N-Possible Coupler Announcement (Nashville 2022)

[jagged ben]

When they finally come available, I want to get a whole train set up with them and test them on the club layout.  That has trackwork that is "challenging", to use a euphemism.

This.  Our layout is all hand laid turnouts (a hundred or more) which are of quite varying quality but almost all serviceable as long as you don't try to back a string of 14 autoracks with truck mounted couplers through them.  It's not lack of skill that stops me from tearing up ballasted track to rebuild them all, it's an immense lack of time.  The comparative time to replace couplers to try to get a performance increase is a lot less. 

[turbowhiz]

Again, thanks for the clarification. But in defense of the MTL couplers, in my decades if using them they have never uncoupled under buff condition through curves or s-curves.   Kato?  Quite often, going through the same curves.

I also realized that I made a mistake in my original message. I meant to say "when the coupler swings to the right, the thumb stays in a closed position" keeping the other coupler coupled through s-curves under buff.  That's what happens  when I don't have the actual coupler at hand while writing my message.  So no, I wasn't talking about the loop and the metal trip pin, but about the tiny posts in upper and lower shank halves riding in the slots in the coupler box.  That is the MTL's "magic", which keeps the coupler closed during normal operation. Only when the trip pin is pulled to the outside, the thumb will open as the coupler swings to the left.

I'm not  planning on using your couplers, but I'll most certainly buy a pair to check them out.

There is nothing "magic" in terms of how the split shank slinky style mechanical design works. With all due respect, it doesn't work at all in the way you describe: "Only when the trip pin is pulled to the outside, the thumb will open as the coupler swings to the left".  The cam pins, in either forward or reverse slinky versions function in the same manner, and they do absolutely nothing at all to keep the shanks together when the coupler is pulled in either the thumb or knuckle direction. In both directions, either the knuckle or thumb, the respective part is free to move independently of its counterpart to the limits of the trip pin interconnect. No magic.

However, the reliance on cam pins, not even counting the slinky Achilles heel of that design, ensures that any number of installation scenarios are complex or impossible.

I already explained the Kato coupler design flaw with respect to thumb travel. To be honest, I can trigger it, but I've not used enough Kato couplers to encounter it "in the wild" so to speak. I found, at least with their well cars, that the craptacular design of truck mounting ensured derailments ALWAYS when reversing that I never found uncoupling to be a problem. That said, the thumb travel issue can totally cause problems when under draft too, so maybe that has been your experience.

As numerous others have also confirmed, traditional MTL uncouple under buff + corner scenarios. You must not reverse trains in corners with any degree of frequency to never encounter this problem, or maybe you only have short shank truck mounted MTL couplers. I can demonstrate this trait with perfect reliability with any number of pieces of rolling stock, including lots of OEM MTL. I don't find this to be a be an issue with short truck mount couplers, but the autorack design (which is extremely unreliable under buff even on generous corners!) is very unreliable. This issue extremely prevalent on body mounted installations, particularly when long shank 1016's are used, but happens with 1015 style body mounts too.

Be careful. If you buy some of my couplers, you might have to eat your words. Fair warning! That said, if you have not uncovered the flaws in the traditional design with your operating use cases, don't mind slink and you're good with the appearance, then party on. I've never said these are for everyone; But they are superior to the incumbency in every way. And I've worked super hard to make sure their as accessible as possible, so ultimately they can help mature and grow the scale, for everyone, not just the hardcore prototype types. I think everyone can appreciate better operating, better looking couplers.

[peteski]

Well, we obviously have different understanding of MTL split shank cams and how they work when the coupler swings to the sides.  My problem is that not being a native English speaker (or a mechanical engineer), I sometimes lack proper words to describe my thoughts.

As far as eating my words, I never stated that the N-Possible coupler would have problems with unscheduled uncoupling. I was simply asking how you keep the "thumb" part from opening under buff condition when the couplers swings to the right while traversing S-curves.  But I could try crunching them in my teeth to see how robust they are. 

[learmoia]

Absolutely! The patent proce$$ takes a quite a while; I'm just entering the regular phase now. I sincerely hope that I never need to explore the litigation side of the hobby, but if that's where people take me then I'll go there. I'm firmly of the opinion that this design is a true manifestation of the "Why didn't I think of that!" definition of a good patent idea.

Good to hear... knowing that the couplers are 3d printed (and even if they are not.) they are easy to reproduce, as long as it's for personal use - fine, but it's an important protection from others selling.

I recall a story, that the reason Rapido couplers became the standard back in the late 1960s and early 1970s was they were willing to license the patent to mfgs and  Micro-Trains was not.

Hopefully your open to OEM production or licensing agreements to other MFGs.  Either using your coupler or an MTL compatible head with your centering/closing mechanism.

~Ian

[robertjohndavis]

But they are superior to the incumbency in every way. And I've worked super hard to make sure they’re as accessible as possible, so ultimately they can help mature and grow the scale, for everyone, not just the hardcore prototype types. I think everyone can appreciate better operating, better looking couplers.

I appreciate the effort you have made to explain your research and the science behind your approach. It’s great to see that level of focus in our hobby.

Helping the hobby “mature and grow” is the greatest contribution any manufacturer can make. Some people will embrace the change, some will wait cautiously and others won’t partake. Same thing happened with DCC. Same thing happened with sound.

But in the end, it’s the inventors and the risk takers that create progress.

And the beautiful thing is, for those who love the status quo (or even the status quo of 50 years ago when N scale was the most frustrating part of the model railroad universe) that can still be practiced and there’s no one to say it’s satisfying or not other than the person doing it.

[chessie system fan]

If I were Micro Trains, I'd be buying you out as quickly as possible.

[turbowhiz]

As far as eating my words, I never stated that the N-Possible coupler would have problems with unscheduled uncoupling. I was simply asking how you keep the "thumb" part from opening under buff condition when the couplers swings to the right while traversing S-curves.  But I could try crunching them in my teeth to see how robust they are. 

No no no!! Please don’t try to eat my couplers, despite their satisfying crunch and stiff resiny aftertaste. Dammit, I’d better add that to the instructions just in case.

I was referring to that fact that you don’t have any plans to use my couplers… you might just decide that after trying a set you will want to go all in!

The theory of operation with respect to how the couplers stay together in various scenarios is the same as any other split shank coupler including the MTL.

[peteski]

No no no!! Please don’t try to eat my couplers, despite their satisfying crunch and stiff resiny aftertaste. Dammit, I’d better add that to the instructions just in case.

LOL!  No, don't add those silly disclaimers, other than a typical "small parts"warning.  That "don't eat" thing would be something Jason@Rapido Trains woudl put in their manuals. Dont' be like Jason!  While I have a sense of humor, IMO Rapido sometimes goes overboard in with the cute silly stuff.

I was referring to that fact that you don’t have any plans to use my couplers… you might just decide that after trying a set you will want to go all in!

Well, while I'm a naturally curious person and like to experiment, converting my N scale fleet is a non-starter for various reasons.  But I will certainly buy a pair or two to check them out.

[thomasjmdavis]

I recall a story, that the reason Rapido couplers became the standard back in the late 1960s and early 1970s was they were willing to license the patent to mfgs and  Micro-Trains was not.

With all due respect to whoever told you that story... until the late 1960s, there were NO Kadee Micro-trains couplers in N scale.  My recollection (yes, I am that old- I was reading MR and RMC in 1968) from the time was that a few folks experimented with couplers intended for HOn3 prior to the introduction of the N scale product (1968?) at which time EVERY single car being offered by Atlas (made by Rivarossi), Aurora (Minitrix) and other importers came with a 'Rapido' coupler.  To have adopted MTL couplers would have required them to retool every truck they made to accept them.  No car was tooled for the MTL couplers until 1972, when they brought out their own line of freight cars.

So, the reason Rapido 'became' the standard was because it was already the standard.  EDIT: Micro-trains has since become the standard (I would put the date in the mid 1990s) in the USA, because it worked better than the alternative, and while we can nitpick it on size and details, it certainly looks and works more like a real coupler than the old 'Rapido' couplers.

On the N Possible coupler- I look forward to trying out a dozen on some of my passenger car kit building projects. I don't know if I'll have the budget or time or energy (see remark above about age) to refit all my cars, but passenger cars I could do one train at a time.  Although I do need to find a solution (maybe MTL Z couplers between the loco and head end?) to allow me to uncouple the locos under a train shed, if I succeed in my layout plans.

At this point in development, are the couplers inter-operable with some/most/all/any other brands of couplers?

Note- I re-edited after seeing Peteski's post below, and realizing I left out 'Micro-trains' in the sentence now in orange up above, and left out 'in the USA'. Now, it hopefully reflects what I MEANT to say.

[peteski]

So, the reason Rapido 'became' the standard was because it was already the standard.  It has since become the standard (I would put the date in the mid 1990s), because it worked better than the alternative, and while we can nitpick it on size and details, it certainly looks and works more like a real coupler than the old 'Rapido' couplers.

Quoting from DKS' http://www.davidksmith.com/birth-of-n/chapter-2.htm

At any rate, by 1962 Arnold had totally reengineered the entire Rapido line: they bumped the published model scale to 1:160, the track gauge to 9 mm, and the voltage to 12 VDC. A year later, they adapted an automatic coupler design from Rokal, a leading manufacturer of TT Scale at the time, and, in a brilliant move—which was actually recommended by American consultant Ted Brandon—allowed other manufacturers to license their new coupler; thus the "Rapido coupler" soon became the worldwide de facto standard. Plus, Arnold helped establish a number of other standards—something larger scales were lacking—which in turn helped grow the market quickly. This is widely considered the birth of "true" N Scale, and the significance of the coupler's adoption by the industry cannot be overstated.

[robert3985]

...My recollection (yes, I am that old- I was reading MR and RMC in 1968)...

@thomasjmdavis - Thomas, you're just a young 'un. I was reading MR several years before January of 1961 when a photo article about a British 7mm proto-scale layout impressed me greatly.  I was 11 years old, and had already been impressed by photos in MR by John Allen.

In 1968, I was in my first year of college, and I hit 75 this year (2024).

Although I started out in HO scale in my youth, I graduated to N-scale sometime in the middle 1970's when I moved to Utah and had my model railroading passion re-kindled by the local Ntrak club's mall setups.

I remember well converting everything I had to Kadee N-scale couplers progressively over a few years, using transition cars so I could run both N-scale Kadees and Rapidos in the same trains.  I wasn't at all concerned about coupler compatibility, and was happy as I could be to get rid of every Rapido coupler on every car and engine that came into my possession.

As far as the N-Possible Couplers are concerned, compatibility with ANY other existing coupler is not even on my list of wants, much less any priority list that I have.

When they come out, and they live up to the claims, I'll be converting every N-scale engine and car that I have at the fastest rate that I can afford.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[wmcbride]

"I remember well converting everything I had to Kadee N-scale couplers progressively over a few years, using transition cars so I could run both N-scale Kadees and Rapidos in the same trains.  I wasn't at all concerned about coupler compatibility, and was happy as I could be to get rid of every Rapido coupler on every car and engine that came into my possession."

Likewise, that was my standard operation in the late 70s early 80s.

[Englewood]

Heh, I still have about a dozen cars with Rapido couplers that need converting. What am I waiting for?? I don't know.  The longer I wait, the more expensive it gets.

[jagged ben]

...
I remember well converting everything I had to Kadee N-scale couplers progressively over a few years, using transition cars so I could run both N-scale Kadees and Rapidos in the same trains.  I wasn't at all concerned about coupler compatibility, and was happy as I could be to get rid of every Rapido coupler on every car and engine that came into my possession. ...

When I did the same as a kid around 1990, it took me maybe one year, because I didn't have that much stuff.

As far as the N-Possible Couplers are concerned, compatibility with ANY other existing coupler is not even on my list of wants, much less any priority list that I have.

Well, I'm hoping that there is some compatability, because now I have sooo much stuff.      But I'm also planning on getting what I get and not getting upset. 

[Maletrain]

@turbowhiz , are you planning to be at the Amhurst show in Springfield in January?  Have you considered doing a "clinic' at the Thursday/Friday pre-show sessions at the Sheraton before the show?