coupling force needed is almost where it should be...almost.  So, I'm pretty happy.

If these N-Possible Couplers look at least as good as the MTL TSC couplers, and will mate up with them, and their coupling function force is just a bit less than my modified TSC couplers, AND, if they would include as an option prototypical looking coupler boxes...now THAT would be exactly what I'm looking for...and maybe what a lot of other detail-oriented N-scalers are looking for too.

I'll definitely be looking for them come this Fall...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Bob, what coupler box have you made/are using with the TSC?

[Mdrzycimski]

Is N-Possible at the National Train Show this weekend?  That would be a great place to announce a release date.

[Maletrain]

Bump!

Any news, yet?  I thought we were expecting an announcement in September, and it is the now the end of October.

[turbowhiz]

Things are meaningfully progressing with the production of the N-Possible scale coupler, albeit a bit slower than I would have liked. I’m not going to be too specific here, but the production of these couplers isn’t “outsourced to China”. I’ve been focusing on the production of product rather than any marketing/outreach at the moment. I will say that I’ve issued my first PO for production tooling and parts last week, so it’s definitely happening! Still a little way to go before product is on shelves, but getting there.

The production form product design has come together really well. It’s better in every way than the prototypes I’ve publicly demonstrated. I’ve developed a sufficiently generic scale width box that will be ideal for many box replacement/truck mount to body mount conversions; It also comes with a separate top shim that expands the width into a 1015 top profile outline that remains hidden in most 1015/1016 box replacement scenarios. That said, I expect far more conversions to take the “factory box drop in” form though, as most modern production models come with some form of model integrated box. The adaptability to existing boxes I feel is by far the most important aspect of the production product, and something that I was a long way from when I first unveiled this in Nashville.

This time of year is significant; 3 years ago I first bought my first N scale models as an experiment, 2 years ago I first solved the “coupler problem” with my novel spring mechanism, and now I’m entering production with that idea refined into a commercially viable product. If you told me 3 years ago this is what I’d be doing I’d have said you’re crazy. But here I am putting in a whole lot of time and a whole lot more money into this venture, with a patent clock running. I’m highly motivated to have them on the market as quickly as I can. That said, quality comes first, I’m doing innovative things that are new, and tooling is massively expensive, so I’m not rushing anything. I can’t afford mistakes!

A little more patience please, I promise it will be worth the wait.

[sizemore]

These updates are appreciated I think many of us as well as myself are waiting in anticipation, it would be nice to have some kind of close-up media to add to the buzz.

The S.

[ednadolski]

Still a little way to go before product is on shelves, but getting there.

@turbowhiz  Nice!  Thanks for the update.  Believe me, all your efforts are highly appreciated 

Just to float the idea: in case you might be interested in beta or pre-production testers, early adopters, etc. please keep us eager  here in mind - I don't think you'll have much trouble finding volunteers, esp who can test under a variety of use cases

And by all means - take all the time you need, do not rush things.

Ed

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Things are meaningfully progressing with the production of the N-Possible scale coupler, albeit a bit slower than I would have liked. I’m not going to be too specific here, but the production of these couplers isn’t “outsourced to China”. I’ve been focusing on the production of product rather than any marketing/outreach at the moment. I will say that I’ve issued my first PO for production tooling and parts last week, so it’s definitely happening! Still a little way to go before product is on shelves, but getting there.

The production form product design has come together really well. It’s better in every way than the prototypes I’ve publicly demonstrated. I’ve developed a sufficiently generic scale width box that will be ideal for many box replacement/truck mount to body mount conversions; It also comes with a separate top shim that expands the width into a 1015 top profile outline that remains hidden in most 1015/1016 box replacement scenarios. That said, I expect far more conversions to take the “factory box drop in” form though, as most modern production models come with some form of model integrated box. The adaptability to existing boxes I feel is by far the most important aspect of the production product, and something that I was a long way from when I first unveiled this in Nashville.

This time of year is significant; 3 years ago I first bought my first N scale models as an experiment, 2 years ago I first solved the “coupler problem” with my novel spring mechanism, and now I’m entering production with that idea refined into a commercially viable product. If you told me 3 years ago this is what I’d be doing I’d have said you’re crazy. But here I am putting in a whole lot of time and a whole lot more money into this venture, with a patent clock running. I’m highly motivated to have them on the market as quickly as I can. That said, quality comes first, I’m doing innovative things that are new, and tooling is massively expensive, so I’m not rushing anything. I can’t afford mistakes!

A little more patience please, I promise it will be worth the wait.

I am on board with replacing couplers, but a few things need to happen for this:
1. Drop-in replacements for the 1015 and 2004 in both short and medium shanks.
2. Drop in for the 1015 style box used by Atlas, Atheran, and others that do not feature the pin holes. Again, this needs to be available in short and medium shank lengths.
3. This absolutely essential: cheap bulk pricing. This will be the 3rd or 4th time I have changed couplers out on some cars. I have 1300 cars and 260 engines. That is a lot of couplers.

[Bill H]

FWIW, the Page 12 of the Dec MR has a notice of a new "Very Real Knuckle Coupler" from Jacksonville Terminal Company...

[u18b]

Daniel……

4.   No slinky effect.

[turbowhiz]

I am on board with replacing couplers, but a few things need to happen for this:
1. Drop-in replacements for the 1015 and 2004 in both short and medium shanks.
2. Drop in for the 1015 style box used by Atlas, Atheran, and others that do not feature the pin holes. Again, this needs to be available in short and medium shank lengths.
3. This absolutely essential: cheap bulk pricing. This will be the 3rd or 4th time I have changed couplers out on some cars. I have 1300 cars and 260 engines. That is a lot of couplers.

TLDR; Your list is very effectively covered. I hope you buy lots of couplers! 😊

The detailed version:

1. Drop-in replacements for the 1015 and 2004 in both short and medium shanks.

1015 short (short shank N-Possible length) and 1016 medium (long shank N-Possible length) drop ins at launch. You can use the actual MTL box, or if you’re in a box replacement scenario, the N-Possible box is likely a better bet since it will look WAY better. Locomotives however are mostly better to use either their factory box or a MTL box, with the exception of the Kato 2004 style offset shank type scenarios, which the N-Possible box accommodates a correct height with.

I will have a medium shank length as well, although maybe not at launch. It comes in handy particularly when OEM’s were trying to improve the look of their models coupled distance by setting back the overscale coupler.

No offset shanks are on my scale coupler roadmap, as they really don’t align to the scale coupler concept. That said, 2004 type scenarios are easily accommodated by omitting the top half of the box. Since I don’t need slots, I don’t need a box top to accommodate them either, and with the box top eliminated your centered shank is now at the correct height. MTL cabooses come to mind here, but I’m sure there are lots of other scenarios. So, in theory at least, you should never need them.

2. Drop in for the 1015 style box used by Atlas, Atheran, and others that do not feature the pin holes. Again, this needs to be available in short and medium shank lengths.

You will be able to drop in N-Possible couplers in boxes that don’t take MTL couplers, such as Athearn. No pin holes, the N-Possible mechanism is novel. It mechanically works like no other coupler ever before has.

The fact that you can easily install them into basically any existing factory box is honestly the “key functionality” I had to solve for before I considered this whole venture commercially viable, and it’s something none of my competition can do. They’re significantly easier to install then traditional MTL couplers as well.

Now if all this sounds way too good to be true, here are the two main considerations:

OEM integrated boxes are all over the map with respect to their dimensions. There is a box width specific component needed, and therefore couplers will be sold in box width specific versions. The actual couplers are all the same, but the adapter part isn’t, and its too expensive/wasteful to include multiple adapter widths with the couplers. I will be offering an adapter only SKU which includes multiples of all of the adapter sizes, so one can experiment/adjust in the event you bought couplers with the wrong size adapters.

As well, I need more space behind the pivot post then a 1015 does. MTL boxes themselves don’t have a back, so I drop right in there, so most separate box scenarios are clean. In most cases integrated boxes, especially ones that come with OEM plastic spring couplers already have loads of rear clearance. Perfect drop in compatibility there as well. However, in some integrated box scenarios that use 1015/clones and a closed box back near the post one will need to find some clearance (+~0.025”) behind the post. This is typically very easy to accomplish. In my sample set of ~50 odd unique factory integrated box models (as in no separate replaceable box assembly) 65% are perfect drop ins with no model modification at all, 32% are easily adaptable by finding space behind the post (i.e., cut the box back out), and only 3% were more challenging (i.e., you need some modeling skills to tackle it. Doable for sure, but not super simple).

3. This absolutely essential: cheap bulk pricing. This will be the 3rd or 4th time I have changed couplers out on some cars. I have 1300 cars and 260 engines. That is a lot of couplers.

I’ll be coming up with some form of bulk packaging for sure. Probably not day 1 so I don’t drown in a whole lot of SKU’s, and I figure people are going to want to do some of their own experimentation before going “all in” so to speak, but it’s definitely on the roadmap especially once I get a feel for what combinations are the most popular.