Rumors of Protomate’s demise are greatly exaggerated!

[peteski]

On Real couplers the knuckle is a separate movable part.  That is not well defined on the MTL coupler.  If you look at the right side of the GOEMON coupler you will see that it has the appearance of separate knuckle.

It is clearly shown here.

[peteski]

Guys, you missed the point here.  In today's design and print your own chassis world, you can integrate what you need into the design of the car to completely ELIMINATE the box if that helps with truck swing or whatever.  But of course for the folks that need one there can certainly be a box.

My purpose would be to provide a cad model of the minimum requirements to make a Protomate work in someone's printed design.  As I stated up thread, there are only a few dimensions and features required for the Protomate to assemble and function in any given design.

Just thinking out of the box here, pun intended. 

So the only item you are intending to produce is an injection-molded (Delrin) coupler part, a spring (and possibly a trip pin)?  No coupler box will ever be provided?

[ednadolski]

I think he means an oversized coupler that looks like a real coupler is more appealing than a smaller sized N scale coupler that looks like an N scale coupler.

To a point.  When they are coupled together in a train it becomes a harder to see and appreciate the detailing (esp. considering the lighting conditions on some indoor layouts).

Ed

[peteski]

To a point.  When they are coupled together in a train it becomes a harder to see and appreciate the detailing (esp. considering the lighting conditions on some indoor layouts).

Ed

Well then, for those applications the MTL TSC should fit the bill perfectly: prototypical size, and low on details. Like you mentioned, nobody sees details in a shadow between the cars in a dark train room.    Yeah, I know, they have to be slammed together to couple.

[Lemosteam]

So the only item you are intending to produce is an injection-molded (Delrin) coupler part, a spring (and possibly a trip pin)?  No coupler box will ever be provided?

Not sure how you surmised that @peteski.

I have never stated one way or the other.

I mean to prove that the Protomate will function with or without a box and that without may prove to have more truck swing clearance, among other things for those design8ng integral coupler boxes into their prints.

[learmoia]

Well then, for those applications the MTL TSC should fit the bill perfectly: prototypical size, and low on details. Like you mentioned, nobody sees details in a shadow between the cars in a dark train room.    Yeah, I know, they have to be slammed together to couple.

So the only item you are intending to produce is an injection-molded (Delrin) coupler part, a spring (and possibly a trip pin)?  No coupler box will ever be provided?

Why ya gotta be all negative nancy....

IMO... I think the Geomon looks better than the TSC (or anything so far)

If you really want to get me going... 20 years ago (when the coupler wars started).. Micro Trains should have re-tolled their coupler(s) from the ground up to in a design similar to what Geomon did.. and pushed forward as top of the line.

To a point.  When they are coupled together in a train it becomes a harder to see and appreciate the detailing (esp. considering the lighting conditions on some indoor layouts).

Ed

Well.. nobody notices slinky in still photos of a model.. but they notice how 'unprototypical' the coupler looks..
.. It'd be nice for someone to give us both.. (Prototypical looking coupler with no slinky)

~Ian
 
“You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.” ~Homer Simpson

[ednadolski]

It'd be nice for someone to give us both.. (Prototypical looking coupler with no slinky)

Closest I can recall is Brian Banna  (@6axlepwr) working on a Sergent-like coupler for N-scale, but AFAIK that never got past the prototyping stage.   However I believe that Frank Sergent has now released the patent (and the CAD files) so in principle there isn't anything to stop anyone from running in that direction (beyond cost, practicality, and motivation).

The slinky effect is not something that's purely the result of spring-loaded couplers.  I've found that at the right speed (usually very low -- like 1-2 scale mph or so, often when making a long, slow start or stop), any car that is free-rolling enough can exhibit oscillations, due to things like tiny variations in friction, track & wheel imperfections, and so on.  That holds regardless of scale, and I have observed it in HO and even O/P:48 (where the trucks are amazingly free-rolling).   I had always presumed it was a mass thing, but (to my surprise) found that adding even a fairly large amount of weight didn't help much.   Spring-loaded couplers of course do just make it all worse, and I've found that it's fairly easy to get MT-equipped cars to slinky even with drag springs installed.   Pesky physics.... 

Ed

[learmoia]

If you ever watch real trains switching.. especially with loaded tanks..  Lots of slinky action..

Smaller scale = Larger tolerances = Magnified effect.

~Ian

[ednadolski]

If you ever watch real trains switching.. especially with loaded tanks..  Lots of slinky action..

I don't think you'll find too many full-sized trains that do this:

/>


(and look how smooth that loco runs!)

Ed

[peteski]

I don't think you'll find too many full-sized trains that do this:

(and look how smooth that loco runs!)

Ed

Load up that hopper with some scale coal, and it will slink no more. 

[peteski]

Why ya gotta be all negative nancy....

IMO... I think the Geomon looks better than the TSC (or anything so far)

If you really want to get me going... 20 years ago (when the coupler wars started).. Micro Trains should have re-tolled their coupler(s) from the ground up to in a design similar to what Geomon did.. and pushed forward as top of the line.

Well.. nobody notices slinky in still photos of a model.. but they notice how 'unprototypical' the coupler looks..
.. It'd be nice for someone to give us both.. (Prototypical looking coupler with no slinky)

Negative? Moi?  Just asking questions.
I would be all for GOEMON couplers if they were commercially available in larger quantities and realistically priced (with the trip pin and spring included).  I think they look great. I'm also not really bothered all that much by slinking.

As for the "coupler wars": it is not really a war - just everybody wants their slice of the coupler "pie", once the patent expired.  Then of course we have the prototypical-accuracy fans wanting more to-scale couplers in N scale. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[ednadolski]

Load up that hopper with some scale coal, and it will slink no more. 

As I mentioned, more mass can only do so much before crossing the point of diminishing return.   For instance, you probably wouldn't want your model locos to try pulling a string of such over-weighted hoppers up a grade or on a helix.   That's probably too high a price for most modelers to want to pay just to make the slinky go away.   (I suppose tho that the slinky is a non-issue when the loco's wheels are slipping. )

everybody wants their slice of the coupler "pie", once the patent expired.

I frankly doubt there really is all that much 'pie' to go around, yet the road to perdition is paved with better mousetraps.   Seems much more likely to me that as a matter of fundamental business strategy, model manufacturers would want their products to be compatible, yet also not have to base their designs and products on outsourcing a critical component from a single supplier (who just might also turn out to be a competitor).

Ed

[peteski]

I frankly doubt there really is all that much 'pie' to go around, yet the road to perdition is paved with better mousetraps.   Seems much more likely to me that as a matter of fundamental business strategy, model manufacturers would want their products to be compatible, yet also not have to base their designs and products on outsourcing a critical component from a single supplier (who just might also turn out to be a competitor).

Ed

That makes perfect sense Ed - I'm sure that you are right on the money.
What is unusual is that some of MTL's competitors use genuine MTL couplers in their models, and they even advertise that fact. 

[wazzou]

That makes perfect sense Ed - I'm sure that you are right on the money.
What is unusual is that some of MTL's competitors use genuine MTL couplers in their models, and they even advertise that fact.

Are you sure that’s still the case? 
I have examples of Intermountain and possibly others that did do this and had a gold sticker exclaiming this but that seemed to cease some time ago.
Haven’t there more recently been some knockoffs produced in factories that have made it unnecessary to use the MT couplers?

[peteski]

Are you sure that’s still the case? 
I have examples of Intermountain and possibly others that did do this and had a gold sticker exclaiming this but that seemed to cease some time ago.
Haven’t there more recently been some knockoffs produced in factories that have made it unnecessary to use the MT couplers?

True on the IM models. The Cab-Forwards all use knockoff couplers, even though the enclosed literture mentions MTL couplers (no stickers).  I think the latest one I saw with the sticker (and genuine MTL couplers installed) was BLI's PRR T1 Duplex loco.