N-Possible Coupler Announcement (Nashville 2022)

[Jimbo]

The "scalebox" parts don't use the brass splitter; The splitter is formed in the box bottom part. The little "jog" out is where it lives. Its very challenging to form using injection molding however being both very thin and very tall. That was part of the journey of using 3D printing for the whole thing.

When this mechanism makes it to mass produced models, one can use a pin instead of the splitter shim or forming the splitter in the box. Its how the original prototypes worked, and is super simple for mass production and assembly using injection molded box parts. However its rather difficult to retrofit, requiring some precise drilling placement, hence the brass shim part for box retrofits.

WOW, this is a very clever design!!

Now stop teasing us and let us know when and how we can purchase!!!

Jim

[peteski]

Thanks for the explanation, but more I think about how this works, the more questions come to mind.

One more:
MTL couplers are designed in a way that then they swing to the left (looking at the end of the car), the coupler's "thumb" (not sure of the official name - the part on the other side of the knuckle) stays closed.  While this is part of MTL's magnetic uncoupling design, it also assures that the couplers stay coupler while traveling through s-curves or other trackage which results in couplers shifting laterally.

From what I see so far, when the N-Possible coupler swings to the left, that will open the "thumb".  That can cause uncoupling when the couplers are shifted laterally like that while they are under slack.  Kato knuckle couplers, for example are notorious for doing that.

[turbowhiz]

WOW, this is a very clever design!!

Now stop teasing us and let us know when and how we can purchase!!!

Jim

I'm pushing really hard for a November launch. More to come on that hopefully soon. But some things I'm at the mercy of, so its not a guarantee at this moment. Hopefully know more this week.

[turbowhiz]

Thanks for the explanation, but more I think about how this works, the more questions come to mind.

One more:
MTL couplers are designed in a way that then they swing to the left (looking at the end of the car), the coupler's "thumb" (not sure of the official name - the part on the other side of the knuckle) stays closed.  While this is part of MTL's magnetic uncoupling design, it also assures that the couplers stay coupler while traveling through s-curves or other trackage which results in couplers shifting laterally.

From what I see so far, when the N-Possible coupler swings to the left, that will open the "thumb".  That can cause uncoupling when the couplers are shifted laterally like that while they are under slack.  Kato knuckle couplers, for example are notorious for doing that.

I think what you're talking about here is shank interconnection; MTL couplers "thumb" is interconnected to the knuckle by means of the trip pin and that loop shape. It doesn't technically stay completely closed, it opens to the limit allowed by the trip in interconnect. They're also fairly unreliable under buff (slack as you're referring) in corners.

I don't use the trip pin for shank interconnection obviously but my shanks are interconnected in fact with 3 points. I'm solving for many problems with these interconnects, but one effect is my thumb follows the knuckle but with WAY tighter tolerances then MTL couplers. Properly installed, there is absolutely no comparison in terms of how reliable my couplers are vs traditional MTL couplers with respect to coupled reliablity, especially under wonky scenarios (one of the worst torture tests is to float between draft and buff on a tight corner crest grade transition with a heavy train/steep grades....). No small part of my superior reliablity is because they stay reliably aligned under buff, but the tight interconnection comes into play if they come out of alignment. The tighter your corners, the less reliable things get, but that's true of any coupler.

The Kato coupler has a flaw in its thumb travel. You must ensure that that the thumb does not open further then the knuckle moves hard-over in the thumbs direction. The Kato coupler doesn't do that; The thumb still moves further even though the knuckle has reached its travel limit in the thumbs direction, allowing for an "escape".  Since you need to retrofit my design into a wide variety of boxes, my retrofit couplers have an extension to the thumb spring mounting post that ultimately hits the splitter. This stops that escape from happening... Its best to make sure you have clearance for the shank to reach the box side, but that's not always possible, hence the escape limiter extension. You either remove the extension entirely if you have enough box travel, or file it down if you need something in between.

These couplers have many hundreds of hours of testing. They're reliable.

[learmoia]

@turbowhiz

Maybe I missed it being discussed before, but are you gone through the patent process to protect your product/idea?

~Ian

[peteski]

I think what you're talking about here is shank interconnection; MTL couplers "thumb" is interconnected to the knuckle by means of the trip pin and that loop shape. It doesn't technically stay completely closed, it opens to the limit allowed by the trip in interconnect. They're also fairly unreliable under buff (slack as you're referring) in corners.

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.

[jagged ben]

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.   

Happens to me all the time, especially between locos that aren't speed matched or when one loses power ever so temporarily.  Not to mention the uncouplings just from drawbar pull.   But the real issue with MT buff performance isn't uncouplings it's the derailments from not keeping alignment under buff. Cars pushed to the side love to pick frogs on turnouts, especially.

I'm also guessing you don't run such long trains on such steep grades as some of us. 

[Jbub]

Sure, there are no grades in this video, but that is a long train going in reverse through some switches with no problems. Andrew posted this on his YouTube channel 2years ago at the Nashville Nscale convention.

[C855B]

... But the real issue with MT buff performance isn't uncouplings it's the derailments from not keeping alignment under buff. Cars pushed to the side love to pick frogs on turnouts, especially.

The issue I have.

[robert3985]

...Cars pushed to the side love to pick frogs on turnouts, especially.

I'd say this isn't a coupler problem, but a turnout problem.  With the proper length and placement of a turnout's guardrails and a precise check-gauge (and with properly gauged wheelsets), picking points shouldn't happen with "...Cars pushed to the side..."

Just sayin'

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[jagged ben]

I'd say this isn't a coupler problem, but a turnout problem.  With the proper length and placement of a turnout's guardrails and a precise check-gauge (and with properly gauged wheelsets), picking points shouldn't happen with "...Cars pushed to the side..."

Just sayin'

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

You're not completely wrong.  But the tolerances needed on the trackwork to deal with cars and trucks being torqued to the side is of a very high quality.  Most people who are not you will struggle with this somewhat, I think.  Of course, some commercial turnouts (ahem, Peco) don't have the right flangeway size to begin with.  But in any case, when you have MT couplers deflecting off to the side, especially if connected to the truck with a long lever like on their TOFC flats and autoracks, those wheels are going to find the smallest defects in your trackwork.   1015/16s and 2004s and 2019s, and truck mounted couplers in general, are much worse about this than body mounted 1023/25 btw. But you know that.

Also although turnouts are the most difficult spots, the deflection can cause derailments in other spots.  A problem I have is going downgrade with a long heavy train, all it takes sometimes is going around a curve or hitting an electrical gap. Because the cars already want to jump the rails because they're getting pushed out of alignment.  I'm positive that better couplers would help with this.

[peteski]

Deflecting to the side usually doesn't result in unscheduled uncoupling if the truck stays on the track.  Once the pushing force is removed they bounce right back to the optimal position and stay coupled. Besides that type of severe deflection is not what I had on my mind.  What I'm talking about is couplers under buff (or slack) shifting laterally, mainly when going through S-curves.  Kato couplers handle that really poorly and often uncouple, while MTL couplers have no problem. Anyway, I was curious how N-possible couplers stay closed. I'll have to get a pair and play with them myself.

[Maletrain]

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. 

[ednadolski]

What I'm talking about is couplers under buff (or slack) shifting laterally, mainly when going through S-curves.  Kato couplers handle that really poorly and often uncouple, while MTL couplers have no problem.

IDK about Katos, but I used to get those unwanted uncouplings all the time with the MTL couplers.   The (quite repeatable) process would go something like this:

- Observe low-speed, uphill train emerging from Tunnel 9, with about 5-6 MTL-equipped autoracks on the end.
- Train climbs Loop and disappears into Tunnel 10, heading for the behind-the scenes downhill helix.
- Observe train emerging again from Tunnel 9, noting that this time several of the autoracks have disappeared from the end.
- Train again climbs Loop and disappears again into Tunnel 10.
- Observe missing autoracks emerging from Tunnel 9, apparently by themselves but immediately followed by the lead engines of the train, pushing the autoracks up the Loop.
- Stop train before autoracks derail and something ends up on the floor.
- Cuss out MT couplers while removing the autoracks from the train.
- (optional) Cuss self out for designing a layout with curves that are too sharp for LEZ body-mounted couplers on autoracks.
- Repeat until the layout gets tired of the routine and finds itself a new home.  Vow not to make the same design mistakes in any sort of future Loop layout.
- Patiently wait for a new N-scale coupler that is free of the unwanted uncoupling and slinky effects.

Isn't model railroading fun?

Cheers,
Ed

[turbowhiz]

@turbowhiz

Maybe I missed it being discussed before, but are you gone through the patent process to protect your product/idea?

~Ian

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.