Date   

Re: Sergent Couplers and Ops

Mikebrock
 

Jim Betz writes:

' "if it doesn't Op it isn't mine".

I get it that others have different priorities and that
is why I put that caveat in my post.'

Hmmm. Putting toe into water...a bit warm. Need to be careful here.

An observation. Jim certainly noted that he prioritizes ops over appearance. Nothing, of course, wrong with that. I mean, some people prefer diesels to steam [ yes, it may be hard to believe but it's true <g> ]. And, to be honest, I have to say that...being very careful now...anyone using Kadee couplers is emphasizing ops over appearance. OTOH, if I had no couplers at all on my locomotives and cars, none, zero, I would likely try the Sergent couplers. However, I actually do have couplers on everything built [ some...gasp!...are #5 Kadees ] and, so, we have another factor to consider...Jim's "time" factor. It takes time to replace 500 or so couplers. Did I say $$$? That, too. And, effort. So, there's more to it than improving track or appearance versus ops.

Note that the rules of the STMFC state:

"Emphasis is to be placed on the study of the prototype with
a goal of producing models of them with as great a degree of accuracy as
possible."

This is, of course, an objective and does not mean that I or anyone else should expect to be thrown bodily into Moderate Jail for continuing to use Kadee #5 couplers when other Kadees and Sergents are more accurate [ besides, heh, heh, I have the key to the jail ]. And, of course, I do NOT have semi scale wheels rolling on all cars on the layout. BTW, I still offer a deal to anyone that will come down the day before my op session [ did I say "op"? ] during Proto Rails and replace the code 110 wheels with semi scale wheels on my 4-12-2 [ 67" drivers...should be easy to find, eh?]. I mean, I'll pay your registration to PR.

Mike Brock...once again believing that MRing should be fun


Re: Sharon Couplers

rwitt_2000
 

I posted this in the wrong "conversation".  - Bob Witt

"Should the list of "Interchange Dates" started by Jeff English be revised to included the information about couplers as supplied by Guy Wilber?"


Re: Sharon Couplers

Dennis Storzek
 

"Most narrow gauge cars sported the “D” due to their build date. Common brands included Janney, Simplex, Climax, Tower and Sharon, with Sharon being the most common."

Let's not confuse the ARA Type D with the preexisting designs of the various vendors. These foundries may have made Type D's, but when called out by tradename, usually mean their own proprietary design, not the ARA standard.

The Type D was almost indistinguishable from the later Type E; they were the same physical size, 12" from pulling face to striker horn, and the only visible difference is the heighth of the knuckle. The D knuckle was 9" high, which is visibly smaller that the heighth of the head it is pinned to. The Type E knuckle is 11" high, and has notches where the portion of the head that holds the pin are set into the knuckle, so it appears as tall as the head. Both versions have the same bulge on the knuckle side of the head to house the lock, and both have four holes cored in the "thumb" side of the head.

The proprietary designs, while MCB compliant, were visibly smaller, typically 9" high, with a 9-1/4" pulling face to striker horn dimension. This put a pair of coupled cars 5-1/2" closer together than the later D or E. These are what are commonly thought of as the "narrow gauge" couplers, simply because they lasted on the Colorado narrow gauge well after dissapearing from interchange service elsewhere. These couplers could also be found right up to the 1960 cut-off date of this list on cabooses, company service cars, and other captive fleets. Many of the Soo Line wood cabooses were still running in the sixties with their original Simplex couplers, easily identifiable by the portion of the lock that protrudes out through a "window" in the side of the coupler head.

I'm sure there were any other examples.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Type 27 Multi-Compartment Tank Car SHPX 55

rwitt_2000
 

Should the list of "Interchange Dates" started by Jeff English be revised to included the information about couplers as supplied by Guy Wilber?

Bob Witt


Re: Sharon Couplers

Eric Neubauer <eaneubauer@...>
 


True. I figured I better check the 1906 CBD:
 
"... strictly speaking, the term draft gear includes only the springs or friction blocks and other parts enclosed within the coupler yoke."
 
"The word drawbar is used indiscriminantly to designate both the old link and pin drawbar and the modern automatic car coupler."
 
"Continuous draft gear. A draft gear, having a continuous rod or rods extending throughout the length of the car from drawbar at one end to the drawbar at the other end, whose office is to transmit the tractive strains and relieve the draft timbers."
 
The last item became obsolete when cars had steel centersills or underframes. Nevertheless, travelling sill underframes such as Duryea have some similar attributes.
 
Eric N.
 

Eric, 


A few steam era examples of drawbar connected cars other than steam locos and their tenders include early FT A&B units and paired Baldwin Centipedes on the PRR.  There were also some cars that were drawbar connected prior to 1960.  Note that term drawbar really means the part connected to the car, thus the coupler has a drawbar and of course we refer to drawbar horsepower for locos.

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith            

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/


"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."

                           __

  On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:04 AM, 'Eric Neubauer' eaneubauer@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:


 

At least in today's world, that would be confusing. "Drawbar connected" is used to denote individual cars connected with a solid bar rather than couplers. Hence a drawbar is very different from a coupler. I can't think of any pre-1960 examples of this except for a locomotive and tender, but perhaps there were some.

Eric N.


Re: Sharon Couplers

Dave Nelson
 

Summary from Guy's post, questions to follow:

Type D adopted as Standard - 1916
Type D required for New cars - 1918
Type D required on rebuilt cars - 1928

Type E required for New cars - 1933
Type E required on rebuilt cars - 1937

For Type D cars post 1937, any idea of the rate of replacement with Type E?
Obviously as a percentage of the total fleet it could not exceed the
percentage of pre 1933 built cars, less post 1937 rebuilds... but would most
older cars equipped with Type D couplers retained them to scrapping?

Does anyone know the "strength" of Type D relative to Type E?

Dave Nelson

-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Wilber
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 10:33 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Sharon Couplers

Tony Thompson wrote:

Okay, but in fact the Type D coupler design was standardized by the MCB
in 1899, with some revisions of details in ensuing years; it then became
successively the ARA and AAR Type D. The Sharon coupler, offered by National
Malleable Steel, was a conforming Type D coupler, just a slightly different
design

The MCBA adopted the automatic coupler in 1887 as standard with further
details adopted in 1889 and 1893, and modified in 1909. The coupler was
replaced by the Type D in 1918.

The original Type D was adopted as standard in 1916 and was modified in 1918
to the No. 10 contour replacing the former MCBA standard.

All freight cars built new and used in interchange were required to be
equipped with Type D couplers cast with 6 inch by 8 inch shanks as of
November 1, 1920. Rebuilt cars were to be so equipped on, and after July
1, 1928.

The greater number of early MCBA standard couplers were required to be
replaced as of January 1, 1929 due to deficiencies in dimensions and riveted
or pinned connections between the coupler and yoke.

The general demise of the early MCBA standard couplers was due to attrition
and lack of available replacement parts. The prohibition of cars of all
wood construction as of January 1, 1935 would have been another major blow
to this coupler design as well.

All new cars built on, and after August 1, 1933 were required to be equipped
with Type E couplers. Cars rebuilt on, and after August 1, 1937 were
required to be equipped with Type E couplers though exceptions were allowed
for cars which would not accommodate larger coupler shanks. Those were still
required to be equipped with Type D or E couplers cast with dimensionally
smaller shanks.

Type D couplers cast after August 1, 1936 were prohibited, effective January
1, 1937. The AAR required all Type D manufacturers to certify all castings
and related equipment was destroyed.

Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada


Re: Sharon Couplers

John Barry
 

Bruce,

Although many roads FT locomotives did, Santa Fe FT's NEVER had drawbars between units and they were among the first adopters as the War Production Board allocated diesel units where most needed.  

I'm not sure it qualifies as a drawbar, but ATSF did use a special zero slack coupling between pairs of Ft-M converted into Ft-16 for piggyback service in 1959.  For all intents and purposes, it was a drawbar that could be split in the middle for shoppings.
 
John Barry


ATSF North Bay Lines
Golden Gates & Fast Freights


707-490-9696


3450 Palmer Drive, Suite 4224
Cameron Park, CA 95682


From: "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]"
To: "STMFC@..."
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Sharon Couplers

 
Eric, 

A few steam era examples of drawbar connected cars other than steam locos and their tenders include early FT A&B units and paired Baldwin Centipedes on the PRR.  There were also some cars that were drawbar connected prior to 1960.  Note that term drawbar really means the part connected to the car, thus the coupler has a drawbar and of course we refer to drawbar horsepower for locos.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith            
Auburn, AL

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
                           __
  On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:04 AM, 'Eric Neubauer' eaneubauer@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

 

At least in today's world, that would be confusing. "Drawbar connected" is used to denote individual cars connected with a solid bar rather than couplers. Hence a drawbar is very different from a coupler. I can't think of any pre-1960 examples of this except for a locomotive and tender, but perhaps there were some.
Eric N.



Sergent Couplers and Ops

Jim Betz
 

Hi,

===> This post got long and convoluted. If
you want to cut to the chase just skip
everything between the first and last
sets of asterisks.

Re-phrasing what I said in my prior post

"if it doesn't Op it isn't mine".

I get it that others have different priorities and that
is why I put that caveat in my post.

****

No, you can't "just fix the track" and make the
Sergents work. Some might be able to do this but
most can't. (Or is it they don't want to?) And I
challenge you to 'fix' any layout that is already
built - you have to start with that as a goal to get
there.
Do this simple exercise. Put a 12" metal straight
edge in your car and the next time you are driving
by some rail on the prototype (any prototype, any
where) ... stop and go out to a rail joint and lay the
straight edge down across the joint. What you will
see is that the straight edge lies perfectly flat all
along its 12" length. Having done that take the
same straight edge and lay it across several of your
layout joints - and several other locations not on a
joint. For instance - try the places 'where the grades
start and finish'. What you will discover is that you
will have more than one place where the straight
edge doesn't like flat along 12" of rail. In fact, if
you move around the layout you will discover lots
of places where the straight edge won't lie flat for
its full 12" of length - you might have the joints
right but you won't have the entire layout right.
Yes, I get it that 12" on our layouts represents
87" on the prototype so I'm not exactly comparing
apples and apples. But the important part is that our
layouts all have significantly more vertical curvature
than the prototype. Said another way the RRs are
laying their track approximately 87 times more
accurately than we are - because you can't find
any place on the prototype that the same straight
edge won't lay down flat. And, if you had one,
you'd find out that an 87" straight edge would lie
flat anywhere on the prototype.
The above exercise has -nothing- to do with the
quality of the track on our layouts. The best laid
track you know will show this same thing - that
best one might be less than the rest ... but it will
still show it.

Can a layout be made to run with Sergents? Yes,
of course it can! But most of the guys I know
who have operating layouts are always making
some kind of "how much time do I have to do
'blank' ... and how important is it?" decisions.
And, for them, and me ... the goal is to get the
layout running well (because Ops is their thing).

Again - my focus is on Ops first and -then- how good
it looks.

That doesn't mean that the Ops layouts I go to are
shlock plywood pacifics ... FAR from it. They look and
feel 'real' - and just from the appearance of them
your mind is 'engaged' and you are 'taken to the zone'.
I've gone to several 'Ops Fests' around the country.
None of those layouts had any Sergents in use. Many
of them have experimented with them.

****

My opinion of Sergent couplers isn't "unfair" ... it
is "from the perspective of someone who is into Ops".
I get it that not everyone is into Ops. That's why I
told you at the very first what -my- priorities are.

And yes, I -love- the look/accuracy of the Sergents!
- Jim


Re: Sharon Couplers

Bruce Smith
 

Eric, 

A few steam era examples of drawbar connected cars other than steam locos and their tenders include early FT A&B units and paired Baldwin Centipedes on the PRR.  There were also some cars that were drawbar connected prior to 1960.  Note that term drawbar really means the part connected to the car, thus the coupler has a drawbar and of course we refer to drawbar horsepower for locos.

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith            

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/


"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."

                           __

  On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:04 AM, 'Eric Neubauer' eaneubauer@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:


 

At least in today's world, that would be confusing. "Drawbar connected" is used to denote individual cars connected with a solid bar rather than couplers. Hence a drawbar is very different from a coupler. I can't think of any pre-1960 examples of this except for a locomotive and tender, but perhaps there were some.

Eric N.


Re: Sharon Couplers

Jeff Coleman
 

I too have head many ex-railroad men refer to couplers as the drawbar or drawhead. I currently work with a ex-Southern switchman that uses drawhead when talking about couplers here in the shop.

As for the discussion about Sharon couplers this info is posted on the San Juan Car Company website. They manufacture O, On3 and On3 rolling stock, trucks, and couplers including Sharon.
The “modern” coupler is really not that modern. The Master Car Builders (MCB) established the contour in the 1890’s as the #5. MCB later became the American Association of Railroads (AAR). Then, as now, their function was to set standards and practices for railroads and the knuckle couple was a major achievement.

This is often referred to as the “Janney” coupler but really, Janney was just one brand name of couplers manufactured to those contours at that time. The knuckle was 9″ and the body was approx. 12″ deep and about that tall.

A bit later the contour was revised as the MCB “D” which still had the 9″ knuckle, but the body contour was slightly beefier. The later “E” has an 11″ knuckle and a correspondingly larger body, BUT ALL the couplers are compatible and able to coupler to each other. In computer terms, they were backwards and forward compatible.

Most narrow gauge cars sported the “D” due to their build date. Common brands included Janney, Simplex, Climax, Tower and Sharon, with Sharon being the most common.

So, we can stop referring to couplers as “standard” gauge couplers or “narrow” gauge couplers. There is no such thing and never was. The slight visual differences in size simply reflects differences in coupler brands and the evolution of the contour as time progressed
- Excerpted from 2010 issue of the On30 Annual.

1. What is the size of the coupler?

Before the turn of the century the AAR standardized automatic coupler designs, and began the process of eliminating the link and pin coupler.

The Sharon Coupler was one of the many designs to come from this design standard. Some of the more commonly found brands were the Tower and Janey.

The interface (knuckle & body) were common , but the mechanisms were all different.

During the conversion from link and pin couplers, the D&RGW made the switch. The most common was the Sharon. Wandering through the yards here in Durango and in Chama you will find all of these types including ones not listed here. You will even find narrow gauge cars with E type couplers.

As trains got longer and cars became heavier, a larger coupler size was needs. The E type was that coupler. Larger than the Sharon type but still interchangeable. The E type is still in use today along with more modern couplers.

Jeff Coleman



-----Original Message-----
From: 'Eric Neubauer' eaneubauer@... [STMFC]
To: STMFC
Sent: Mon, Jul 28, 2014 11:05 am
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Sharon Couplers

 

At least in today's world, that would be confusing. "Drawbar connected" is used to denote individual cars connected with a solid bar rather than couplers. Hence a drawbar is very different from a coupler. I can't think of any pre-1960 examples of this except for a locomotive and tender, but perhaps there were some.
Eric N.
Speaking of ‘terms’ my railroad friend always call the couple a “Drawbar”.
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Re: Sharon Couplers

Eric Neubauer <eaneubauer@...>
 


At least in today's world, that would be confusing. "Drawbar connected" is used to denote individual cars connected with a solid bar rather than couplers. Hence a drawbar is very different from a coupler. I can't think of any pre-1960 examples of this except for a locomotive and tender, but perhaps there were some.

Eric N.

Speaking of ‘terms’ my railroad friend always call the couple a “Drawbar”.
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Re: Sharon Couplers

Robert kirkham
 

This is very helpful.

While there are no specific cars identified, I think if I am reading Guy's notes correctly, some questions and observations can be made:
- did the Sharon coupler have sufficient dimensions to escape replacement due to the January 1, 1929 requirement for replacement based on dimensions and riveted or pinned connections between the coupler and yoke?
- if so (and that remains unknown to me), then by 1935 we would only see Sharon couplers on cars of steel frame or steel reinforced frame construction built prior to Nov. 1 1920.

That narrows the pool, especially in the post WWII era.

Other factors are also obvious. I'm not really aware of other competing coupler designs during this era of improvement and standardization, but the various answers I'm reading suggest that Sharon couplers might not be the only alternatives to Type D (and later E) to survive on old equipment. Obviously, lots of freight cars built pre Nov. 1, 1920 could have been equipped with compliant type D couplers. So not every pre-1920 built car is a candidate. Will have to look at car order information in Railway Age to pursue this further.

And of course as built info says nothing about what couplers were replaced as damage and wear took its toll.

Obviously, the use of Sharon couplers post war would have been very slim. Still, I am not reading an outright ban (provided the dimensions and attachments were permitted).

Rob Kirkham

-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Wilber guycwilber@aol.com [STMFC]
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 10:33 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Sharon Couplers

Tony Thompson wrote:

Okay, but in fact the Type D coupler design was standardized by the MCB in 1899, with some revisions of details in ensuing years; it then became successively the ARA and AAR Type D. The Sharon coupler, offered by National Malleable Steel, was a conforming Type D coupler, just a slightly different design
The MCBA adopted the automatic coupler in 1887 as standard with further details adopted in 1889 and 1893, and modified in 1909. The coupler was replaced by the Type D in 1918.

The original Type D was adopted as standard in 1916 and was modified in 1918 to the No. 10 contour replacing the former MCBA standard.

All freight cars built new and used in interchange were required to be equipped with Type D couplers cast with 6 inch by 8 inch shanks as of November 1, 1920. Rebuilt cars were to be so equipped on, and after July 1, 1928.

The greater number of early MCBA standard couplers were required to be replaced as of January 1, 1929 due to deficiencies in dimensions and riveted or pinned connections between the coupler and yoke.

The general demise of the early MCBA standard couplers was due to attrition and lack of available replacement parts. The prohibition of cars of all wood construction as of January 1, 1935 would have been another major blow to this coupler design as well.

All new cars built on, and after August 1, 1933 were required to be equipped with Type E couplers. Cars rebuilt on, and after August 1, 1937 were required to be equipped with Type E couplers though exceptions were allowed for cars which would not accommodate larger coupler shanks. Those were still required to be equipped with Type D or E couplers cast with dimensionally smaller shanks.

Type D couplers cast after August 1, 1936 were prohibited, effective January 1, 1937. The AAR required all Type D manufacturers to certify all castings and related equipment was destroyed.

Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada

------------------------------------
Posted by: Guy Wilber <guycwilber@aol.com>
------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links


Re: Sharon Couplers

Clark Propst
 

Speaking of ‘terms’ my railroad friend always call the couple a “Drawbar”.
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Re: Sharon Couplers

Tony Thompson
 

Guy Wilber wrote:

 

The original Type D was adopted as standard in 1916 and was modified in 1918 to the No. 10 contour replacing the former MCBA standard.

All freight cars built new and used in interchange were required to be equipped with Type D couplers cast with 6 inch by 8 inch shanks as of November 1, 1920. Rebuilt cars were to be so equipped on, and after July 1, 1928.

    Thank you for the specifics, Guy. I misunderstood a note in the 1928 Cyc as to the 1899 adoption. But note, Guy's summary does not address the original question about Sharon couplers. They are shown in the 1928 Cyc as still available, along with Type D, from National Malleable Steel (page 933). 
     If there is further information about the later history of the Sharon coupler, maybe Guy can supply it.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: Sharon Couplers

Guy Wilber
 

Tony Thompson wrote:

Okay, but in fact the Type D coupler design was standardized by the MCB in 1899, with some revisions of details in ensuing years; it then became successively the ARA and AAR Type D. The Sharon coupler, offered by National Malleable Steel, was a conforming Type D coupler, just a slightly different design
The MCBA adopted the automatic coupler in 1887 as standard with further details adopted in 1889 and 1893, and modified in 1909. The coupler was replaced by the Type D in 1918.

The original Type D was adopted as standard in 1916 and was modified in 1918 to the No. 10 contour replacing the former MCBA standard.

All freight cars built new and used in interchange were required to be equipped with Type D couplers cast with 6 inch by 8 inch shanks as of November 1, 1920. Rebuilt cars were to be so equipped on, and after July 1, 1928.

The greater number of early MCBA standard couplers were required to be replaced as of January 1, 1929 due to deficiencies in dimensions and riveted or pinned connections between the coupler and yoke.

The general demise of the early MCBA standard couplers was due to attrition and lack of available replacement parts. The prohibition of cars of all wood construction as of January 1, 1935 would have been another major blow to this coupler design as well.

All new cars built on, and after August 1, 1933 were required to be equipped with Type E couplers. Cars rebuilt on, and after August 1, 1937 were required to be equipped with Type E couplers though exceptions were allowed for cars which would not accommodate larger coupler shanks. Those were still required to be equipped with Type D or E couplers cast with dimensionally smaller shanks.

Type D couplers cast after August 1, 1936 were prohibited, effective January 1, 1937. The AAR required all Type D manufacturers to certify all castings and related equipment was destroyed.

Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada


Re: Sharon Couplers

Guy Wilber
 

On Jul 27, 2014, at 8:28 PM, "Tony Thompson tony@signaturepress.com [STMFC]" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Okay, but in fact the Type D coupler design was standardized by the MCB in 1899, with some revisions of details in ensuing years; it then became successively the ARA and AAR Type D. The Sharon coupler, offered by National Malleable Steel, was a conforming Type D coupler, just a slightly different design.


Re: Sharon Couplers

Tony Thompson
 

Steve Lucas wrote:

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that any STMFC offered in interchange on North American rails circa 1946 would be condemned on sight if it was fitted with anything other than an AAR Type D, E, or F coupler.   


      Okay, but in fact the Type D coupler design was standardized by the MCB in 1899, with some revisions of details in ensuing years; it then became successively the ARA and AAR Type D. The Sharon coupler, offered by National Malleable Steel, was a conforming Type D coupler, just a slightly different design.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: Sharon Couplers

Eric Neubauer <eaneubauer@...>
 


A related term is "draft arm" which refers to the center sill beyond the body bolster including the coupler attachment.
 
Eric N.

Very true, Tony... "coupler box" or "gear box" is definitely a hobby term.
 
 
John Degnan


From: "Group, POST :" <STMFC@...>
To: "Group, POST :" <STMFC@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 5:07:44 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Sharon Couplers

Small nit: I believe the coupler does not occupy a "gear box." The coupler attaches to the end of the center sill with a yoke If there is draft gear, which may include springs and/or friction devices to absorb draft and buffing forces, that gear may or may not be housed a closed or partly closed box on the prototype. I have no problem with the model term "draft gear box," as a description of a box into which the coupler resides, but think the term "gear box" by itself is a misnomer.
      I note that Kadee calls them "draft gear boxes," which as a complete term seems fine to me. Some also call them "coupler boxes," which seems okay too.

Tony Thompson


 





Sharon Couplers

Robert kirkham
 

Thanks for the observation regarding the burro cranes Steve.   Yes, I’m thinking if there is any place for odd ball couplers it is probably on MOW / work equipment (or the very old stray).  Canadian lines practice of tolerating arch bar trucks long after they were no longer permitted in interchange makes me wonder abut this equipment too.   Without knowing names of designs previously, might observation of names cast into couplers has been without any real insight.  I had very little appreciation of the claim that many different couplers remained in service long after the type D and E were offered.  That said, I’ve looked at enough museum equipment to have picked up on the fact that not every coupler fits the familiar shape, so this has got me curious.
 
By the way, I’m not taking part in the debate about Sargent couplers as a choice in modelling.    To each his own.   For me, the fascinating bit is the prototype use.
 
Rob Kirkham
 

Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 7:15 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Sharon Couplers
 


Rob--
 
I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that any STMFC offered in interchange on North American rails circa 1946 would be condemned on sight if it was fitted with anything other than an AAR Type D, E, or F coupler.   I have not an AAR Field Manual of the Interchange Rules for 1946, and welcome correction.  The AAR Field Manual cited specific prohibitions applying to cars offered in interchange.
 
I have seen couplers with "SHARON" cast into their head on CN Burro cranes that were built in the late 1950's. Online photos of other roads' Burro cranes show what appear to these couplers used on them as well.
 
Dennis Storzek mentioned Sharon couplers being used on Soo Line passenger cars--likely the Soo Line was not alone.
 
Steve Lucas. 


Re: Sharon Couplers

Scaler164@...
 

Very true, Tony... "coupler box" or "gear box" is definitely a hobby term.
 
 
John Degnan


From: "Group, POST :"
To: "Group, POST :"
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 5:07:44 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Sharon Couplers

Small nit: I believe the coupler does not occupy a "gear box." The coupler attaches to the end of the center sill with a yoke If there is draft gear, which may include springs and/or friction devices to absorb draft and buffing forces, that gear may or may not be housed a closed or partly closed box on the prototype. I have no problem with the model term "draft gear box," as a description of a box into which the coupler resides, but think the term "gear box" by itself is a misnomer.
      I note that Kadee calls them "draft gear boxes," which as a complete term seems fine to me. Some also call them "coupler boxes," which seems okay too.

Tony Thompson


 




61501 - 61520 of 187859