Date   

Re: B&O Class M-41 boxcar modeling

rwitt_2000 <rmwitt@...>
 

"Mark Heiden" <mark_heiden@h...> wrote:

Does the MDC/Roundhouse car match the outside length of the M-13
(or
M-41 for that matter)? I was playing with the contrast function of
my graphics program today and discovered the fishbelly side sill on
the M-13 that you wrote about earlier. Could the Westerfield M-15
be kitbashed into an M-13? The Indestructable ends seem a rather
daunting challenge to me!
Mark,

MDC body basically matches the car body of the M-13 if one reduces the
height of the ends by removing some of the bottom so the wood sides
overlap the side-sills. I have no scale drawings so I compared the
dimensions to those on the drawings supplied in the Pro Custom Hobbies
I-16 caboose kit (These were rebuilt in WWII from M-13 box cars) and
those on Equipment Diagrams I obtained much later.

Depending upon your modeling standards one could fashion a Westerfield
PRR XL box car into a B&O M-13. There are many similarities and both
box cars were designed around the time the PRR controlled the B&O. If
you ask nicely maybe Al Westerfield would sell you some Indestructible
ends as parts. The end sills and poling pockets will be a challenge.
The XL may be a better choice than the M-15 as the XL and M-13
underframes are very similar with a more shallow fish belly. Now if
Al would just make kits for the various class M-13 ...

I hope this helps,

Bob Witt


Re: Sergent Couplers

Schuyler Larrabee
 

From: Denny Anspach

Although I will certainly take a hard look at these new
assembled HO scale couplers when they become available, so
far I must remain an "optimistic skeptic" that these couplers
are designed primarily for seldom-operated shelf or display
models, or models that may be committed to fixed consists
operating on excellent trackage. Sergent tells you up front
that they are not compatible with any of the Kadee-type
couplers, and that the couplers have to been aligned, and the
knuckles opened by hand- serious issues for most for even
casual operation.
I agree with Denny. I might well install some of these on some display models (on which I would probably use Precision Scale
P87 wheels as well) but if they don't couple with Kadees, their dead meat for me. I operate on a club layout with some 16-20
other guys (we have a bunch of people who are afraid of operations as well) who will never in a thousand years go to anything
other than Kadee. If I have couplers not compatible with Kadees, I might as well stay home.

On overall scale appearance alone, the continued dependence
of this coupler upon an oversized coupler box that the
coupler shank may or may not be designed to fit is an
astounding non-starter.
Agreed here as well.

That the coupler so far has no admitted inherent design
capability for automatic centering, or any means of opening
the knuckles only adds to a high probability for expected
routine dysfunctional operation characteristics.

A fine cast scale dummy coupler would seem to be a better
deal, so far.
Doctor Denny has it right, IMHO. The Reboxx coupler will mate with Kadees, and is as near to scale appearance as to not make
any diffference. Unfortunately, they are paralleling the Soundtraxx Tsunami as vaporware. And as Denny says later, I keep
telling them to go for the scale coupler box.

SGK


Intermountain "Milk" Reefer - The CMWX Version

Shawn Beckert
 

It may be too late to ask this since Marty no longer works
for Intermountain, but does anyone know if they'll release
this car in the CMWX "Chateau Martin" paint scheme?

Thanks,

Shawn Beckert


Re: Sergent Couplers

Jared Harper <harper-brown@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Denny Anspach <danspach@m...> wrote:
Sergent
tells you up front that they are not compatible with any of the
Kadee-type couplers, and that the couplers have to been aligned, and
the knuckles opened by hand- serious issues for most for even casual
operation.
The prototype operations crowd should love this. I have read and been
a part of discussions about including time for simulated brake tests,
to take out the slack, for the brakeman to walk back to the caboose,
etc. Think of all the prototype operations you need to perform with
the Sergent coupler--centering, opening the knuckle--and because the
fit together tighter there's a more prototypical spacing between cars.
Part of the interest in adding these functions to your model
operations is to lengthen operating time because of the closer
distances between model stations as compared to the prototype. The
Sergent couplers being available assembled and painted has about
convinced me what coupler I am going to choose. I have communicated
with Frank Sergent and he says that scale width draftgear are being
considered and will probably be developed in the future, albeit not
the very near future.

Jared Harper
Athens, GA


Re: B&O Class M-41 boxcar modeling

Mark Heiden
 

Hi Bob,

Does the MDC/Roundhouse car match the outside length of the M-13 (or
M-41 for that matter)? I was playing with the contrast function of
my graphics program today and discovered the fishbelly side sill on
the M-13 that you wrote about earlier. Could the Westerfield M-15 be
kitbashed into an M-13? The Indestructable ends seem a rather
daunting challenge to me!

Thanks,
Mark Heiden
--- In STMFC@..., "rwitt_2000" <rmwitt@i...> wrote:

The MDC 36-ft house car body seems to fit many prototype
applications.
John Nehrich has several examples on his web site. I have a "not
completely finished" M-13 that uses the MDC body with a scratched
built underframe. I recall the major dimensions are about correct
(EW, EH and the height to the top of the eaves and running boards.


Re: B&O Class M-41 boxcar modeling

Mark Heiden
 

Hi Eric,

Do you have an item number for the Bethlehem Car Works underframe?
Even if it isn't listed on the current site, that might help to track
them down. Is it a part designed to fit the MDC/Roundhouse cars, or
more generic?

Thanks,
Mark Heiden


--- In STMFC@..., "rwitt_2000" <rmwitt@i...> wrote:

Eric Hansmann" <ehansmann@a...> wrote:


Mark,

The Western Maryland had some similar DS boxcars, and I have a
few
on the program to build for my circa 1926 HO scale layout. I have
builders images of the WM and BR&P cars I bought from Keith
Retterer. They have several similarities, including the IL and
the
fishbelly underframe. I was looking at a quick and dirty
conversion
using MDC/Roundhouse old time boxcars and substituting a
Bethlehem
Car Works fishbelly underframe. Here's their website, but this
part
is not listed:
http://www.bethlehemcarworks.com/

After test fitting the underframe and examining the prototype
photos, I may just scratchbuild the box to fit the frame. This
would
follow the prototype as it seems the box structure sits on top of
the sills instead of overlapping them. I still need to compare
height to the running boards on this project, but there are a few
more things to finish up before I progress on these cars.

The underframes are $5 each. You may want to pick up one or two
and
see how you want to approach modeling these cars. These comments
and
materials are for HO scale models.


Re: Thanks tiny url...

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
 

Park Varieties wrote:

While we are on the subject of the Intermountain milk reefers, what areas of the country would these particular cars most likely have been found?

Baker's Chocolate
Consumers Dairy Co.
Sheffield Farms
Bodren's
Whiting Milk Co.
Sheffield Farms was a brand of the National Dairy Products Corporation which operated in many states east of the Rocky Mountains.

The Borden Company whose logos included Elsie the Cow, and later Elmer's of glue fame, operated dairies in 24 states according to the 1958 Moody's Industrial across the country although their major milk area seemed to be in the New York Metro Area.

Whiting operated creameries in New Hampshire and Vermont for the Boston marketing area.

According to a 1955 B&M passenger car consist schedule, there was a Boston to Rochester NY (NYC) milk car scheduled. It is quite possible that this car carried milk for some chocolate company like Baker's or Milky Way, but I don't know the particulars of what the locations for manufacture these chocolate companies had.

Tim Gilbert


Re: Sergent Couplers

Pete Brown <YahooLists@...>
 

Denny, I don't mean to offend.

I guess my point (which was definitely made with a bit more fervor than was called-for - a blanket accusation is never a good tactic) is that people are dismissing these couplers for very inconsistent reasons.

To your point: standard NMRA trackage is grossly oversized, and even .088" wheels are pretty big, especially in the flanges :-)

I'll have to try one of these new Sergents in a scale draft gear box, or at least something closer to scale. I had my old Sergents installed in standard Kadee #58 draft gear boxes (sans-springs), which were fairly narrow, as I recall, and they worked fine.

Pete

----- Original Message -----
From: docdenny34
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 5:38 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Sergent Couplers



> Personally, I think the draft gear box is being used as an excuse for folks to not have to
>bother with couplers other than the usual suspects. The same folks that believe the draft
>gear box is a huge issue and really make it non-usable for appearance reasons, also
>have wheelsets that are 2x as wide as the prototype.

Hm-mm. Pretty brave accusation about people who are strangers to the sender.

Many of us who are desiring scale sized coupler boxes are also happily operating
hundreds of cars daily with .088" wheels, and would go to wheels even more narrow if
standard NMRA trackage would allow it.

Denny


Re: Sergent Couplers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

John Degnan wrote:
. . . I wonder if Kadee couplers faced your same arguement when they first came out and surely had to state that they were not compatible with the standard "horn-hook" couplers? They faced the same hill-to-climb and they climbed it to become a standard.

Hardly true about horn-hooks, John. In addition to the variety of one-off types (Baker, etc.) there were working knuckles (Devore) and good dummies (several mfgrs.) which were widely used. The horn-hook certainly did not become standard among scale modelers, then or ever.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Scale draft gear (was Sergent Couplers)

Bill Lane <billlane@...>
 

Hi All,

I have been an advocate of better draft gear for about 10 years now. Most
supplied Kadee draft gear scale out to 6" x 20", about twice as wide as the
prototype.

I currently have 3 different S Scale custom made brass casting draft gear
types that I designed and made the brass masters for. They have the external
prototype detail, and the internal requirements for the Kadee 802 coupler. I
compromised them to be approximately 14" wide. Surprisingly, you can notice
the difference in width over the stock Kadee box. You can get the full delay
swing out of the narrow box with some minor coupler modifications.

Here are a few links to my work:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/billlane/My_Models_1.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/billlane/My_Models_2.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/billlane/My_Models_3.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/billlane/My_Models_4.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/billlane/My_Models_5.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/billlane/My_Models_6.jpg

I also incorporated it into my X29 project. www.pennsysmodels.com Perhaps
some of the other scales and manufacturers will follow suit some day.



Thank You,
Bill Lane

Importing a Brass S Scale PRR X29
http://www.pennsysmodels.com
The freight versions are currently in production

Modeling the Mighty Pennsy in S Scale in 1957


Re: Sergent Couplers

John Degnan <RailScaler@...>
 

Sergent tells you up front that they are not compatible with any of the Kadee-type couplers
Of course, and they're not supposed to be, nor do they need to be considering what they were designed to be (prototypical). But at the same time, I wonder if Kadee couplers faced your same arguement when they first came out and surely had to state that they were not compatible with the standard "horn-hook" couplers? They faced the same hill-to-climb and they climbed it to become a standard.

the couplers have to been aligned, and the knuckles opened by hand- serious issues for most for even casual operation.
Yes, but only initially true. Once your train is made up, theoretically, it should be no different than operating a kadee-equipt train (except for hand-waiving the uncoupler magent). But even Kadees can't offer fool-proof coupling on curves, so that evens the odds. And just to push my point a bit farther, joining these couplers when the nuckle is closed can't be any different than joining two dummy-couplers, removing the need of hand-opening them in the first place. And I've ever seen a dummy coupler than looked one fourth as good as the Sergent coupler.

the continued dependence of this coupler upon an oversized coupler box that the coupler shank may or may not be designed to fit is an astounding non-starter.
O.k, let me update my comment on this matter a bit. Since my last reply, I have proverbially "done-the-math" on this matter, and test-fit the new Sergent in a standard Kadee gearbox WITHOUT the Kadee centering spring. The result was that ONLY the paint on them (inside the screw-post hole) needed to be filed away to make it fit and operate PERFECTLY with no binding whatsoever! I next tried it WITH the Kadee centering spring, and didn't get as good a result as I'd hoped for... there was some binding, but I don't think it was due to the reduced clearance inside the gearbox due to the presence of the centering spring, but rather due to the "wings" of the centering spring that pressed against the sides of the coupler's shank. I'll look into this more this weekend and post another report.

That the coupler so far has no admitted inherent design capability for automatic centering, or any means of opening the knuckles only adds to a high probability for expected routine dysfunctional operation characteristics.
If non-opening nuckles is the problem, then why do you like Kadee couplers? They only "close" on their own (under spring power). Kadee's require a magnet to "open" the nuckel the same as Sergents do... just not in the same manner. And though I admit that I have only a very little operational experience with the Sergent, I want to state that I have had many problems with Kadee couplers in the past due to their loose coupling. The snug locking of the Sergent couplers promises to be a natural hinderance to uncoupling due simply to the law of physics - tighter grip, less slip. Sounds almost like a Seaboard Slogan that stated "Tight Grip, Safe Trip."


John Degnan
RailScaler@...
John's World on the Web :
http://www.trainweb.org/seaboard/welcome.htm
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own truth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Denny Anspach
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:20 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Sergent Couplers


Although I will certainly take a hard look at these new assembled HO
scale couplers when they become available, so far I must remain an
"optimistic skeptic" that these couplers are designed primarily for
seldom-operated shelf or display models, or models that may be
committed to fixed consists operating on excellent trackage. Sergent
tells you up front that they are not compatible with any of the
Kadee-type couplers, and that the couplers have to been aligned, and
the knuckles opened by hand- serious issues for most for even casual
operation.

On overall scale appearance alone, the continued dependence of this
coupler upon an oversized coupler box that the coupler shank may or
may not be designed to fit is an astounding non-starter. Even if one
is still willing to accept an appearance akin to a rose still
plastered on an ugly face, an integrated coupler-and-box design and
engineering is a key to fundamental operating excellence-just as on
the prototype.

That the coupler so far has no admitted inherent design capability
for automatic centering, or any means of opening the knuckles only
adds to a high probability for expected routine dysfunctional
operation characteristics.

A fine cast scale dummy coupler would seem to be a better deal, so far.

Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


IM milk cars

Charles Hladik
 

All,
IM's web site lists the proposed milk cars, their release dates and
prices. Sorry Shawn I was wrong they don't list any wine cars.
Chuck Hladik
_staff@...
(mailto:staff@...)


Re: Reboxx Couplers

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

The Reboxx/Barger couplers are on hold. JP Barger's production company became completely pre-coccupied with a major production run (model railroads are only a company side line), and JP Barger himself also underwent a debilitating illness. He is recovering fine, but he has not indicated (at least to me) when the coupler development will again be taken up.

I have urged Reboxx in the past to seriously consider the adaptation, or a coupler version suitable for a scale sized coupler box.

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Re: Intermountain "Milk" Reefer - The CMWX Version

Charles Hladik
 

Shawn,
Got the flyer at the shop yesterday and yes IIRC there was a wine car or
two. Also available as an undecorated kit.
Chuck Hladik
_staff@...
(mailto:staff@...)


Re: Sergent Couplers

docdenny34 <danspach@...>
 

Personally, I think the draft gear box is being used as an excuse for folks to not have to
bother with couplers other than the usual suspects. The same folks that believe the draft
gear box is a huge issue and really make it non-usable for appearance reasons, also
have wheelsets that are 2x as wide as the prototype.
Hm-mm. Pretty brave accusation about people who are strangers to the sender.

Many of us who are desiring scale sized coupler boxes are also happily operating
hundreds of cars daily with .088" wheels, and would go to wheels even more narrow if
standard NMRA trackage would allow it.

Denny


Barger Couplers was Re: Re: Sergent Couplers

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

With all this talk of the Sergent couplers I have been wondering if there is
any more news on the Barger coupler?

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Culotta" <tculotta@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Sergent Couplers




On Apr 6, 2005, at 1:38 PM, Pete Brown wrote:

You're not likelty to get a scale draft gear box *and* the ability to
have the swing required on our far-from-prototypical curves.
Personally, I think the draft gear box is being used as an excuse for
folks to not have to bother with couplers other than the usual
suspects. The same folks that believe the draft gear box is a huge
issue and really make it non-usable for appearance reasons, also have
wheelsets that are 2x as wide as the prototype.

To each their own. :-)
I have tested the Protomate couplers with their very narrow draft gear
in conjunction with the angle cocks that I put just adjacent to the
draft gear on 15" (yes 15") radius curves with NO operational
difficulties. So operation within the context of curves should not be
an issue, especially since most don't model angle cocks either at all
or nearly as close to the draft gear as I do. I realize that there are
other considerations. One is automatic uncoupling. I am from the
school of thought that the prototype doesn't uncouple automatically so
neither should my models. In honor of our risk averse, litigious
society, I will add that YMMV.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
100 14th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94402
info@...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912





Yahoo! Groups Links







Re: Sergent Couplers - now reboxx couplers

Ned Carey <nedspam@...>
 

Pete brown wrote
You're not likely to get a scale draft gear box *and* the ability to have the swing required on our far-from-prototypical curves. . . . The same folks that believe the draft gear box is a huge issue and really make it non-usable for appearance reasons, also have wheelsets that are 2x as wide as the prototype.
To each their own. :-)
The width of the gearbox doesn't bother me as much as the lack of detail, or grossly incorrect detail (kaydee's "ears"). I like Byron Rose' draft gear box. True it is unprototypicaly wide but it is nicely detailed, takes "standard" couplers, and is easy to use. As Pete said "to each his own".

So what ever happened to the scale couplers that were going to be coming from JP Barger and Reboxx? I have been really out of touch. Was there any word on these at Cocoa Beach or Springfield?

Ned Carey


Re: Sergent Couplers

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
 

On Apr 6, 2005, at 1:38 PM, Pete Brown wrote:

You're not likelty to get a scale draft gear box *and* the ability to have the swing required on our far-from-prototypical curves. Personally, I think the draft gear box is being used as an excuse for folks to not have to bother with couplers other than the usual suspects. The same folks that believe the draft gear box is a huge issue and really make it non-usable for appearance reasons, also have wheelsets that are 2x as wide as the prototype.

To each their own. :-)
I have tested the Protomate couplers with their very narrow draft gear in conjunction with the angle cocks that I put just adjacent to the draft gear on 15" (yes 15") radius curves with NO operational difficulties. So operation within the context of curves should not be an issue, especially since most don't model angle cocks either at all or nearly as close to the draft gear as I do. I realize that there are other considerations. One is automatic uncoupling. I am from the school of thought that the prototype doesn't uncouple automatically so neither should my models. In honor of our risk averse, litigious society, I will add that YMMV.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
100 14th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94402
info@...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912


Intermountain "Milk" Reefer

Shawn Beckert
 

Brian Ehni wrote:

Not sure about those, but I caught a Chateau Martin car in Pine Bluff
Arkansas.
Brian, do you remember the date you saw this car in Pine Bluff? Was it
a GPEX car like the Intermountain kit, or just something similar?

Shawn Beckert


Re: Sergent Couplers

Pete Brown <YahooLists@...>
 

Leave the knuckles open after uncoupling, don;t open them each time you wish to couple. Also, I think non-centering can be a nice boon. It will allow you to couple on curves, for one thing.

You're not likelty to get a scale draft gear box *and* the ability to have the swing required on our far-from-prototypical curves. Personally, I think the draft gear box is being used as an excuse for folks to not have to bother with couplers other than the usual suspects. The same folks that believe the draft gear box is a huge issue and really make it non-usable for appearance reasons, also have wheelsets that are 2x as wide as the prototype.

To each their own. :-)

Like Proto:87 wheels and track, I suspect these will be relegated to the finescale crowd for the most part. Scale couplers and wheels are the two things that have, to date, failed to make the mainstream, even when folks insist on other scale details on their vehicles. The main reason, of course, is that these things have a direct impact on how you build and run your railroad. If you just finished laying 50 switches, it seems unlikely that you'll convert them to Proto:87 specs. The same thing goes it you have 200 cars with Kadees installed. No one likes rework :-)

Pete
Proto:87 Modeler in Maryland

----- Original Message -----
From: Denny Anspach
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:20 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Sergent Couplers


Although I will certainly take a hard look at these new assembled HO
scale couplers when they become available, so far I must remain an
"optimistic skeptic" that these couplers are designed primarily for
seldom-operated shelf or display models, or models that may be
committed to fixed consists operating on excellent trackage. Sergent
tells you up front that they are not compatible with any of the
Kadee-type couplers, and that the couplers have to been aligned, and
the knuckles opened by hand- serious issues for most for even casual
operation.

On overall scale appearance alone, the continued dependence of this
coupler upon an oversized coupler box that the coupler shank may or
may not be designed to fit is an astounding non-starter. Even if one
is still willing to accept an appearance akin to a rose still
plastered on an ugly face, an integrated coupler-and-box design and
engineering is a key to fundamental operating excellence-just as on
the prototype.

That the coupler so far has no admitted inherent design capability
for automatic centering, or any means of opening the knuckles only
adds to a high probability for expected routine dysfunctional
operation characteristics.

A fine cast scale dummy coupler would seem to be a better deal, so far.

Denny

155421 - 155440 of 195617