N-Possible Coupler Announcement (Nashville 2022)

[Jbub]

@turbowhiz
I think you have a lot of interest here. Any chance you can update us with a video of their operation and info about their compatibility with other couplers if there is some?

[GM50 4164]

@turbowhiz
I think you have a lot of interest here. Any chance you can update us with a video of their operation and info about their compatibility with other couplers if there is some?

/>

/>
I hope these help.

[jagged ben]

GM50 thanks for the vids.

I'm worried that might not be enough slack.  Real couplers have slack, not slinky but slack.
That said, the size and profile look awesome from that distance.

[C855B]

... I'm worried that might not be enough slack. ...

MTL TSC perform similarly. I've converted about 100 cars and 20 locos.

I'm interested in these especially if the coupling force is less and there is reasonable horizontal swing. My biggest complaint with the TSC is lack of swing, which tends to lift cars on even 24" curves. Second complaint is lack of mounting options with molded-in 1015-compatible boxes. I can convert boxcars all day long, but hoppers are another story.

[Jbub]

Second complaint is lack of mounting options with molded-in 1015-compatible boxes. I can convert boxcars all day long, but hoppers are another story.

Not to mention tank cars 

[w neal]

Look at the coupler height mismatch between the second locomotive and, what appears to be, a standard stick Kato coupler. Trouble.

Thanks for the videos. They do help. Now, let's see things roll around the entire layout, S - curves, turnouts, switching scenarios, long cars with short cars, heavy cars with light cars, etc. Sorry, just sayin'.

[jagged ben]

On the Kato car, I think that's his own coupler with a 3D printed adapter.   Similar to what's seen here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=53176.msg728270#msg728270

[Mark5]

I'm worried that might not be enough slack.  Real couplers have slack, not slinky but slack.

Agreed, no slack might be even worse than excess (slinky) slack. @turbowhiz

[learmoia]

Agreed, no slack might be even worse than excess (slinky) slack. @turbowhiz

Also somewhat agreed... I'll bet when we look at the coupler mechanics, a few passes of a file or Xacto on each 'end' of the mounting hole would introduce enough slack to be prototypical.  (Turning a circle into a slight oval.

I like what I see... The coupler height seen between the loco and freight car isn't so much a mis-match in height, as it is the fact that the Kato Coupler is almost twice as tall as the Npossible coupler (They are about even at the bottom edge.).

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but isn't the coupler part of the 1015 assembly kind a standard height and shape Micro-Trains coupler.. I.E. I could put a '1015' coupler in a '1025' box and vise versa..
For whatever reason, some couplers have spring in the front, some have spring in the rear, but I've found everything else to be similar enough to be interchangeable.

All that said, I'm guessing once you factor in adjustments for height, the N-Possible coupler could be designed to fit in any Micro-Trains / Accu-mate / Scale Trains / Athearn coupler box.

At that point, the needed improvement is a 'scale' coupler box similar to what some were making for the TSC coupler..

AND, conversion kits for open ended cars (Hoppers/Tanks).. (similar to what Train-Worx is doing)..  (Or we just need to campaign for Pat to sell his conversions without couplers!)

[oakcreekco]

I would love to see a quality, close coupling conversion for Kato "F" units.

[thomasjmdavis]

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but isn't the coupler part of the 1015 assembly kind a standard height and shape Micro-Trains coupler.. I.E. I could put a '1015' coupler in a '1025' box and vise versa..
For whatever reason, some couplers have spring in the front, some have spring in the rear, but I've found everything else to be similar enough to be interchangeable.

I think you could probably fit a 1015 into a 1025 box, but not the other way around.  The 1025 coupler, with the spring in the rear (toward the center of the car) would hang out the back of the 1015 box (I just tried), and I suspect that a) it would collect a lot of dirt and ballast and whatnot, interfering with the spring, and b), it looks like springs could come loose (without the back end of the 1025 box to hold them in) and would end up in the ballast, locomotive gears, and in that other dimension where coupler springs often fly off to during assembly.

They will fit on each other's post, and the business end of the 1025 and 1015 couplers match. So a 1015 will mate to a 1025 with no problem assuming they are both set at the correct height.  The one issue you may run into is that the slinky can be worse if you have a mix of 1015s and 1025s, since when they meet, there is always one spring being compressed, no matter which way the cars travel.

[Wutter]

The real question is, when will these be available to purchase so we can test them out? @turbowhiz

[GM50 4164]

Look at the coupler height mismatch between the second locomotive and, what appears to be, a standard stick Kato coupler. Trouble.

Thanks for the videos. They do help. Now, let's see things roll around the entire layout, S - curves, turnouts, switching scenarios, long cars with short cars, heavy cars with light cars, etc. Sorry, just sayin'.

Here is a new video Andrew posted of the train he ran at the N Scale Convention Free-moN layout. All the cars and locomotives are equipped with his N-Possible couplers.

[mu26aeh]

If anything, it looks like the coupler handles rough track without unwanted uncoupling and can be installed on many manufacturers cars, including Atlas, ScaleTrains, MicroTrains, JTC, Kato and Athearn rolling stock

[learmoia]

OOOO ... OOOO.. Theres a YOUTUBE Channel!!!

~Ian