|
Post by markm on Oct 23, 2018 13:32:25 GMT -5
Speaking of patent I don’t know what regulation is, but when one looks at other scales, it can be considered almost every manufacturer develops his Kadee style (and Kadee compatible) coupler. Thus one could imagine the same for Z.... I believe patent law is about the same worldwide. The patent assignee has 20 years exclusive rights to the design, with the possibility of extending that time by updating the patent or lack of the ability to execute the patented item with existing technology. The patent holder can license the patent to others or keep it for themselves. Kadee did the former and MTL the later. I agree that a body mount hole, or even a drilling dimple would be desirable. I would be happy if all manufacturers would agree on a common, easy to use coupler box so we wouldn't have to mess Märklin's hot melt closure or molded on couplers. I find the magne-matic® couplers a clever solutions but a bit awkward for execution with all those magnets/electromagnets. What I would put on my wish list would be for some future road switcher or especially a yard switcher to have an electronically controlled coupler. It could be built with a solenoid like the ones used in the Rokuhan turnouts. Full control would require DCC, but could probably be controlled in DC by cycling the polarity of the power. I fully agree here, my aim is also to convert all the couplers on freight cars and locos so I can switch easily (not for passenger trains). Charlie Charlie I think you're selling passenger operations short. At your SLC station, UP assembled and split various City trains and SP would turn around their Overland. Railroads would have various rules that required working passenger cars: kitchen rear-facing (or front facing), vestibules facing rear, compartments always facing the ocean (SP), domes short end forward (WP) or sleeper aisles facing parallel tracks (various). All this requiring operations with al least a good "Y". Even today Amtrak does split/mergers of the Empire Builder in Spokane. IMHO there is considerable opportunity of passenger operations even before thinking about servicing tracks. Mark
|
|
|
Post by charlie on Oct 24, 2018 4:46:00 GMT -5
You're right Mark My layout was first planned for freight only, but then the CZ project came and will hopefully become real soon. I keep the idea of operating freight consist only, and the passenger trains will only pass by and stop at the train station and then go under a hidden long yard under the layout. I'll post a picture of my layout plan later on. I just modified the middle part of it to install the passenger train station. In that case I do not need to operate passenger trains and will keep them with AZL couplers. All my freight cars are MTL's, and all passengers will be AZL's like the locos Charlie
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Nov 5, 2018 10:54:55 GMT -5
I wanted to confirm the patent status before I posted and I was rather surprised at 1998 as the latest grant dates for the magne-matic® couplers. I know I purchased my first non-Märklin unit in 1988, I believe under the Kadee name. I've found a good patent attorney can work miracles with terms like "new and improved." I find the MTL coupler decision understandable, but strange. For a number of years, they allowed other manufacturers to use the couplers, including AZL. And if a Z-scale-wide acceptance of magne-matic® couplers brings in more people like yourself interested in Z scale operations it's a win for MTL and everyone. Of course a good IP attorney could successfully argue that since MTL at one time allowed others to use their coupler, they lost their right to exclusivity. Mark MTL couplers were being miss used by other companies, put on sub standard products or used by companies that had no OEM agreement with us. We were getting a lot of flack for our stuff on cars and locos that didn't work correctly or not installed in such a way that they worked as they were supposed to. Short simple answer. Just protecting our product.
|
|
|
Post by markm on Nov 5, 2018 19:35:26 GMT -5
Joe,
I for one appreciate the MTL side of the story. I understand intellectual property issues better than most having been stuck in the middle of a very nasty Silicon Valley IP lawsuit. So I'm always very careful to provide the proper attribution for the magne-matic® couplers.
But as my granddad liked to say: sometimes you have to shovel a lot of manure to reap the sweetest crop (sanitized for posting!).
|
|
|
Post by altunha on Aug 16, 2019 21:39:26 GMT -5
Does anyone have a process for switching AZL couplers on an AZL F3, with MTL couplers?
Thanks
Jim
|
|
|
Post by ztrack on Aug 17, 2019 15:59:22 GMT -5
Mark[/quote]MTL couplers were being miss used by other companies, put on sub standard products or used by companies that had no OEM agreement with us. We were getting a lot of flack for our stuff on cars and locos that didn't work correctly or not installed in such a way that they worked as they were supposed to.
Short simple answer. Just protecting our product.[/quote]
Now that is funny. Joe’s revisionist history of Z scale. . MTL had no problem selling these manufacturers 1000s of couplers directly. Well that is until these same manufacturers became a threat to MTL. Water under the bridge. The hobby has moved on.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Albritton on Aug 17, 2019 16:16:30 GMT -5
MTL couplers were being miss used by other companies, put on sub standard products or used by companies that had no OEM agreement with us. We were getting a lot of flack for our stuff on cars and locos that didn't work correctly or not installed in such a way that they worked as they were supposed to. Short simple answer. Just protecting our product. Hi Joe, I totally get it, and had conversations with Eric that were along a similar line. At the end of the day, we were making so many trucks and couplers that we just decided it was easier to design and make our own. Good thing too, as we have already worn out one set of steel tooling, and I think we will need to go to a third set soon! Best, -Rob(A) AZL
|
|
ZFRANK
Fireman
If you can't get it.....build it yourself....
Posts: 91
|
Post by ZFRANK on Sept 1, 2019 15:50:29 GMT -5
Does anyone have a process for switching AZL couplers on an AZL F3, with MTL couplers? Thanks Jim Hi Jim, Next link to mypictures of my conversion to a GP40-2 might be of any inspiration to you haw to use MTL couplers as a body mounted coupler. link/Frank
|
|
|
Post by altunha on Sept 4, 2019 7:45:17 GMT -5
Thank you, Frank This gives me sone ideas
Oh, you did a great job on your loco. Looks fantastic!
Jim
|
|
paneale
New Member
Dangerous and Rapidly Getting Worse, DRG&W
Posts: 20
|
Post by paneale on Jul 11, 2020 12:29:22 GMT -5
I know these posts are older, but enjoyed the information
My reason for posting is on a marklin forum I saw references to conducting couplers. I'm guess it is an ho thing, but is z scale simply too small to do something similar ?I
Phil
|
|
hideaki
New Member
I really love American Z scale Locomotives!
Posts: 43
|
Post by hideaki on Mar 9, 2024 18:24:57 GMT -5
Does anyone have a process for switching AZL couplers on an AZL F3, with MTL couplers? Thanks Jim Hi Jim, Next link to mypictures of my conversion to a GP40-2 might be of any inspiration to you haw to use MTL couplers as a body mounted coupler. link/Frank Thank you for your postage and many pics in detail. That is the way what I was looking for!
|
|