New auto-coupling air hoses available in N scale.

[peteski]

I also favor MTL couplers (mostly for the same reasons Bryan B. stated). DKS shows MTL coupler next to a real coupler, mocking its appearance. While the MTL coupler does not look like the prototype, it does have the general shape of a real knuckle coupler.

 As far as the trip pins go, I really don't think those look all that awful (in any brand of the knuckle couplers). Unless you are looking at those from a distance of about 2", the trip pins do a decent job of representing the air hose. I think that it is a very clever design that masquerades a functional magnetic uncoupling pin as an air hose.

Kato couplers seem to be closest in appearance to the 1:1 coupler. McHenry is way too large!   Too bad that the newest N scale knuckle coupler on the block wasn't made about 30% smaller. What were they thinking?!  My first encounter with N scale McHenrys was so traumatic that I decided to compare it to the other couplers.  That was few years ago, on the A-board.  Some if you probably seen that thread. If now, here it is: http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=52328

I'm also planning on rewriting that comparison someday, adding the MTL Z scale coupler and the giant Bachmann coupler into the mix.

As far as Kato coupler goes, while they look good, their design makes them prone to unscheduled uncoupling.  This is especially apparent with passenger cars (truck mounted couplers) and S-curves. They also do not work well with automatic magnetic uncoupling.  For a while I kept badgering Eric Smith from MTL to see if they could produce a new MTL coupler conversion which would drop-in into the Kato coupler boxes. But nothing ever came out of that. I suspect that I'm one of only few who find Kato couplers unreliable.

[robert3985]

Thanks Bob, but I must correct you:   The couplers are plenty available, I just received another order for 100 pairs from Lee, as detailed at this link.

The info on how to order the couplers is at this link.

Wow!  Thanks for the correction Ed.  That's good news to my ears (eyes??), since my procrastination in buying a bunch of 'em was one of my big regrets!


Does this look flat to you?  (FWIW, the camera lens here is about 2" from the model):



Welllllll....it looks sorta flat   Hahaha...maybe it's just because I know it is, eh?  I admit, they look pretty good, especially on single cars and painted.



True, they don't hook together, but they can be made to look like it.  You'd have to be running your trains at a viewing distance of about 3" to notice the difference:



Now, these look flat.  But, DAMN those coupler pockets look GREAT!! I'd have to be viewing these from about mid-car height to get the "hooked-up" view.  Overhead, they'd still look un-hooked.  I'm not griping, up until yesterday, this was about the best in the biz, and maybe it still is...


As am I, my friend...  admittedly tho I don't wear my optivisors when I am actually running trains 

Ed

Hahaha...I actually wear mine all the time when I'm running trains.  They're on a hook next to the door on the inside of my train room and I just automatically put them on when I come in.  Gettin' old....

[robert3985]

More like a 3" barrier since if you get any closer you'll get cross-eyed... 



-Cody F.

Not me.  Since I have only one good eye, it's impossible for me to get cross-eyed.   

[robert3985]

Exactly this: I do not like the way they look. As others have said, neat idea but clunky-looking. Better-looking than "dongles"? Marginally, IMO; there are far superior alternatives appearance-wise. I'd rather have better-looking air hoses (or none at all, for that matter) that don't work than stove-pipes that connect and disconnect. It has the feeling of "gimmick" to me. As I said, some things you really don't need to buy and try to know they're not for you. I do not oppose the product from the standpoint of being innovative; I think it's a seriously cool idea and I hope the manufacturers have a great success on their hands. Just not my cuppa tea.

Now I understand.  I agree...they certainly could look better, and your questions as to what we are willing to accept and reject are very pertinent.  I'm gonna put out another "gratuitous" comment (since nobody asked for it) that there's a slow evolution of what we'll accept and not accept.  As new, more scale-appearing items appear in the marketplace, it takes a while for them to be accepted.  At some time, they become "standard" and just expected, such as the proliferation of knuckle couplers after MT's patent ran out.  Yup, MT couplers don't look anything like the real deal, but we like 'em because they look a whole lot better than Rapidos.

That's where this product is with me.  I don't think it looks totally prototypical, but since "dongles" are superfluous for my use, these self-latching brake hoses look a whole lot better to my eye than "dongles" do.

For me, and for plenty of others, the "dongle" (l love that slightly degrading term for it) is repulsive (can an inanimate object look "repulsive"???).  For others, obviously it's not.  Like you, in your statement about these new hoses, I would rather not have any "dongles"...at all...so I cut every one of them off.

Now, if I was a fan of Magnematic uncoupling, I would keep 'em, and just grin and bear it, but I prefer the "giant toothpick"...so cutting off "dongles" and detailing the car ends with brass or BLMA hoses has been my MO for a good, long while.

Another "gratuitous" opinion based on nothing more than a feeling, is that there are plenty of "dongle" haters out there who may be willing to pay the price for these and use 'em.  I've got no facts yet to support that feeling, but I'll have some facts as soon as my new brake hoses arrive!

[bbussey]

Repulsive is a better term, as it conveys a subjective opinion rather than attempting to ascertain the intelligence level of an inanimate object.

The various "static" air hoses available look fine for use as details on a contest model.  But they have an unrealistic appearance on practical models in an operating consist since they don't connect with each other.  So for me, unconnected static air hoses are a more egregious offense than the magnetic trip pins, which at least have the appearance of connected air hoses when the train is moving.

[VonRyan]

Not me.  Since I have only one good eye, it's impossible for me to get cross-eyed.   

Lucky...
When I'm working on stuff, I inadvertently end up looking over the tops of my glasses...


-Cody F.

[ednadolski]

The primary reason the Micro-Trains nee-Kadee couplers were and are widely accepted (and the trip pins are not "stupid-looking" since an inanimate object cannot "look" stupid btw) is because they were a vastly improved alternative to the Rapido coupler.

No argument there, but the Rapido coupler is a pretty low bar.

Ed

[bbussey]

The year was 1972.  It took 40 years for knuckle-coupler alternatives of the MTL coupler to appear on the market since then, and the coupler boxes all are based off the #1015 design.  Every single one.  And during those 40 years, the only company improving on the original #1023 design or introducing variants thereof was Kadee/Micro-Trains.  Let's keep everything in context, and give credit where credit is due.  Coupler design wouldn't be anywhere close to as advanced as it is now if Kadee had not set the standard back then.

[wcfn100]

The year was 1972.  It took 40 years for knuckle-coupler alternatives of the MTL coupler to appear on the market since then, and the coupler boxes all are based off the #1015 design.  Every single one.  And during those 40 years, the only company improving on the original #1023 design or introducing variants thereof was Kadee/Micro-Trains.  Let's keep everything in context, and give credit where credit is due.  Coupler design wouldn't be anywhere close to as advanced as it is now if Kadee had not set the standard back then.

All of that is true but let's also keep in mind that if it wasn't for MTLs patents, we could have had multiple close to scale operating couplers years ago.

Jason

[6axlepwr]

I suspect that I'm one of only few who find Kato couplers unreliable.

No, I am going to have to follow along with you here. I am not a big fan of the Kato coupler. I have no idea why these manufacturers feel the need for offset shanks and cloogy pilots and quite frankly ugly coupler pockets. I have not found ANY N-scale coupler to be sufficient in representing anything but an over sized hook. I think it is time for a whole new coupler design. One that is scale size for N-Scale and one that looks like a real coupler. Doubt we will get one though. Modelers have invested so much into what is out now that making a change might be akin to pulling teeth.

I remember when MT first came onto the scene with their coupler.  MT I think is still the standard that modelers live by, but I do think it is time for technology to catchup and for N-Scale to get something much more realistic. Whether that is going to happen or not, only time will tell and only if the consumer demands it. If not, manufacturers will sit on their laurels and keep pumping out the same ole stuff.

I could go on and on about what can change in N-Scale, but I doubt anyone really cares. Especially the manufacturers. Soon though, I will show you. Hopefully VERY soon  .

[bbussey]

All of that is true but let's also keep in mind that if it wasn't for MTLs patents, we could have had multiple close to scale operating couplers years ago.

Aside from the fact that intellectual property must be protected and that the inventor who invested the months/years of R&D to develop the patented product should reap the rewards ... I highly doubt that, given that anyone who would have been the first to create a visibly-improved multi-functional coupler in the 1970s would have patented the design.  Also — the other manufacturers were free to develop an alternate coupler design over the same time period, but they all stayed with the Rapido.  InterMountain was the first to introduce a knuckle coupler (albeit a non-functioning one) when they entered the N scale market with their kits in the early 1990s.  Then Kato with their early-generation knuckle couplers.  Then Atlas with the N scale version of the HO Accu-Mates.  So it's not as if the other manufacturers didn't have the opportunity or the resources to do so.  They chose not to.

 

[Denver Road Doug]

I'm curious about where people's heads are at with respect to couplers.

I tend to pause when someone asks a question about "where my head's at"  but I'm generally glad to share my bit of crazy with anyone who is interested.  I think often the discussion of couplers is closely tied to wheels, but I'll try to keep focused.

As things stand today...
-Micro-Trains still offers the best widely available coupler on the market today, and it's not close IMHO.   While the "slinky effect" is frustrating, they otherwise work VERY well and as has been mentioned they should get almost ALL the credit for where we are today.  I generally keep MTL couplers in place until time for body-mounts comes along.
-Atlas' Accumates are not relevant in my mind.   In a word, they are very inconsistent.  I seem to have few problems with the Accumates installed in their locomotives, but outside of that they are "replace ASAP" for freight cars in my operating standards.
-Athearn's McHenry's seem to work good, but just don't look very good and are larger than the competition so that detracts from the looks to the point that a decision point puts them at a disadvantage.   I generally will keep them in place if they are stock, to eventually replace when I get to a certain upgrade/detail phase for a car.
-I classify everything else into "Other".  This includes the Kato semi-magnetic (like on their Bethgons) and all of the non-magnetic knuckle variations. (Red Caboose, Bachmann, et al)   These generally get replaced unless they are in unit train service.   I think eventually use in unit trains will also decline as things progress and again depending on the upgrade/detail phase.
-What do I replace the above with?  I no longer purchase n-scale truck mounted couplers, and rarely n-scale body mounts with the exception of a few that are easy installs on older tooling cars. (e.g. Bowser Airslides)  That leaves Z, and it is a mix of MTL 905's and the Bowser/Full Throttle couplers.   Given the pending arrival of the custom pockets for the Full Throttle couplers, that will probably be the standard going forward for the time being. (so, likely no more 905's purchased)

The Future...
-I expect the Protomates(tm) to be the answer moving forward, providing the benefits of the Full Throttle coupler/Nadolski-Hinshaw pocket solution--and then some--in an assembled and tested form.  In other words, a little less "skunkworks" than what I'm currently experimenting with.
-I do think the FT/NH solution will continue to be utilized going forward, but I need to get more scale miles under my belt and also depending upon availability of parts.

Regarding the detail parts (Tied to the discussion) ...
-I won't get *too* bent out of shape about connected airhoses, nor worry about MTL dongles to the extreme.  I'll do what is reasonable to have something that gives the indication of coupled airhoses.  But at the end of the day, it's model trains.   All this REALLY only matters for magazine photo shoots, and for the handful of cars that will be visible, you just stage them with the right pieces during the photography.
-I, too, find the concept of the auto-coupling hoses compelling but they're just not for me.

[bbussey]

... I remember when MT first came onto the scene with their coupler.  MT I think is still the standard that modelers live by, but I do think it is time for technology to catchup and for N-Scale to get something much more realistic. Whether that is going to happen or not, only time will tell and only if the consumer demands it. If not, manufacturers will sit on their laurels and keep pumping out the same ole stuff.

I doubt that will happen, at least not at the mass-market level.  It took the industry 40 years for the entirety of manufacturers to either adopt the MTL coupler or introduce a knuckle coupler that is compatible with the MTL coupler.  The MTL coupler is the de-facto standard now, just as the Rapido coupler was from 1960 to 2000.  At the mass-market level, there is no monetary gain in developing a scale-sized fully-functional knuckle coupler that would be incompatible with everything else.  Keep in mind that KD/MTL offered coversion kits for everything made by the other manufacturers, for decades, until the other manufacturers started migrating to a knuckle coupler design.  If it were that easy and the profit realization that clear, MTL would have standardized on their Z scale coupler long ago.

Fringe hard-core modelers would eat up a new closer-to-scale coupler, no doubt.  But the mainstream modelers won't, and the mainstream collectors won't, and those groups comprise the primary consumer base for all of the mainsteam manufacturers.

[GaryHinshaw]

FWIW, DRD's comments echo my sentiments exactly.

[peteski]

Let's also not forget that the knuckle couplers only became popular (almost standard) on N scale models in USA.  Rest of the N scale modeling world is still using Rapidos.  Sure, some of the serious European modelers use the Fleischmann coulers (I don't recall their name right now), but 99% of others are still happily useing Rapidos (and no magnetically coupled airhoses).