Many of these questions have been covered, but this is a sprawling thread, so I'll collect the answers here for ease of reference.
• Do you plan on marketing this product, or just making it available to Railwire members who request it?
Speaking for myself, the only plan at the moment is to make them available to interested parties on a co-purchase basis through this (and subsequent) announcements. The only serious testing that has been done is on Ed and my layouts with selected equipment, where they have performed extremely well. If a plan to market them as an actual product develops, we will need to do more testing, especially on the minimum radius questions. But this is a niche item that will never generate large sales numbers, and I have neither the time nor inclination to get into the manufacturing business. I can't speak for Ed in this regard though.
At the moment I would only encourage anyone interested in trying them to purchase a small lot for testing before committing to a significant purchase.
• How readily available are the Bowser couplers, how reliable are they, and how do they perform coupled to the other brands?
The good news - which makes this scheme feasible at all - is that Bowser has agreed to sell the couplers as a separate item for $1 per pair. See this post for ordering details:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg309136#msg309136The couplers themselves are extremely reliable. The most comprehensive review I'm aware of (outside of this thread) is by DKS:
http://jamesriverbranch.net/clinic_2.htmFor my money, they are the best coupler available in N or Z, period. Their shank design is very similar to the McHenry, but they employ a cast-on leaf spring for closing the knuckle, instead of a separate coil spring (and they are about half the size). They will mate well with MT, Accumate, McHenry and Kato N couplers (and MT Z couplers). See, for example:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg206847#msg206847 Caveat: to mate with an MT you have to physically lift one coupler over the other (similar to a Kato-MT mate), but they touch-mate to all other brands.
• You tested the coupler assembly under simulated load, but did you test it under load in practical use while connected to additional coupler assemblies as well as other coupler brands, and through various trackage configurations?
Yes. These two videos show examples: 13 to 16' long trains being pulled up a 2.3% grades through ~18" radius curves. The leading cars are FT equipped (with these pockets), the rest of the train is a random mix of 4 brands, including some FT's:
Not a valid vimeo URLNot a valid vimeo URL
I have not tried them under
significantly heavier loads (steeper grades, or longer trains) but these tests were fairly extreme relative to my needs. Inspection of the couplers during these tests gave me no reason for concern whatsoever: the couplers showed no sign of deformation under stress nor any tendency to ride up or down relative to its mate (the latter being helped by the snug pocket dimensions).
• Did you test the coupler assemblies through S curves to test side-to-side action and confirm the equipment remains on track?
• Did you test the coupler assemblies on long cars with short wheelbases, such as the Greenville 60' boxcar, to confirm the equipment remains on the track?
• Did you test the coupler assemblies behind long wheel-based motive power with body-mounted couplers through various radii trackage to confirm the equipment remains on track?
Yes, but only to the extent I needed to for my application. For example, I have mounted extended pockets on some Red Caboose 62' beer cars (which have a short wheelbase). These performed fine with 18" radius curves (including S curves), but have not been tested on sharper curves. Similarly, I have run standard-length equipment behind locos with body-mount couplers through 18" curves with no problems. (Note: I did have an issue with AZL couplers in extended pockets causing neighboring cars to derail on S curves, but those couplers are
much stiffer side to side.)
Like any body-mount campaign, minimum radius will have to be considered by the user on a case by case basis. But the FT couplers in these pockets have almost the same side-to-side flexibility as an MT coupler, so they don't really present any new challenges in this regard.
• Why not design the coupler pocket to accept Accu-Mate and McHenry couplers if the dimensions are not adversely affected?
Sadly, the dimensions are not compatible. If the box were sized for a McHenry, for example, the FT coupler would have no centering tension, and it would sag in the box. One of the beauties of the FT coupler is that it accommodates a closer-to-scale draft gear. But again, a trivial resizing of the design would accommodate Accumates & McHenry's.
• How do you uncouple the Bowser couplers without touching the cars, with a RIX-type tool?
Yes, manual uncoupling is achieved with a Rix-type tool. Magnetic uncoupling was not able to be made workable by the FT developers.
-Gary
