50th Anniversary

[DKS]

I was going to mention it was Revell who used the term, too. I wonder if the fact theirs was all one word would have made a difference in a court case. It became moot, however, since Revell was out of N scale by what? 1969?

http://davidksmith.com/birth-of-n/revell.htm

Also... little known fact: Sony (yes, the Sony) tried to launch a line of N Scale trains, which they called... wait for it... Microtrains.

To be absolutely clear:

Kadee, Micro-Trains
Revell, MicroTrains
Sony, Microtrains

[nkalanaga]

I should have one of those "Apples From Yakima Valley" cars somewhere, but it seems to have disappeared long before we moved out of the old house into our current place.

[Doug G.]

I was in Rochester today and found my MT-5 coupler packages and the first ones are like this. Note the date, 3-19-68 and no mention of "Micro-Trains" at all except for the obvious meaning of "MT" in the catalog/model number.



My next ones are all just like the one posted previously with the 5-8-70 date on them. None of mine have holes punched in them so that must have been a local hobby shop deal. The earliest ones have the flap stapled and the others had the flap stuck down.

I also found the first mention of locomotive conversions in the May, 1970 Model Railroader in a review and Kadee advertisement. I guess I didn't think it was quite that early but obviously, I was wrong.

The first three were the MT-1041 for the Atlas 0-8-0, MT-1042 for the Atlas 0-8-0 to convert it to a 2-8-0, and the 1043 for the Atlas 4-6-2 and 2-8-2. The first and third priced at $4.75 and second at $5.50.

Doug

[peteski]

Interesting . . . The write-up states that size-wise the N scale coupler is the proportionally the same as their H0 coupler.  I never really thought about it. It seems that lots of modelers kvetch about how oversize the N scale coupler is, while most H0 scale modelers seem to be satisfied with the size of their H0 Kadee couplers.

[Chris333]

They make a scale sized HO coupler. #58 instead of the regular #5.

[peteski]

They make a scale sized HO coupler. #58 instead of the regular #5.

But not 50 years ago.  Not sure when #58 was introduced (and how many modelers use it).    I was talking about the standard #5 coupler.

[Doug G.]

Interesting . . . The write-up states that size-wise the N scale coupler is the proportionally the same as their H0 coupler.  I never really thought about it. It seems that lots of modelers kvetch about how oversize the N scale coupler is, while most H0 scale modelers seem to be satisfied with the size of their H0 Kadee couplers.

Yeah, I thought that was interesting too. I guess N scalers are just bigger crybabies than HO guys. Hey, hey, now. I am an N scaler so...

Doug

[brill27mcb]

"Proportionally the same" could mean the relative proportions of the coupler's own dimensions, not the proportion of HO scale to N scale.

Rich K.

[peteski]

"Proportionally the same" could mean the relative proportions of the coupler's own dimensions, not the proportion of HO scale to N scale.

Rich K.

It is both. I paraphrased it poorly. It is clearer in the original text (on the envelope, 7 posts earlier).

[nkalanaga]

I can remember reading some HO modelers back then suggesting that the new HOn3 coupler should be used for HO standard gauge, as it was closer to scale size.  It didn't catch on any better than using Z/Nn3 couplers for N standard gauge has.

[Doug G.]

In the MR review, at the time, it stated the coupler is considerably oversize but the appearance was such an improvement over the current standard (Rapido) couplers available.

And, I'm sure that's what most of us thought, too.

I have the Z scale couplers on several of my steamers' pilots and they are impressive but the standard N scale coupler is perfectly acceptable to me.

Doug

[ednadolski]

And you do have to admit that if the MTL patent did not expire, the American prototype models would still be mostly using Rapidos.

Or perhaps someone would have invented the TSC a lot sooner....

<ducks and runs>

[peteski]

Or perhaps someone would have invented the TSC a lot sooner....

<ducks and runs>

LOL!
There is a huge difference between inventing model coupler and have it widely accepted.  I don't see wide acceptance happening for an N scale TSC (even now).  Even if the current MTL TSC was actually fully functional (by that I mean that it would be easy to couple and uncouple, maybe even magnetically), its small dimensions (especially its height) make it prone to unscheduled uncoupling on poorly laid track (which is often seen on N scale layouts - both home, and modular).

Like I said earlier, if you look at the rest of the world, Rapido coupler is still the de-facto standard for N scale.  It looks like crap, but it is reliable and easy to deal with. Plus, it has been around almost since the beginning on N scale. 

[Doug G.]

Well, you will never see/hear ME denigrate the Rapido coupler. It's just that when I saw the MT coupler, it was like, "WOW, an honest-to goodness knuckle coupler in N scale!"

Doug