Scale Coupler video

[6axlepwr]

Here is a link to a video I put up on youtube of the scale coupler I designed.

/>
Please feel free to comment away. Good or bad. All feed back is good.

[Chris333]

Even though they don't work perfect that is still impressive. Would be nice to see one coupled to a Z scale coupler to get a sense of how small they are.

Who did that RP?  Looks like the material that M4D uses.

[johnh35]

From watching the video, I suspect that the curvature that closes the opposing knuckle may be too shallow. Keep working at it, once you get it perfected it will make a nice looking coupler.

[Andrew Hutchinson]

Just keep doing what you're doing. The couplers look great.

Andrew Hutchinson

[C855B]

I am most impressed by the positive locking aspect. This is a problem with N production couplers to date - they are dependent on spring action and tension maintained between two "hooks", so therefore the right (...or wrong...) combination of forces result in pull-aparts.

Really great work. And they're knuckle couplers that operate and look like knuckle couplers, at a to-scale size. I'd like to see more development of your concept. You are so close at this point, I think the main issue you have is exactly what you said, a relative lack of precision in the casting methods.

[jmlaboda - RIP]

One key will be price, once these are released (and I do hope they will be).  What makes this so special to me is that someone who has inspired a great deal of thought about kitbashes is back working in N-scale... and I am very, very happy overall!!!

[robert3985]

From watching the video, I suspect that the curvature that closes the opposing knuckle may be too shallow. Keep working at it, once you get it perfected it will make a nice looking coupler.

I agree with John.  However, I don't think blasting them is helping them to have less friction.  I would say just the opposite.

I would bet if these were made from Delrin, (brownish gray please)...they'd work every time.

Hmmmm....brass is easy to put a patina on, which might be a good idea for added cosmetic durability.  JAX Chemical Company (http://www.jaxchemical.com/index.html) makes several solutions to give brass a black, a brown-black, a brown or a flemish-gray-black patina.  These will not add a "coat" of anything and using them is like bluing a firearm and the finish should be more durable than paint.

After you give them a durable patina, then an application of Neo-lube would lubricate them with dry graphite, which should make them slippery enough to function every time (as long as they are thoroughly de-burred.

You might consider this solution along with your suggestion as to finding a properly sized round-head end mill to smooth the hole up on the inside, and also I'd polish the bearing surfaces with a polishing wheel and rouge mounted on my Dremel...which should go quickly...while de-burring.

"Similar" metals (metals that are the same) have a tendency to gall and don't "slip" too well against each other.   "Dissimilar" metals rub smoothly against each other, which is why on old, quality pro 35mm camera lenses the threads would be made from precision cut brass and aluminum.  On cheap lenses, they just slather on the grease.

So, you might consider getting your couplers cast out of brass and the small, important moving parts out of beryllium copper to take advantage of the non-galling quality of dissimilar metals.

If you get these babies workin'...and I don't think you need more precise casting...and you come up with a good centering device, I'd be in the market for a ton of 'em.  I don't care if they're not compatible with MT couplers.  I'll just make a couple of transition cars with an MT on one end and your coupler on the other until I get everything converted.

If you decide to offer them up for sale, I don't think you'd need to do much more than make sure the castings are good, and offer them as kits, with detailed instructions and drawings. 

That is VERY exciting! So, don't get discouraged.  It would be extremely fortuitous for the first prototype to work like you want it to.  Normal production of just about any mechanical contrivance takes at least one proof of concept, and three more prototypes until all the bugs are worked out.  I can see you getting a viable product in the next run since your proof-of-concept almost works consistently.

[up1950s]

Even as is I would buy them for steam pilots . They could become a revenue stream for future R&D .

[chessie system fan]

Lookin' good!  I hope at some point you do a 4,000 gal. fuel tank.  I've wanted a better one for ages but I can't really find any plans so I can scratch build my own.

[6axlepwr]

Oh yes, the 4000 gallon tank is already designed and waiting to get the master made. I also plan the 2700, 3000 (phase II GP35) and 3600 gallon tanks. Possibly the 1700 for the Milw GP38-2. And yes, I do believe with my new powering method that you can get a 1700 gallon tank under the N-Scale model. I just need a GP38-2 model to prove it. I have already proven I can get a 3200 gallon tank under the SD40-2.

Mind you though, you wil no longer be able to use teh copper pickup strips. But when these tanks are ready for sale, I will put up a video on how to install them and repower you models. I will also offer teh service to cut the frames for the fuel tanks and drill the frames for repowering.

[cnw mike]

Really cool. I would buy this product. I've used sergeant couplers in HOn3 and was mostly pleased with them.

[ednadolski]

WOW, those couplers are absolutely brilliant!    I think Bob is spot-on, in that they already work very well considering how early in the prototyping stage these are.    It looks to me like they already uncouple more smoothly than some of the HO scale Sergents that I have tried (which suffered from some stickiness).

One thought I had, do you think these could be made with a scale shank, without a pivot screw or springs, just like the prototype?   If the coupler has a small bit of room to slide lengthwise inward and outward in the pocket, then perhaps that could help reduce the 'rebound' tendency of lighter cars?

One question is, how are the coupling distance and swing?  On the video they look quite prototypical, which is great, so it seems reasonable to expect some constraints when it comes to longer rolling stock on smaller curves.  That is of course an inherent consequence of body-mounted couplers, which aren't for running on 9 3/4" curves anyways.   BTW If you need anyone to do any testing on these, I wanna be the first one to sign up!   . 

If you'll ever be making these available, I'll definitely be lining up for them.   I've got some shelf space above my workbench that would be ideal for a switching layout to show them off   (All I need is a prototype, since Tehachapi isn't known for switching.... maybe an MRL local?) 

Ed

PS - the fuel tank looks great too!    Can't wait to see more on these!