New N Scale Coupler Announced! NZT

[Lemosteam]

David:
I'd really like to see some designed to use on steam loco pilots.
Jim R.

+1

[pwnj]

One more suggestion -- any interest in a non-operating, low-cost bulk coupler?

My guess is since the patent is for the mechanism that a non-operating version would sort of miss the point, but as my model railroading budget is likely to be in the hole for years, I'd love to see some nice looking, functional (as in it connects two cars and lets them run), yet non-operating couplers, too.  Regardless, the new couplers sound fantastic and I look forward to seeing how they come out, and how they'll look on some of the terrific equipment I often see here.  Thanks for doing what you do (and mega-thanks for choosing to do it here in the USA).

Now I'll go back to patiently waiting for you to produce Little Joe's Pizza in N-scale (and wondering what prized possession of mine I can trade for it, if and when you do...). 

-Matt

p.s.- The NK-001 test castings look AMAZING!

[Catt]

What I would like to see in both scales would be center set,over set ,and under set versions.

[rswinnerton]

Larry, actually of you compare the Kadee 58 to the 5, the knuckle is the same. It the body of the coupler that's different.

[Guilford Guy]

Larry, I've been using body mounted FT couplers on steep grades without issue. Track is Atlas code 55 flex. If at proper height they should operate fine.

Has any thought been given to tooling several colors of couplers? I'm not familiar with the manufacturing end of model railroad products, but I wouldn't think different colored mold plastics would be much more expensive.

[sd80mac]

David,Here's food for thought..

The smaller KD #58 HO scale coupler is far less forgiving when it comes to less then smooth track work.There just isn't enough coupler face to compensate rough track or sudden inclines.

Wouldn't this be incentive to to build good benchwork, and smooth and stable subroadbed? After all, this is the foundation for your track right? This is not meant as a sarcastic statement. I am for real. Many times modelers will go to great lengths to ensure their equipment is set up to run perfectly, but then turn around and neglect the very track on which their trains will run. If you don't agree, just go to any train show and look at the trackwork on all the different layouts...

Donnell

[Matt Noel]

I always thought the #58's worked just as well when I was in HO, on the other hand I am a stickler about track work.  As for clubs, I have been fighting that battle for a long time, an no matter what you say or suggest, some people will never understand the value of good level track work.  To this day I am stuck with my home trains and my club trains, such a pain.

[robert3985]

Wouldn't this be incentive to to build good benchwork, and smooth and stable subroadbed? After all, this is the foundation for your track right? This is not meant as a sarcastic statement. I am for real. Many times modelers will go to great lengths to ensure their equipment is set up to run perfectly, but then turn around and neglect the very track on which their trains will run. If you don't agree, just go to any train show and look at the trackwork on all the different layouts...

Donnell

I agree, 100%.  Always amazes me to see lovely models of engines and cars trying to run on patently substandard track and trackwork.

Attempting to design products that compensate for shoddy work or substandard equipment (which adversely affects the running of trains) is another exercise in "lowest common denominator thinking" which drastically inhibits the end quality and appearance of said products. Pizza cutters anyone?

Additionally, I also agree that compatibility with existing couplers is not high on my list of "musts" either.  I remember the days that I had several "transition" cars with Rapidos on one end, and MT's on the other.  The transition cars didn't bug me nearly as much as the Rapidos...which I ripped out ASAP!

Cheers!
Bob Gilmore

[learmoia]

Comment Removed.

[nkalanaga]

Given our lousy track, and even the best laid isn't great by prototype standards, I'm not sure shelf couplers would work too well in N scale.

[mark.hinds]

David,

FYI, the most compact installation I have encountered to date was on the original early 1980s Hallmark/Samhongsa brass F-units.  It would be useful if your design could be used for similarly compact installations.  Because MT made their coupler boxes in 2 parts, I was able to “weld” the box top on the box at 120 degrees to the intended angle, and was able to severely trim the mounting hole down to a small "ring", thus allowing the mounting screw to be off to the side.  Note that this type of coupler (1021) also has a mounting pin, so the screw-plus-pin prevents twisting. 

The image shows the standard coupler assembly (left) and the modified assembly (on the F7).  The modified assembly was mounted as far back as possible to allow (relatively) close coupling. 



MH

[mark.hinds]

As additional input, I hope you will forgive me if I post a rehash of one of my old Trainboard threads, pertaining to issues with the MT RDA coupler redesign.  You would of course want to avoid this issue with your design.   

Apparently, when MT introduced the RDA couplers (intended to pacify the guys who run long trains at train shows), it unintentionally reduced automatic coupling/uncoupling functionality.  Specifically, I have found that uncoupling over a magnet can be unreliable.  The reason is that the “tips” of the 2 couplers can catch when the cars are moving away from each other over the magnetic uncoupler, per the image below.



The reason for this is that RDA changed the shape of the “tips” of the couplers, per the next image.  The left side of the image shows the difference between the new MT RDA tip shape (bottom coupler) and the old MT tip shape (top coupler).  The orange marking on the set to the right shows my quick fix for this, but it would be preferable if the coupler manufacturer avoided this issue in the first place…



MH

[DKS]

Thank you, one and all, for the feedback. I've also received quite a lot from other forums, as well as offline. There have been virtually no negative comments and trivial bickering. In all, it's been most useful.

I thought I'd pass along a few more details to give the project a little more meat in the minds of interested members. There will be at least two and possibly three different couplers. Two will be for N scale. One of these will have a knuckle having relatively the same size as current products in order to maintain as much compatibility to suit those for which this is important. The other coupler will be relatively close to current Z scale couplers, possibly even smaller; essentially they'll be as small as they can and still be reliable. Obviously these will target modelers looking for a close-to-fine-scale coupler.

If the fine-N-scale coupler can be made compatible with Z scale equipment, then the product line will end there with two. If Z scale requires its own (the most likely reason being the box requirements), then there will be a third product to cover Z scale exclusively. This would actually allow for a cleaner marketing approach, since there would be no need for one product marketed for two scales, which (for me) has always imparted a sense of compromise. My preference would be to place the fine-N-scale under the kliegs for the exclusive use of N scalers looking for the best possible functional coupler. So I won't be bothered by having to add a third product at all.

In a little while I will also start publishing some drawings, so folks can get a better sense of what's in store. And I'm starting up a blog/website just for this product line so information will be one click away.

Thanks again for all of the great feedback, and keep it coming.

[VonRyan]

I thought I'd pass along a few more details to give the project a little more meat in the minds of interested members. There will be at least two and possibly three different couplers. Two will be for N scale. One of these will have a knuckle having relatively the same size as current products in order to maintain as much compatibility to suit those for which this is important. The other coupler will be relatively close to current Z scale couplers, possibly even smaller; essentially they'll be as small as they can and still be reliable. Obviously these will target modelers looking for a close-to-fine-scale coupler.

If the fine-N-scale coupler can be made compatible with Z scale equipment, then the product line will end there with two. If Z scale requires its own (the most likely reason being the box requirements), then there will be a third product to cover Z scale exclusively. This would actually allow for a cleaner marketing approach, since there would be no need for one product marketed for two scales, which (for me) has always imparted a sense of compromise. My preference would be to place the fine-N-scale under the kliegs for the exclusive use of N scalers looking for the best possible functional coupler. So I won't be bothered by having to add a third product at all.

David, will the N-Scale couplers be compatible with NEM standard coupling boxes or will there need to be a conversion of boxes for any NEM stock. If needed i could lend some UK stock with NEM boxes your way for some R and D. Since there are those in the UK who choose to use MTs rather than NEM couplings (rapidos) or any other form of fancy aftermarket coupling like i myself use, i've a feeling that the close coupling feature might help for those who want a closer space between the buffers if any at all. So all in all you might be looking at a whole 'nother market to sell your couplings in.

-Cody f.

[peteski]

NEM boxes provide just a snap-in socket for a single-piece "plug" at the end of the (Profi or Rapido) coupler's shank.  They also provide a fairly stiff springing mechanism for whatever coupler they are hosting to swing upwards and side-to-side. I suspect that none of the split shanks couplers cannot be successfully adapted to NEM boxes for couple of reasons:

1. If it is a split-shank coupler then the he coupler would need a pivot point where each piece of the split shank could move independently.  NEM does not provide this functionality.

2. Even if the coupler was a solid-shank design, IMO the springs in the NEM box are too still to allow for automatic (magnetic) uncoupling.

Of course, there might be some alternate solution I haven't thought of....