MR announces new coupler from JTC

[Ike the BN Freak]

I may be in the minority but I would like to run 40 car trains with DPUs pushing the rear quarter to third.  I'm pretty sure if there isn't at least an inch or so of slack in the train that's going to cause problems on a curve somewhere.    1" over 40 cars works out to about 0.0125" of slack per coupler (0.025" per car) minimum.  Just kinda guessing here, maybe it doesn't have to be that much.  But if there isn't enough slack for that to work I'm not personally likely to be a convert to a different coupler, FWIW. 

This slack already exist with the play in the coupler between couplers. No model coupler couples as tight as a real one does

[ednadolski]

... I would like to run 40 car trains with DPUs pushing the rear quarter to third. 

IDK specifically about DPUs, but at least one of @turbowhiz 's demo videos shows a long train w/the N-possible couplers making a reverse move, so all the couplers are in compression.

I would sometimes try to speed-match the DPUs to run a bit slower than the lead consist, to try to keep the couplers mostly in tension.  It may or may not be beneficial to run the DPUs from a different throttle/address.   Another trick that some folks use for DPU operation is to 'derate' the pushers by removing one of the drive shafts, to reduce the chances of a derailment.

(It goes without saying, that with using things like long-overhang cars, arbitrarily sharp curvatures, improper weighting, and truck-mounted couplers, etc. that all bets are off anyways.)

Ed

[turbowhiz]

Yes, as evidenced by the fact that model trains have been around for decades and still do not have a generally accepted solution that works for most cases.

Just to raise the bar:  @turbowhiz  do you think your design could work as a scale-sized (or close) coupler in N scale, and/or as a Z scale coupler?

Ed

@ednadolski ,

Not quite sure what you mean by your question, my design has ALWAYS been a true to scale design. MTL TSC’s are genuinely scale too. And really truly scale, not “sorta kinda but actually not” scale like Kadee #58/158’s. My original TSC derived prototypes worked, and proved that my N-Possible spring design was viable in a scale coupler application. That said, they were far from perfect, and in no means commercially viable in their prototype form.

For production product I’ve set an extremely high bar for myself: My coupler needs to be demonstrably superior to the MTL benchmark (“no slinky” is a given. But that’s not nearly enough). Not just “as good”. Superior. And if it’s not superior, then I’m wasting my time. I’m finally there now (I think!). The pre-production testing is going very well so far.

I’m easily distracted, but I’ve resisted dabbling in Z scale so far. That said, I can’t imagine why it won’t work viably. My objective is to get couplers out the door rather than develop more, but it’s awfully tempting. That said, more than one HO scale modeler who’s seen it in action wants me to scale UP, so it’s quite possible that is where I go next if anywhere. There might be a market for a middle ground between Kadee and Sergent style couplers, I originally wrote it off but I’ve heard it more than a few times and really not very many people have seen my design in action.

Another question might be “can my spring mechanism accommodate overscale heads and magnetic uncoupling?”, to which the answer is absolutely, I built functional prototypes of that too. But I’m of the opinion we need a restart, and that massively overscale couplers really need to go to advance the scale. Anything traditional MTL compatible needs to be too fundamentally compromised to support that compatibly, at least for my own goals.

Everyone is going to have their own requirements of what’s important to them: Magnetic uncoupling, compatibility with existing couplers, wanting lots of slack (!?) etc. might be dealbreakers for some or many. There are other designs around, including the forthcoming VRK which if nothing else won’t slink. Seems to be conflicting information about how its sprung in this thread mind you…

[turbowhiz]

I have no idea what you mean by "wiggle jiggle" and whether it's something I would care about.  Curious if you can describe it better or show a video.

I'm developing my video/photo production capabilities. Its not a passion, so I'm likely going to need to do some outsourcing there.

I observed it most visibly with respect to the extra shank slack with the last car in a passenger train vibrating between slack and buff at scale speed of around 50-60 MPH.  They are Rapido LRC cars; Now those cars are needless to say a little special in the truck department, but mine are extremely well tuned and are very free rolling. But needless to say, it consistently happened. I've replaced those coupler/boxes with tighter ones, and that solved the issue. Given how many conversions/reconversions/reconversion reconversion/reconversion reconversions reconversions I've done and still need to do, I'm not going backwards!

[turbowhiz]

IDK specifically about DPUs, but at least one of @turbowhiz 's demo videos shows a long train w/the N-possible couplers making a reverse move, so all the couplers are in compression.

I would sometimes try to speed-match the DPUs to run a bit slower than the lead consist, to try to keep the couplers mostly in tension.  It may or may not be beneficial to run the DPUs from a different throttle/address.   Another trick that some folks use for DPU operation is to 'derate' the pushers by removing one of the drive shafts, to reduce the chances of a derailment.

(It goes without saying, that with using things like long-overhang cars, arbitrarily sharp curvatures, improper weighting, and truck-mounted couplers, etc. that all bets are off anyways.)

Ed

My goals are the same as your @jagged ben ; I’m a modern outline modeler, so DPU’s are a definite must.

I found a short video of my prototype coupler train running on the Free-moN in Nashville with DPU’s, which I’ve posted to my channel. Its nearly 40 cars. The entire train consisted of prototype N-Possible couplers, but things have developed a WHOLE LOT since then. Those locomotives are not all tuned at all for this, and are running together in a consist.

Need to up my photography/videography game, but I’m not quite there yet with all of the other crap needed to get this whole venture off the ground. But I have run a battery of tests, and results are honestly crazy impressive. I’ve even surprised myself… So stay tuned for that in the weeks to come.

The performance of low slack couplers (I’m counting the TSC and my own design here) is absolutely outstanding in all sorts of extremes absolutely impossible to achieve with any traditional coupler head design. The very few who have done any amount of larger train work with TSC’s will attest to this too. And any slack in the draft gear is entirely unnecessary and will just cause other undesirable behavior as I’ve mentioned. There is absolutely no operational need to read the slack in the train… You can sill read the strain on the couplers, there are subtle signs of it, but really, it’s a moot point.

My favorite test? Dead locomotives. I just put a dead locomotive(s) on the front of the train, and push from the back. You can mismatch the speeds THAT much. I can reliably push a mixed freight of 40 plus cars (and NOT a unit train of identical cars… That’s WAY easier than random car lengths, coupler shank lengths, car weights etc.) around my test layout including switches and add more dead locomotives until I reverse stringline cars over the outside of a 24” corner. Autoracks. Centerbeams. Intermodal cars. All in the same train. I’ve done so much dead locomotive testing that my kato ES-44’s (my favorite victims) have literally developed flat wheels.

Reading coupler slack in the train is entirely unnecessary with reliable couplers. In fact, it’s pretty boring to do helper or DPU operations.… You have to really do some crazy crap to have a problem.
 
A good test for couplers? See how well they transition from draft to buff and back to draft again on a corner. Traditional MTL couplers are very unreliable with that, particularly body mounted with longer cars on tighter corners, and autoracks are really bad too on wider corners. You won’t’ see this just pulling a train; You will see it reversing a train in corner and then pulling it again. And you will positively see it when you’re playing around with DPU’s or pushers. Put a corner on a crest of a steep grade, and then push a train through it and see what happens… The locomotive uncoupling problem with a power interruption you mention is most certainly a draft-buff-draft event.

The pre-production couplers in hand I’m going through a battery of tests similar to what I initially came up with when I first developed my design, and have added whole lot more interesting bits too.

But trust me, you will be shocked how well tight couplers work in these circumstances… Quality trackwork is honestly the only firm requirement.

[ednadolski]

@ednadolski ,
 my design has ALWAYS been a true to scale design.

Glad to hear this, thanks for clarifying.   Can't wait to give these a try! 

Ed

[Maletrain]

I am really looking forward to getting my hands on some of these couplers to do my own testing.

One of the issues for me is that my club layout has trackwork that does not at all resemble "quality work".  So, I am wondering if I can have trains with these couplers that I can take to my club, or if I will need to have 2 separate sets of trains to do finer scale modeling at home.

I did find that all of the trains except for a pair of my Scale Trains dash 9s do fine on the club layout.  But the Scale Trains locos frequently derailed at one point.  After looking for other causes, I checked the track gauge and found it is about a code 80 rail head width too narrow.  That on a downhill curve is too much for the scale trains flanges - but everything else goes through with no apparent trouble.  Of course, I need to fix that piece of track.  But, it is not the only place on the layout that is out of spec, or has abrupt vertical curves, etc.

I am hoping these Npossible couplers can handle most of what I can't easily fix on that club layout.

[garethashenden]

Need to up my photography/videography game, but I’m not quite there yet with all of the other crap needed to get this whole venture off the ground. But I have run a battery of tests, and results are honestly crazy impressive. I’ve even surprised myself… So stay tuned for that in the weeks to come.

If you're using a phone for video the first step is to make sure its capturing in the highest possible quality. From this video I don't think that's the case. Even my 3 year old iPhone 12 pro can do 4K/60fps. This combination, particularly the higher frame rate, makes N scale video better.

This not great video was filmed at 4K/60, but Youtube is only playing it back to me at 1080/60. But the higher frame rate helps make the car numbers readable.

[ednadolski]

One of the issues for me is that my club layout has trackwork that does not at all resemble "quality work".  So, I am wondering if I can have trains with these couplers that I can take to my club, or if I will need to have 2 separate sets of trains to do finer scale modeling at home.

Sounds to me like an opportunity/motivation to fix (or even rebuild, where necessary) the problematic areas of the club layout track.   Yes, that will have some challenges, but in the end everyone wins with improved trackwork that is up to spec.

Ed

[signalmaintainer]

@
Another question might be “can my spring mechanism accommodate overscale heads and magnetic uncoupling?”, to which the answer is absolutely, I built functional prototypes of that too. But I’m of the opinion we need a restart, and that massively overscale couplers really need to go to advance the scale. Anything traditional MTL compatible needs to be too fundamentally compromised to support that compatibly, at least for my own goals.

Everyone is going to have their own requirements of what’s important to them: Magnetic uncoupling, compatibility with existing couplers, wanting lots of slack (!?) etc. might be dealbreakers for some or many. There are other designs around, including the forthcoming VRK which if nothing else won’t slink. Seems to be conflicting information about how its sprung in this thread mind you…

My question is when is your product going to market? I've been wanting a reliable, realistic and functional N scale coupler for a few decades. Enough with the compromises that are on the market (MT, McHenry, Accumate, etc.). While the aforementioned a good products, they have shortcomings too. Yours might be the best coupler yet.

Signed,

Anxious on the Coast

[Maletrain]

Sounds to me like an opportunity/motivation to fix (or even rebuild, where necessary) the problematic areas of the club layout track.   Yes, that will have some challenges, but in the end everyone wins with improved trackwork that is up to spec.

Ed

Yes, I try to rebuild things that do not operate adequately.  But, I am not in a position to redo 34 years of work by others with varying degrees of skill and various ideas of what is important.  The club layout will never reach the quality level I want to achieve with my own work, and I am not about to spend the rest of my life on a futile effort.  The layout has reached a stage where operation is occurring and is expected.  Tearing it completely apart for a rebuild would not be tolerated, anyway.  So, it is an incremental process that will never reach "high quality" track work.

So, there will be a question about whether it can support operation with a new coupler or not.  I hope it can.  But, I think it is a realistic question for many people who take their equipment to different layouts.

[GaryHinshaw]

But trust me, you will be shocked how well tight couplers work in these circumstances… Quality trackwork is honestly the only firm requirement.

Waiting impatiently.  Quality track work is standing by. 

[ednadolski]

The club layout will never reach the quality level I want to achieve with my own work, and I am not about to spend the rest of my life on a futile effort.

Quite understandable.  Tho I wonder whether a group that is unable or uninterested in achieving something as fundamental as basic, reliable trackwork might regard any kind of new coupler as a non-starter.   Not much different, I suppose, than relying on pizza-cutter flanges to mask trackwork issues.

Ed

[peteski]

Quite understandable.  Tho I wonder whether a group that is unable or uninterested in achieving something as fundamental as basic, reliable trackwork might regard any kind of new coupler as a non-starter.   Not much different, I suppose, than relying on pizza-cutter flanges to mask trackwork issues.

Ed

Maybe the N scale members of that club are quite happy using the current selection of oversize N scale knuckle couplers (just as large part of the world outside USA is still happily using those huge but reliable rapido couplers, and deeper than NMRA flanges).

After all, majority of modelers are not TRW  s

[Doug G.]

I'm perfectly happy with MTs and have been since 1968.

Doug