Date   

Re: UP 40' auto box

mcindoefalls
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:

UP 471441 was an A-50-7 class car, originally wood sheathed but
rebuilt ca. 1940 into a steel sheathed car. The steel rebuilds kept
the original Bettendorf underframes and 5-5-5 corrugated ends with
two additional corrugations at the top. Roofs were panel steel,
doors were 12' double corrugated, trucks were AAR with spring planks,
running boards were wood, hand brakes were Ajax or Universal, and
couplers were bottom-operated Type E. A kitbash is possible based on
a model of a 10'6" IH AAR standard box car (e.g., Intermountain), but
double doors would have to added and the underframe replaced.
Thank you, Richard. Of course, I'd haved to choose something exotic. In the photo I've seen, it's coupled to a welded SAL B-10 box which is taller than the UP car, so I'd guess the IH to be a bit less than 10'-6". Sounds like an interesting kitbash. But for now, I'll use the Trix car as a stand-in.

Walt Lankenau


Re: Sergent couplers

pierreoliver2003 <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Bob,
A friend of mine who uses the Sergent couplers for his HO models(Trevor Marshall) and also reviewed the product for RMC, strongly urges one to buy the couplers assembled.
I think the quote was, "Life's to short".
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gn3397" <heninger@...> wrote:

Hello all,
I am considering using the Sergent couplers and have a question. In Tim Warris' video and post, he states that he occasionally has trouble coupling the cars, sometimes having to use quite a bit of force to couple cars. However, he also states that he purchased the assembled couplers. For those of you who use these couplers, have you noticed the same problems? Do you use the assembled couplers, or do you assemble them yourself? If so, what assembly "tweaks" would you recommend to improve the operation of these couplers?

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,
Bob Heninger
Iowa City, IA


Re: Sergent Engineering couplers

Tim O'Connor
 

Louis

Since the magnet must be above the coupler, you'd have to
get pretty clever to implement a remote uncoupler. Delayed
uncoupling might be a more useful technique.

Tim O'Connor

The question is whether there is remote uncoupling possibility
with the Sergent couplers.


Re: Sergent Engineering couplers (was Kadee 158s)

octoraro1@...
 

The question is whether there is remote uncoupling possibility with the Sergent couplers.  I can't imagine how.  As I understand the principle, a tiny metal ball keeps the knuckle closed.  The magnet held above the coupler raises the ball out of its seat so the knuckle will open.

--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Gene Green <bierglaeser@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Gene Green <bierglaeser@yahoo.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Sergent Engineering couplers (was Kadee 158s)
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 9:55 AM








Comments, please.

There are, apparently, at least two who have converted to Sergent Engineering couplers. Clearly the Sergent couplers are somewhat more expensive but appearance should be quite a bit better than even the so-called "scale" couplers from other manufacturers.

Is scale appearance worth the extra cost or are there other benefits as well?

From what has been said on this forum and the information on the Sergent Engineering web site (much improved since the last time I visited), it seems there would be an increase in the realism of the brakeman's duties on a model railroad. Since, on model railroads, the local takes far too long to make its run when compared to the time it takes the "hot shot" to get from one end of the layout to the other, would the Sergent couplers speed up or slow down the local's progress?

With Sergent couplers all uncoupling and most coupling would have to take place within fairly easy reach from the aisle. Is there a remote uncoupling possibility with Sergents?

Gene Green


Re: UP 40' auto box

Tim O'Connor
 

Richard, do you have or do you know of any photos of these cars?
I have never seen one. Terry's book does not include them since
they were originally built long before 1936.

Tim O'Connor

P.S. I would love to have a book dedicated to rebuilt box cars.
It's a very interesting subject!

UP 471441 was an A-50-7 class car, originally wood sheathed but
rebuilt ca. 1940 into a steel sheathed car. The steel rebuilds kept
the original Bettendorf underframes and 5-5-5 corrugated ends with
two additional corrugations at the top. Roofs were panel steel,
doors were 12' double corrugated, trucks were AAR with spring planks,
running boards were wood, hand brakes were Ajax or Universal, and
couplers were bottom-operated Type E. A kitbash is possible based on
a model of a 10'6" IH AAR standard box car (e.g., Intermountain), but
double doors would have to added and the underframe replaced.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: UP 40' auto box

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:02 PM, mcindoefalls wrote:

I'm interested in modeling UP 471441, a 40' double door boxcar,
since it's been documented as operating on the route I want to
model. Is this the same class as the Trix double-door model, or the
Intermountain? If not, are photos, plans, or diagrams out there,
somewhere, of cars in the same class?





UP 471441 was an A-50-7 class car, originally wood sheathed but
rebuilt ca. 1940 into a steel sheathed car. The steel rebuilds kept
the original Bettendorf underframes and 5-5-5 corrugated ends with
two additional corrugations at the top. Roofs were panel steel,
doors were 12' double corrugated, trucks were AAR with spring planks,
running boards were wood, hand brakes were Ajax or Universal, and
couplers were bottom-operated Type E. A kitbash is possible based on
a model of a 10'6" IH AAR standard box car (e.g., Intermountain), but
double doors would have to added and the underframe replaced.

Richard Hendrickson


Sergent couplers

gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

Hello all,
I am considering using the Sergent couplers and have a question. In Tim Warris' video and post, he states that he occasionally has trouble coupling the cars, sometimes having to use quite a bit of force to couple cars. However, he also states that he purchased the assembled couplers. For those of you who use these couplers, have you noticed the same problems? Do you use the assembled couplers, or do you assemble them yourself? If so, what assembly "tweaks" would you recommend to improve the operation of these couplers?

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,
Bob Heninger
Iowa City, IA


Re: UP 40' auto box

mcindoefalls
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

The Trix car is an A-50-16, UP 474000-474499 until 1955, when
they were renumbered as 175000-175499.

Intermountain? Intermountain doesn't make a 40ft double door.
If you mean Red Caboose, those are prewar cars, SOO and SAL.
Thanks for the information, Tim. Guess I did mean Red Caboose, rather than IM.

Walt Lankenau


Re: UP 40' auto box

Tim O'Connor
 

The Trix car is an A-50-16, UP 474000-474499 until 1955, when
they were renumbered as 175000-175499.

Intermountain? Intermountain doesn't make a 40ft double door.
If you mean Red Caboose, those are prewar cars, SOO and SAL.

Tim O

I'm interested in modeling UP 471441, a 40' double door boxcar, since it's been documented as operating on the route I want to model. Is this the same class as the Trix double-door model, or the Intermountain? If not, are photos, plans, or diagrams out there, somewhere, of cars in the same class?
Walt Lankenau


UP 40' auto box

mcindoefalls
 

I'm interested in modeling UP 471441, a 40' double door boxcar, since it's been documented as operating on the route I want to model. Is this the same class as the Trix double-door model, or the Intermountain? If not, are photos, plans, or diagrams out there, somewhere, of cars in the same class?

Walt Lankenau


Re: Kadee 158s

Schuyler Larrabee
 

I shall compare and report, Sir Denny.

SGL


The Hon. Schuyler Larrabee says-

I had not noticed the 153s which I agree will be more appropriate in
most cases.

Given the right location (such as the Shake-n-Take PRR X45 from last
year) I'll prefer Kadee 78s, so
I can have a scale-width draft gear as well as the "scale" head.
But, my learned friend, the Kadee 78's have neither a scale draft gear/
coupler box, nor a scale length coupler shank (it is far too
long)....i.e., it is neither fish nor fowl. Even Kadee will admit that
the #78 was an expedient designed originally for their proprietary car
offerings, not aspiring for scale independent aftermarket use.

IMHO, the #153s in an overscale standard-sized "Athearn" box are
superior in overall appearance and effect than the #78s.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento




E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
Database version: 6.12650
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/


Re: Kadee 158s

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

The Hon. Schuyler Larabee says-

I had not noticed the 153s which I agree will be more appropriate in
most cases.

Given the right location (such as the Shake-n-Take PRR X45 from last
year) I'll prefer Kadee 78s, so
I can have a scale-width draft gear as well as the "scale" head.
But, my learned friend, the Kadee 78's have neither a scale draft gear/
coupler box, nor a scale length coupler shank (it is far too
long)....i.e., it is neither fish nor fowl. Even Kadee will admit that
the #78 was an expedient designed originally for their proprietary car
offerings, not aspiring for scale independent aftermarket use.

IMHO, the #153s in an overscale standard-sized "Athearn" box are
superior in overall appearance and effect than the #78s.

Denny




Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: Sergent Engineering couplers (was Kadee 158s)

Jerry <jrs060@...>
 

Gene, I think you, and the group, might enjoy watching some videos done
by Tim Warris of Bronx Terminal fame that should give you a little better
understanding on the Sargents and how they work. Have a look!

http://www.bronx-terminal.com/?cat=43

And yes, someone has come up with a magnet blade that will uncouple a
Sargent under a passenger or express car diaphragm or buffer! And everyone
should know, you can't do that with a skewer stick.

Happiness, Jerry Stewart

Woodstock, Ill.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Green" <bierglaeser@...> wrote:

Comments, please.

There are, apparently, at least two who have converted to Sergent Engineering couplers. Clearly the Sergent couplers are somewhat more expensive but appearance should be quite a bit better than even the so-called "scale" couplers from other manufacturers.

Is scale appearance worth the extra cost or are there other benefits as well?

From what has been said on this forum and the information on the Sergent Engineering web site (much improved since the last time I visited), it seems there would be an increase in the realism of the brakeman's duties on a model railroad. Since, on model railroads, the local takes far too long to make its run when compared to the time it takes the "hot shot" to get from one end of the layout to the other, would the Sergent couplers speed up or slow down the local's progress?

With Sergent couplers all uncoupling and most coupling would have to take place within fairly easy reach from the aisle. Is there a remote uncoupling possibility with Sergents?

Gene Green


Re: Sergent Engineering couplers (was Kadee 158s)

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Jon Miller says:



Just to stir the pot (VBG) how do you uncouple passenger cars with Sergents? I know, this is a freight car list so we don't care!
But, note that we include head end cars in the STMFC.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Re: Sergent Engineering couplers (was Kadee 158s)

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

Just to stir the pot (VBG) how do you uncouple passenger cars with Sergents? I know, this is a freight car list so we don't care!

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: Sergent Engineering couplers (was Kadee 158s)

William Keene <wakeene@...>
 

Gene,

I have found that operations... local switching and way freights...
move at a slower pace than switching with other coupler systems. And
you are correct that the operations must be within easy reach of the
aisle. This means that the train is assembled for the evening's
operations on the on-stage portion of the layout and then backed off-
stage to the staging track complete.

My layout is a switching layout based upon the end of an eastern
Kansas ATSF branch line. Service is a single train down the line and
return to the junction daily except Sunday. With such an operation
there is no "hot shot" to worry about. My train is a mixed train
powered by a motorcar. All consists are less than 1,000 tons.

Hope that the above provides some answers.

-- Bill Keene
Irvine, CA

On Jun 20, 2009, at 6:55 AM, Gene Green wrote:



Comments, please.

There are, apparently, at least two who have converted to Sergent
Engineering couplers. Clearly the Sergent couplers are somewhat more
expensive but appearance should be quite a bit better than even the
so-called "scale" couplers from other manufacturers.

Is scale appearance worth the extra cost or are there other benefits
as well?

From what has been said on this forum and the information on the
Sergent Engineering web site (much improved since the last time I
visited), it seems there would be an increase in the realism of the
brakeman's duties on a model railroad. Since, on model railroads,
the local takes far too long to make its run when compared to the
time it takes the "hot shot" to get from one end of the layout to
the other, would the Sergent couplers speed up or slow down the
local's progress?

With Sergent couplers all uncoupling and most coupling would have to
take place within fairly easy reach from the aisle. Is there a
remote uncoupling possibility with Sergents?

Gene Green



Re: Sergent Engineering couplers (was Kadee 158s)

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

Comments, please.

There are, apparently, at least two who have converted to Sergent Engineering couplers. Clearly the Sergent couplers are somewhat more expensive but appearance should be quite a bit better than even the so-called "scale" couplers from other manufacturers.

Is scale appearance worth the extra cost or are there other benefits as well?

From what has been said on this forum and the information on the Sergent Engineering web site (much improved since the last time I visited), it seems there would be an increase in the realism of the brakeman's duties on a model railroad. Since, on model railroads, the local takes far too long to make its run when compared to the time it takes the "hot shot" to get from one end of the layout to the other, would the Sergent couplers speed up or slow down the local's progress?

With Sergent couplers all uncoupling and most coupling would have to take place within fairly easy reach from the aisle. Is there a remote uncoupling possibility with Sergents?

Gene Green


Re: Kadee 158s

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Denny, thanks for pointing out the 153s. I believe the 158s arrived first and I had not noticed the
153s which I agree will be more appropriate in most cases.

Given the right location (such as the Shake-n-Take PRR X45 from last year) I'll prefer Kadee 78s, so
I can have a scale-width draft gear as well as the "scale" head.

SGL

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Denny Anspach
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:32 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kadee 158s



I simply do not understand the wisdom of replacing standard sized
Kadee couplers with scale #158s. The effect of the 158's scale-sized
head is completely lost by its hanging out on a long shank (like a
giraffe), and while the large standard #5 Kadee head effectively hides
the gaping open mouth of the huge coupler box.

Moreover, the combination of the small scale head and the long #158
shank now allows ugly fish mouth face of this huge coupler box to be
fully exposed.

If close coupling operational problems are disturbing, leave the large
couplers in place.

If close coupling does not bother you, and you do not want to install
scale-sized coupler boxes, then use Kadee short shank #153s (the
closeness of the coupler head at least tries to hide the embarrassing
large coupler box just behind).

What do I do? I use the Accumate Protos as my standard; but I also
use a lot of the #153s. Both are excellent in their own ways.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
710 Coronado Blvd.
Sacramento CA 95864








E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
Database version: 6.12640
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
<http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/>






E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
Database version: 6.12650
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/


Re: real coal

SUVCWORR@...
 

Yes.? Anthracite coal is shinny bituminous is flat.? Anthracite looks like black volcanic glass.? In fact crushed volcanic glass would make a great anthracite load.? Bituminous is flat and more porous.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: ed_mines <ed_mines@yahoo.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jun 19, 2009 2:46 pm
Subject: [STMFC] real coal










Should model anthracite look any different from model bituminous?



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: real coal

Greg Martin
 

Ed,

I am not sure how it would look in full size but we handle Anthracite through our warehouse for water filtration and what I have in a big 56 qt. plastic box si evenly sized and very glossy. I have saved it for hopper loadings and let me tell you I could load them 'til something freezes over...

Greg Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: ed_mines <ed_mines@yahoo.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jun 19, 2009 12:46 pm
Subject: [STMFC] real coal








Should model anthracite look any different from model bituminous?

101061 - 101080 of 183407