Date   

Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Denny Anspach <danspach@...> wrote:

Dennis Storzek writes-

Note that the locomotive was originally delivered with short swing
knuckles, similar to those used on steam locomotive pilots:

Dennis, this is a new one to me. Just what made up a "short swing
knuckle"?

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento
Aw, com'mon Doc. You're not going to make me spend hours looking for a photo on the web, now, are you. If there is a more descriptive name, I don't know it, but what I mean is the knuckle with the short tang on the back, only long enough to suround a pin, that pins into a pocket bolted to the face of a pilot beam; basically the standard steam loco front coupler before drop couplers became all the rage. The couplers that were used on Shays were similar, but had two tangs, and could be adjusted for height by pinning them in different slots ina pocket with several slots.

Wait, this is what I meant, from the Sergent Engineering web site:

http://www.sergentengineering.com/images/Pocket1_2.jpg

The coupler does not go through the pilot beam, it's short, and has very limited swing.

Dennis


To: Admin - Re: Files Section

pullmanboss <tgmadden@...>
 

Trying not to step on Mike's or Jeff's toes, I see an awful lot of photos in the <Files> area - both individual photos, and folders full of photos. The <Files> area has 100MB available and is 95% full, while the <Photos> area has 100GB and is 0% (yes, zero percent) full.

The other thing I see is large image files of documents. One JPG file of just under 4MB (4% of available File space!) is of a 50"-wide folio sheet at 72DPI. As a trial I reduced it to 14" wide and 100DPI in Photoshop. Still perfectly legible, and at 254KB it reduced the size by 94%.

Tom Madden

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "behillman" <chris_hillman@...> wrote:

I can't seem to be able to upload to the Files Section.

Is the Files Section too full? Yahoo says it's 95% used-up out of 100MB.

Paul Hillman


To: Admin - Re: Files Section

Paul Hillman
 

I can't seem to be able to upload to the Files Section.

Is the Files Section too full? Yahoo says it's 95% used-up out of 100MB.

Paul Hillman


Haskell & Barker 1913 Gondola

Paul Hillman
 

I posted a drawing of a C&WIRR Haskell & Barker Wood Gondola that I made in 1959 when I was about 14, in the "Files", under;

"Haskell & Barker C&WI Gon"

It was parked on a C&WI siding in south Chicago, near my house, and I measured it with a 3 foot yard-stick and made this drawing.

The drawing is at least for reference, as I can't verify how accurate my measurements actually were.

The car number (#1075) may be correct because the H&B car at the IRM is #1185 and the C&WI had several of these kinds of gons. Maybe I recorded the car's weight data correct too.

The F&C Rutland gon looks very close but the side doors look vertically angled whereas the C&WI car-sides were pretty vertical.

Paul Hillman


Re: Haskell & Barker 1913 Gondola--- Possible Great Northern "Sand Car"?

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Staffan Ehnbom" <staffan.ehnbom@...> wrote:

The Great Northern's 600 Hart cars in the 190000 series of 1913 were the same construction as the 400 cars received in 1906 but quite different from the F&C Rutland car. The GN Hart cars had fish belly steel side sills as compared to wood construction with steel truss rods for the Rutland and C&WI cars. The GN did have "sand cars" built in 1900, 1906 and 1907 by Haskell & Barker and which looked similar to the Rutland car, especially the 1907 built 40' 40 ton car in the 195542-195736 series as renumbered by 1913.

Staffan Ehnbom
Are drawings of these cars available anywhere?


Dennis


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Aley, Jeff A" <Jeff.A.Aley@...> wrote:

Dennis,

I believe that the kingpin-to-kingpin distance is also critical, and this is where the curvature really comes into play. The two kingpins are points on an arc of a circle (assuming constant radius), and the more degrees of arc they encompass, the worse the problem will become (imagine a car and track such that the kingpins extend over 180 degrees of arc!)
Thus, I believe it's a combination of the kingpin - to -kingpin distance, as well as the kingpin to striker distance, as well as the curve radius that causes our problems.

Regards,

-Jeff
I can't say I disagree, although I usually point out the end overhang difference, as once pointed out, it becomes readily apparent where the problem lies. However, cars or locos with a large distance between the coupler and striker also tend to have long truck centers, and the additional angular displacement just exacerbates the problem.

Before anyone thinks I'm picking on modern diesels, the same problem exists when mixing long passenger cars with freight cars, and when trying to use the pilot coupler of a steam loco for switching. Model steam locos are a partial curse; the tender often has coupler geometry most like that of a freight car, but since the locomotive tends to pivot about the center of it's rigid driver wheelbase (few model locomotives have fully functional pilot trucks that actually guide the loco into curves) the pilot couler tends to be a long way off the track centerline when in a curve.

Dennis


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Dennis Storzek writes-

Note that the locomotive was originally delivered with short swing
knuckles, similar to those used on steam locomotive pilots:

Dennis, this is a new one to me. Just what made up a "short swing
knuckle"?

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: Haskell & Barker 1913 Gondola

David Turner
 

I took detailed photos, especially of the side-door latching hardware,
of the car at IRM in 2007. It matches the F&C 6800 " Rutland ballast
car" kit which I have.

The Spokane, Portland and Seattle received 150 identical H&B cars built
in 1909 as their first equipment. They used the "Lidgerwood rapid
ballast unloader" to unload the cars. The cars were known among the
employees as "lidgerwood" cars. The Lidgerwood machines were the type
used in the Panama Canal dirt moving operations that Ralph Budd helped
set up. (He was Chief Engineer of SP&S in 1910-11 before going to the
GN.)

In later decades, the cars were used as fodder for construction of stock
cars, flat cars, MOW equipment, and the X26 snow plow that MDC "sort-of
followed" in their snowplow kit of 30 years ago. The last four side
door cars were still on the MOW roster into the early 1950's. The only
differences that I could see between the SP&S cars and the C&WI car at
IRM was that (1) the C&WI car had a drop brake lever at the corner
whereas the SP&S cars had a brake wheel, (2) more modern trucks, and (3)
the C&WI car was fitted with a fixed end whereas the SP&S cars had
removable ends.

Later, the Lidgerwood machines were used for pulling steam locomotives
for driver tire truing without taking the axles out of the frame. In
this task some lasted until the end of steam.

I have drawings and photos (or photocopies) of the H&B ballast cars and
the Lidgerwood machines, if anyone is interested.

Cheers,
David Turner
Keeping the S. P. & S. Rwy. Alive in Santa Rosa, California


Re: Haskell & Barker 1913 Gondola--- Possible Great Northern "Sand Car"?

Staffan Ehnbom <staffan.ehnbom@...>
 

The Great Northern's 600 Hart cars in the 190000 series of 1913 were the same construction as the 400 cars received in 1906 but quite different from the F&C Rutland car. The GN Hart cars had fish belly steel side sills as compared to wood construction with steel truss rods for the Rutland and C&WI cars. The GN did have "sand cars" built in 1900, 1906 and 1907 by Haskell & Barker and which looked similar to the Rutland car, especially the 1907 built 40' 40 ton car in the 195542-195736 series as renumbered by 1913.

Staffan Ehnbom

----- Original Message -----
From: gary laakso
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com ; STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 7:13 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Haskell & Barker 1913 Gondola--- Possible Great Northern "Sand Car"?



Haskell & Barker was one of Great Northern's preferred car builders and in 1913 it took delivery of 600 hard convertible cars that were 41 feet 6 inches with a 100,000 pound capacity per the Annual Report of that year. I wonder how close the F&C Rutland car is to the GN car. I have not seen pictures of the GN car to make a valid comparison. These cars appear to have been classified as "sand" car in MofW service.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net


New Boston & Maine Airslide Hopper Decals

Daniel Kohlberg
 

I am pleased to announce the following new decal set. It is available right
now, in HO and N Scale.

GA-01 Boston & Maine GATC 2600 Airslide Hoppers 1957+
http://home.mindspring.com/~paducah/ga01.htm

The B&M set will letter up to 3 cars. This decal set is the result of
exhaustive research and it features extensive data, including proper and
accurate GATC stencil styles.

As always, thanks for taking a look. My entire line of decals, including
the rest of my recent Airslide sets, can be found at
http://paducah.home.mindspring.com/

Dan Kohlberg
paducah@mindspring.com


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Aley, Jeff A
 

Dennis,

I believe that the kingpin-to-kingpin distance is also critical, and this is where the curvature really comes into play. The two kingpins are points on an arc of a circle (assuming constant radius), and the more degrees of arc they encompass, the worse the problem will become (imagine a car and track such that the kingpins extend over 180 degrees of arc!)
Thus, I believe it's a combination of the kingpin - to -kingpin distance, as well as the kingpin to striker distance, as well as the curve radius that causes our problems.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of soolinehistory
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:58 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity




--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>, "railwayman" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:

I think that it's time that we had a look at prototype couplers, in keeping with the STMFC list's mandate.

My 1995 AAR Field Manual gives coupler dimensions for Type E couplers. Rule 16, paragraph 8 gives a distance of 21" (.241" in HO) from back of the head to the end of the shank on a BE60AHT coupler, as well as several other Type E's. My belief is that this is a standard coupler length found on STMFC's...
Think about how much swing a prototype coupler can achieve on an 11 1/4" radius for a moment. It becomes clear that a standard Type E coupler is very tolerant of sharp track radii. Such as here, on the Bronx Terminal--

http://members.trainweb.com/bedt/indloco/crrnjbxtphoto2.jpg

http://members.trainweb.com/bedt/indloco/crrnj10009.jpg

Notice the boxcar on a less than 100' radius curve next to the curved freight shed in both photos.
Steve,

Your study of the key slot dimensions of the AAR Type E coupler is interesting. In all my work designing couplers, I have never bothered to calculate the effective pivot location of a prototype coupler... Thanks.

However, your use of the Bronx Terminal as an example is misleading. The main thing that drives the need for wide swinging couplers on our models isn't the length of the coupler shank; that's the effect, not the cause. The main thing that forces us to need wider than prototype swing is our desire to run equipment with different king pin (truck pivot) to striker (or coupler pulling face, take your choice) dimensions, because the longer that dimension, the further from the track centerline the coupler is thrown on curves.

In the case of the Bronx terminal, all the cars had the almost universal standard of either 5'-0" or 5'-6" to striker distance. The only exception was the locomotive, which was somewhat longer, although I can't find a dimension at the moment. Even so, this is a very short locomotive; note there are no steps between the outer axles and the end sill. Even as short as this locomotive is, the CNJ must have found lack of coupler swing troublesome. Note that the locomotive was originally delivered with short swing knuckles, similar to those used on steam locomotive pilots:

http://sbiii.com/jfcageir/ageir5.html

Which the CNJ changed to a short knuckle pinned to a radial drawbar:

http://www.toytrains1.com/images/trains/bo-2002-14.jpg

Your first photo above also shows this arrangement to good advantage.

Unfortunately, these early boxcabs are atypical of later diesels, which have kingpin to striker dimensions in excess of 12'. This throws the coupler so far off track centerline on sharp curves that the coupler on the coupled car actually swings OUTWARD, toward the outside of the curve, in order to remain coupled to the locomotive. If the coupler can't offset a sufficient amount, the car will be dragged off the rails. This is a situation that just doesn't exist on the prototype, for all practical purposes.

The solution to his problem, dating to toy train days, was to fit wide swing couplers to all the equipment, similar to what was done to the prototype CNJ 1000. The solution today, for prototype modelers, should be to simply not try to run trains on curves that the prototype equipment can't deal with, but that only applies to prototype modelers. The bulk of the hobby dollars are still spent by the guys who want to run their SD50MAC's or whatever they are on a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood, and that's the market the manufacturers need to keep foremost in mind.

Dennis


Re: New Used For Old Freight Car Truck

Clark Cooper
 

Must bring everything to a grinding halt when they get a hotbox.

-Clark Cooper

On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Bob C wrote:

Here is a link to an image of an old freight car truck that has escaped the scrap pile to have a new life:

http://www.dpdproductions.com/photos_rrgallery/27.jpg

This was taken in San Pedro, CA, in 2007. The truck has become a rolling bridge which allows cars on the second track to be loaded or unloaded from the dock. Notice the ribbed-back wheels.

This image is from the website of DPD Productions. There are many other railroad images on this site, mostly of modern equipment.

Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Re: Somewhat off-topic steam era historical inquiry

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...> wrote:

Hi Ron,

Ladder cages weren't mandatory as they are now, but I've seen examples of them in photos dating back to the late 1930s, at least, including some examples on railroad structures. They aren't wrong in the steam era, just not as common as today.

So long,

Andy
The old (pre OSHA) rule of thumb used to be that if a ladder was used as part of a regular walkway by workers whose use of the ladder was only incidental to their job, it needed a cage; otherwise it didn't.

As examples, if a ladder connected two levels of catwalk at a refinery and was used by workers that monitored the refinery process, it needed a safety cage. A ladder that led to a roof didn't, since the only reason for it's use was to allow workers access to repair the roof; likewise the ladders up the tower to a water tank, or to a railroad signal head. In these instances, the workers were expected to be aware that they were climbing a steep ladder and use safety belts and lines if necessary. When OHSA entered the picture in 1970 they essentially required body belts or harnesses and safety lines everywhere, unless the ladder had a cage, so it became more common to install cages, not only to limit liability but also to keep from having to inspect, maintain, and certify the safety belts and lines.

Dennis


Re: Somewhat off-topic steam era historical inquiry

Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

Hi Ron,

Ladder cages weren't mandatory as they are now, but I've seen examples of them in photos dating back to the late 1930s, at least, including some examples on railroad structures. They aren't wrong in the steam era, just not as common as today.

So long,

Andy

Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@mrmag.com
262-796-8776, ext. 461
FAX 262-796-1142


Somewhat off-topic steam era historical inquiry

mopacfirst
 

When did the use of ladder cages begin? I believe in the steam era, with today's safety mentality not as prevalent, it was pretty common to have big ol' ladders with nothing around them. I've built some Walthers industrial structures which could date to the fifties or earlier, but I'm not sure the ladder cages really belong on them.

These are structures that would be located in small-town industries, not major manufacturing complexes who had a safety engineer on staff.

Ron Merrick


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "railwayman" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:

I think that it's time that we had a look at prototype couplers, in keeping with the STMFC list's mandate.

My 1995 AAR Field Manual gives coupler dimensions for Type E couplers. Rule 16, paragraph 8 gives a distance of 21" (.241" in HO) from back of the head to the end of the shank on a BE60AHT coupler, as well as several other Type E's. My belief is that this is a standard coupler length found on STMFC's...
Think about how much swing a prototype coupler can achieve on an 11 1/4" radius for a moment. It becomes clear that a standard Type E coupler is very tolerant of sharp track radii. Such as here, on the Bronx Terminal--

http://members.trainweb.com/bedt/indloco/crrnjbxtphoto2.jpg

http://members.trainweb.com/bedt/indloco/crrnj10009.jpg

Notice the boxcar on a less than 100' radius curve next to the curved freight shed in both photos.

Steve,

Your study of the key slot dimensions of the AAR Type E coupler is interesting. In all my work designing couplers, I have never bothered to calculate the effective pivot location of a prototype coupler... Thanks.

However, your use of the Bronx Terminal as an example is misleading. The main thing that drives the need for wide swinging couplers on our models isn't the length of the coupler shank; that's the effect, not the cause. The main thing that forces us to need wider than prototype swing is our desire to run equipment with different king pin (truck pivot) to striker (or coupler pulling face, take your choice) dimensions, because the longer that dimension, the further from the track centerline the coupler is thrown on curves.

In the case of the Bronx terminal, all the cars had the almost universal standard of either 5'-0" or 5'-6" to striker distance. The only exception was the locomotive, which was somewhat longer, although I can't find a dimension at the moment. Even so, this is a very short locomotive; note there are no steps between the outer axles and the end sill. Even as short as this locomotive is, the CNJ must have found lack of coupler swing troublesome. Note that the locomotive was originally delivered with short swing knuckles, similar to those used on steam locomotive pilots:

http://sbiii.com/jfcageir/ageir5.html

Which the CNJ changed to a short knuckle pinned to a radial drawbar:

http://www.toytrains1.com/images/trains/bo-2002-14.jpg

Your first photo above also shows this arrangement to good advantage.

Unfortunately, these early boxcabs are atypical of later diesels, which have kingpin to striker dimensions in excess of 12'. This throws the coupler so far off track centerline on sharp curves that the coupler on the coupled car actually swings OUTWARD, toward the outside of the curve, in order to remain coupled to the locomotive. If the coupler can't offset a sufficient amount, the car will be dragged off the rails. This is a situation that just doesn't exist on the prototype, for all practical purposes.

The solution to his problem, dating to toy train days, was to fit wide swing couplers to all the equipment, similar to what was done to the prototype CNJ 1000. The solution today, for prototype modelers, should be to simply not try to run trains on curves that the prototype equipment can't deal with, but that only applies to prototype modelers. The bulk of the hobby dollars are still spent by the guys who want to run their SD50MAC's or whatever they are on a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood, and that's the market the manufacturers need to keep foremost in mind.

Dennis


Re: New Used For Old Freight Car Truck

brianehni <behni@...>
 

No springs; I'll bet it rides rough as a cob! LOL!

Brian Ehni

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Bob C" <thecitrusbelt@...> wrote:

Here is a link to an image of an old freight car truck that has escaped the scrap pile to have a new life:

http://www.dpdproductions.com/photos_rrgallery/27.jpg

This was taken in San Pedro, CA, in 2007. The truck has become a rolling bridge which allows cars on the second track to be loaded or unloaded from the dock. Notice the ribbed-back wheels.

This image is from the website of DPD Productions. There are many other railroad images on this site, mostly of modern equipment.

Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


New Used For Old Freight Car Truck

Bob C <thecitrusbelt@...>
 

Here is a link to an image of an old freight car truck that has escaped the scrap pile to have a new life:

http://www.dpdproductions.com/photos_rrgallery/27.jpg

This was taken in San Pedro, CA, in 2007. The truck has become a rolling bridge which allows cars on the second track to be loaded or unloaded from the dock. Notice the ribbed-back wheels.

This image is from the website of DPD Productions. There are many other railroad images on this site, mostly of modern equipment.

Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Re: Haskell & Barker 1913 Gondola--- Possible Great Northern "Sand Car"?

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...> wrote:

Haskell & Barker was one of Great Northern's preferred car builders and in 1913 it took delivery of 600 hart convertible cars that were 41 feet 6 inches with a 100,000 pound capacity per the Annual Report of that year. I wonder how close the F&C Rutland car is to the GN car. I have not seen pictures of the GN car to make a valid comparison. These cars appear to have been classified as "sand" car in MofW service.
And I need info on some 36' cars built about the same time for the Soo Line, but having deep steel fishbelly steel sills. These were, I believe, built by AC&F.

A few years later the Hart design evolved to having solid sides; wood plank with steel stakes and diagonals, having little drop doors along the edge of the floor to the outside of the intermediate sill, still having the central hopper between the intermediate sills. This design was well documented in the Car Builder;s Cycs, and was the basis for a die-cast metal kit, by either Ulrich or Walthers, I forget which. They were interesting kits for their day, but the stakes and diagonals were awful clubby looking.

A lot of these cars lasted quite late, at least as long as railroads ran steam and had ash pits to keep clean. With the side doors removed, they became essentially hopper bottom flatcars, just the right height for labors to load ashes by hand shoveling, which could then be taken and dumped anyplace in the yard that needed its ballast touched up.

Dennis


Haskell & Barker 1913 Gondola--- Possible Great Northern "Sand Car"?

gary laakso
 

Haskell & Barker was one of Great Northern's preferred car builders and in 1913 it took delivery of 600 hard convertible cars that were 41 feet 6 inches with a 100,000 pound capacity per the Annual Report of that year. I wonder how close the F&C Rutland car is to the GN car. I have not seen pictures of the GN car to make a valid comparison. These cars appear to have been classified as "sand" car in MofW service.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

98921 - 98940 of 187393