New auto-coupling air hoses available in N scale.

[ednadolski]

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.

As you say, that was 40 years ago, so I think MT has long since received their "due credit".   I contend that we are now at a point where a long-entrenched de facto standard is actually a hinderance to further innovation.  That's because of market inertia, not because the MT design is some sort of epitome of model coupler functionality or aesthetics.

My hat is off to those who find the MT couplers suitable for their needs (likewise for truck-mounted couplers and plastic wheels, BTW).  Personally, I would never buy another MT-equipped car again if I had a choice -- the slinky effect is an absurdity to have to put up with, and functionally they are unreliable in the operational conditons that I need (long trains moving down grades at low speeds).  So I am glad that better choices now exist, and whether they reach a mass market or not is irrelevant to me - as is the history of 40 years ago.

Ed

[ednadolski]

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

It seems worse to me with the more recent models.  I could run the older Katos all day and not see any issues, but with the newer ones (purchased in the last 1-2 years or so) I have a consist of four Kato ES44s that just don't seem to want to stay together for very long.   I suspect it may have something to do with the longer shanks that they have now.   I can't wait to get around to converting them all to the Lee English Z-scale couplers.... 

Ed

[wcfn100]

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.

I'm all for patents and their protection, but using the MTL example the two things I think that get complained about most are the size of the N scale knuckle and the 'slinky' action.  Without patents, someone could (I say would) have address those two issues with a MTL clone.  On the other side, MTL has no real pressure to improve their current design so we're stuck with it as it is.

MTL gets and deserves all the credit for their coupler, but if not for them, someone else would have done it, and it could just as well been better, we just don't know.


Jason

[Denver Road Doug]

MTL gets and deserves all the credit for their coupler, but if not for them, someone else would have done it, and it could just as well been better, we just don't know.

And this will be said for auto-coupling air hoses in twenty years.   

There are plenty of examples of this in our hobby.  It's a delicate web we weave where a patent promotes complacency and prevents innovation.   I am all for someone making good money from their creations, but I also would like to think they would continue to either develop their product or appropriately license it to someone that will.

[VonRyan]

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). 

The version that Peco has come up with (of the rapido that is...) works quite well.
Some UK modellers replace the strange couplers with Kadees or MTs, but being a UK modeller in the US, I don't want something reminiscent of the US on my UK stock, which aside from going with scale three-link couplers and hooks (not going to happen unless I go 2mmFS), that leaves you to your own creativity or some bend-to-shape brass couplers like the Sprat&Winkle autocoupling or the DG autocoupling, both of which allow for delayed uncoupling and shunting. I myself have choosen to go with the Sprat&Winkle autocoupling (although the DG is the standard among 2mmFS modellers) since it isn't a compact design and is more elegant in its looks, plus it allows for the equivalent of the MT "dongle" to be either a bent steel wire or cosmetic three-link couplings, which is what I choose since the chain I found here in the US is magnetic enough to work with the buried magnets on my GWR-themed N-Trak module.



-Cody F.

[pjm20]

  On the other side, MTL has no real pressure to improve their current design so we're stuck with it as it is.

How bout dem ProtoMates? I think DKS is going to improve N Scale coupling immensely.

[bbussey]

... My hat is off to those who find the MT couplers suitable for their needs (likewise for truck-mounted couplers and plastic wheels, BTW).  Personally, I would never buy another MT-equipped car again if I had a choice -- the slinky effect is an absurdity to have to put up with, and functionally they are unreliable in the operational conditons that I need (long trains moving down grades at low speeds).  So I am glad that better choices now exist, and whether they reach a mass market or not is irrelevant to me - as is the history of 40 years ago.

You have the option to equip your rolling stock with whatever you deem fit.  But to expect the manufacturers en masse to satisify a fringe market request is unreasonable, particularly when it took the industry forty years to evolve from Rapidos to functioning MTL-based knuckle couplers.  If you are pleased to have choices you approve of, then there is no need to disparage the status quo.

I'm all for patents and their protection, but using the MTL example the two things I think that get complained about most are the size of the N scale knuckle and the 'slinky' action.  Without patents, someone could (I say would) have address those two issues with a MTL clone.  On the other side, MTL has no real pressure to improve their current design so we're stuck with it as it is.

MTL gets and deserves all the credit for their coupler, but if not for them, someone else would have done it, and it could just as well been better, we just don't know.

I disagree.  As the Accu-Mate proved when it hit the market while the MTL patents were still in effect, all someone had to do was take the initiative to offer a different product.  MTL is the de-facto standard — people may not like that, but the facts are the facts — and Atlas saw the future and knew they needed to start equipping their products with MTL couplers or MTL-compatable couplers.  Once Atlas jumped ship from the Rapido bandwagon, everyone else followed.

What if, what if, what if.  It was the late 1960s when the Magne-Matic system was developed.  No CNC machines.  No computers in the industry at all.  Strictly stone knives and bearskins.  If the #1023 could have been designed better by someone else back in 1968 September 1969, with no computers to help design and test it, I don't know whom.  Riva Rossi, maybe.  No one else in the industry had the tooling skills.  Modelers should be thankful Kadee made the decision to do it.

I doubt that a new coupler standard will establish itself within the next 20 years.  Not only would all the manufacturers have to agree to switch over simultaneously, and provide conversion kits for existing models, but there's too much existing equipment out there for modelers to convert.  Limited funds are better spent elsewhere instead of replacing couplers that function more than adequately for most modelers.  Retro-fitting older equipment with state-of-the-art metal wheels and body-mounted couplers is daunting enough for most people.

How bout dem ProtoMates? I think DKS is going to improve N Scale coupling immensely.

It will have to be able to mate with MTLs to go mainstream.

[mplsjct]

I think it's a cool idea, We'll see, I guess.

(regarding the coupler hoses).

[DKS]

It will have to be able to mate with MTLs to go mainstream.

It will.

[ednadolski]

But to expect the manufacturers en masse to satisify a fringe market request is unreasonable

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't think that was anyone's expectation here.

there is no need to disparage the status quo.

Every time I buy a car that comes equipped with MTs, I'm paying toward something that I have no use for and that doesn't satisfy my needs.   If I didn't have the option to put in something better, I probably would not be modeling in N scale.   However I don't consider it 'disparagement' to discuss why the MTs don't work for me, because these are legitimate reasons, not gratuitous fault-finding.

Innovation begins by being dissatisfied with the status quo.   Otherwise we'd all still have Rapidos, right? 

Ed

[havingfuntoo]

Innovation begins by being dissatisfied with the status quo.   Otherwise we'd all still have Rapidos, right? 

+1

[robert3985]

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't think that was anyone's expectation here.


Every time I buy a car that comes equipped with MTs, I'm paying toward something that I have no use for and that doesn't satisfy my needs.   If I didn't have the option to put in something better, I probably would not be modeling in N scale.   However I don't consider it 'disparagement' to discuss why the MTs don't work for me, because these are legitimate reasons, not gratuitous fault-finding.

Innovation begins by being dissatisfied with the status quo.   Otherwise we'd all still have Rapidos, right? 

Ed

+2

[robert3985]

As you say, that was 40 years ago, so I think MT has long since received their "due credit".   I contend that we are now at a point where a long-entrenched de facto standard is actually a hinderance to further innovation.  That's because of market inertia, not because the MT design is some sort of epitome of model coupler functionality or aesthetics.

My hat is off to those who find the MT couplers suitable for their needs (likewise for truck-mounted couplers and plastic wheels, BTW).  Personally, I would never buy another MT-equipped car again if I had a choice -- the slinky effect is an absurdity to have to put up with, and functionally they are unreliable in the operational conditons that I need (long trains moving down grades at low speeds).  So I am glad that better choices now exist, and whether they reach a mass market or not is irrelevant to me - as is the history of 40 years ago.

Ed

+1

[peteski]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the N scale MTL Kadee couplers were not actually designed for N scale. Back then N scale trains were still considered to be miniature toys. Even the Kadee's Micro Trains Line models  came equipped with Rapidos.

The Kadee's small split-shank coupler was originally designed as a narrow-gauge H0 coupler. Only then they decided that the newly designed coupler could also work for N scale. I don't think that that in late 60s there was a large contingent of fine-scale N-scale modelers who were loudly clamoring for a more prototypical coupler to replace Rapidos.  Looking back, I think that we are all glad that Kadee did what they did.

[bbussey]

The #1023 coupler was patented in September 1969, and the Kadee cars debuted with Kadee couplers in 1972.  The sliding doors design also was patented before the models debuted.  Kadee added the option a few years later of buying the cars with Rapido-equipped Bettendorf trucks and add-on magnets that the consumer had to glue on the sides.  These models had yellow paper inserts in the box.  Kadee abandoned the Rapido-equipped cars after a couple of years.

There are many more injection-molded N scale manufacturers today than there were in 1972.  It would be a lot harder to convince them all to switch to a different standard.  Any new coupler would have to be able to interface with the MTL couplers in order to be viable.  The NZT coupler will, which is a huge plus.  You guys are thinking of this from an individual preference standpoint.  Manufacturers don't have that luxury.