N-Possible Coupler Announcement (Nashville 2022)

[lock4244]

Along with everyone else on this board, I've been watching this thread with much interest, and especially appreciate the very informative posts that Andrew has been kind enough to write in order to provide updates.  Coupled with (pun intended) Gary's most recent encouraging words and video of the how well these things perform, it is certainly understandable how the interest/hope/expectations are all sky high.

However, I've also now read enough un-constructive posts that I have to speak up.  Asking Andrew (who has said multiple times that this is NOT his main job) to post regular updates, even when there's nothing new to report, or expecting him to inform us of every little decision, is going beyond reasonable.  Add in the various posts from folks getting worried that this project might not happen just because Andrew hasn't posted anything in a couple of months, and it makes it sound like your life will be seriously impacted should this product not make the light of day.

So here's a gentle reminder, this is a hobby.  People that get into the business side of it are almost always fellow hobbyists, meaning they probably don't do this full time, and they don't get paid to provide updates.  Thus, they don't owe us anything until we hand over money in exchange for a product.  In short, give the guy a break.  It's hard enough to design, patent, and set up production for a completely new product without also having to manage the unrealistic expectations placed on you from people that haven't invested in your business.

I will step off my soap box now and go back to enjoying running my trains, looking forward to the day where they might not slinky along the track.  But also, not lose my mind if that day should never come.

-Brian.

I am reminded of the axiom "To wind up with a million dollars in the model train business, you need to start with 10 million dollars."

[OldEastRR]

I've really been trying to hold off on posting anything about these couplers until Andrew is ready to ship, but I was so blown away by the test in this video that I can't resist anymore.  What's shown is a completely unedited run-by* of a 33-car train with body-mount N-Possibles being pushed up the approach to Tehachapi Loop (2.2% grade, 18" curve) with 3 engines pushing on the rear.  Note especially all the empty Rapido center-beams near the back of the train:

I think the inner guard rails along the track might have something to do with keeping the wheels on the rails.

[Jimbo]

Asking Andrew (who has said multiple times that this is NOT his main job) to post regular updates, even when there's nothing new to report, or expecting him to inform us of every little decision, is going beyond reasonable.  Add in the various posts from folks getting worried that this project might not happen just because Andrew hasn't posted anything in a couple of months, and it makes it sound like your life will be seriously impacted should this product not make the light of day.

Brian,

I sincerely appreciate your concerns with your post overall.  All of us have an obligation to remain civil in our communication, and I agree with your underlying theme to remain respectful to one another (and Andrew in particular.)  I hope that none of my comments made earlier are in any way disrespectful or otherwise offensive to you or others.

With regard to the above quote, however, I must respectfully (mostly) disagree.  I don't believe anyone has communicated an expectation that Andrew inform us of every little decision; I agree that this certainly is unreasonable.  But communication is critical, especially for a product such as this.  It establishes credibility and commitment.  Taking a couple of minutes every couple weeks or so to say nothing more than "Still working through some issues, but I'm still committed!" demonstrates his commitment to keep things moving.

Keep in mind, also, that this product is different from other products - these are COUPLERS that are not designed to be compatible with any other coupler on the market.  (They may be tangentially, but, as Andrew has stated, they are not designed to mate with other couplers, only each other (and maybe TSC.))  Once a modeler decides to start equipping their fleet, they won't just be buying a product, they'll be entering into a long-term relationship with Andrew's company.  Ten years from now, they will still be dependent on his company (or any successors) to ensure future loco/rolling stock purchases are compatible with everything already converted.  Consequently, modelers need to feel comfortable that Andrew is all-in as well, side-hustle notwithstanding, and that he's committed to keeping this product alive for the long-term.  Good customer communication early-on will inspire confidence that this is the case.

My mantra that "silence is NOT golden" goes both ways, too.  Had Andrew received NO responses from his announcement about these couplers years ago, he likely would have abandoned the project.  I'm sure, therefore, that he is optimistic about its potential due to the excitement that has been generated.  But, we owe it to him to provide feedback in order to ensure this product reaches market at the quality that the market demands.

I understand your point that "life goes on" without this product, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has put off other purchases to budget $$ to buy these as soon as they are available. I doubt Andrew would want any of us to re-allocate those funds!  There are a lot of challenges to bring a product to market; it's good to be reassured that those challenges are being overcome.  We ALL want this product to be a success for the long-term!!

And - to reiterate - I agree with you that we shouldn't expect a play-by-play...  only an acknowledgement that things are still moving.  It should take only a couple of minutes every couple of weeks.  And that is NOT unreasonable.

This is my view only; once again, I fully understand your original point, and should you still disagree I am fine with that; nothing personal intended here!   

-Jim

[Maletrain]

I think that it is reasonable to want Andrew to say something when his previous estimated data of availability has come and gone without the couplers being available to purchase.  It need not be an apology or excuse, or even a detailed description of the reason.  We really just need to know that he is still working on getting the product to market and roughly what the holdup is.

With other couplers that we have waited for expectantly  here on TRW never getting produced, we are becoming accustomed to being disappointed.  And, it is not just couplers or new entrepreneurs who ultimately fail to deliver much discussed new products - even some of the big vendors have talked about things for years that never reached the market.

So, I think it is important for Andrew to keep showing us that progress is being made, to keep interest up, and to generate more early sales.

[GaryHinshaw]

I think the inner guard rails along the track might have something to do with keeping the wheels on the rails.

Nope.  Two points: 1) the guard rails are code 40 so they are only intended to prevent already-derailed cars from falling off the bridge.  2) The section of track that is guarded is only 1 foot long; the train is 14 feet long.  To provide a bit more context, the train is being pushed up the approach to Tehachapi Loop through numerous 18" curves, including one S-curve and a facing point turnout, all on a 2.2% up-grade:



Andrew's couplers are not splaying laterally under the pressure and yet they kiss couple beautifully.  They are really quite remarkable.  Whether or not they are commercially viable is anybody's guess, but I am definitely on board.

[GaryHinshaw]

I also made a version of the video with a more conventional 2+1 loco arrangement.  The dpu is speed-matched to the lead units, but my hands are off the throttle during filming.  Feel free to fast forward to near the end, it's kind of neat.

[tehachapifan]

That's a ballsy area of the layout to do a test like that!

[Jesse6669]

Gary, couplers aside, that really captures the look/feel of the Loop.  Excellent stuff.   

When did Flikr start doing video?  Or was I just ignorant of it for these years?   

I am likely to also be using, or at the very least testing, these couplers but in Z scale.  In the meantime it's a mish-mash of MT, AZL, and a few Bowsers.  I'm currently thinking I'll upscale my old T-scale CCE couplers to test them.

[Lemosteam]

Would love to see a modest two train test video from above at the same speed & direction on level track with MT on one track & N-Possible on the other to see the difference in slink factor.

[GaryHinshaw]

Interesting John, I could probably try a comparison like that.  I have precious little straight, level, double track on my layout, but the stretch through Edison is suitable.  I'd need to clean it up first, but I need to anyway.

Jesse, I don't know when Flickr started to allow video.  It's Flickr Pro, so maybe that's a factor?

[Scottl]

@GaryHinshaw that ballast is da' bomb. 

[chessie system fan]

If the issue remaining is mass production, I would be in favor of Andrew selling just a little starter set of, say, four couplers for a price that makes it worth Andrew's time. And a limit of one set per person so things don't get out of hand for him. This would give people a chance to test the couplers out and tamp down the speculation about them. It would also help Andrew raise funds for mass production as well as help everyone gauge demand for the product.

[Maletrain]

I would want more than 4 couplers to start.  I want to convert a modest sized train and take it to the club to see how it handles all sorts of bad track. Probably about 10 pairs.  That gives me a 9 car train if I only convert one end of the loco and caboose.  Or maybe just 8 if I convert both ends to show off the couplers to others watching.

[ednadolski]

Would love to see a modest two train test video from above at the same speed & direction on level track with MT on one track & N-Possible on the other to see the difference in slink factor.

I recall posting a video showing that MT slinky some time ago, and @peteski thought I must have been exaggerating the effect by running on dirty track and/or messing w/the throttle when the loco went off-screen

I'd have to dig to find that old vid, but meanwhile this should give an idea:

/>
Ed