Date   

Contact

Gene <bierglaeser@...>
 

Am looking for Volumes One, Two and Three of Union Pacific Modeler.

Can anyone offer any suggestions as to how I might find them?

Amazon and eBay haven't worked. A Google search reveals information about them but not a source from which to buy them.

Was Volume Four the last one or were there more?

Based on Volume Four's excellent articles on Sinclair tank cars and B-50-11 box cars I expect to find really good freight car modeling information in the first three volumes.

Gene Green


One More Brake Equipment Question

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

While I am seeking answers on the arrangement of brake components I might as well toss this question out. Does anyone know of a good
photo for a Royal Type F Brake Regulator?

Thanks again in advance:

Bill Pardie


Re: Santa Fe Brake Gear Arrangement

Gene <bierglaeser@...>
 

Bill,
Every part of the air brake system under the car has to be removable. Sometimes a circuitous route is necessary to enable a section of pipe to be removed.

Gene Green

--- In STMFC@..., WILLIAM PARDIE <PARDIEW001@...> wrote:



I noticed while doing a Santa Fe RR-23 refer that the brake pipe (from
the triple valve to the trainline) did not follow the
"standard" (shortest distance between two points) path.
It rather went through a series of 90 degree bends. The hardware
(Dirt Collector and Valve are mounted on the section parallel to the
triple valve as opposed to right next to the
valve on most applications. I have also noticed this arrangement on
Santa Fe tank cars. Was this common practice for Santa Fe cars?
more specifically was it used on refers with
Duryea underframe and SK-T stockcar?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Bill Pardie


Re: Scale width draft gear?

al_brown03
 

There's a photo and discussion of this operation in Nimke, "Connecticut River Railroads and Connections", vol 3, p 79. Nimke calls the bar a "stiff shackle".

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@..., "Walter" <mcindoefalls@...> wrote:



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

I suspect 50' box cars might have not been able to remain coupled
to one another on those Bronx Terminal 90 foot radius tracks.
On the ex-traction line Claremont & Concord in New Hampshire, in order to deliver a 50-foot car to the Coy Paper Co. in West Claremont, the crew had to remove the knuckles from the locomotive (GE 44-tonner) and the car. A steel bar, a foot or two long, was installed in place of the knuckles. The bar provided enough clearance between the locomotive and car to negotiate the sharp curves.

Of course, having witnessed this procedure, I failed to photograph it. /;-(

Walt Lankenau


Looking for Bill Welch

Bill McCoy
 

Bill,

David Orr has some pictures for you but no current Email address for you. Please let me have your email address so I can pass it on to David.

Thanks,
Bill McCoy
Jax, FL


Re: Scale width draft gear?

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

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


I suspect 50' box cars might have not been able to remain coupled
to one another on those Bronx Terminal 90 foot radius tracks.

The EMD SW1500 switcher will operate on a 70 foot radius -- but only
if uncoupled from anything else. If coupled to another car or loco the
minimum radius becomes 154 feet. (Source: EMD specs in 1970 Car &
Locomotive Cyclopedia.)

Tim O'Connor
Interesting number, Tim. That works out to 21 1/4" radius in HO scale, larger than the 18" that has long been thought to be the minimum for modeling industrial trackage. And that's for just about the smallest locomotive that would be found on a class 1 railroad (OK, except for the SW-1 / SW-600).

Just to continue this thought for a moment, and asking Mr. Brock's indulgence if I use some futuristic power, since only the 1980 Car and Loco Cyc. is close at hand, but the minimum coupled radius for common four axle power, a GP-38-2, is 302', or 42 1/2" radius, and surprisingly the SD-40-2 can negotiate a slightly tighter 262', or 37" in HO. These radii are getting up in the range that's required for reliable operation for P:87, but are still viewed as a space wasting luxury by many modelers.

Dennis


Re: Scale width draft gear?

mcindoefalls
 

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

I suspect 50' box cars might have not been able to remain coupled
to one another on those Bronx Terminal 90 foot radius tracks.
On the ex-traction line Claremont & Concord in New Hampshire, in order to deliver a 50-foot car to the Coy Paper Co. in West Claremont, the crew had to remove the knuckles from the locomotive (GE 44-tonner) and the car. A steel bar, a foot or two long, was installed in place of the knuckles. The bar provided enough clearance between the locomotive and car to negotiate the sharp curves.

Of course, having witnessed this procedure, I failed to photograph it. /;-(

Walt Lankenau


Santa Fe Brake Gear Arrangement

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

I noticed while doing a Santa Fe RR-23 refer that the brake pipe (from the triple valve to the trainline) did not follow the "standard" (shortest distance between two points) path.
It rather went through a series of 90 degree bends. The hardware (Dirt Collector and Valve are mounted on the section parallel to the triple valve as opposed to right next to the
valve on most applications. I have also noticed this arrangement on Santa Fe tank cars. Was this common practice for Santa Fe cars? more specifically was it used on refers with
Duryea underframe and SK-T stockcar?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Bill Pardie


Re: Scale width draft gear?

Tim O'Connor
 

I suspect 50' box cars might have not been able to remain coupled
to one another on those Bronx Terminal 90 foot radius tracks.

The EMD SW1500 switcher will operate on a 70 foot radius -- but only
if uncoupled from anything else. If coupled to another car or loco the
minimum radius becomes 154 feet. (Source: EMD specs in 1970 Car &
Locomotive Cyclopedia.)

Tim O'Connor

The point that I am raising by citing the Bronx Terminal RR. is that prototype cars with conventional draft gear, couplers, and kingpin to pulling face dimensions, could be handled, coupled, and uncoupled, on curves of 90' radius. We consider this curvature to be "toy train" like...
Steve,

I actually agree with you. I suppose I should mention that I'm the guy responsible for the Accumate PROTO:HO coupler, which has the pivot .176" [4.47mm] from the end of the box (striker) and .205", 18 scale inches behind the striker horn of the coupler head. Those dimensions were chosen for a couple of reasons; since the pivot point is also the mounting screw, it needed to be back far enough to engage the car floor, not the edge of the end, and the Kadee 711 "Old Timer" coupler also uses a similar dimension. Frank Sergent then chose to use the same dimension for the narrow shank version of his scale working knuckle. Why Kadee didn't also adopt this dimension is a mystery to me, especially when they already make a product that uses it, but I'm hardly in a position to tell them what to do.

However, I pointed out the limitations of the prototype operating on these tight radii because those who try to do this need to understand those limitations. If one wants to switch freight cars on 90' radius curves, you need to use a short locomotive with a short end overhang, or you need a locomotive equipped with a radial drawbar, or the old hobby standby, the overly wide coupler box. If one builds the Bronx terminal, then decides to switch it with a GP-9, it's just not going to work, not if the GP-9 has scale couplers.

Dennis


Re: Scale width draft gear?

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

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

Dennis--

The point that I am raising by citing the Bronx Terminal RR. is that prototype cars with conventional draft gear, couplers, and kingpin to pulling face dimensions, could be handled, coupled, and uncoupled, on curves of 90' radius. We consider this curvature to be "toy train" like...
Steve,

I actually agree with you. I suppose I should mention that I'm the guy responsible for the Accumate PROTO:HO coupler, which has the pivot .176" [4.47mm] from the end of the box (striker) and .205", 18 scale inches behind the striker horn of the coupler head. Those dimensions were chosen for a couple of reasons; since the pivot point is also the mounting screw, it needed to be back far enough to engage the car floor, not the edge of the end, and the Kadee 711 "Old Timer" coupler also uses a similar dimension. Frank Sergent then chose to use the same dimension for the narrow shank version of his scale working knuckle. Why Kadee didn't also adopt this dimension is a mystery to me, especially when they already make a product that uses it, but I'm hardly in a position to tell them what to do.

However, I pointed out the limitations of the prototype operating on these tight radii because those who try to do this need to understand those limitations. If one wants to switch freight cars on 90' radius curves, you need to use a short locomotive with a short end overhang, or you need a locomotive equipped with a radial drawbar, or the old hobby standby, the overly wide coupler box. If one builds the Bronx terminal, then decides to switch it with a GP-9, it's just not going to work, not if the GP-9 has scale couplers.

Dennis


Scale width draft gear?

railwayman <stevelucas3@...>
 

Dennis--

The point that I am raising by citing the Bronx Terminal RR. is that prototype cars with conventional draft gear, couplers, and kingpin to pulling face dimensions, could be handled, coupled, and uncoupled, on curves of 90' radius. We consider this curvature to be "toy train" like.

Yet, by all accounts, the prototype cars stayed on the rails.

An article on a similar property appears in MRP 2007 on the DL&W's Harlem Transfer Company.

I hold out these properties as proof that scale-width draft gear can work on a model run on even 12 3/4" radius in HO--provided that we pay attention to coupler swing and pivot location. It appears to me that the current defacto standard of 1/4" from the back of an HO coupler head is too long. While on the topic of cause and effect, this width is caused by having the pivot point almost twice as far back from the pulling face of the coupler than on prototype cars.

I blame this on manufacturing tolerances at the time that the 1/4" figure was introduced. Some modellers used wood rulers back then, where 1/16" or maybe 1/32" was a minimum increment of masurement.

I imagine that most, if not all, STMFC modellers on this list have far more accurate tools today--digital Vernier calipers that can measure increments of .001"/.001 mm are very inexpensive now.

Now if we could get some model couplers with scale set-back from pulling face to pivot...


Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:



--- In STMFC@..., "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


Marion, OH Meet website

seaboard_1966
 

Guys

I have throw together a quick website for the Central Ohio Prototype Modelers Meet. It can be found at http://home.rr.com/salguy

Please make plans to attend.

Denis Blake
Organizer
Central Ohio Prototype Modelers Meet


Short Swing Knuckle. Was: Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

OK, Dennis. I got it.

But.... still a matter of confusing nomenclature (at least to me): wouldn't this be a short-swing coupler "head" rather than just the knuckle alone? (:-)

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Haskell & Barker 1913 Gondola

Paul Hillman
 

I was finally able to upload to the Files. I had a software problem which is now fixed.

The file name is:

Haskell & Barker C&WI Gon

I made this Dwg when I was about 14. I thought it was going to post smaller in size. Got to figure out how to do that better.

Paul Hillman


ADMIN: Re: (unknown)

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Rich Christie says:


"Jeff, My Yahoo got a worm/malware last night. I ran my anti-spyware, that fixed the problem on my end."

OK. Given that the train has already left the station and the station is now closed...supposedly....there seems to be no need to demolish the station now...meaning that Rich is not going to jail. However...

BTW, the offending messages have been deleted from the archives.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Re: Last cars of BR&P and B&S

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 23, 2010, at 5:37 PM, ford35lh wrote:

I have the ORER of April,1940 and it lists cars for the BR&P
and B&S still in interchange after 8 years.They are listed with B&O.

Does anyone have later ORER's listing cars from these two lines ???
No longer listed in 10/41.

Richard Hendrickson


Last cars of BR&P and B&S

ford35lh <ford35lh@...>
 

I have the ORER of April,1940 and it lists cars for the BR&P
and B&S still in interchange after 8 years.They are listed with B&O.

Does anyone have later ORER's listing cars from these two lines ???

I want to learn the last year that either roads cars were still in
service and what type of cars they were.Being a fan of both lines
it would be interesting to learn how late a period I can model and
still be accurate.

ford bartof

4-1940
BR&P-- 47 XM box; 11 GM gon;11 FM flat; 53 HM hop
B&S -- 33 XM box; 245 HM gon;


Re: Mainline Modeler article

lrkdbn
 

--- In STMFC@..., "pullmanboss" <tgmadden@...> wrote:

January 1985, "An Engine in the Park" by Bob Zenk.

Tom Madden
Thanks!!!!
LR King


ADMIN: Re: To: Admin - Re: Files Section

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Paul Hillman notes that the STMFC file space is full and Tom Madden observes that it has many photos in it. Obviously, the photos need to be moved to the photo section. Thus, if you have photos in the file section, please move them to the photo space. In a few days photos will be deleted from the file space...unless, of course, I have one there <G> or I happen to like the photo...in which case I'll move it myself.

Also, some documentation in the file space may be too large for its own good. Please check on that too.

Anyhow, the point is...we need to use the file space for documents.

Thanks,
Mike Brock


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Tim O'Connor
 

I think production issues killed it -- could not be made as
was desired. But I was never happy with JP Barger's idea of
making it compatible with the Kadee #5 shank. A true scale
coupler and scale draft gear, now that would have been good
(for some of us).

Tim O'Connor

At 2/23/2010 04:13 PM Tuesday, you wrote:
Gentlemen,Whatever happened to the reboxx coupler?Armand Premo

106141 - 106160 of 194635