# WHY would they???????????



## Guest (Nov 15, 2008)

'QUOTE'
Dear All,

We are hard at work at a new body mount "Kuppler" that is different than the rest. It is not a Kadee compatible coupler, but has super pulling strength and can manuever 5' diameter curves.It's original thinking and I hope it will find a place on your railroad. Obviously, you will need transition cars if you want to use our coupler along with others, but we will include it on our new 50' PS 5277 box car.


When I have a finished version I will picture it here, but it may be serveral weeks more.

All the best,





Now why would they put all the effert into making a body mount coupler and making it in such a way that the most widely used body mount coupler a kadee wouldnt work with it.......you know all we ever hear is tell a freind, buy a train. move garden trains to the front of the list let eveyone know about our hobby and how compatable it is with other manufactures products....
this is a bad move but no surprise their......... so much for moving the hobby forward ...dumb, dumb,dumb. just when i thought they were finally gettin it , they go and do something like this......... my opionion of course...why would i want a transition cars for body mount kupplers, i dont... if your going to make body mount couplers make them so the others will mate up and then us as the customers dont have to spend a lot of $ to make it work....with everyone elses stuff.......


----------



## Burl (Jan 2, 2008)

Dumb question: who are "they"?


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2008)

Good question, A/C


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Are you indicating the answer to the good question is: "A/C"? 

Then I have another question that has been bugging me for quite a while... 

WHO is "A/C"? Accucraft or Aristocraft? (Or some other manufacturer?)


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

To answer your original question... I don't have experience with any manufacturer's couplers except the hoop and spear that came with the MDC Roundhouse cars I have (and replaced with "O" scale knuckle couplers) and the couplers that came on my Aster Mikes (which are near identical to the "O" scale one I put on my cars) so I can only surmise the following: 

From the questions on this forum along the lines of "Can brand X couplers mate with brand Y?" and statements like "I always replace all the couplers with 'Kadee' ones." I gather that no manufacturers couplers are compatible with any other maufacturer's couplers, so one more incompatible coupler is no different than the status quo. 

This then brings up the question of why is one manufacturer changing their coupler? Well, Capitolism says you want to corner the market so you can make more money than your competitors. If this new coupler is "better" than their own old one and the competitors (and Kadee) then everyone will beat a path to their door and they will make money. 

It is the customer that gets to decide if it is actually "better" and they vote about that with their dollars. 

If the cost of the cars they come on goes down that will make a difference, just like if it makes the cost go up. 

If the coupler never opens at unwanted times, that will make it "better" to most people. If it will open by the user just thinking "I want that one over there to uncouple" then the price could go up considerably and people would still buy them because they are "better" than the ones that don't have that feature. 

Time (and customers) will determine if their "why" is a good reason.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

"Because they can". 

Let's look at this another way. 
Bachmann, Lionel, Delton (and Delton Classics), USA, and lgb with Lionel couplers simply screwed to the tang are all the same height and all couple together. 

The only "odd man out" with knuckles really is A-C. 

If they are going to build an all-new coupler, why not make is as totally incompatible with everyone else as they are now? 

Gotta be consistent. 

Next thing you know, some manufacturer will listen to some "ex-spurt" who is pushing all new wheel and track stanbdards and we'll have trains that won't run anywhere else but on the home layout with "special" track.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The "Kuppler" seems to be truck mounted, not body mounted, but maybe that's what it will be. 

Lewis said it will work on sharper curves (why needed for truck mounts?) so maybe it will be a super flexible body mount? 

Lewis also said it will have "super pulling strength", I guess in response to the problem with Aristo couplers pulling apart in long trains. 

I do know that I can hook Kadees to Aristos OK, not great, but OK. I did not see any weird coupler height problem with Aristo truck mounts, their body mounts are all wrong though. 

Well, we will see, it may be the last product Lewis gets out of China before the turmoil of the purchase of Sanda Kan sinks in. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 11/15/2008 1:01 PM
The "Kuppler" seems to be truck mounted, not body mounted, but maybe that's what it will be. 

Lewis said it will work on sharper curves (why needed for truck mounts?) so maybe it will be a super flexible body mount? 

Lewis also said it will have "super pulling strength", I guess in response to the problem with Aristo couplers pulling apart in long trains. 

I do know that I can hook Kadees to Aristos OK, not great, but OK. I did not see any weird coupler height problem with Aristo truck mounts, their body mounts are all wrong though. 

Well, we will see, it may be the last product Lewis gets out of China before the turmoil of the purchase of Sanda Kan sinks in. 

Regards, Greg






QUOTE We are hard at work at a new body mount "Kuppler" that is different than the rest. It is not a Kadee compatible coupler,


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep, just saw I missed it.... he did say body mount. 

Jeeze Nick, you could cut me some slack! (not that I deserve it at all).....









Regards, Greg


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2008)

he he he .....


----------



## Crosshead (Feb 20, 2008)

So, you want some real conspiracy theory? 

Somebody looko up the patent for this new gem. Look for any familiar names. Then watch for a big push to get all the other manufacturers to use this particular coupler instead of what they're already using (maybe by someone going outside the chain of command to directly convince Kader, who now owns all the manufacturies, that they really only need to build one kind of "Large Scale" coupler.) And watch for a helpful, but secret "Working Group" to study the new coupler and recommend that it become the NMRA standard for "large scale" trains (ie everything bigger than 1:48 and smaller than 1:13.5) 

But, then, that's ridiculous. Something like that would never REALLY happen, right? 

Richard C.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

If it did happen, and the coupler they settled on worked well and looked good, I'd be delighted


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 11/15/2008 3:23 PM
If it did happen, and the coupler they settled on worked well and looked good, I'd be delighted

Really?
Were you happy with the 27MC T/E?
Were you happy when they discontinued it and made it 75MC?
Are you happy they've dropped the 75MC for the 2.4GC unit?

I would be willing to bet you'd like "proper" gauge, too, even if it meant........wait for it......replacing all your track, trucks, wheelsets, power blocks, turnouts?

1.950" gauge?

Okay.

What didn't you like about the old coupler?


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Hard to believe it could "look good" and not be compatible with Kadee, this sounds like one more thing to divide the hobby into different camps. I don't think people who have invested in Kadee as I have are going to start using something that is not compatible. Will it even be close to scale?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, if it is a body mount, and it looks good, and it is strong and works down to 2.5' radius, it will be made of unobtanium on the planet Krypton. 

The compromises needed to work on that tight a radius would seem to preclude a prototypical appearance. 

We will see soon... wonder why no picture yet? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2008)

Heres my point,I didnt start this thread to fight with each other i just dont understand why this company always goes 75% of the way and then stops.it doesnt make ant sence to me why you would mke a new body mount coupler and not have it work with a kadee. maybe im wrong but i would think 99.9% of people with body mount couplers use kadees. so it would be an insentive for a company if they were going to make a new car with a body mount coupler to have it work with a kadee!!!! if it worked well with my equipment then i would not have to kadee it and save myself a little $ then i might buy more cars because i would not have to change the coupler and it would work with all my other cars........ maybe my thinking is wrong but i can tell you this...in my opionion they are going down the wrong road ,and if it cost more to make a car work with existing rolling stock chances are they wont be selling many. also time are getting tough and people are cutting WAY back on what they spend,so this is another reasson to give better value rite now and stop doing stupid stuff...also i can tell you if they were going to bet the farm on a new coupler that would be better than a kadee, that would be wrong cause i and im pretty sure most who have them wouldnt take them off for an aristocraft body coupler..or anyone elses...........that didnt work with a kadee
Nick


----------



## todd55whit (Jan 2, 2008)

Nick, 
Well add me to the list! Many who have changed to large scale from"ho" have had excellant luck with Kadee in HO. That is why I went with Kadee when I switched to large scale. I have never understood why manufacturers build things not compatable with what we already have. I have a fair amount invested in Kadee now, I'm not switching now. Even if this coupler could "pull the walls down", I'm not switching! It's like the "super sockett", go ahead make something that alot of us can't use! I'll end up cutting it out when it arrives. Well looks like if I buy a car or loco with this "super coupler" on it I'll be cutting it out also.


----------



## Rayman4449 (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for the post Nick. I didn't realize they were working on a new body mounted coupler. 

Well I don't think I need to add anything to this discussion but I can't believe they aren't going to be Kadee compatible, but oh well. lol In general it's good folks will have an out of the box solution for body mounts which I assume will be included in every car and engine you buy of theirs.... 

I'm like Todd, I used Kadees when I was in HO scale and loved them and after seeing they were made for Largescale I knew that's what I wanted to go with. Never regretted my decision. 


Raymond


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well lets just say that thank goodness not everybody likes the same thing. If we all went to one type of coupler this would be a dull hobby. Later RJD


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

After reading this entire thing, I am still unsure who is making it? Accucraft or Aristo??


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Aristo, usually AC is AristoCraft, and ACC is ACCucraft... but not always! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Dull?... Dull!... DULL?!?!?!?!? 

If they were all the same, just think of the energy we could devote to the battery/track power debate! 

And when that is settled... the Scale Wars could really get down to business.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I always thought "A/C" stood for "Air Conditioning"!


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

One line of thought I don't think has been mentioned: that is a great many LScalers have not retro-fitted Kaydee couplers due to the high cost involved, especially if you have a reasonable amount of rolling stock.

The new coupler (Kuppler) might just be the one that many decide to change to where they have more than one type of rolling stock on their railroad. especially if the price is competitive. 


From what I see, and Charles (S.V) mentioned it, is that no manufacturer so far seems to have made their couplers compatible with anyone else's. So why is Aristo expected to do so. I don't think that the current Aristo coupler has issues for most folk; it seems an issue only for those running long consists. I have certainly have not had any issues whereas Bachmann couplers, whilst appearing more prototypical, do tend to show a weakness from time to time.


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 11/15/2008 6:51 PM
I always thought "A/C" stood for "Air Conditioning"!

Or Alternating Current?????????hee hee hee The Regal


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You can mix Kadees and Aristos just fine... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Gee now I know why I moved out of IA. HeHe A/C yikes. Later RJD


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Mixing Kadee N Aristo ,A/C Then that would be Alternating Couplers ???


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 11/17/2008 4:30 PM
Gee now I know why I moved out of IA. HeHe A/C yikes. Later RJD


Ya gotta understand... EVERYBODY makes us Hawkeyes happy... some by arriving and some by leaving.


----------



## pfdx (Jan 2, 2008)

Maybe they got these guys to make a large scale coupler.

http://www.sergentengineering.com/

On second thoughts, they may be too prototypical.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Dave ,,,Dave,,, Dave ????? 

You never stop do ya...


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

Aristocraft announced plans for a new KUPPLER. I believe this is how the Aristo site spelled the name if you want to search for it.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes that's how it was spelled but they have not really posted any pics or more info. Later RJD


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By pfdx on 11/17/2008 6:17 PM
Maybe they got these guys to make a large scale coupler.

http://www.sergentengineering.com/

On second thoughts, they may be too prototypical.















These are darn good couplers! I use them exclusively on my HO scale layout. I've often wondered why something similar wasn't available in larger scales. I find it amusing that the two biggest complaints about them are the lack of centering springs and remote uncoupling - neither of which have anything to do with prototypical operations!


----------



## fildowns (May 17, 2008)

Well, I'd have made a new coupler KD compatible. I'd want my coupler to be the most popular, none of the big 3 makes of included knuckles work totally hassle free with KD. KD don't make G cars so making a coupler that is KD compatible doesn't encourage you to buy another make car. If it was KD compatible then Aristo cars would be the only make where KD users didn't automatically swap for KD. KD compatibilty would have been an improvement not a sign of weakness. 

Also, I bet if the new coupler had been more KD-friendly then chances are it would also have been friendly toward the old Aristo knuckle, so the transition of Aristo couplers old to new would have been less stressful for Aristo fans.

Coming apart under stress was only part of the problem. Why not negate the primary reason why Aristo knuckles are removed - to fit KDs, by making them work smoothly with them out of the box.

[sigh]


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

http://www.ozarkminiatures.com/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1001
Why not these? I've bought a couple but haven't had the chance to assemble them.
Craig


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Did they explain what they mean by "not compatible"? Does that just mean they won't uncouple using the magnet between the rails, or that they won't even grasp each other? The latter would be a catastrophy to most folk, but the former would not be a big deal except for those that do remote control Switching Operations.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Charles: No picture no other information from Aristo. Seems to be designed for tight curves, but to do that with a body mount will be very interesting. 

You cannot use the magnet if you have a Kadee coupled to an Aristo, I know. 

Craig: Of course you must be kidding! For those who did not follow his link: a pair of couplers not assembled for $15.60? Don't think they will take over the replacement market, and they do not remotely uncouple, and also being all metal, they will require periodic maintenance like oiling. They look nice, but most people want some extra features over the stock couplers, and these are twice the price of Kadees. 

The discussion here is a NEW coupler from Aristo that is apparently not very compatible wiith the rest of the world, and we all want to know why it's being made. 

Well, Lewis should post a picture soon. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Holey Batman. Another expensive coupler. I think I'll save my money for buying other things. Later RJD


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg,
My point was that it was just one more offering in the wonderful world of model trains! Why should one coupler from Aristo get more attention, then a scale offering? The question becomes does the market want realistic trains (and couplers) or is the market all about sitting back and letting trains go around in circles and complaining when they don't work right. It seems to me that Aristo is just trying to gain market attention, which they are doing a good job. It seems to me that Aristo is trying to please both the toy train crowd with a coupler designed for tight curves, but also wants to please the model train crowd with a 'realistic' coupler that is body mounted. I'll let the market decide, meanwhile I'll be in my garage building trains, instead of arguing over the lastest announcement from a company and wondering when the market will actually see the new product.
Kadee's are nice, but they aren't that realistic in my mind. As a rail I know that automatic couplers are not automatic and require manual labor to a line the couplers, pull pins, etc. What I want to see in the large scale market is a scale coupler that looks and works like the real thing. 
Craig


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

In "0" scale, I use ScaleModels and Monarch couplers. 
For interchange, some are mandated to Kadees. 
ALL of them couple together just fine. 
The ScaleModels are the best, but hard to find anymore. 
Monarch not quite as good, but you can take them apart and fine-tune them. 
They both work with cut levers.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

I think this body mounted aristo coupler is a waste of time and money and bandwith. 

If you want body mounted, there are tons of alternatives. From Lionel 0 gauge couplers to accucraft to kadee. 

Plus, they already have made the body mounted coupler. Its on the Eggliner.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2008)

Posted By markoles on 11/19/2008 6:59 AM
I think this body mounted aristo coupler is a waste of time and money and bandwith. 

If you want body mounted, there are tons of alternatives. From Lionel 0 gauge couplers to accucraft to kadee. 

Plus, they already have made the body mounted coupler. Its on the Eggliner.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I haven't bought an AristoCraft car since USAT started selling cars with metal wheels and pads for KD couplers. 

I have a number of KD body mounts and a mixture of KD and USAT truck mounted couplers. The truck mounted couples are all stepups so they match well with the body mounts. My trains aren't all that long, 13 cars maximum. So I don't have problems with them coming apart. Also, they match and couple well with the AMS box cars that I have recently purchased.

The thought that a "new" coupler is on the way, that won't couple with the ones I am currently using, will probably keep me from buying any more Aristo products. It would have to be a very unique product for me to accquire one. Especially with the lack of metal wheels. 


Cheers to all,

Chuck N


----------



## dawinter (Jan 2, 2008)

For the life of me I can't see how anyone would be able to design a close to scale body mounted couple that can NOT couple with a Kadee coupler. Impossible! Unless it's mounted far to high or far to low, the very basic principles that apply to the prototype preclude that. Unless of course a group of competing producers are planning on doing something along the same lines of the old Rapido couplers that were universal to all N scale builders - but coupled to nothing else. 

Anyway, I'm sticking with my Kadee couplers. As are all the rest of my LS friends. We went through this crap with trying to exchange N scale and HO scale models and we're not doing it again. 

Dave


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey guys,

Since I don't want Aristo to waste more time on a losing project, I emailed them my thoughts. Perhaps if enough of us did, either changes recommended would be implemented or the project dropped altogehter. 

lewispolk @ yahoo.com 

Remove the spaces around the @ and away you go. Who knows, nick, you might get an answer to your question of WHY?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, he really wants to hear from me! 

I've got a collection of emails where his minions have told me that I do not represent the average user, and my opinions do not count. 

I'll let you send him the emails!!! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Here is a quick qestion... Who at aristo will even READ the email? I have emailed them over three months ago about a different subject and have NOW gotten an answer from someone on their forum. But....go head and email them..... 

I highly doubt it, but does anyone have a photo of what the couplers will look like?


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm sorry for AristoCraft if they don't monitor this site and its various forums, it's their lo$$. Greg is very knowledgeable, I put him in the class with TOC and they speak for most of us. They both offer very helpful information for those of us who are not as proficient with the ins and outs of these models. 


For Aristo to dismiss comments of people from this forum is to be done at their own ri$k. Sending emails to Aristo is obviously a waste of time. I'll vote with my deminishing $$$, Aristo with a new coupler that doesn't mate with anything I have and no metal wheels will go into the -- gosh that's nice but it doesn't fit into my railroad, $orry.


Here's to compatable couplers. Most of us are too far into this hobby to even think of changing. I could make two idler cars to make these compatable with what I run, but why bother when other manufacturers offer cars that require little modification. To use the idler cars limits my train makeup. I like mixing cars in my consists.


Cheers to KD, Accucraft, and USAT for couplers that work well together. The only problem I have is with KD gauge 1 and Accucraft, but that doesn't happen very often, as I only have a couple of cars with KD gauge 1. 


Chuck N


----------



## Dale Loyet (Feb 12, 2008)

I don't know why anyone would make another type of coupler, or anyone would buy them. We already have 6 or more diferent kinds that don't work well together or not at all. I have put KD's on all of my cars, and will not be changing them. That is the only way I could run my 4 diferent brands of cars together. The industy would do itself a favor if the manufactures would get together and agree on one knckle coupler, and I think KD would be perfect since so many people are using them. The HO people are way ahead of the G scale people.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Dale, ".... The HO people are way aheard of the G scale people." 

Simple, they get to control their environment. Since the majority of G scalers are outside, we have no contol over our environment. So HO scalers can do just about anything they want where as with G, we have to comply with nature. Also, G scale has how many diferent scales? 4+ different scales, where as HO has 1 scale. So, what works for you in one location and/or scale might not work for me in a different location and/or scale. 

Also, ALL G scale knuckle couplers work together. Some not as well, but they will work. I have seen Bachmann, Aristo, Accucraft, USA, LGB, Kadee, and Lionel couplers hook together and pull a train with NO problems.


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Snoq Pass stated "ALL G scale knuckle couplers work together" ... From where I sit, only Accucraft and the larger KD's "work together". 

A definition of working together which only includes not parting when a train is pulled is hardly helpful. To me a proper coupler should:
1) couple automatically when cars are pushed together
2) stay coupled under heavy load up and downhill (though not necessarily on excessively rough track)
3) allow backing movements of long trains
4) uncouple easily for switching operations

And I would add that they should also separate easily to prevent a domino effect of toppling cars should one derail or if a single car is to be lifted from the consist manually.

The current large scale situation is a mess when it comes to couplers as it costs a good many of us $5-10 extra per car plus the effort to install proper couplers when an agreement between manufacturers could easily produce cars with standard couplers. 

I know ... "we dont need no stinkin standards" - even though this thread runs for pages ... and of course with so few suppliers there is insufficient push to standardize.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## dawinter (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dougald on 11/22/2008 2:39 PM
Snoq Pass stated "ALL G scale knuckle couplers work together" ... From where I sit, only Accucraft and the larger KD's "work together". 

The current large scale situation is a mess when it comes to couplers as it costs a good many of us $5-10 extra per car plus the effort to install proper couplers when an agreement between manufacturers could easily produce cars with standard couplers. 

Regards ... Doug


A new "Standard" coupler used by various MAJOR manufactures is about 10 years to late for me. I standardized with Aristo couplers all around in the early days and then invested in Kadee. Had there been a 'standard' prototype looking couple - close to scale - I would have been using that today and have had $1000.00 in the bank for other stuff.

Not changing now!!!!

Dave


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Doug, 
1) couple automatically when cars are pushed together 
2) stay coupled under heavy load up and downhill (though not necessarily on excessively rough track) 
3) allow backing movements of long trains 
4) uncouple easily for switching operations 

1) Yes 
2) Yes 
3) Yes 
4) Yes 
I have seen *ALL* knuckle couplers do that. And as I stated at the bottom of my post. What works for ME will not necessarly work for YOU.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Snoq: 

1. Maybe the question was that they actually work without slamming them together. Today, I used a number of LGB couplers that did not couple automatically. They are supposed to, but I think the statement was from a practical standpoint, meaning that this works ALL the time. Many of the knuckle couplers I have tried (Aristo, USAT, LGB, AML) do not work very well here. 

2. NO, not all knuckle couplers work under heavy load. Many Aristos fail under heavy load. I don't have as much difficulty with USAT. Bachmans are ok. 
3. Long trains! not just trains. Some couplers do a poor job of this. 
4. NO! Aristo is ok manually, do not work remotely. USAT are ok, but not great, no remote uncoupling, Bachman.. don't go there.... 

Snoq, you speak with a lot of authority about being correct, but you must be much smarter and more experienced than me, because I do not think you have really experienced mixing all the couplers you put in your post. I have done most of them, and can indicate some combinations that are just plain unworkable. 

The point Doug was making was about the practical aspects of couplers, ones that are not necessarily brand new, and definitely under stress, not just theoretical, or on a data sheet, but what happens on a real model railroad with use. 

Maybe I am way off base, but that's my take on the discussion so far. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Ugh. This is the problem with the G-Scale industry. Everybody thinks like an indoor modeler in that what they do, will work for everybody else. That is false. We all live in different environments which have different weather. This different weather will cause things that work for me, to not necessarly work for you. The different environments will create different trackage, which will affect how a train performs. Since we cannot control the environment, we have to adapt to it. Thus we all have different requirements and different ways to get things done. 

Now, about the knuckle couplers. I am stating what works for *ME*. By you saying that all couplers will not work together is what works for you, but that is not what I have seen. I have seen Bachmann couple with USA. I have seen Lionel couple with Accucraft. And on, and on, and on..... 

Greg, you say that I lack the "experience that you have" is a complete insult. What is this experience that you have? Do you even know who I am? NO! So how in the world can you say that you have more experience than I do? 

About my "authority" that you say that I have. From my view point I could take what you say and reword it to, "Greg, you speak with a lot of authority about being correct." You are trying to force your ways and viewpoints "down my throat" sorta speak. For you, those couplers don't work together, but for ME, they do. Which is why I stated that with "authority" (as you say).


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Several years ago Garden Railways printed a compatibility chart, it rated how well they worked with each other. some did pretty good others were a complete no-go.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Snoq: 

No one has stated that you are wrong because you are different. Your first paragraph really is something you have been saying over and over to no effect. That is because it is addressing a non-issue. No one is picking on you because you are indoors, or because they are trying to put their experiences on you. 

No, I said you must have more experience that I do. I did not say what you posted. OK, so you say you have seen everything. OK, so the 3 largest manufacturers of large scale are Bachmann, USAT and Aristo. 

You are telling me you have seen all these combinations of the 3. (you actually claim more) Well, now I have to say you are wrong. Aristo does not work with USAT. They just don't. Also, if you are telling me you can couple Bachmann with anything you want, then you must be from a planet different from me, because very often Bachmann is a completely different height from the rails, making it IMPOSSIBLE TO EVEN CONSIDER CONNECTING THEM in many cases. 

So, you keep stating " I have seen Bachmann couple with USA. I have seen Lionel couple with Accucraft. And on, and on, and on....." 

You definitely have more experience than me. But I do not accept your statements as true. 

If you want to show pictures of these 3 manufacturers couplers with their peers (not very many pictures) and using them on stock cars, maybe I could be convinced that you are right and I have some tremendous problem with perception. 

You may not notice it, but you are still doing it. 

Please post pictures, so I can be educated. It will also give you an opportunity to publicly embarrass me if that is a further incentive. 

Embarrassing you or insulting you was not my object, but I disagree with your statements. Indoors, outdoors, on earth or in space, I think the following 3 statements: 

" 
Also, ALL G scale knuckle couplers work together. Some not as well, but they will work. I have seen Bachmann, Aristo, Accucraft, USA, LGB, Kadee, and Lionel couplers hook together and pull a train with NO problems." 

and 

" have seen ALL knuckle couplers do that." (used in context of the post it is found in) 

and 

" I have seen Bachmann couple with USA. I have seen Lionel couple with Accucraft. And on, and on, and on....." 

are NOT true, i.e. NOT actual, NOT something a room of experts would agree with. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Bills (Feb 20, 2008)

3 words -hook and loops. If you're looking at the couplers you're missing the train


----------



## noelw (Jan 2, 2008)

*Like some have said.. What works for me may not work for others. 

I seem to end up with a lot of Bachmann and USA couplers. So I do a lot of test as I did in Ho for many years with old Bakers coupler. Working on Bachmann problem and see what's happening that seems to un-couple by themselves. 

I ended up re-working Bachmann and now no problems with them, and they do work good with USA with a little work.. 

Bachmann hangs down and had to pull the swivel pin out and re tap it and then put in a threaded bolt. (This gets the coupler hanging straight.)
Then clean the sharp sides off of the pin and thread the top of pin. Put a small nut on top. This give a little wt. to hold the pin down.. .
Paint couplers rust and they work well. 

When I switch rolling stock, I have no problem using a 3 foot dowel with a flat blade on the bottom of them. Then I don't have to bend over do to most of my layout is on the ground anyway.. 
Lots of times the coupler "like the real train cars" don't line up and have to center them to couple up on a curve.. Thats also when the 3 ft. dowel stick helps..

So guess for us, this works better than kadees. Those have to have a Mag. in the track to uncouple them, or a screwdriver to get to the pins.
....Hate to use the 0-5-0 all of the time to un-couple them. 

If I had over the years put on Kadees in the firsts place. They probably would of worked well for us.. But now would have to spend over a few 1,000 bucks to replace mine.

Guess for me now is trying to get anyones junk box coulpers... " Thats Bachmann or USA that no one wants."

Old saying is one mans junk is another ones treasures.. ( Me )







*


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

I wonder if Aristo's new "Kuppler" is compatible with Aristo's own, current knuckle coupler!

Since most of my trains are Aristo having their standard knuckle coupler, I would not want to get this new one if I had to retrofit all my rolling stock and locos. 
If this were the case I would just go and get Kadees - which I have been thinking about doing lately - as I have found Aristo's current type knuckle couplers to recently have inferior performance in that they pull apart with less force than they typically use to do.

For anyone interested, sometime ago I did a test and wrote an article on Aristo's knuckle couplers. (The couplers in the test were better than what I have experienced since Aristo introduced their GP40s.)
The article is hosted for me on Greg's web site (below link).

Aristo-Craft knuckle coupler tests & a test train
http://www.elmassian.com/trains-mainmenu-27/ted-doskaris-vignettes-mainmenu-157/aristo-knuckle-coupler-tests-mainmenu-206

-Ted


----------



## nkelsey (Jan 4, 2008)

Hey Noelw, check out my ad in classifieds, got a bunch of Bachmann couplers....make an offer


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2008)

Posted By markoles on 11/20/2008 11:56 AM
Hey guys,

Since I don't want Aristo to waste more time on a losing project, I emailed them my thoughts. Perhaps if enough of us did, either changes recommended would be implemented or the project dropped altogehter. 

lewispolk @ yahoo.com 

Remove the spaces around the @ and away you go. Who knows, nick, you might get an answer to your question of WHY? 



Sorry Mark,
Your buddies with them maybe could convay my displeasure with that dumb ideal, i sent one email almost 2 years ago the only email i ever sent,and the reply i got back was nasty and foul so i dont waste my time.. but you could answer a question i have? how come your buddie from their stiffed you at your open house, said he was going to be their and never showed? not suprising, say one thing and do another... by the way it looks like your open house came out great, lots of folks.. next year maybe i will take a day trip to your open house and bring the bigboy, i know i know if i come Jim wont o well.....hes young he'l ajust...he he he well not that young...








Nick


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2008)

Posted By nick s. on 11/23/2008 4:21 PM
Posted By markoles on 11/20/2008 11:56 AM
Hey guys,

Since I don't want Aristo to waste more time on a losing project, I emailed them my thoughts. Perhaps if enough of us did, either changes recommended would be implemented or the project dropped altogehter. 

lewispolk @ yahoo.com 

Remove the spaces around the @ and away you go. Who knows, nick, you might get an answer to your question of WHY? 



Sorry Mark,
Your buddies with them maybe could convay my displeasure with that dumb ideal, i sent one email almost 2 years ago the only email i ever sent,and the reply i got back was nasty and foul so i dont waste my time.. but you could answer a question i have? how come your buddie from their stiffed you at your open house, said he was going to be their and never showed? not suprising, say one thing and do another... by the way it looks like your open house came out great, lots of folks.. next year maybe i will take a day trip to your open house and bring the bigboy, i know i know if i come Jim wont o well.....hes young he'l ajust...he he he well not that young...








Nick




Nick
Don't back down now "We" got to know why? You asked now go to it.
Toad


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2008)

Posted By Ole Toad Frog on 11/23/2008 5:17 PM
Posted By nick s. on 11/23/2008 4:21 PM
Posted By markoles on 11/20/2008 11:56 AM
Hey guys,

Since I don't want Aristo to waste more time on a losing project, I emailed them my thoughts. Perhaps if enough of us did, either changes recommended would be implemented or the project dropped altogehter. 

lewispolk @ yahoo.com 

Remove the spaces around the @ and away you go. Who knows, nick, you might get an answer to your question of WHY? 



Sorry Mark,
Your buddies with them maybe could convay my displeasure with that dumb ideal, i sent one email almost 2 years ago the only email i ever sent,and the reply i got back was nasty and foul so i dont waste my time.. but you could answer a question i have? how come your buddie from their stiffed you at your open house, said he was going to be their and never showed? not suprising, say one thing and do another... by the way it looks like your open house came out great, lots of folks.. next year maybe i will take a day trip to your open house and bring the bigboy, i know i know if i come Jim wont o well.....hes young he'l ajust...he he he well not that young...








Nick




Nick
Don't back down now "We" got to know why? You asked now go to it.
Toad



Toad i dont think we will ever find out!!!!! Well maybe Mark might be able too, i think he is in their inner circle ......
he he he


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

I already stated my opinion and when I suggest that going straight to the people making whatever that you don't like, instead of speculating about it here, I get slammed? That makes no sense. Especially when I am agreeing with you guys. This is a piece of crap that no one wants. I sent my email before I posted and thought that instead of bitching and moaning about it, some of you more vocal ones might have some cojones to send and email directly. Whatever. I'm over it. 

Nicky and Toadie,

Nope, not in the inner circle. Nick has commented and hinted at that before. Last time I checked, I am not employed or otherwise compensated by any train manufacturer. I was friends with George before he worked at Aristo, via this board, way back in the day. We talk frequently, and about 75% of the stuff is not train related.

As far as the open house goes, George had a death in the family and could not make it to the open house. It happened unexpectedly and he didn't have my # and by the time I checked my email, the open house was over. To say that he 'stiffed me' is a bit much, don't you think? It was a one day event, he lives over 2 hours away. So when real life happens, I can understand. Sometimes, we need to be grownups.

Nick, I had a hard time understanding the latter part of your post, but I think you invited yourself down for the open house next year. If you are planning to see the rest of the garden railroads, be sure to purchase your ticket because I don't know those guys or where they live. You are welcome to bring your big boy, but we won't be able to run it. My mainline has a kink at 12.5' diameter and I don't think you want that locomotive running down hill and jumping off a 18" fill built up with 6-7" size copper and iron ore rip rap. Sure it is 75 lbs, but those iron ore pieces are very hard. Work Index of about 19 kw-hr/st. Don't think a 75 pound lump spread out over 36" will have much of an impact on that kind of ore. Need a good 5" cast steel ball in a SAG mill to break a rock like that. I think a Pat McCarthy came once, but need to double check the guest book. Might not have been your friend. That Pat was from White Plains, I think. 

I don't appreciate or understand the comments about Jim, who has actually showed up and helped me out big time at the last two open houses. He worked very hard making sure the trains ran and brought his prized possessions to run for crowds exceeding 400. I find him to be knowledgable and personable. Jim will likely be at the railroad again next year. Along with Chris and Russ, if they can make it. This is a fun and friendly event so please leave all adjendas and persoanl issues at home. Thanks. 

End of personal volleys.

Going back to the coupler compatibility thing, I've used the aristo and LGB couplers with great success. However, there are tricks. Like the aristo knuckle needs to be closed and the LGB open. I don't know why it isn't mentioned, but the MTH 1 Gauge coupler is really prettly slick. It will work with the LGB and the aristo just fine. 

I also agree that the hook and loop coupler is the original universal coupler. Seems like every manufacturer still packages those with their rolling stock.


----------



## adelmo (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Mark,

Great tip on Aristo & LGB knuckle couplers. They work great together and thanks for sharing!


Alan


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2008)

Mark,


Nicky.......only my mama calls me Nicky







ooooo the gloves are off now!!!!!!!! HA HA HA JUST messin with you like you were with me, dont get your undies in a bunch...i acually think your alright "MARKY" no matter what you say about me, he he he








The nice thing is you can have your opinion and express it as can i ....................
NICKIE.................


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2008)

Mark,
Did you ever get a reply to your email?
Nick


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Not yet. 

Nick, if you are kidding, how come it always sounds like you are serious? What are you kidding about? I am not sure how to read your posts, and so I take them at face value. 

Here's an example of kidding text:
The last few posts in this thread are shots directed at me, and for no reason other than to take shots at someone. I only like shots in the bar, and there isn't one here. I haven't been wearing any gloves this whole time, it is still above 20 outside. Plus, it is really hard to type in gloves. Mittens are worse (This is how joking posts look. Can you see the difference?)


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2008)

If i remember correctly i agreed with your assesment and you came back by slamin me with why dont you email your concerns!!!! correct, so if you want to give it be perpared to get back







olive branch retracted.......


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Nick, my post was for everyone in general, including myself. Since there was a lot of good discussion, I thought "hey, I think this could be useful real world user feedback that someone might want." That's all. Wasn't directed at any one person in particular and was not directed at you, specifically. Stop being so overly sensitive. 

What confuses me about your last post is that when I read the thread overall, I don't see any personal attacks until you wrote this:
Your buddies with them maybe could convay my displeasure with that dumb ideal, i sent one email almost 2 years ago the only email i ever sent,and the reply i got back was nasty and foul so i dont waste my time.. but you could answer a question i have? how come your buddie from their stiffed you at your open house, said he was going to be their and never showed? not suprising, say one thing and do another... by the way it looks like your open house came out great, lots of folks.. next year maybe i will take a day trip to your open house and bring the bigboy, i know i know if i come Jim wont o well.....hes young he'l ajust...he he he well not that young...








Nick



Let us take a look at your post, thought by thought. 

Ok, you don't want to email them because an email you sent two years ago was nasty. Fine.

The rest of your attack is unrelated to couplers. I don't know why you feel the need to derail your own topic, but its your topic so I'll indulge you. 

You try to build your case that George is some kind of a liar. George was planning to stop down for the open house, and Toad got on there and seemed to egg you on about it. I simply stated some facts that should stop the speculation as to why someone didn't make it out. Not that it matters. Your comments about George are not unexpected since you openly loathe him. Fine. 

Then you mention coming with a big boy. I point out that we are unable to handle that and some other details about the event. It is a big engine to haul a long way that won't be able to do much. I can't even accomodate it as a display piece. 

Then you again attack someone who helped me out twice. I don't understand what you mean by "hes young he'l ajust.." etc. 


After I offer my explinations, you say something to the effect of "Aw shucks, I was just kiddin ya". My question, which you have not answered, was what are you kidding about? There were a lot of things you could have been kidding about and I just wanted to know when you were kidding and when you were serious. I honestly can't see much difference and it is a simple question.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I can never tell either. It's a thread about couplers and it turns into all this nonsense I can't make head or tail of


----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

markoles wrote,

"I already stated my opinion and when I suggest that going straight to the people making whatever that you don't like, instead of speculating about it here, I get slammed? That makes no sense. Especially when I am agreeing with you guys. This is a piece of crap that no one wants. I sent my email before I posted and thought that instead of bitching and moaning about it, some of you more vocal ones might have some cojones to send and email directly. Whatever. I'm over it." 

Mark...so what's wrong with bitching & moaning about it here?

After all isn't that what this forum is for..dicussing large scale trains??

We all know that Aristo monitors this forum and a bunch of us remember why Lewis won't post here anymore but Mr. Customer Service posts here so why doesn't he chime in??

IMHO you left yourself wide open for slamming in your opening line above.

Whenever a MTH topic starts up your the first to start slamming them but then that must be okay in your little R2 world of Aristo Eggliners ehh mark??


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Mark, don't take stuff personally. If you really knew the details of how Nick has been treated (and for that matter, myself, and RJ, and Ted, and a number of other ex Aristo guys), you might cut Nick a little more slack. (And Nick take it easy on Mark, just look at that hat!, he needs friends!) 

So if Nick takes shots at George, remember the email he got from George with the f word in it. 

As to cojones, I believe mine are of adequate size and weight, but I have been banned from the Aristo site, and I have many emails from Aristo employees, including George and Lewis that my "your opinions are wrong", "your opinions do not reflect the average Aristo user", and "you are trying to control the forum", and "you think you know everything"... 

So, they won't listen to me... I'm evil.... so I'd love to support you with matching emails, but it would be a complete waste of electrons. 

Therefore, in this context, and considering the history you might not have been aware of, I took Nick's stuff as good natured ribbing, stong ribbing, but good natured.... and Chuck is right, the Aristo group patrols this forum for sure. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## jmill24 (Jan 11, 2008)

Nick, don't know why you drug me into this and take a shot at me, you don't even know me. As Mark says his layout will not handle a BigBoy, but if you come I will not stay away. I would be glad to meet you. The more the better. 
Best Regards
James F. Miller


----------



## George Adams (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg, 
It would be nice if you got your facts straight before you go off spreading lies on the internet. There was never an email with the "F" word in it, never happened. Lewis, John Mikesh and several others were copied on every email sent. They were also copied on all emails sent to you. You may not agree, or it may have hurt your feelings, but maybe you shouldn't take everything so personally.I really don't know what is wrong with Nick, what problems he may have to make him this way, but to say there was ever an email like that is a flat out lie. Nick was asked to send a copy of that email to Scott Polk the last time he was at Aristo, and he never did send it. Oh don't think Nick S goes to the aristo warehouse and buys train direct? Here is a direct copy of a post by a friend of his on the Aristo forum: 


Join Date: Jan 2004 
Location: Dover Plains, NY 
Posts: 50 
Navin 
Went down to Aristo HQ today with Joe C. and Nick S. Nick was picking up a "few" of the new 2 bay hoppers, and I brought down 2 Train Engineer receivers that had gone poof. Navin fixed both of them within 10-15 minutes and then gave me some valued advice on additional safety measures to take when re-installing them. 

A big thank you to Navin, a great asset to Aristcraft !!!! 

Pat 

Apparently Pat was asked to change the reference to Nick because the post was edited a day later, but we retrieved a copy of the original from the server. 


George


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight, 
I think this thread is way off topic. 
I get so tired of this.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with Marty. Originally this was an interesting thread. Most of us are against the new "kuppler". I (We) have too much invested to make a change. 


Chuck N

PS Somewhere in the dim dark past, my wife must be related to Marty. Her maiden name is Cozad.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Gentlemen, as has been made obvious by the tone of this thread, personalities are very much like couplers. Some are compatible, some not--and all take some degree of work to operate together smoothly. Oft times, it's best not to force incompatible couplers together, lets everything go to pot. Let's limit our discussion to the coupler in question, not the personalities. To quote my second grade teacher, "I don't care _who_ started it." 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

What Kevin said. You boys play nice or we'll close this here playpen.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Hey! 
If Kevin weighs in, Deeeeeeeeeeee-wight throws in his 2-1/2 cents, Greg threatens to "tell all", hey, this is MY kind of thread! 

Maybe you guys forgot the third step. 
Try to discredit the person posting. 

Looks like we're at step three.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

My original post is not this one, so I have removed the other parts that made sense at the time.

Now back to couplers: 

George: since you are _undeniably _reading this thread now, please tell us: 

1. Why Aristo wants to make this coupler. The only information we have from Lewis is that it will be body mount and work on 5' diameter curves and it won't pull apart. Is this the main reason, a body mount to work on tight curves? (the not pull apart should be standard on all couplers).
2. Will it be compatible with Aristo couplers? 
3. Will it be compatible with any other couplers? If so which? 
4. What is it's general appearance? By calling it a "Kuppler" it brings visions of something strange, is it a knuckle coupler in appearance? 

Anxiously awaiting these answers. I have many friends using Aristo couplers and compatibility and improved operation are important to them. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

If Kevin weighs in, Deeeeeeeeeeee-wight throws in his 2-1/2 cents,
Two mods are better than one.  Besides, we both seemingly became aware of this (approx.) simultaneously thanks to a third mod who didn't publicly comment. Happy?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

It's two...... 
two........... 
two mods in one! 

Heck, and here you thought I was the only one with threads that did this.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Chucks_trains, 

You must have missed this in your haste to reply:
I don't know why it isn't mentioned, but the MTH 1 Gauge coupler is really prettly slick. It will work with the LGB and the aristo just fine. 


Now that is a good knuckle coupler. I think that would be a choice that many folks would opt for, if MTH sold those separately. Maybe they do. I've never looked for them.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Has anyone figured out if the kuppler will be supplied with the Aristo new production cars and Locos. How about it George? Laterr RJD


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

the fact that it is spelled with a k makes me wonder as well .......


at one point in the HO world someone had the bright idea that these where a good choice.......
















http://works-k.cocolog-nifty.com/photos/archive/img579.jpg

http://www.modelrailroadcustoms.com/images/hornhook.jpg


I would hope we have learned from history ......


----------



## jmill24 (Jan 11, 2008)

RJ, I don't think it will replace the old nuckle coupler it is meant as an alternative and will not easily mate with the old type. AC just put out a little announcement. It sounds to me that they feel it is small investment and lets throw it out there and if no one likes it, they lost little. Then again it might be a better mouse trap.............Jim


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Jim as tight as Lewis is I can not believe that it will go away. Later RJD


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Well, considering that Accucraft now has 4 couplers (1:20.3, 1:29, 1:32 non-operating, and 1:32 operating), Bachmann has one coupler at two different heights, Kadee's got their #1 and G scale couplers, perhaps Aristo-Craft is just trying to keep up?  

Look at it this way. Can the waters get any muddier at this point? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 11/25/2008 11:58 AM
Can the waters get any muddier at this point? 

Later, 

K

Yes!
Wait until someone comes out with a left-hand knuckle!


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

I sure hope the left handed knuckle is attched with a screw with left hand threads.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Dave, we had that with the original big hauler, remember? The dummy coupler on the front was left-handed. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, Lewis has replied to this forum in his forum:

Dear All,

Making a body mount coupler was a business decision to have an alternative source when our main production facility was in great financial difficulty. Our chief engineer, Mr. Song, had an idea for a better coupler and I OK'd making something that was not an industry standard or compatible . I felt that the other main body mount coupler was patented still in G, though their other smaller gauge patents have run out.

We also wanted a body mount coupler for smaller radius track and one that would move the cars closer together than our truck mounted couplers. Compatibility, when there is a patent is more complicated. . 

Making a transition car is easy, with a different coupler on either side of the one transition car. I realize that this is controversial, but no one has seen the coupler yet. It is a great coupler, but the market will decide if it's needed or not. H.O. went 20 years with a standard coupler until a patent ran out and the market survived.

Once again the driving force for the decision was a business one and if we could have properly copied another's product we would have looked at that. The coupler will link with other Aristo-Craft couplers, but not automatically.

I realize some detractors are making this out to be a key factor according to George who roams other forums, but it's just another product for us with a small investment upfront cost. We think it will work well and look great, so it's a go, even if controversial. We prefer to innovate when we can as we did with out gear box, smoke system, radio control system etc. We will soon have NEM MORAP standard wheels and in stainless steel too. More controversy? We chose NEM, since it works with all the other standards and we have approved the samples already. We're just waiting for the costing difference between plated brass and stainless steel.

I think these couplers will please those that are open minded enough to try our experienced and creative venture into body mounted couplers. 

Not everyone will agree and that's OK, but at least you can get an answer from the decision maker.

All the best,
Lewis Polk 


So we have some more information. I'm still skeptical about a body mount coupler that can couple closer than truck mounts, but I have seen it done with springs to extend. I'm wondering about how Aristo will solve the issue of close coupled cars not hitting each other on 5' diameter curves, but yes Lewis, I am open minded, so we are waiting to see it.

The new information is that the Kuppler will couple to an Aristocraft coupler, but not automatically. Interesting.So this seems to imply the Kuppler does not have a "pivoting knuckle" since the other coupler does and it still does not connect automatically. 


"I realize some detractors are making this out to be a key factor according to George who roams other forums" 
I think many people have expressed compatibility to be a key factor, not just "some detractors". If you had to change all of your couplers and/or give up automatic coupling, it IS a big decision.

I'm happy it's a small investment and will not detract from other Aristo operations (maybe a long E8 front coupler can now be made?), and more options are more options.


(interesting stuff about the NEM/MORAP standards)


So, from my 4 questions: 


1. Why Aristo wants to make this coupler.
2. Will it be compatible with Aristo couplers? 
3. Will it be compatible with any other couplers? If so which? 
4. What is it's general appearance? By calling it a "Kuppler" it brings visions of something strange, is it a knuckle coupler in appearance? 
The answers are:

1. Because they can and it's not too expensive.

2. Sort of
3. No.

4. It has to be some kind of knuckle if it will manually connect to an Aristo coupler.



Thanks for the update Lewis, George, you don't need to respond, I've got my questions answered.


Regards, Greg


----------



## dawinter (Jan 2, 2008)

Confirmed!! From the Aristo forum.....

Dear Dave,

Yes, it opens in the opposite direction, but does match our regular coupler. So..neither one matched the other brand anyway. As I said, we were not looking to knock it off, but create a new concept.

All the best,
Lewis Polk [/i] 
There you go. Who would have guessed!

Dave


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Somebody call a doctor... I'm having trouble breathing whilst rolling around on the floor in a fit of laughter and moaning and hissing and fainting and giggling and generally in a complete tizzy! I sure hope somebody is pulling our collective legs!


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg, "The new information is that the Kuppler will couple to an Aristocraft coupler, but not automatically. Interesting.So this seems to imply the Kuppler does not have a "pivoting knuckle" since the other coupler does and it still does not connect automatically." 

My understanding is that you have to close one of the knuckles first, then back the train up.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg, here are the photos of the different knuckle couplers together. I do not have Kadee, MTH, or LGB.








Bachmann and Accucraft







Bachmann and Aristo







Bachmann and Lionel 







Bachmann and USA 







Lionel and Accucraft 







Lionel and Aristo 







Lionel and USA 







USA and Accucraft 







USA and Aristo 







Aristo and Accucraft


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Thank the lord I'm in 1:20.3 !!!!!!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

spy shots of the new prototype?


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah they are reinventing the wheel.







(kuppler) What a waste. Later RJD


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Hey, RJ, maybe the "kuppler" will be trademarked....or patented. 
Could be that way on poipose. 

Watch out for "tarck".


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Snoq pass: 

Thanks for making a lot of pictures. The goal was for the couplers to "work", not just be able to be forced together. The Kadee and the USAT will not "work" together because they are at different heights, so your pictures of showing the knuckles mated are not "working" ... take a stock USAT car with a USAT Knuckle and roll it up to a Kadee or Aristo truck mount, and the heights are too different to work. 

Working means usable, not pull the couplers off the cars and hook up. I made this real clear several times, and I feel that you are fixated on just making the knuckles connect, as your pictures show. 

So, with the definition of "working" you would have to show me stock cars hooked up. 

The couplers on the 2 cars shown are "stock" the USAT hopper is unmodified, and the MDC hopper has a truck mounted Kadee at the correct height.

I challenge anyone to convince me that the 2 cars show "work" together.











Regards, Greg


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Snoq Pass on 11/25/2008 4:57 PM
Greg, here are the photos of the different knuckle couplers together.  I do not have Kadee, MTH, or LGB.
 







Bachmann and Accucraft







Bachmann and Aristo







Bachmann and Lionel 







Bachmann and USA 







Lionel and Accucraft 







Lionel and Aristo 







Lionel and USA 







USA and Accucraft 







USA and Aristo 







Aristo and Accucraft 


Looks like they mostly all match up when running on Formica although I.m not sure about that last pair, what is that a 1' disconnect?


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

One needs to take photos at a side view so that the height of the couplers can be observed. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I will say this: 

If you could line up all the couplers at the same height, you might get more "working". Now, we have not even addressed "working" as being able to couple 2 cars WITHOUT picking them up and sliding the knuckles over each other. 

The reality is that while you can mechanically connect different couplers, they do not "work" together, they can be FORCED to interconnect in some cases, but NOT ALL knuckle couplers work with each other, and just to restate the entire discussion, I take exception to what you said, NOT ALL do work together, some do, many don't. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Joe Mascitti (Oct 30, 2008)

Would you rather spend the money on new engines or rolling stock instead of putting new "kupplers" on all the cars you have? I'd rather have some spare parts then to re-invent the 'kuppler'


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

I forget to mention in that post. I gently pushed those couplers together. Since I do not have an Accucraft car, I am unable to give you the "true" height. Now, yes some of them are a little tight, but they will still couple. And yes, on some of them, you have to close one knuckle, then bring in the other coupler for a connection (which real railroads have to do from time to time). But none of them were connected or disconnected by sliding them up/down.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

RJD, I was planning on taking a side view profile photo. But, since I do not have an Accucraft car or a true Aristo car (Yes, I do have an Aristo as the one in the photo is a little critter, but it is missing its motor block), I decided to take the photo at a somewhat elevated view. I thought it would be important to view that the knuckles were actually closed, since I thought Greg was asking about whether different couplers would actually close. NOT that they were at the same level. Of course they are not going to be at the same level since every company does their own thing. But, (as I just stated) I thought the question was if the knuckles would even close. Seeing that the question has been reworded after I posted the photos.....I lose. Now, if you want a side view. I will take photos of them. Are there anyother notes that I should have before I take the photos and waste some of my time so that the question can be reworded again?


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

The photos do show that they seem to mate fairly well, but that is not my experience. I changed all the couplers on my rolling stock to an "O" gauge coupler of totally unknown (to me) manufacture and I don't have all that many couplers of other brands, but of those that I do have and those that I have seen at other folks layouts, I have seen many that simply will never mate like the photos show.

The tongue or the movable knuckle on some are way too fat, or thick, or long, to fit in the pocket formed by the closed knuckle of another brand. There is just no room for the parts to fit. I have seen rolling stock that just cannot be coupled at all and others that may couple if you slam them into each other, but will soon pop apart when under tow.

I wonder if some manufacturers have subtly altered their couplers over the years such that some of us are using an older coupler and others have newer ones. That could account for these personal testimonials of compatibilities and incompatibilities.

EDIT: forgive me, I should clarify something... "MY" rolling stock all have "O" gauge couplers and I don't attempt to mate them with anything else. I am talking about the couplers I took off the cars mating with other brands and the cars of other folk that have not changed their couplers from what came with the garden gauge rolling stock they have.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Your effort was not wasted. I see that the knuckles fit together (and I figured as much). The interesting data is that you were able to couple them in a more gentle manner. If you make the assumption that it's ok to close one knuckle manually, I will agree more things hook up. 

But the idea was the basic interchangeability. Maybe the difference is that you are probably willing to go up to one of the couplers and close it manually in order to connect cars. To me that's not working, and I would not want to do that. It might be no big deal for you (you have an indoor layout right? and it's not on the ground?). 

So your idea of "working" may be more "flexible" than what I assumed... i.e. 2 cars sitting on a track, and them hooking up if just nudged together, no "pre-closing" or manual intervention required. 

Your effort is not wasted, in fact I would like to have your pictures in larger sizes. It's the nicest collection of examples I have seen. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

Since flanges can be different sizes, placing the cars on track and taking a side view picture is important. 
Also, what wheels are on the cars. I convert to USA Trains metal wheels and they are smaller than the LGB wheels. This will effect coupler height.


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

deleted


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Dan, that is not the point of the photos. The photos are to show that the couplers can be coupled together, not that stock cars are at the right height. So, can the different company knuckle couplers actaully close together once they are the same height - Yes. Can they close together right out of the box in a 100% stock condition - Maybe (depends on the car). The point of the photos is to show that it can be done. Would I recommend it, no. I would pick one company and stick with them. Find what works for you. 

Greg, I really wish I had a layout, but I don't have the money or space currently to do so. The two layouts that I do run on are outside at (mostly) waist level.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Snoq Pass on 11/22/2008 12:01 PM
Dale, ".... The HO people are way aheard of the G scale people." 

Also, G scale has how many diferent scales? 4+ different scales, where as HO has 1 scale. So, what works for you in one location and/or scale might not work for me in a different location and/or scale. 

Snoq,
There is one, and only one serious drawback to G gauge that has devilled me since I discovered it: 4+ scales on 45mm ga track that are sold OTC. I discount the 'hybrid' sizes the serious modellers work with, invent, whatever. Point of fact, I applaud their efforts, I see them in the same light as 'wildcatters' in the bullet reloading/development community. They might turn up something spectacular. At the least, their efforts are technically interesting. 


You are right on, pointing that out. I wish something could be done about it as far as classification, but I don't look for that to happen. It would be a great assist to the newcomers in figuring out what's going on. One of the reasons I chose ca 1875 was that I clearly understood link 'n pin, knew I could build 'em, and didn't have to learn to distinguish between the various manufacturer's offerings for compatiblity. 

One reason of several. So in a sense, the coupler issue has cost the manufacturers one newcomer's dollars. 

Les


----------



## noelw (Jan 2, 2008)

Snoq pass: 

Thanks for making a lot of pictures. The goal was for the couplers to "work", not just be able to be forced together. The Kadee and the USAT will not "work" together because they are at different heights, so your pictures of showing the knuckles mated are not "working" ... take a stock USAT car with a USAT Knuckle and roll it up to a Kadee or Aristo truck mount, and the heights are too different to work. 

Working means usable, not pull the couplers off the cars and hook up. I made this real clear several times, and I feel that you are fixated on just making the knuckles connect, as your pictures show. 

So, with the definition of "working" you would have to show me stock cars hooked up. 


The couplers on the 2 cars shown are "stock" the USAT hopper is unmodified, and the MDC hopper has a truck mounted Kadee at the correct height. 

I challenge anyone to convince me that the 2 cars show "work" together. 



* I think Curmudgcon found the ans.. How to couple them up Greg. Just kidding ,,,, Couldn't resist. laf... * 


spy shots of the new prototype?


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

In reality what really needs to happen is the G scale folks need to do what the smaller scales did and they eliminated the use of toggle style trucks with couplers and went with body mount couplers. Now you see uniformity in the couplers and they all mate up. Mold in coupler pocket so the couplers just drop in such as Kadee or coupler mate and away you go with out a lot of mods. Later RJD


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

RJ- 
"Talgo"?


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

He He what can I say Curmudgeon. Ok yep double post yikes. stupid computer. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep, although I rarely hear the term "talgo trucks" any more. 

Ahh, it's actually a relatively modern, and prototype term... well, I'll be: 

"On August the 21st 1941, a Spanish engineer, Alejandro Goicoechea, successfully carried out tests on a singular solution for railway vehicle axle guidance. This was a new wheel structure, constructed from a framework of modules formed by isosceles triangle shapes, the wheels being mounted on the bases and linked together so that the axles were naturally guided along the track, avoiding direct wheel friction on the outer rail of curves. This wheel structure designed by Goicoechea reached 75 kilometres per hour between Leganés and Villaverde (Spain). 

Shortly afterwards, on the 28th of October 1942, Talgo Patents S.A. was established. Its objective was industrial and commercial development of this new system, one of the most innovative railway concepts in history. " 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I thought we were talking couplers. Now we gone to how the talgo came into existence. Yikes. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Dear All,

Our new "Kuppler" works so well that it might become the standard. It can be body mounted or also we will have a coupler mounted version and will help us like our smoke and gearbox innovation did. The same engineer designed this one as did the other key Aristo-Craft features just mentioned. In the mean time there are no pictures available and we are making some modifications from the first test shots. It is height adjustable to match most any other makers car height and the extreme curve tightness can be locked out if not needed.

We will show this "Kuppler" at the East Coast Large Scale Train Show at the end of March and not before. In the meantime work on the new Train Engineer is proceeding nicely with nomenclature changes to the software mainly. 

All the best,
Lewis Polk



ROTFLMAO












Greg


----------



## cleary (Oct 13, 2008)

I may have some information that could shed some light on the question..
"Why would Aristo-Craft want to make a Kuppler"

Several years ago I suggested on the Aristo forum that they mold a mounting pad on their rolling stock for Kadee couplers. I received a response from Lewis Polk to the effect that he saw no reason for him to spend money to help a competitor. There was no direct financial incentive and no return on the retooling cost.


The Kuppler at least give Aristo-Craft the opportunity to get their money out of this move. I have seen a photo of some new Aristo rolling stock with a mounting pad molded in place, apparently for the new coupler. This mounting pad does not seem to be Kadee compatible.


I do not know if Aristo-Craft tried to license the Kadee patent before embarking on their own coupler project.

Shark


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Don't quite agree with that. Kind funny that the kadee coupler mates right up to the holes in the AC new floor which has been out for sometime now. later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Many people begged for a Kadee body mount pad. The latest generation of the hoppers has one that works (right height, etc.) 

Before this they had a pad that had the right hole spaceing for an 830, but it was the wrong height from the rails, and the wrong distance from the end of the car. 

They have been working on it for a while, and the correct spacing of the holes for the 830 is no coincidence. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Big John (Jan 4, 2008)

Let me see now. Large Scale trains are manufactured in at least five different scales by an assortment of manufacturers. Why would anyone expect all these companies to get together and adopt a standard coupler design and mounting height that would allow all of them to connect together with no modifications? It will never happen. Pick one style of coupler that you like and convert all your equipment to work with it. I can't believe this thread has gone to seven pages on this subject.

Big John


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Maybe we can get it to eight pages.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Follow the Kadee model... worked in Z scale, N scale, HO scale, and coming soon to G scale. 

8 pages? Pshaw! not even a challenge... 

Greg


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

On our way to the 8th page! 

Given how long it seems for Aristo to get product to market - assuming it is not stillborne like the SW1500 & SD9 - and now with their China factory turmoil of late, I can imagine the new kuppler may actually be available in years from now - not weeks or months. 

Anyway, no way will I mass replace couplers with something that won't mate with Aristo's present knuckle couplers now that I have 273 cars and 47 locos. 
For me, it will have to be Kadee as the most logical the choice. 

-Ted


----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

Secret photo of new kuppler...


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Chuck, that's the concept photo. They've since replaced the metal links with the small rubber bands used in orthodontics in order to get them to fit around the tight curves. 







 On the bright side, your couplers are now covered under your dental plan. 







 


Later, 

K


----------



## Rod Fearnley (Jan 2, 2008)

Nah, I don't think I'll be tempted either. I use USA, Bachman and Aristo, but only while I am in the constant process of changing all of them over to Kadee.
Rod
(How we doing for pages?)


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Boy it's hard to wade through all the 'Polk-speak', but maybe he's creating an automatic uncoupler to work in conjunction with the new 'revolution' system? He's driven the price into the ground for the cars themselves so he's got to make money somewhere.... 

Keith 

P.S. I'll be sticking with my hook and loops with krois uncouplers...


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Na it's still in development stage, Later RJD


----------



## Alan in Adirondacks (Jan 2, 2008)

To All, 

I've been following this thread for the last 2-1/2 weeks and figured for sure it would make 8 pages... and I don't even have a dog in this fight! 

Best regards, 

Alan


----------



## Ltotis (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll help get it to 8 pages. So how about what's going on with LGB. Ok. Ok I'm being a jerk. Actually I use LGB and Aristo knuckles. 
LAO


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

What, did Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-wight mess with the forum softaware so we don't trip to eight pages? 

We gotta do a filibuster? 

"Four score and seven months ago, Stanley brought forth upon an unsuspecting hobby...." 
Oh, wait, wrong speech.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

I'm just curious, is 8 pages any particular record, or just a fun benchmark for this thread? 

As for the original subject, has anybody seen any concrete data about these kupplers? Photos? Plans? Anything?


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

As the new coupler is not due to be presented until the first ECLSTS in March 2009 one wonders how much more speculation can be invented by that time. 

One UK Forum debate is taking place about the "best" coupler. There is no "best" coupler as far as I can see: only a "best" according to an individuals requirements or bank balance.


----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

K..rubber bands??
twist-ties used for garbage bags but that's right! Twist-ties are needed to hold the current Aristo couplers closed!!
Aristo has come full circle...








Cum-ba-yah...


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

They may have come full cycle but there still spinning.







And 8 makes 9 Later RJD


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Lewis just posted an update n the aristo site--looks like it WILL be compatible with kadee couplers


http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showthread.php?t=13471


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

No need to buy any couplers!!!!!! I just use paper clips cheap, easy, don't come apart if applied properly, metal won't rust, available everywhere, They go up the hills and they go down the hills no disconnecting. And they are CHEAP too especially if your office partner leaves his or her desk un-attended. Can be painted to match rolling stock, disguised to hide themselves. ALL in all a pretty cheap investment to keep your rolling stock rolling ahead and not become disconnected. LOL Happy New Year The Regal p.s. I have been know to use a paper clip now and then REALLY!!! Goin for 9. come on boyz join in the pre new years fun.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Short comment. Kadee's basic PATENTS EXPIRED a few years ago. That is what spawned all the "clones" in HO like the McHenry and Bachmann EZ-Mate. Unless (and all things are possible) they were actually able to claim new patents for the Large Scale couplers that look amazingly like their HO #5 on steroids, I can't see why Lewis would worry about patent infringement. It is interesting to note that USA Trains put mounting pads designed for the Kadee 830 on their rolling stock and MTH [Mr. Wolfe, the king of egos] did the same for Kadee 820s. Lewis HAD to know that making his 1:29 rolling stock with a mounting pad would have increased his sales. That he would probably NOT do it is also completely consistent with his style. 

What is not stated in any of Lewis's posts is whether he will design the mounting to be at the defacto standard center line height of Kadee "G" (as opposed to #1) of 1.125 inches. If the heights are not the same, then whether the knuckles mate is a moot point. 

I look forward to seeing what the final product looks like, and if it is suitable for installation on any other brand of rolling stock. 

Happy New Year 

Dr Rivet


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

What is not stated in any of Lewis's posts is whether he will design the mounting to be at the defacto standard center line height of Kadee "G" (as opposed to #1) of 1.125 inches. If the heights are not the same, then whether the knuckles mate is a moot point.

Not necessarily. Coupler faces in this scale range from 3/8" to 5/8", so an offset of 1/16" between couplers isn't going to make any significant difference in performance. If your trackwork is bad enough to where your couplers slide 3/8 - 5/8", then you've got bigger problems than couplers. I know for a fact that there's a degree of tolerance in my coupler heights that's roughly 1/16". I run Kadee #1, which has a 3/8" coupler face--have been for decades. It's just not an issue. 

Now, as to which centerline Lewis chooses, (1 1/16--Kadee #1 or 1 1/8--Kadee "G"), it, too, isn't important. First off, the #1 scale coupler is more in scale with the 1:29 rolling stock, so from an aesthetic standpoint, it should ideally be set to 1 1/16" to match the Kadee standard for that size coupler. Having said that, 33" in 1:29 is just over 1 1/8", so arguably the "G" coupler height would be more appropriate from a scale-distance-above-the-rail standpoint. From a logistical standpoint, it's easier to set them to the higher position, and let the user shim them down if need be. However, mounting them lower isn't insurmountable either. If we assume that the coupler pocket would have a top plate like the Kadee pocket (as Bachmann's and Accucraft's Kadee-esque pockets do), then one merely needs to install the coupler without the top plate to make up for the extra height. 

All will be answered in time, I'm sure. Fpr me, I'm waiting for Accucraft to start selling their 1:32 couplers individually. They're already a drop-in repacement for the Kadee #820, so all I have to do is order a bunch and swap 'em out. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Kevin 

There is NO legitimate reason to continue with this attitude of "I don't want no stinkin' standards" in large scale. The user should NOT have to modify commercial rolling stock to be interoperable. Just ask your Dad how it would have been for NASA engineers if every electronics manufacturer made their own wiring harness and plugs. The aftermarket for "adapters", or the cost of modifying them all "in house" would have been enough to bankrupt NASA. 

It is now about 40 years since Charles Merzbach first imported LGB "K" (King sized, look at the original ads) into the US. You would think the outdoor large scale hobby would have developed a certain degree of maturity, but apparently some are still wedded to the concept that the anarchy should continue and any standard other than track gauge should be resisted at any cost. And YES, I believe that poorly constructed trackwork is the root of 80% of the operational problems that the average outdoor railroader encounters. Another 10% is couplers that do not interoperate due to any number of factors, causing the cars to separate or derail. 

Please reconsider your position on suggesting (indirectly or otherwise) that efforts to standardize coupler heights for equipment "OF LIKE SCALE" should be denigrated, minimized, ridicxuled, and or ignored. The era of promoting the "universal coupler solution" is long past.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Not to pick on Kevin, but Kadee couplers are MUCH more sensitive to height than any other coupler. 

One of the main reasons is that the inside of the knuckle (where the couplers pull against each other) is convex, high point at the horizontal mold line (of course). 

This allows/facilitates the couplers riding up over each other in cases of high stress. Trains going up steep grades or long ones like I run have problems with 1/16" offset. 

Now take it that most people's layouts are not perfect and when you have a long car with a body mount and non-perfect vertical transistions, and it's trouble. 

I'm sold on Kadees, but they need to be almost exactly at the right height to run long trains, long cars, body mounts, steep grades. 

So the coupler pad at the wrong height is bad, and unusable in my experience. 

Once I have things set up right, then 40 car trains, and long passenger trains with USAT streamliners and Aristo HW cars operate properly. 

There is no excuse to put these coupler pads at the wrong height. I believe the wrong ones by Aristo was a mistake, since the relationship to the end of the car is also wrong. It could not have been that they used the #1 coupler because the hole pattern for the #1 body mount is different than the G scale #830, and the hole pattern on the Aristo is for the 830. You can verify ALL this yourself, this is not speculation. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...There is NO legitimate reason to continue with this attitude of "I don't want no stinkin' standards" in large scale. The user should NOT have to modify commercial rolling stock to be interoperable. Just ask your Dad how it would have been for NASA engineers if every electronics manufacturer made their own wiring harness and plugs. The aftermarket for "adapters", or the cost of modifying them all "in house" would have been enough to bankrupt NASA...

Jim, we have standards. We've had them for decades. It's the manufacturers who steadfastly refuse to adhere to them. It doesn't help the situation that some tried to sue others when "compatible" products came on the market. That doesn't exactly foster an air of cooperation, so it's no wonder why we're where we are in terms of standards (or lack thereof). 

Yes, we do need standards--in certain arenas. I've been working to try to make such standards a reality, but given the state of things, various opinions, and other market factors, it's proving to be a rather quixotic endeavor (as have been previous attempts at the same). There are other arenas--couplers being one of them--that I think a standard is simply unattainable. History has made that painfully obvious, and nothing short of wiping the slate clean and starting over will remedy it. Is it frustrating for the beginner? Absolutely. Is it detrimental to the hobby in general? Not in my opinion. I've heard lots of reasons for people getting frustrated and leaving the hobby. "Because the trains won't couple" is seldom one of them. 

...Please reconsider your position on suggesting (indirectly or otherwise) that efforts to standardize coupler heights for equipment "OF LIKE SCALE" should be denigrated, minimized, ridicxuled, and or ignored. The era of promoting the "universal coupler solution" is long past...

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. A standard mounting pad that makes it easy to attach 3rd party couplers is a very laudable idea--one that many manufacturers seem to be headed towards, and one that I make an effort to point out whenever I can in my reviews. My point is that it doesn't much matter precisely what the height is set at (within a ballpark), so long as the pad exists. No matter where you peg it, there will be a set of people who will have to shim, file, or make some kind of adjustments for their choice of coupler to be set to what they have adopted as their own standard. 

The weakness in establishing any kind of standard for mounting pad height based on a coupler centerline is that you need to accept that all coupler pockets will be the same distance from centerline to the top of the pocket. That's likely not to be the case. It certainly requires coordination between the train and coupler manufacturers. If you've got manufacturers insisting on doing their own thing, then there's no way to engineer for every variable, therefore there's no incentive for other manufacturers to adopt any standard other than what works personally for them, leaving those who adopt others' couplers to shim, file, and otherwise fiddle to get the couplers to the right height. 

Now, it's my personal opinion that such fiddling and shimming should be taught in "model railroading 101." All couplers should _ideally_ be at exactly the same height for absolute maximum performance. (The level of tolerance is dictated by your trackwork, and the kinds of trains you run.) Couplers are an essential part of model railroading, and you just need to know how to make them work. If we did, each of us would be armed with the knowledge of how to set couplers wherever we need them to be, rendering any kind of standard a convenience, not a necessity. 

Later, 

K 

PS - Greg--that's what helper locos are for.  Even the prototypes break couplers when the trains get too long.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Ted Doskaris on 12/01/2008 11:25 PM
On our way to the 8th page! 

Given how long it seems for Aristo to get product to market - assuming it is not stillborne like the SW1500 & SD9 - and now with their China factory turmoil of late, I can imagine the new kuppler may actually be available in years from now - not weeks or months. 

SNIP
-Ted


Ted.
Why should you be surprised how long it takes AristoCraft to develop and release something.
Afterall, Mr Pollk is now saying it took them 7 years to develop and release the original TE onto the market.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, I love helpers! That's what DCC is for! ha ha ha. 

I have never broken a Kadee, but I get much more reliability when the couplers are attached at the exact height, and the mounting is solid. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

Posted By Great Western on 12/04/2008 3:39 AM
As the new coupler is not due to be presented until the first ECLSTS in March 2009 one wonders how much more speculation can be invented by that time. 

One UK Forum debate is taking place about the "best" coupler. There is no "best" coupler as far as I can see: only a "best" according to an individuals requirements or bank balance.










Posted By TonyWalsham on 01/03/2009 4:44 AM
Posted By Ted Doskaris on 12/01/2008 11:25 PM
On our way to the 8th page! 

Given how long it seems for Aristo to get product to market - assuming it is not stillborne like the SW1500 & SD9 - and now with their China factory turmoil of late, I can imagine the new kuppler may actually be available in years from now - not weeks or months. 

SNIP
-Ted


Ted.
Why should you be surprised how long it takes AristoCraft to develop and release something.
Afterall, Mr Pollk is now saying it took them 7 years to develop and release the original TE onto the market.












This is not so much an issue of inventing speculation or being surprised, but it seems more of a purposeful routine on Aristo's part - maybe owing to a few reasons, one of which would be to test market reaction of a potential new product before really doing something concrete; hence, the stillborne products or extraordinary, resultant delay for the ones that are approved. After experiencing such "marketeesing" games, one has good reason to draw into question the credibility of the Company.

When I had formerly participated in Aristo FORUM, it use to be I would pre-order Aristo products based on new product announcements there, but as an example of experiencing such strategies and since realizing the "game" being played, I decided to wait on the GP40 actually being in the distribution chain to the dealers before I followed with orders - accumulating 7 of them thus far. 
The only complaints I have with this product (and obviously not limited to it) is being the wheel plating wearing away too soon and the noticeable degradation of the Aristo knuckle coupler performance (pulling apart under load). 
Hence, the supposed new Aristo "kuppler" having no compatibility & goofy, backward knuckle direction that gave rise to this thread now on its way to 9 pages!

I have since purchased several Kadee couplers & gauge as samples to test for determining how they will work with Aristo's standard knuckle couplers. 
Ultimately, I may replace all the Aristo knuckle couplers on my locos & rolling stock (600 + couplers).

-Ted


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Overall it's just amounts to matter of preference and what train lengths you will handle. I still will not reinvest in another type coupler just for the sake of its good or what ever. I can better distribute my money elsewhere in the hobby. Later RJD


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Lewis now says that the new "kuppler" WILL BE compatible with kadees


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

SOOOOOOOO. Later RJD


----------



## cleary (Oct 13, 2008)

I use body mounted #1 kadees on my 1:29 rolling stock. I was surprised to find the mounting pad on the USA Trains product was for a 830 coupler ("G" scale) rather than the 820 coupler (#1 scale). I suspect that many people just use the larger 830 type coupler on everything regardless of scale. 

What was also surprising to me was that Kadee did not have a #1 coupler in the 830 draft box. They have a lot of #1 in larger draft gear boxes but somehow do not make the most obvious - a #1 coupler in a 830 draft box. The coupler would need to be offset downward to match the 1 - 1/16th height above the railhead as opposed to the 1 - 1/8th height for the G but this does not seem to be a big problem when one looks at their product line. Does anyone have any information as to why Kadee does not make this product? It seems like such a glaring hole in their product line.


Shark


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Shark, what's funny is that Kadee makes most of the #1 scale in the G scale draft boxes EXCEPT the #1 coupler in the 830 draft gear! 

Maybe the problem is that the coupler shank would be a lot larger or the draft gearbox would show and be unsightly. 

One technical problem is that the 830 draft gearbox depends on a straight shank, so no way to offset it like the other draft gearboxes. 

The "G" scale coupler is much more forgiving of poor track, so I'm guessing why that was picked for 1:29. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## cleary (Oct 13, 2008)

This the Kadee 1840 which is supposed to be a #1 coupler to fit in a "G" draft box. Notice it has a slight downward offset so it might get down to the 1 - 1/16 above railhead needed for the #1 coupler. This part does not seem like it would fit in a 830 draft box however, since it is not a straight shank.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep, that definitely is not the type of shank that fits in the 830 draft box. It does, however, fit the other "style" of "G" draft boxes, like the 831. 

There is a fine distinction between fitting "a" G style draft box (meaning any G scale draft box you choose) , and fitting "THE" number 830 G scale draft box, which is different that all the rest. 

So like I said: "Shark, what's funny is that Kadee makes most of the #1 scale in the G scale draft boxes EXCEPT the #1 coupler in the 830 draft gear! " 

The shank of the "830" style is completely different than all the rest. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Here is the Kuppler!

Well, what is the big deal? I guess we will see as it is revealed. It is not clear how it is uncoupled yet. It does not have a magentic "air hose" to remotely uncouple.


Regards, Greg


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

it looks like a MTH coupler size and shape look good very close to a kadee... im glad this thread made them change what they were doing,, so now they will probably sell well on there cars as long as they match a kaydee hight guage... i have a 2 bay hopper and its still off by 80 thousands of an inch i had to shim to the rite hieght...
Nick


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

it does not have the same type of magnetic uncoupling though.. 

let's see what is next... may it is a battery powered coupler... 

Greg


----------



## cleary (Oct 13, 2008)

There seems to be a blue button on the side of the coupler. This is either a coupler release mechanism or perhaps part of a new caterpillar drive system for the Red October. Time will tell.

Also there seems to be a pivot next to the shank which might help in side to side motion.

Shark


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

you have to be a member of the aristo forum to see the picture so some of us are in the dark ............

I cannot believe greg made me sign up to aristo's website.......


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

It is good to see the pics, here and there, of the new Kuppler. Believe it, or not, it looks more or less as I imagined it would despite all the different suppositions and smoke screens which of course now be put to rest.









I feel that it will be ideal for my purposes and once it becomes available over here I will commence replacing all my Bachmann couplers (which look fine but can be weak) with this new version.


----------



## W3NZL (Jan 2, 2008)

*OK, looks like the first one out of the gate with their Kadee wannabe is Aristo-craft...*
*Wonder how long it'll be before USA, B-man, LGB, and whoever else wants to play*
*has their Kadee clones and look-a-likes on the market??? hehe One thing thats *
*kind of interesting though, the coupler shown on the right in the pic is without doubt *
*an 830 Kadee, and the Aristo offering obviously matches it quite well in size... I have *
*to **wonder why **Aristo, the big promoter and driving force behind the 1/29 scale **since *
*day 1, would build a coupler that wasn't 1/29 scale at this point in the game ???*
*I guess if this offering by Aristo gets all the mfgrs headed in the right direction it'll be *
*a good thing however... **Think I'll be sticking with my 820s though... hehe*
*Paul R...*


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

GEE 

IF it is the same size as a Kadee 830 "G", then you are right, it is NOT 1:29 scale... It is still TOO BIG for scale. the Kadee 820 #1 is TOO BIG for 1:32, and much closer to 1:29. But that raises the old bugaboo of having to have very well maintained track, which is often a PITA if you don't have a VERY rigid base for the track. 

NOT to worry. Very few model scales use properly sized couplers, except for the PROTO (pick a ratio) guys, PROTO87, PROTO48, PROTO32, blah, blah, blah. IF it looks reasonable, works well, has a good price... that's enough.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I fixed the picture, sorry! For some reason, even though I am banned, I can still see the picture. 

That will have Aristo working day and night! 

ha ha ha... 

Greg


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Greg 

Having now seen the Kuppler... Guess what, looks a lot like an old cast Lionel O gauge (certainly not scale) coupler. That reminds me... On the two cars I use for interconnecting my O scale (2 rail) freight cars with Kadee 804 O scale couplers to "regular" Lionel and MTH, I have Kadee O scale on one end and a Kadee #1 820 body mount on the other. The 820 couples just fine to Lionel or MTH coupler on the tender of the O scale loco. I think three things will ultimately make or break this product (the usual ones) price, performance and reliability, and ease of mounting to rolling stock and locomotives.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It will be hard to beat the large number of conversion kits and varieties of draft gearboxes that Kadee offers. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I would think we can assume they'd mount quite easily on Aristo's stuff, but how well they play with other brands will certainly be interesting to see. It doesn't look quite as good as Accucraft's 1:32 coupler, at least not in that photo, and the Accucraft coupler has the advantage of fitting in a stock #820 draft gear. Of course, Accucraft's 1:32 coupler still isn't available separately, so... 

I'm a bit perplexed about that blue patch on the side. I hope that's a pre-production thing. I can't say I've seen an exhaustive amount of couplers in my life, but I've yet to see one with a big blue square on it. (Okay, I've yet to see one with a coil spring on the side, too.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*I think polk was quoted as saying these will fit a 830 bolt pattern when they are released, so this will limit them BUT as most of usa trains cars come with a pad for 830's could get interesting. i might buy a few of aristo new modern 50 ft box cars, and if these are on it, and aristo goes all the way and accually puts the coupler so it will match the kadee hieght gage i will probably leave them on the car in lou of kadees but i dont think i would use them on a day to day bais unless they cane mounted on one of there cars...time will tell.* *Nick*


----------

