N-Possible Coupler Announcement (Nashville 2022)

[Iain]

would it be possible to get the dimensions of the closer to scale sized box for designing into a 3d print frame?

[garethashenden]

Something I've been wondering is do these need to be screwed together always? Every so often I find myself gluing a coupler box together before gluing it in place. Usually on flatcars where I don't want to risk drilling through the deck.

[Jimbo]

That's a fascinating and strangely very varied experience with the same product!

Not really strange to me.

There’s a wide variety of model railroad layouts out there.  Different track, different sub-roadbed, different curve radii, different environments, different modeler skill levels, etc.  It’s clear to me that some products are more robust to these variations.  Kato’s couplers aren’t.

To me, MT is the “gold standard.”  Hoping that @turbowhiz couplers become the PLATINUM standard!  Judging from what I’m seeing here, I am optimistic.

Jim

[turbowhiz]

So which of these options are the easiest in which to convert ScaleTrains?
Specifically, Gevo 4s, Dash 9s, and SD40-2s?

At launch, the UGS shim conversion in the OEM Scaletrains box. Its tested in all of the above.

So reading back on the various mounting methods you posted @turbowhiz i see that your preferred method is to mount the box to a hole drilled forward from the original coupler box mounting holes on already body mounted coupler cars. Is there a thought to coming up with a locating jig to allow more precise alignment of the new hole and holes in cars that might be changed from truck to body mount with these?

That scenario is specific to current run MTL boxcars with 1016's when I'm recommending this. You can make out the forward hole on the under Older MTL boxcars as I recall actually have the hole dimple in the floor in both a forward and rear position. The placement is clearly visible on the new production casting on the floor under the stirrup strap from the top too. If the model has a factory "1015" type box placement, typically the OEM mounting hole location is ok. The challenge is a universal hole drilling jig for all given applications is a tricky thing to come up with.

Something I've been wondering is do these need to be screwed together always? Every so often I find myself gluing a coupler box together before gluing it in place. Usually on flatcars where I don't want to risk drilling through the deck.

Although I'm not a huge fan of gluing as it complicates any future servicing, there are times where it is the best mounting option for sure. BSI IC2000, aka Tire glue (rubberized CA) is my go to glue for this (and basically anything that needs gluing pretty much). As a bonus, the resin parts hold much better then conventional Derlin type coupler boxes do.

Box glued on IM 8K Tank car:


Partial box glued in for Bachmann Consolidation Pilot:

would it be possible to get the dimensions of the closer to scale sized box for designing into a 3d print frame?

I'm working up some dimensional drawings to answer this sort of question, almost done.

That's a fascinating and strangely very varied experience with the same product!

So what's causing the slack issues, stalling locomotives?

I DO have this problem, as you describe it, with longer trains of RailSmith cars and their Accumate couplers.  Those seem to bounce apart on the same layout that Kato is fine. 

The Kato coupler installed in the passenger trucks does have what I call "the escape" flaw. The scenario is the knuckle in a hardover in the retainer/thumb direction stops its travel before the retainer does.  I'm producing a video to explain this, as this is something to be aware of when retrofitting my couplers into existing boxes. Since they're fundamentally flawed in this respect, they will fail when subjected to draft forces that pushes the knuckle into to hardover, allowing its mate to slip past the retainer since it still has travel. Since they're truck mounted, it probably takes the right kind of scenario to get line things up just so for this to happen. You do need a draft event.... Reverse movement/power hiccup/downgrade etc.

I played a bit more with my Kato cars, and I had much more success in getting them to fail then my earlier experiments. Some combination of broader corners, and the specific joint too (i.e. some joints seemed more prone to the problem then others, probably a variance in spring rate and or some mechanical resistance variability) I was able to get them to them reliably failing my torture test. I'm only testing Kato-Kato joints, not sure how other brands add of the problem.

[Mark5]

Watching and waiting (patiently) for N-Possible couplers to stop being N-Possible to buy.



Mark

[turbowhiz]

I genuinely cannot wait for these couplers. They are a game changer! As to 905-swap shank length and hole placement: when I convert N locos to 905 couplers I have to put the mounting hole as far forward as physically possible due to both the short shank length and the spring-in-back box design. Even then things get dicey if the loco has a snowplow.

Incidentally, since I just measured a 905 for a pilot-replacement project today, the outside dimensions of a 905 coupler box are:
• 0.088" (2.22 mm) high
• 0.178" (4.52 mm) wide
• 0.241" (6.11 mm) deep
• mounting hole centered approximately 0.098" (2.5mm) back from the front edge of the box

My 905's showed up. Well, technically 903's, which needed to be assembled. I'll say that there is absolutely no comparison with respect to the ease of assembly of my couplers vs the 903's. Or any other MTL coupler to be honest, but the 903's are just that little bit more "fun".

It looks like my scalebox short shank parts should just work in any place you've installed a 905. The slack in coupled distance will be shorter on account of the head slack alone, and the slack out coupled distance will be longer, but all in the same range with the same hole placement. One major benefit of the NP coupler is that you can have much tighter coupled distances by account of the minimal slack action. If you have a high slack design, you will have a collision when the slack is in even if you're slack out distance is correct.

The NP box is longer towards the front by about .3 mm. The NP box top is just a hint thinner (like .05 mm).

The NP scalebox is shorter then a stock 905, even when accounting for clearance, and would work in places where you've shortened the 905 box too. There is much less width at the front, but conversely there is width needed for clearance of the coupler spring levers on the NP coupler that's not needed on the 905.

The NP spring design allows for much shorter overall length then the MTL longitudinal design (you do trade width behind the pivot point for this, but its a good tradeoff). I will have future designs that will be significantly shorter overall then this launch short shank design which will come in handy in certain scenarios. Like carbody diesels with minimal truck clearance for example.

There is absolutely no comparison with respect to off center slip resistance. The NP couplers compare favorably with traditional N scale MTL couplers in this respect, the Z scale couplers aren't even in the same league.


Top view slink in:



Top view Slink out (ignore the trip pin I'm using to hold the slink...)



Side view slink in:



Side view slink out:
 


End View (note that the top ridge on the scalebox is cosmetic, and can be easily removed if desired)

[turbowhiz]

Watching and waiting (patiently) for N-Possible couplers to stop being N-Possible to buy.



Mark

Trying to get that solved! The big load of parts was received by the packaging tooling guys this week, so hopefully have some good news soon on that front.

[garethashenden]

Been a couple of months, any updates?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I've solved the compatibility issue.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

 Looks a bit silly, but works well so far.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Sokramiketes]

You went full boxing glove!

[C855B]

I've solved the compatibility issue.
Looks a bit silly, but works well so far.

The first thought that popped into my head was a trainman standing on it with whip in hand, beating it into submission.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

You went full boxing glove!

I've been calling it "The Hulk Hand" because it reminds me of these.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

But the thing is... it works, and it means that we don't need to either be required to use dreaded conversion cars or have to convert our entire fleets at once.

I'm really excited because I think these are going to make adoption FAR easier for folks. I'm trying to convince Andrew to include one in each pack of couplers to do just that.

[Sokramiketes]

I'm picking up what you're puting down.

In my interactions with Andrew though, and the incredible amount of testing and what-if scenarios he's played through in making these couplers function the best they can... I wouldn't be too hurt if he doesn't see it the same way.  There's a possibility that including a less reliable piece that promises something more than it may provide, may be more work than its worth to a one-man shop.

But maybe you make it available for those who would find value. 

[Jesse6669]

I've solved the compatibility issue.

Looks a bit silly, but works well so far.

Reminds me of a Marx O-gauge N5C I used to have when I was a kiddo.   

[turbowhiz]

Been a couple of months, any updates?

So... Been REALLY working hard to get this over the last hump, namely packaging at scale.

It isn't exactly a trivial exercise to package 1000's of extremely small loose parts... Like these coupler knuckles, some 4000 plus on this tray alone...



But I'm there! A few thousand packages worth of couplers/springs/box parts/airlines/shims, all packed in caps ready for bagging.



I'm waiting on my large bag tag order from the printer, its taking longer then originally promised, so its going to show while I'm in transit to Kansas City unfortunately.

So yeah, really won't be long now. Its been way more work (and money!) then I figured on, and I was under no illusion this was going to be easy. But I've really worked on the sustainability.... Not rushing stuff out the door, but making sure I have good repeatable, sustainable, scalable processes so I can be as nimble as possible going forward, irrespective about how big or niche the product ultimately ends up being. Maybe these sell in career changing numbers. Or maybe not, but either way its sustainable regardless.

I'll be at the NSE convention in Kansas City, and the NTS in Novi too, so come out and see stuff in person! (I can't legally sell at these shows however, just to set expectations). I should have them at the Canadian launch retailer within the next couple of weeks, and I expect to have stuff in some US retailers hands in short order too.