Date   

Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Tim O'Connor
 

Denny Anspach wrote

That except for the short shank #153 semi scale couplers, the other
Kadee semi scale couplers (58, 78) are on prototypically excessively-
long shanks... Personally, I see no visual advantage at all to using
semi scale couplers of any variety unless the shanks are short...
Denny,

Consider that most (uncushioned) model draft gear do not extend further
than the end sills, and then the extra shank length (.031) plus the smaller
coupler head means that the car-to-car distance is closer to prototype
than you might expect if you're only considering the shank length. So if
you insist on using only the "short" shank #153 then you must also mount
your draft gear so the distance over pulling faces of the couplers is
set according to the prototype.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

The operational coupling reliability level attained with the smaller couplers is determined by how accurately the couplers can be, and are centered/aligned at the moment when the couplers meet. The smaller gathering range of the smaller couplers reduces the room for error in this regard, requiring the operator choosing these couplers to pay even more attention to the biggest endemic culprit in the allowing of any given car to be off center: excessive axle/wheel-set end play. The usual excessive coupler shank length offers even more opportunity for poor centering.

Coupler droop is a big problem with any coupler using the standard "Athearn" or Kadee boxes, and IMHO is one of the biggest root problems with uncouplings/derailments, i.e. couplers pulled into distortion, allowing their draft angles to work into an over-ride; or more catastrophically, a coupler magnetic glad hand pulled down to snag the next closure rail. The droop in the proprietary #78 box is also excessive.

That except for the short shank #153 semi scale couplers, the other Kadee semi scale couplers (58, 78) are on prototypically excessively- long shanks. The weight of the heads sticking on the ends of these long lever arms do nothing but exacerbate the drooping problem. IMHO, from a prototypical point of view, seeing a coupler head sticking out like akin to a head on the end of a pole destroys any advantage that a small coupler head might otherwise provide. In this regard, if short shanks are not a choice, you are better off sticking to regular sized couplers, where the large heads pretty much hides the fact that the shank is too long, and that it is in fact sticking out of a grossly oversized coupler box.

Personally, I see no visual advantage at all to using semi scale couplers of any variety unless the shanks are short.

Denny


Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: PFE R-40-14 UP Herald

railwayman <stevelucas3@...>
 

I have to question the accuracy of information with respect to the Union Pacific herald on the UP website when they fail to mention their own "We Will Deliver..." slogan that was applied to many of their cars in recent years.

While this slogan became a joke about UP service with the melt-down that followed UP's takeover of the SP, the fact that UP does not mention this very recent slogan makes one question the veracity of other historical info on their site. I submit this as a caution to relying on corporate sites for historical info, as often a corporation will revise its own published history to cast it in a favourable light.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., Dick Harley <dick.harley4up@...> wrote:

On Tue Feb 9, 2010 John Hile asked:

>>Am I correct in assuming the non-aluminum PFE R-40-14 reefers wore
the UP Overland herald when new?
<<

To which Richard Hendrickson replied, stating that he had a 12/45
photo of an R-40-14 without the "Overland" banner on the UP medallion.

While I do not have a photo (in fact, I have darn few R-40-14 photos
compared to R-40-10s and R-40-20s), I do have some evidence that I
think is rather compelling, which leads me to believe that the
R-40-14s did have the "Overland" banner on the UP medallion when they
were new.

First of all, the UP medallion was, of course, controlled by the
Union Pacific. Their corporate website has a history of the UP
Medallion. For this era, see:
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/uplogo/logo07.shtml
This site says that the medallion without the "Overland" banner was
not developed until May 1942. My collection of UP Timetables pretty
much confirms that. The January 25, 1942 (revised to 2-15-42) UP
public timetable still has the banner. I don't have any of the April
5, 1942 issues, but the website has a photo of one showing the "Pearl
Harbor" medallion on the cover. The July 1, 1942 public timetable
has the medallion without the banner.

Next, the drawing for the UP medallion (to be used on refrigerator
cars) without the "Overland" banner is shown in Phil Da Costa's book
on page 36. It is UP drawing 303-C-3073 rev B, issued in July 1942.
The revision note mentions redrawing the medallion and omitting "The
Overland Route".

Finally, the PFE book says that the R-40-14s (#44701 to 45700) were
built by PC&F in 1941. I have copies of car cards for 44739 (built
8-11-41) and 45698 (built 12-20-41) that put the R-40-14 delivery in
the second half of 1941.

So, we have delivery of all the R-40-14 class at a time when UP
itself was still actively using "The Overland Route" banner on its
medallion. The R-40-14 class delivery was also completed before a
drawing was prepared for a refrigerator car UP medallion without the
banner. That leads me to believe the "Overland" banner was present
on the R-40-14 class cars.

Like I said at the start, I don't have a photo to confirm it, but I
believe the UP medallion WITH "The Overland Route" banner was used on
the PFE R-40-14 cars when new. Certainly, photos contrary to that
would be new evidence that would cause me to rethink that position.

Other evidence, thoughts and opinions are certainly welcome.

Cheers,
Dick Harley
Laguna Beach, CA






Re: Magazine question

asychis@...
 

Try _www.railpub.com_ (http://www.railpub.com) you will be pleased. It is
a great site and the owner (Paul Gibson) provides wonderful service.

Jerry Michels


Re: Magazine question

jim peters
 

Frank,



Got Mainline Aug 86, RMJ Nov89



Find Mark - Last time I saw him (Fall 08) - Adrian might know if he's back up North) Anyway Mark was bragging he had every MM except the very first and the last two.



Give me a call - You should have my number - Or contact me off list.



Jim Peters

Coquitlam, BC



To: stmfc@...
From: destron@...
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:15:27 -0800
Subject: [STMFC] Magazine question






Hi,

Wondering if anyone might have any or all of these magazines that they'd
sell?

RMC: April 82
Mainline: May 84, Dec 84, Aug 86, Oct 86
RMJ: Nov 89

Thanks.

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC





_________________________________________________________________



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Scott Kremer
 

I use black sheet styrene, cut into narrow strips. It is obviously
smooth and you do not need to paint it unless the little bit of shine
bothers you. It is a good bearing surface. As Brian indicated .005 or
.010 works fine. I do this on almost all of my cars. I find that even
when the coupler looks fine on its own it will sometimes "droop'" if it
is under stress as in a heavy train. Just glue it to the coupler pocket
under the coupler shank at the front edge of the pocket.

Scott Kremer

On Feb 11, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Brian Carlson wrote:



Like Tim said: I use strip stryene, usually 0.010, or 0.005 as
required, fit to lip, glue, no droop. I don't like using the spring
material it's easier for me to glue plastic to plastic but YMMV. If
you need a strip thicker than 0.010 you have bigger issues like a
loose box, or angled one.
Brian Carlson

At 2/11/2010 01:08 PM Thursday, you wrote:

>Brian, I assume you are making the .005 shims. Can you describe
them? ...material used, how you make them, do they go above or below
the coupler?
>
>Thanks,
>Tony Higgins
>Pittsford, NY




Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Brian Carlson
 

Like Tim said: I use strip stryene, usually 0.010, or 0.005 as required, fit to lip, glue, no droop. I don't like using the spring material it's easier for me to glue plastic to plastic but YMMV. If you need a strip thicker than 0.010 you have bigger issues like a loose box, or angled one.
Brian Carlson

At 2/11/2010 01:08 PM Thursday, you wrote:

Brian, I assume you are making the .005 shims. Can you describe them? ...material used, how you make them, do they go above or below the coupler?

Thanks,
Tony Higgins
Pittsford, NY







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Tim O'Connor
 

Tony, you can use a piece of strip styrene of whatever thickness
you desire to correct droop when the coupler droops within the
pocket. You glue the strip (i.e. shim) at the open edge of the
pocket, so the shank of the coupler is lifted upwards. A little
experiment will show how much shim you need. Note this is only
for coupler droop -- if the pocket is too low, then you need
another solution. Obviously you glue below the coupler -- I've
never seen a Kadee coupler droop upwards. (Pocket tilt is a
different problem.)

Tim O'Connor

At 2/11/2010 01:08 PM Thursday, you wrote:

Brian, I assume you are making the .005 shims. Can you describe them? ...material used, how you make them, do they go above or below the coupler?

Thanks,
Tony Higgins
Pittsford, NY


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Ned Carey <nedspam@...>
 

Brian, I assume you are making the .005 shims. Can you describe them? ...material used, how you make them, do they go above or below the coupler?
I use the bronze flat spring that comes with the number 5s. Just trim off the "wings" and file flat.

Ned Carey


Re: PRR class X26 USRA ss boxcar in background

Benjamin Hom
 

Claus Schlund asked:
"Nice PRR class X26 USRA ss boxcar in background of photo at url below. Note this car has - for a PRR X26 - what seems to me like an unusual door. Is this what is called a Creco door?"

http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?sid=1d1e0aa178540266fb8bf1e79b05aa15&g=imls&med=1&c=fairbanks&q1=pennsylvania&rgn1=fairbanks_all&ox=2326&oy=281&lastres=1&res=2&width=750&height=494&maxw=3000&maxh=1978&subview=getsid&lasttype=boolean&view=entry&viewid=0085.TIF&entryid=x-prr-1010-909-8&cc=fairbanks&quality=2&resnum=80&evl=full-image&image.x=322&image.y=273#

or a shorter url...

http://tinyurl.com/yffv66f


Claus, that door is what modelers refer to as a CRECo door, though not all three panel doors were made by CRECo. Three panel doors were common in early steel boxcars, and many thousands of Class X23, X25, X29, ARA proposed 1923 standard, and NYC USRA-design cars had them, though they differed in details. This particular door isn't terribly unusual for PRR Class X26 boxcars. When these cars received a minor rebuilding in the mid-1930s, they received steel doors to replace the original wooden doors. These doors were fabricated from auxiliary doors salvaged from Class X28 boxcars - you can see a vertical weld bead running down the center of the door where the two auxiliary doors were joined. Class X28 boxcars had both panel and corrugated doors, and both were used in the Class X26 rebuild program of the mid-1930s.


Ben Hom


Re: PRR class X26 USRA ss boxcar in background

Al and Patricia Westerfield <westerfield@...>
 

Claus - PRR prepared plans for about 6 replacement doors for X26. The one pictured uses 2 X28 1/2 doors, welded together. We model 3 of the replacement doors, including the Creco welded X28. See kit #3357 on our web site. - Al Westerfield

----- Original Message -----
From: Claus Schlund (HGM)
To: STMFC
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 12:23 PM
Subject: [STMFC] PRR class X26 USRA ss boxcar in background



Hi List Members,

Nice PRR class X26 USRA ss boxcar in background of photo at url below. Note this car has - for a PRR X26 - what seems to me like an unusual door. Is this what is called a Creco door?

- Claus Schlund

http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?sid=1d1e0aa178540266fb8bf1e79b05aa15&g=imls&med=1&c=fairbanks&q1=pennsylvania&rgn1=fairbanks_all&ox=2326&oy=281&lastres=1&res=2&width=750&height=494&maxw=3000&maxh=1978&subview=getsid&lasttype=boolean&view=entry&viewid=0085.TIF&entryid=x-prr-1010-909-8&cc=fairbanks&quality=2&resnum=80&evl=full-image&image.x=322&image.y=273#

or a shorter url...

http://tinyurl.com/yffv66f





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Jim Betz
 

Scott,

Here are my observations/experiences on this topic.

1) The Kadee semi-scale couplers (#58/etc.) look better.
This is not a small difference. When you look at a train
going by - even 6 feet away from you - you can spot the
cars that have the smaller couplers. Fairly easily.
And they are close enough to scale size that you don't
see the same "noticeable" difference between them and the
"true" scale couplers (the only ones I know of are the
Sergent).

2) They couple and un-couple - with themselves - reasonably
well. I'm talking about "intended" couplings/uncouplings
on straight level track.

3) They are more finicky about coupling/uncoupling than the
#5s (again intended" and straight level track). How
much more finicky (i.e. whether or not you care) is for
you to decide.
Much of the time it will be "no big deal". Every once
in a while it will be a considerable problem (see the
next item right below this one).
My experience is that they are noticeably more difficult
to uncouple compared to how well they couple. How much
more is a matter of personal opinion.

4) They are noticeably more finicky about coupling/uncoupling
on curves or grades (again "intended"). Even a slight
curve can make them noticeably more difficult than a #5.
It is my belief that the reason for this is that because
the overall coupler 'head' size is smaller that they
tend to 'miss' more often. And they seem to "lock with
each other" more than the #5s (a good thing when you are
going down the road but not so good when you are trying
to uncouple them).

5) They are more sensitive to any 'rapid vertical changes'
in the track ("vertical kinks") than the #5s. This
translates to more break-in-twos than you have with #5s.
Here's an interesting 'fact' ... go out and measure the
joint between two pieces of rail (in good repair) on
the real railroad nearest you. Measure how 'true' the
joint is in terms of the accuracy of both the height and
width of the rail. I suggest just taking a 12" straight
edge and holding it along the rail and look at how well
it lays along the entire 12" of the rule. Now go do the
same thing on your layout using the same ruler. Most of
the time you are going to discover that your layout is
essentially at the same accuracy as the real RR. Maybe.
You will probably find it is difficult to impossible to
find rail that you can really use to measure on the sides
(on the top is usually no problem).
But your layout is 87 times smaller. Said another way -
the real RR is 87 times "more accurate" than your layout is.
Many of the 'average' joints on your layout will be
measurably more "out of true" than the real RRs ever are.
And the worst joints you have - even the ones that you are
still willing to live with because they aren't causing any
problems - will be significantly more out of true when
compared to the real RRs.
Yes, careful attention to how you lay your track, and
how true it is, will improve things. But you are never
going to be as good as the real RRs. I've never done
any research on this but I suspect that the acceptable
variations when real rail is manufactured (the plus or
minus n thousandths) is probably the same or even smaller
than our scale rails!
Said another way - in order to get our rail to be
truly accurate in the vertical dimension - we should be
using styrene or paper shims under one rail for most (all?)
of our track joints. I don't know any layouts that have
been built this way. I'm not even suggesting that we
should be doing this. I'm just saying that if we want to
be as accurate as the real RRs are we would have to do
this.

6) They are much less tolerant of any mis-match in coupler
height between two cars. Not hard to explain/predict -
and not an "original" observation ... but still important
to state. Said another way ... the amount of difference
you were willing to tolerate with the #5s won't work with
the semi-scale couplers - standards must be strictly
enforced. Another aspect of this is that you hear
guys say all the time that they add a shim to the
coupler box to prevent them from drooping. Why Kadee
hasn't designed and marketed a box with this on it is
somewhat of a mystery to me ... but I suspect it is
related to their desire to market to installers who
just want to swap out the coupler (and not the box
also).

7) They are noticeably more difficult to couple/uncouple
with other size couplers/manufacturers. If you are
using the Kadee semi-scale couplers on some cars, but
not all, you will have more problems than if you use
just one coupler make/size/design. Kadee says that
the semi-scale couplers are "compatible with" the #5s.
I seem to have a different standard than Kadee does
with respect to the term "compatible". What I see
happening "all the time" (often enough that I'm not
using the term "sometimes") is that when you are
coupling they won't couple (easily) ... and when you
are uncoupling that the two couplers will "hang up
on each other" and both will deflect to the side as
a unit. (This happens whether you are using magnets or
picks.)
There are times when trying to couple/uncouple a
semi-scale with a scale coupler is significantly
more difficult and can reach the frustration level.
There are other times when it will be a 'little more
difficult'.
This is not a 'small difference' as far as I'm
concerned. If you have a mix of brands you are going
to have more problems than if you don't. Even more
so if you are using the semi-scale couplers.

I operate on a wide variety of layouts with very different
mixes of couplers (all #5s, all 58s, a mix of mostly 5s and
some 58s, a mix of mostly 58s and some 5s, etc.). And I go
to 2 or 3 (or more) op sessions a month. (Included this so
you will have some idea of what my 'background' is.)

I have to admit that my attitudes toward the semi-scale
couplers go up and down based upon my most recent op sessions.
If the last two or three sessions have been on RRs with stellar
track and strict car standards I tend to be more in favor of
the semi-scale couplers than if my last few sessions have been
on "regular" layouts.
When I go to a "prototype meet" ... all I see are the
semi-scale couplers. No surprise - they look better and
the emphasis at these meets is on 'how accurately the models
re-produce the prototype'.

I have to say that I have similar attitudes/experiences
with respect to the same topic for wheels.

******

These are my observations/experiences. The thing -you- are
going to have to do is to establish for your self whether or
not you will use the semi-scale couplers - and if you do what
it will take to get operational characteristics that are
acceptable to you. I suggest that you do your own tests -
on the layout nearest you with the best track you can find -
and make up your own mind about what you consider acceptable.
And don't forget to consider how it looks as part of the
equation!
And if you do decide that they are your standard - it's
much better to "do them all" ...
- Jim


PRR class X26 USRA ss boxcar in background

Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;)
 


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Tony Higgins
 

Brian, I assume you are making the .005 shims. Can you describe them? ...material used, how you make them, do they go above or below the coupler?

Thanks,
Tony Higgins
Pittsford, NY

--- In STMFC@..., Brian Carlson <prrk41361@...> wrote:

I'm going to assume he is referring to 58's and 78's or the scale whisker couplers (number forgotten) They are smaller, (duh) so they are less tolerate of dips and humps in the track. but they operate fine on layouts as long as the height is correctly set. This often includes a 0.005 shim in the coupler box to take the droop out. We've been using #5's 58's and 78's for years on the club layout.
brian carlson

--- On Wed, 2/10/10, sseders@... <sseders@...> wrote:


From: sseders@... <sseders@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity
To: STMFC@...
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 11:00 AM


 





I have been using Kadee scale couplers on all of my rolling stock.  Currently, I do not have a layout.

I have a friend (who is a very good modeler) who claims that he is having difficulty with scale couplers uncoupling where there is any height irregularity in the track.  As such he as gone back to using number 5 couplers.

What is anyone else experiencing?   

Thanks,
Scott Seders

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: PFE R-40-14 UP Herald

Tim O'Connor
 

Dick Harley wrote

While I do not have a photo (in fact, I have darn few R-40-14 photos
compared to R-40-10s and R-40-20s)
Indeed there are very few published pictures of R-40-14's and almost
none online. I just checked the Fallen Flags web site and unless I am
looking in the wrong place, there is a ridiculously paltry selection
of PFE photos of any kind -- a few PFE, one UPFE, and a bunch of SPFE
shots mostly by one contributor of the latest ten years.

Tim O'


Re: Photos of interest

water.kresse@...
 

Those three ring binders get heavy!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan" <sjones1@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:41:08 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Photos of interest

It would have taken most of the Springfield show just to go through all the material he brought there. But it was organized only by railroad. In my case he had both the Grand Trunk Western (not my interest) and the Grand Trunk New England Lines (my interest) mixed together. Not that I didn't find some photos to spend money on, mind you.

--- In STMFC@..., "Brian J Carlson" <prrk41361@...> wrote:

He told me He used to take Everything to W. Springfield but since he moved south not sure he still does.

 

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga NY


Re: Photos of interest

jonespwr
 

It would have taken most of the Springfield show just to go through all the material he brought there. But it was organized only by railroad. In my case he had both the Grand Trunk Western (not my interest) and the Grand Trunk New England Lines (my interest) mixed together. Not that I didn't find some photos to spend money on, mind you.

--- In STMFC@..., "Brian J Carlson" <prrk41361@...> wrote:

He told me He used to take Everything to W. Springfield but since he moved south not sure he still does.



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga NY


Magazine question

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Hi,

Wondering if anyone might have any or all of these magazines that they'd
sell?

RMC: April 82
Mainline: May 84, Dec 84, Aug 86, Oct 86
RMJ: Nov 89

Thanks.

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC


Re: Photos of interest

Brian Carlson
 

He told me He used to take Everything to W. Springfield but since he moved south not sure he still does.



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga NY



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Al and Patricia Westerfield
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:08 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Photos of interest





Schuyler - Bob's collection is so big he can't bring everything to shows. He estimated to me it's about 1/3rd. If you really want to look for something specific, contact him ahead of time so he can bring it. He will also welcome visitors at convenient times to his house for serious collectors. - Al Westerfield


Re: Photos of interest

Al and Patricia Westerfield <westerfield@...>
 

Schuyler - Bob's collection is so big he can't bring everything to shows. He estimated to me it's about 1/3rd. If you really want to look for something specific, contact him ahead of time so he can bring it. He will also welcome visitors at convenient times to his house for serious collectors. - Al Westerfield

----- Original Message -----
From: Schuyler Larrabee
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:59 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Photos of interest



Bob also brings EVERYTHING to the Cocoa Beach meet, and I believe to Naperville too. He has an email address which I believe is bobsphoto.train.@... . If you email, he will bring the appropriate volumes of photos to the show you are going to attend. I am fairly sure that the telephone number I have for him is no longer the correct one.

SGL

Bob's Photo is out of Wallingford, KY. He has a fantastic collection of freight car photos . . . most from the 40 and 50s. Remember, $7 for B&Ws and $10 for color photos is not out of the normal range these days. You might want to call him ahead of time if you are looking for specific railroads and you are not in their territory. He usually brings a van's worth to shows. He and Jay Williams (Indiana) always seem to have something new it seems. In the mid-west Rich Burg is back in it again and Bob Lorenz sometimes shows up.

Who else has freight car photos that might include those of the Kentucky and West Virginia coal hauling railroads in the 1930-50s?

Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: "fltenwheeler" <floridatenwheeler@... <mailto:floridatenwheeler%40verizon.net> >
To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:44:39 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Photos of interest

OK I need to ask. I have seen the reference to Bob's photos. What or who? What is available?

Thanks

Tim

>
> $5 for a color 8x10 print is a lot cheaper than Bob's!
>
> Good thing Bob's collection is not online, or a lot of
> us would go broke!
>
> Tim O'Connor

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14330
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ <http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/>

E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14330
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

108741 - 108760 of 197109