N-Possible Coupler Announcement (Nashville 2022)

[turbowhiz]

Will the production couplers also use the translucent dark resin shown in the recent photos, or will they be made from more opaque dark resin?

What you see is what you get. The walls are super thin, so yeah, it does get a little translucent at those thicknesses unfortunately. Materials could improve over time however. The airlines are not translucent however.

There is a ton of light on some of these for the macro shots. In normal conditions, you don't don't notice any obvious transparency. The general "out of the box" color of the coupler parts is considerably more prototypical looking then pure black or pure brown shiny plastic like basically everything else out there.

If you want, there is nothing stopping you from painting the parts (airbrush only!), and then you have absolutely no transparency. Or, if you're looking for quick and easy, I've found that spray on graphite lubricate works well, right out of the can no special tools/airbrush/skills needed. It doesn't lubricate that effectively in this application, but it sure does make them opaque with minimal effort if you're finding them too translucent.

The only "real world" translucency I find to be sub par is the shank lap. You can still see the shank gap through it, but if you treat it (paint/graphite) the gap disappears completely. Now shank gaps are present with basically every other split shank coupler design anyhow, so even untreated I'm not any worse then anything else regardless.

 

[GaryHinshaw]

I can add a few comments based on my experience to date:

* I have mainly been using the short and medium length shanks and I prefer to use the scale boxes where I can, both for their looks and performance.   The retro-fit shim in an existing box is a good option as well, but you have to take more care that the couplers don't bind due to, e.g., limited vertical clearance and/or insufficient clearance at the back of the box for the centring spring.  Not all coupler boxes are created equal: some offer truly drop-in-place conversions, others require a bit more work.  Nonetheless:

* Just today I completed my 100th conversion(!).  In fact, I've converted twice as many cars in a few months as I did with the LEZ couplers in a few years.  These really are easier to work with than the LEZ couplers.  For each conversion, I take care to make sure the centring action is reliable and the height is correct, because:

* As good as they look, their real strength is their performance.  I have posted videos upstream of some of the performance testing I have done with them (they are also posted on Andrew's YouTube page.)  But beyond those videos, I have been running 30-40 car trains around my layout for a few months now and they are performing flawlessly, to the point that:

* I stand by my previously stated assertion that this product is the best development to hit N scale since the Kato loco mechanism.  They really are that good!  I had become so frustrated with the wild-west nature of modern N scale couplers that I was ready to throw some equipment across the room.  No more.

* The N-Ps are compatible with the MTL TSCs.  They are also somewhat compatible with the AZL Z scale couplers (they don't kiss couple, but they do mate).  However they are not compatible with the LEZ (Full Throttle) Z scale coupler, nor the MTL Z scale coupler nor any stock N scale coupler.

I can't wait to see these getting into other modeller's hands.

[peteski]

I do have some Kato E units and passenger cars in hand for future development. It seems that many people find the Kato factory couplers on passenger equipment to be "ok", so they're probably not the highest priority for many. Not super visible, (annoyingly) UNreliable, and the coupled distance isn't egregious.

FIFY!
Kato couplers are very unreliable - lots of unscheduled uncoupling under slack.  For years I tried (unsuccessfully) to get MTL to try coming up with a retrofit MTL coupler for the passenger cars and now seeing what your opinion is of Kato couplers I am losing hope that someone will actually offer somoethgin that works reliably.  Judging by your opinion about those couplers you are not much into running Kato passenger trains.

[turbowhiz]

FIFY!
Kato couplers are very unreliable - lots of unscheduled uncoupling under slack.  For years I tried (unsuccessfully) to get MTL to try coming up with a retrofit MTL coupler for the passenger cars and now seeing what your opinion is of Kato couplers I am losing hope that someone will actually offer somoethgin that works reliably.  Judging by your opinion about those couplers you are not much into running Kato passenger trains.

My Kato E231 series-500 Chuo-Sobu local line EMU set I brought back from Japan has not ever once suffered an unscheduled uncoupling! 

I have some Empire Builder cars as my "Kato passenger car" example in my possession. They have fairly generic Kato style (as in identical to their well cars as I recall) truck mounted couplers, and I can get them to fail, but not without some considerable effort on some significantly tight corners. Comparatively MTL couplers are WAY more unreliable in similar testing conditions. Now I know from various locomotives that I have collected for this venture that Kato couplers are all pretty "special" and not in a good way, and they've varied over the years too. Is there any particular passenger equipment you can point to that is more problematic then others? Specific circumstances (i.e. corner radius/combinations etc) that you know always fails? I've not noted broad complaints online about Kato couplers in passenger equipment specifically, nor have people been explicitly asking about it at my booth at the shows I've done. Coal porters have been mentioned multiple times... Having totally non-operating couplers being the principle complaint.

I will get to Kato passenger cars... I have sought out some explicitly for that purpose. But given the large library of equipment they've produced, I will likely need some community support to establish what's different from what and so on and so forth. I've given some thought to adapting the truck mount itself, but quite honestly body mounting is in general the way I'd like to go.

[garethashenden]

Can you make a box that looks right on diesel pilots? Something about 1015 sized, that fills the hole common on a lot of diesels. Maybe one of your existing designs works, but I wonder if something specific for locomotives would be worth while.

[MK]

I really can't say I've had any Kato coupling issues.  This is with equal amounts of Kato USA and Kato Japan equipment.  I've even had good luck (knock on wood!) with Kato locos and freight behind it that has MTL and Accumate couplers.

Above said equipment run on combined T-Trak layouts at shows and my little piddly 3x6 layout at home with 9-3/4 and 11 Atlas Code 80 track.  Maybe it's the Code 80 ensuring everything runs right.   

[turbowhiz]

Can you make a box that looks right on diesel pilots? Something about 1015 sized, that fills the hole common on a lot of diesels. Maybe one of your existing designs works, but I wonder if something specific for locomotives would be worth while.

Yes, its next up. Its presently under development, in two forms. One for general "1015" scenarios, and one specifically for Kato straight shank scenarios (So many, but not all, Kato locomotives. Kato has at least two different body mount shank styles that casually look the same, mount in an identical fashion, but are set at different heights. Nice. Kato couplers... Always special!)

Locomotives can be readily converted using a shim in a factory box. But given the prevalence of locomotives using "1015" type boxes, it totally does make sense to produce such a part for sure.

Loco quick breakdown of shim install in factory "1015" type box:


Now, the scalebox does in fact fit locomotives. In fact, it fits Kato locomotives too (straight shank), and you don't need to tweak a single thing either. No pilot filing to speak of, use the OEM clip, absolute perfect drop in. You install the Scalebox upside down with the hat.... The height it spot on perfect. The look is not quite right however, but it certainly works.

Scalebox in NW2:



Scalebox in ES-44:





The issue with scale couplers and locomotives ultimately comes down to overwide coupler boxes. Some concession to model railroad corner reality does come into play, but in many cases its wider then necessary for most reasonable corners. My locomotive specific box design will be 1015 width (so too wide by large margins really) but fill in the big-ol-hole, and also have more lateral motion so that long diesels will be more corner compliant. The scalebox does work, but its not an ideal option.

[ridinshotgun]

I haven't had much in the way of Kato passenger equipment coupling issue either.  They actually work way better than my WOT commuter car sets.  Those things are a nightmare.

But one idea would be to have a replacement coupler for kato locomotives.  I hate the original locomotive couplers and try to swap out everyone to MTL and would really like to go the NP coupler since I have started buying the TSC for all of them but if you can come up with a suitable replacement in the near future I might put that on hold.

[Sokramiketes]

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater on the Kato passenger car couplers, @peteski .

There was one run of cars, the original Budd "corrugated" passenger cars that were horrendous.  The couplers looked good but detached under slack so much that you'd roll one car up to couple with others and the end car would shoot off, like that swinging marble toy.  Kato fixed it and offered replacement couplers.

Since that point in time, I have not seen any coupler issues, and frequently choose to substitute Kato underframes and (gasp) truck mounted couplers under my kitbashed and scratch built cars.  Because they just run and run and run on modular layouts. 

[Jimbo]

I must be in the minority on Kato’s passenger equipment.

Sure, it stays coupled when running roundy-roundy.  But, at least for me, the only way to couple or uncouple them is with the 0-5-0.  In fact, I often need to lift one over the other Unimate-style to get them coupled.  Whereas I can simulate enroute switching out of cars (dropping a Pullman, picking up a diner, swapping head-end cars) easily with my MT- equipped cars, these operations are impossible with cars equipped with Kato couplers.

And forget about them mating with any other type of coupler.

I was ready to swap over my Kato fleet to MT couplers (and already had purchased some for this purpose) when I got bit by the N-Possible bug, after seeing the magnificent photos of their appearance and videos of their performance.  So I’ve been in a holding pattern for a number of upgrades to my fleet until these are available.


@turbowhiz - PLEASE just get these to market as quickly as you can!  I’m sure I’ll figure something out on my passenger fleet.  (Freight cars - and locomotives- will be getting the treatment first anyway.)

Any updates on when these might be available would be appreciated!


Regards,
Jim

[jwaldo]

I ordered up some 905's, they should be in my hands this week as I found some in Canada. I'll be able to measure them and make some direct comparisons. But my guess is that width wise my scalebox is less wide. Based on spec the mounting hole location is certainly forward of the 1015/1025 location...

Since the 905 is a "pull to slink" design, there is no rear clearance problem. In principle, I should be able to make a dimensionally direct replacement, requiring a "shorter then short" shank base coupler part. My design allows for extremely short overall lengths... Scale distance coupling F units can be readily accommodated, and those are on my to-do. I might see if it makes sense to combine this, I'm trying to keep the propagation of bespoke part designs to a minimum, within reason at least.

I'm not quite sure where this will fit in the priority list of ideas, but if there is demand for a "direct 905" easy swap part it should be doable.

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

[peteski]

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater on the Kato passenger car couplers, @peteski .

There was one run of cars, the original Budd "corrugated" passenger cars that were horrendous.  The couplers looked good but detached under slack so much that you'd roll one car up to couple with others and the end car would shoot off, like that swinging marble toy.  Kato fixed it and offered replacement couplers.

Since that point in time, I have not seen any coupler issues, and frequently choose to substitute Kato underframes and (gasp) truck mounted couplers under my kitbashed and scratch built cars.  Because they just run and run and run on modular layouts.

I'm not talking about the original Kato Knuckle couplers which as you mentioned were awful.  I'm taking about the couplers which came after that and which are still being used on all of their American prototype models.

Just like Jimbo describes.  He and I are not the only ones experiencing the unreliability. There are others out there. While they don't couple/uncouple  as easy as MTL couplers, the unscheduled separation is the most annoying "feature" (which I have never experienced with MTL couplers).  The uncoupling happens only under slack and when the couplers shift laterally (usually on curves, especially S-curves).

[Sokramiketes]

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. 

[arbomambo]

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

[ridinshotgun]

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?