Date   

Re: Kadee #58s Was; BLI Hopper mods. #58s

Doug Brown <brown194@...>
 

I believe that only one centering spring is/was used on the MKD-4
(Magnetic Kadee Delayed, now just No.4), MK-4 (magnetic but no delay
feature) and the K-4 (mechanical knuckle pin, non-magnetic) couplers.
The K-4 and the MK-4 both used a stiffer spring without the filler
piece. The MKD-4 used a lighter spring to prevent the spring from
collapsing under load. The projections on the side of the coupler box
prevented the shank from going deeper into the box. The spring was
located between the end of the shank and the pin in the box. Spring
pressure kept the shank projections against the box projections, keeping
the coupler centered. Some couplers of that time had longer slots and
used two stiff springs that did not center the coupler. I will look at
the early ads to see which way the original worked.

Doug Brown

-----Original Message in part-----
From: Denny Anspach [mailto:danspach@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 3:42 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kadee #58s Was; BLI Hopper mods.


Who continues to use Kadee #4s today? Well those of us who delight
in restoring to new use old cars from the '50s; and an unknown number
of you out there who love the springy slack action that results from
the actions of a string of these cars. However, attempting to insert
a tiny filler piece inside one of the tiny coupler shank springs (to
reduce run-out), and then inserting these springs in place for and
aft of the coupler box post while holding the whole assembly together
is a balancing act not for the faint hearted- and I avoid these
couplers whenever I can do so.


Re: Kadee #58s Was; BLI Hopper mods. #58s

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Don Valentine writes-

....the first Kadee coupler box.
This was the one with the small pin that fit into a slot in the coupler shank
that, in turn, had two springs with round inserts inside them that were
installed fore and aft of said pin. Even a young buck like you, Denny, should
remember that one (-: but may have overlooked it in your post.
Of course, in absolute terms, you are correct, Don, but only when one refers to the "original" mechanical Kadee couplers of the 1950s (c. 1951?) (:-)

The slotted coupler shanks with the two springs for and aft of a center post was indeed their original standard (and it continues on today essentially unchanged as MKD #4). Kadee was only a small player then, and they in turn adopted this type of coupler shank for their new couplers from other model suppliers of the same time, the most well known to us today was Ulrich (MDC too, I believe). If my memory serves, the Devore and MDC couplers also used this same shank, and the Varney couplers were designed to be easily adapted to this centerpost type of box.

Although not abandoning their original box/coupler shank combination, when Kadee developed their new line of magnetic couplers c. 1959, they also at the same time developed new the folded sheet bronze springs that have become so familiar to us today. These were designed to fit the Athearn boxes, which were significantly wider than the old Kadee boxes designed for the slotted shanks. Furthermore, the Athearn boxes had in their center a relatively large round hollow post could not accommodate the slotted shanks.

The pretty-well-done PFM and Kemtron "universal" coupler boxes were principally designed to accommodate both the original mechanical and subsequent magnetic Kadee #4 couplers.

Many people do not recall that the Athearn coupler boxes were NOT originally designed for the X2F or but instead were designed for their own ring-shank cast metal dummy couplers. I do not recall how many years Athearn sold their new injected molded cars with the dummies before they started including the X2F coupler instead.

I still have a pile of the dummy couplers. Crude, but when painted with thick paint, they looked good (they were small).

Who continues to use Kadee #4s today? Well those of us who delight in restoring to new use old cars from the '50s; and an unknown number of you out there who love the springy slack action that results from the actions of a string of these cars. However, attempting to insert a tiny filler piece inside one of the tiny coupler shank springs (to reduce run-out), and then inserting these springs in place for and aft of the coupler box post while holding the whole assembly together is a balancing act not for the faint hearted- and I avoid these couplers whenever I can do so.

For awhile, Kadee marketed both the old mechanical and new magnetic couplers side by side. I have a feeling that this lasted only as long as their inventory allowed.

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Re: T&P gons, was B&O S1 and S2 stock/sheep cars????

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
 

On Jul 14, 2004, at 11:09 AM, Willian Basden wrote:

Hello

I am new to the list. I am in need of some information for a painting
project.
Bill:

Do you have an update on the T&P gon project? I am sure that there would be many interested parties on this list looking to acquire kits of them.

http://www.deltamodels.bigstep.com/generic.jhtml?pid=31

Regards,
Ted Culotta


Re: helium railcars

yardcoolieyahoo@...
 

FWIW, there were helium cars sitting next to the VAB at Cape Canaveral last fall.

Mike Turner
Simpsonville, SC


Re: Fowler Boxcar

Don Valentine
 

Quoting "Alan C. Welch" <acwelch@...>:


Date: Mon Jul 12, 2004 6:11 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] CPR Fowler Cars


>> Probably the first CPR Fowler car received a Youngstown door in
>1929. It already had a Murphy roof. Photo at CPR Angus Shop.
>
> Al Welch


>If it already had a Murphy roof how can you be certain it was a
>Fowler car??? IIRC almost all Fowler cars constructed for the CNR

I believe the first FOWLER cars constructed for the CN were built in
1920.

Then by that fact alone you acknowledge that no new CNR car was a
"Fowler" car as use of that patent was found unnecessary and very expensive,
thus its discontinuance by Canadian carbuilders by the end of 1914 as noted.



>and CPR were originally constructed with wood roofs and all Domminion
>cars, which is what they really were, that made use of the Fowler patent
>were constructed by the end of 1914.

The car is a FOWLER because the slotted bolt holes are plainly visible.

If the slotted bolt holes are present I agree with you.


>Not long thereafter most of the cars were built new with Murphy
>or other metal roofs. Not being at home at the moment I do not
>have my files available to check more closely on dates.

The roof is of the type that was applied over the original, wood roof,
as was the case for so many CP FOWLER cars.

Then this same metal roof was probably installed on some Dominion cars as
well. What type do you feel it was?

>It is highly possible that the first CPR Dominion car received a
>Youngstown door in 1929. However, the first CPR blueprint found to
>date showing such a change seems to be the one for the upgrade program
>begun in early 1935 that called for Youngstown doors.

>Don Valentine

Al Welch

I should be at home tomorrow and, perhaps, better able to look into
some of this with you with my records present. Thanks for your input.

Don Valentine


Re: TP boxcar

Eric
 

Dave Nelson wrote:

"What, no wood grain? Where are the horizontal grooves so nicely replicated
by Evergreen?"

I'll take 'because it's a rebuilt as a steel sided car' for $1000 Mr Trebeck.


Eric

[pass]



________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag


B&O S1 and S2 stock/sheep cars????

Willian Basden <WBa2485811@...>
 

Hello

I am new to the list. I am in need of some information for a painting
project.

B&O S1 S2 Stock and sheep cars.

I need to know what number series these cars carried during there
life time?

Was the color basicly Box/freight car red, or did they ever run with
a more reddish color like the round roof cabooses?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Bill Basden


Re: Scale coupler issues. Was: BLI Hopper Mods

Andy Harman <andy10@...>
 

At 10:27 AM 7/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
One of the reasons that I have been relatively "high" on Accumate
Proto couplers is that unlike the Kadee 58, I can exercise the option
now, or in the future, as to whether or not I would like to have a
magnetic glad hand, i.e. I can install it now, leave it off and
install it later, install it now and remove it later, or-- just throw
it away! I do not have to clip it off.
The Barger coupler will have this option too. I'm pretty well committed now having clipped Kadees for years, but it's nice to have the option.

For "operators", I am not certain that these scale couplers are for
them because of the small gathering range. A member of this list
whose opinions I highly respect has also cautioned me off list that
some operators have had problems with the couplers opening
("splitting") when cars with these couplers are being pushed with a
load around a curve. I have not personally experienced this, but I
also am not "operating".
I would never expect a scale coupler to have the automatic uncoupling performance of full size Kadees. If that were of high importance to me, I probably wouldn't even use 58s. But I have very poor tolerance for random uncouplings. They are no less disruptive than a derailment, and if you aren't paying attention can turn into one very quickly, especially on a grade or with multiple DCC operators chasing each other around. That's one reason I was so amused, and at the same time in full empathy with the guy who Goo'd his Rivarossi passenger cars together.

There is a certain mockery in random uncouplings. "Hahaha you're layout is a roller coaster!" "Bwahahaha! Whatsa matter, lose your coupler height gauge?" "Looky looky, a box stock Rivarossi with horn-hooks". Today an uncouplling means one and only one thing: "Ya lazy bum, get out the Kadees and do your chores, allright?".

Worst offenders by far: Walthers passenger cars. I challenge anybody to take 8 of them out of the box, put them on the track and run them. Stop, back up and inch, go forward again.... how many pieces is your train in now? :-)

Andy


The next PRR Project, G22 gondolas

Bruce Smith <smithbf@...>
 

Good Afternoon Everyone,

The PRR Projects Group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PRRPro/) is going to start its next project, the G22 gondola, tomorrow, July 15. As usual, builders in all scales are welcome. In HO scale, most of us will be building the Westerfield kit, which is arguably the easiest resin kit on the market. For those of you who have never built a resin kit, it is the perfect opportunity to get over "Westerfear" and build one! Members in other scales are talking about scratchbuilding, and one N-scale member may build masters to allow her to resin cast the G22!

The PRRPro group is organized so that all members may share ideas, hints, questions and especially progress reports, so everyone's contributions are welcome. Only posts directly relevant to the project at hand (or the previous projects) are allowed. To join this project, or to find information on our previous projects (F30, R50B, X29) go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PRRPro/.

Happy Rails
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith V.M.D., Ph.D.
Scott-Ritchey Research Center
334-844-5587, 334-844-5850 (fax)
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: Scale coupler issues. Was: BLI Hopper Mods

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

I love the appearance of my freight cars when equipped with scale-sized couplers without magnetic glad hands. I have so converted about 100 steam era freight cars, both new or recent, and "historic".

One of the reasons that I have been relatively "high" on Accumate Proto couplers is that unlike the Kadee 58, I can exercise the option now, or in the future, as to whether or not I would like to have a magnetic glad hand, i.e. I can install it now, leave it off and install it later, install it now and remove it later, or-- just throw it away! I do not have to clip it off.

The A-P is engineered to its box, and the box is engineered to the coupler shank assembly. The net fit between coupler and box is so good that there is no slop, and the coupler can neither twist nor move up and down. The fit is so good that just a tiny bit of screw over-tightening can lock the couplers, however.

I install A-P couplers routinely in "Kadee" coupler boxes when I have to, following Accurail's instructions. This installation will have the very same tight net fit as if the A-P box was used alone, the persistence of the oversized K-box size being the only visual disadvantage.

I discard the lid of the "Kadee" coupler box, and the bottom of the A-P box. The A-P box will then almost always nestle right inside the Kadee box. If it does not, it usually is because the sides of the K box are too deep to allow the A-P box to fit flat (by itself a key source of coupler problems). I then use the handy-dandy drilling/position metal template that Accurail sells to accurately drill the new screw holes (#51 drill, I believe). It is a pretty fast and easy installation. The improvement in appearance is a real joy, and the new absence of coupler "slop" greatly improves the integrity of the coupling process.

For "operators", I am not certain that these scale couplers are for them because of the small gathering range. A member of this list whose opinions I highly respect has also cautioned me off list that some operators have had problems with the couplers opening ("splitting") when cars with these couplers are being pushed with a load around a curve. I have not personally experienced this, but I also am not "operating".

JP Barger's new scale-sized coupler is a marvel, and has the promise to become a new standard. Although I have been lobbying them to engineer and adapt it to a scale box, they feel that there is too large an established base of K-boxes to do this right away. Unfortunately, this coupler is currently on a back burner for some months. It is just a small item within a much larger company that makes its living in a much more commercial environment.

Denny


--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Re: Scale McHenry, was Dummy pilot couplers

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

when a 58 won't couple to a 5 on the first
try - but then again, there have been plenty of instances over the decades
where I had to fiddle just to get two 5s to couple.<
The old trick, taught to me 30 years ago, was to polish the knuckle or
use graphite on it. The paint graphite sold by --forgot the name---works
just fine.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Re: Accurail Triple Hoppers

Shawn Beckert
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:

I've got a photo my Dad took of 5 loaded coal hoppers --
# MP, 1 B&O, 1 N&W -- at a chemical refinery somewhere
in Texas. And I've also seen photos of Milwaukee Road
coal gondolas on the SSW in the 1950's. Foundries, cement
plants, boilers... all burn coal.
Tim, can you post the photos at the Yahoo page? I'd like to
try and figure out just where that refinery was. And where
did you see those Milwaukee gondola pictures?

Shawn Beckert


Re: Scale McHenry, was Dummy pilot couplers

Andy Harman <andy10@...>
 

At 11:32 AM 7/14/2004 -0500, you wrote:
I should probably clarify my previous comment just a bit....the reason I
raised the issue of durabilty is that in my limited testing, I observed
that rough handling of the Scale McHenry during installation (e.g.
excessive pressure on the knuckle caused by squeezing or other forces)
can cause the knuckle to ride over the raised stops and "lock" in
tightly closed position.
I forgot to mention that... on the Scale McH that I had temporarily installed on the box car, right out of the package one of them was jammed in this closed position. I popped it loose and it seemed ok. I don't remember one end of the car being more troublesome than the other.

Also the plastic couplers don't like to be painted. If I weather a Kadee, and I get paint where it's not supposed to be (like in the jaw hinge pin) I can put a drop of thinner on it and wiggle it back and forth and it's fine. The plastic couplers don't seem to ever recover from this.

In related message, Andy commented that he'd encountered problems with
the Scale McHenry coupling with Kadee #58s. I've observed this on
occasion as well, though it is not universal nor consistent, and my
experience has been similar with the scale Accumate and 58s.
In all fairness, there are times when a 58 won't couple to a 5 on the first try - but then again, there have been plenty of instances over the decades where I had to fiddle just to get two 5s to couple. I accept a certain fiddle factor - lining up couplers is something that the prototype has to do quite often. What I find annoying is when you line them up and they still won't couple until you manually manipulate the jaws, and then when you do, odds are the first time there's any slack, they'll pull apart.

Andy


Re: New Kadee #58 and other couplers

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

On the model RR club of Buffalo layout we have tested all the new kadee compatible couplers except for the new scale Mchenry. 

We typically run 20-30 car trains and have max grades of 2-2.5% and minimum 30" mainline curves.  The early IM and Mchenry finger

spring couplers had many problems associated with knuckle set.  Some were due to rough coupling but many just happened through

normal use.  Another problem is that the plastic heads of the couplers would neck and break at the point where the coupler head attached

to the shank when running long trains. Especially live loaded coal trains. 

Accumates tended to work a little better but when backing longs cuts they had a tendency to stay open and therefore uncouple when

changing direction. 

Therefore we went back to standard kadee couplers in the specs for cars placed in service on the club layout.

Brian Carlson

Cheektowaga NY


Re: Dummy pilot couplers, Sergent's?

Manfred Lorenz
 

--- In STMFC@..., Kert Peterson <kertp@c...> wrote:
...
I contacted Sergent Engineering about a year or so ago and asked
them if they could be used on the front of brass steamers and was
told that the Sergent Engineering couplers are designed to fit in
Kadee boxes. If you or anyone else has experience using them with
brass locomotives, I would certainly be interested.
Anyone interested in the Sergent couplers should look on their web-
site allthe common questions are answered clearly there.

Two points:
1. the shank needs a Kadee style box
2. it does not work like Kadees neither at the shank (which can be
altered with some filing) nor at the head which has a different
layout than Kadee and clones.

The Sergent can be manually forced to hook up with Kadee but gives an
awkward connection. I can't see a point in doing so.

The relation is comparable to a X2F and Kadee combination.

Manfred


Re: New Kadee #58 (was BLI Hopper Mods)

Eric Hansmann <ehansmann@...>
 

Jon Miller wrote:

Obviously, I didn't know about a new #58<
Kadee didn't say anything, probably to protect dealer stock!
=====================================


What dealer stock?!?! Visits on the past two months to four western
Penna. hobby shops have brought up zero packages of Kadee #58
couplers. Other members of our local club have come up empty in their
travels as well.

BTW, I also prefer the Proto:HO Accumate coupler, but some of our
club members have difficulty making these couple with Kadee #5's, so
I use the 58's on cars heading to the club layout. I keep telling
them that real couplers have troubles as well, but I just get funny
looks.

As for mounting, I find the Proto:HO Accumate coupler can sit inside
the coupler boxes on many kits. You will need to either trim the
length on the coupler draft gear box, or trim the car centersill for
these to install easily. I've done a mix of both.

Eric Hansmann
Morgantown, W. Va.


Re: Scale McHenry, was Dummy pilot couplers

Andy Harman <andy10@...>
 

At 08:58 AM 7/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
I don't want this to get into a big discussion but here's the take on
plastic. There has been some extensive testing on engineering plastic
couplers that have found them to be equal to metal. It seems it's the
mishandling of them that will make them fracture.
If the same "mishandling" does not fracture a metal coupler, then they are not equal.

Back in the early, early days of laptops (when they had monochrome displays), one of the big problems was the durability of the display, and the expensive replacements. One magazine did a test where they dropped the laptops onto a hard floor from a certain height. The manufacturers screamed "foul!" that it was abuse and there's no way it was a fair test. Except of course for the one manufacturer who *passed* it.

And the word "abuse" I take to mean a deliberate, malicious pushing of something beyond its limits. If I take a box car with a genuine Kadee #5 installed and ram it into an oak door, it's going to break. In that test, it's probably "equal" to a McHenry. But remember, for the first couple years, McHenry claimed finger spring failure was due to "abuse", i.e. jamming the car in the box forcing the jaws to be held open. Failing to acknowledge that simply stopping a train on a downhill slope and leaving it set for a few days would cause the same "abuse", in an utterly normal and common circumstance. We're talking about a company that took two years to acknowledge what we figured out right away. Doesn't inspire confidence.

Andy


Re: Scale McHenry, was Dummy pilot couplers

Rob Adams
 

I should probably clarify my previous comment just a bit....the reason I raised the issue of durabilty is that in my limited testing, I observed that rough handling of the Scale McHenry during installation (e.g. excessive pressure on the knuckle caused by squeezing or other forces) can cause the knuckle to ride over the raised stops and "lock" in tightly closed position. I suspect this could also be induced by very rough coupling in certain circumstances. It pops back out and seems to work fine afterward, though I suspect a high number of cycles of this abuse would eventually lead to performance problems. This characteristic would seem to be inherent in the engineering/design of that particular coupler and in no way connected to the material properties. I don't have any bias against plastic couplers and stand by my previous comments that the Scale McHenry has merit in certain installations.

In related message, Andy commented that he'd encountered problems with the Scale McHenry coupling with Kadee #58s. I've observed this on occasion as well, though it is not universal nor consistent, and my experience has been similar with the scale Accumate and 58s. It would seem that the ideal solution is still to have ONE coupler type on all equipment, but that isn't necessarily a practical one from the standpoint of installation issues.

Rob Adams



Jon Miller wrote:

For sure, it may not be as durable as the alternatives,<
I don't want this to get into a big discussion but here's the take on
plastic. There has been some extensive testing on engineering plastic
couplers that have found them to be equal to metal. It seems it's the
mishandling of them that will make them fracture. Reboxx soon will have out
some really nice scale couplers (and they are plastic). I'm guessing that
in a club environment, where the heavy 0-5-0 is the predominate uncoupling
method that metal "might" be better but in your home where you might want
really scale couplers that plastic will work ok.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS



*Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129i463qh/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1705169725:HM/EXP=1089907647/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Yahoo! Groups Links*

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:STMFC-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


Re: yellow Erie heralds

Richard Hendrickson
 

Ted Culotta writes:

By the way, if anyone has New York Central Steam in Color by David
Sweetland, check page 106. There is a color photo from August, 1946 of
one of those neat Erie rebuilt box cars with the yellow logo. The box
cars I am talking about are the ex-single sheathed auto cars that
received new steel sides added right over the single sheathed trusses.
Very cool cars that I'll make someday soon.
Ted, in the mid-1950s the Erie sold off a bunch of these cars to other
owners. AC&Y got some of them in 1953 which they re-numbered 2200-2338; a
few of these AC&Y cars lasted in revenue service into the early 1960s. I
also have a George Sisk photo from the Charles Winters collection showing
two ex-Erie cars with G.O.C. reporting marks, numbered 307 and 308, with a
notation on the back that they were at Kansas City on the Chicago Great
Western en route to Mexico. Someone once told me that these cars were
owned by the Gulf Oil Co. but, as there is no reference to them in the
ORERs, I have no way to confirm that. How long they may have lasted in
Mexico is anyone's guess.

The Erie made steel sheathed cars out of these early '20s single sheathed
cars by the simple expedient of welding steel sheets to the outside flanges
of the existing Z-section side framing, presumably because the original
wood side sheathing was prone to leak. However, the original flexible
metal sheathed roofs, single-sheathed wood ends, and wood doors (all of
which, it can be assumed, were also prone to leak) were never replaced.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: New Kadee #58 (was BLI Hopper Mods)

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

Obviously, I didn't know about a new #58<
Kadee didn't say anything, probably to protect dealer stock!

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS