And, I would say Nuts to you as well. In the past, I was given
notice it was due out - this trip, I was not. So, I may buy it
retail. But, I wish some one would be consistent. Oh wait, is that
trying to be LIKE Mainline Modeler?

At 06:18 PM 10/7/2005, you wrote:

Message: 19
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:56:34 -0000
From: "Patrick Wider" <pwider@s...>
Subject: Re: RP Cyc 12

And to you guys who send
us $19.95 well after the cut-off date with back-dated checks just to
save 5 bucks, I say
nuts! Go buy Mainline Modeler! (-:}

Thanks for the kind words John!!!!!!

Pat Wider

Bob Webber

Hmmmm. Why couldn't you replace the ball with a polarized magnet? That way you could hold a wand polarized in the opposite direction UNDER the coupler and it would repel and lift the ball. You could also have an electromagnet under the track also polarized oppositely. The coupler might have to be modified slightly so the ball wouldn't simply turn over. Perhaps replace it with a slightly cylindrical magnet.
Jim Pickett

timboconnor@comcast.net wrote:
Yes, but the electromagnet would have to be OVER the track.

The Sergent coupler has a tiny metal ball inside that acts like
the locking pin on the prototype. It has to move upwards to
unlock the knuckle.

Jim Pickett







Yahoo! Groups Links

Tim, I still don't know the right answer, especially if Kadee continues to sell #78's one
thimble-full at a time. I know their game - they think that's the quickest and most
profitable way to recoup their tooling costs. They sold 5&10's that way for years until the
competition started to make cheap rip-offs. Then they suddenly made bulk packs
available. Sam, correct me if I'm wrong. On the other hand, from a manufacturer's
standpoint, it's much easier to count and dump the things in a bag with little or no
instructions. Anyone want to buy RP CYC's by the 60-book box??? That's the way we get
them. We''ll give you a really special price. Caution, they weight just over 60 pounds.

I'm just trying to learn about all of my current options. You speak of Reboxx like they're
going to be available in my lifetime. I have my doubts. If InterMountain makes them, I'll be
long gone. It's taken them four tries to get an ART steel reefer correct. Ed's about to pull
out his hair and give it up.

Pat Wider

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, timboconnor@c... wrote:

Pat, in that circumstance, you wave your magic wand and open
each knuckle with that same device (which doubles as a pick), as
I said before. Is this practical? Only if the layout is designed so
that the location is accessible. I could ask a similar question about
coupling Kadees on a curve. (If you do switching inside tunnels,
I admit Kadees will usually work better in that case.)

Remember the car was spotted at the siding. When it was spotted
it had to be uncoupled. The uncoupling process opened the knuckle.
It stays open 99% of the time (on our layouts gravity is unable to
close the knuckle.) The other times you wave the wand. This doesn't
seem complicated to me. What am I missing?

I think the only functional difference between the Sergent and the
Reboxx coupler will be that the Reboxx will have a sprung knuckle
with an optional locking pin. I think the intent was to have the best
of both worlds. But since the Reboxx isn't available I'm guessing it
was harder to accomplish technically than was thought.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not converting to Sergents. But it's simply a
compatibility question. The Reboxx is intended to be compatible with
Kadee, but then I question whether it will be as prototypical looking
as the Sergent. If Sergents came in scale draft gear, I might actually
be inclined to convert.

Tim O'Connor

I can ask the same question. How did they get open? Will one or the other be
open 100% of the time? Maybe not. I have a car in a siding - it just happens to
have a closed coupler. Like the prototype. Call it fate, gremlins, bad tea leaves,
who knows?

Yahoo! Groups Links

On Oct 7, 2005, at 2:42 PM, timboconnor@comcast.net wrote:

But Pat, this begs the question: how did they get closed? They
only close (and lock) if some action is taken. I know this sounds
like a chicken/egg problem (because it is!) but normally the
knuckle remains open until the car is coupled to another car.

Maybe the one down in the track was not the one that was opened when
the other car was cut off. So it remained closed. Maybe the same case
for the car you now want to couple to it. We had a lot of "Bull
Heads" on the prototype RRs. Also maybe the car down in the track was
kicked to fast into the track. When it hit the knuckle closed from
the force for the hit. There is a lot of reasons for a "Bull Head".
When We switched the E/B and W/B leads in Emporia Ks the car that
rolled away from us always had it's knuckle closed. We always pilled
the pin on the car we were hanging onto. Except when that pin would
not pull and we reached over and pulled the other one.
So on your prototype model RR you must choose. Prototype looks and
operation or Kadee drawbars.
BTW on the RRs I worked on there were no couplers. They were drawbars.
Thank you
Larry Jackman
ljack70117@adelphia.net
I wish the buck stopped here as I could use a few





Yahoo! Groups Links

http://www.irritatedvowel.com/Railroad/Details/Couplers/Default.aspx

Pat, from what I understand, the magnet raises the ball and a
pick of some kind moves the knuckle. (Everyone at the club uses
a pick to uncouple Kadees, because the magnets either don't work
or they're not located in the right spot, so I don't see this as much
of a change.)

Once the knuckle is open, it stays open, until another coupler comes
along and closes it, just like the prototype. So except for the diaphragm
issue (which goes away if one only uses Sergents on FREIGHT cars)
I don't see much practical difference compared to Kadees. (And most
layouts don't have hump yards either.)

Sergents are probably what I'll put in the front coupler position of my
brass steam engines, which have no provision for Kadees or any other
working front coupler.

Tim O.

If I understand you correctly, after application of the magnetic wand held above the
coupler or a surplus super-conducting collider magnet held even higher, one still has to
get access to the Sergent coupler's knuckle with a Howard Hughes' finger nail, dentil pick,
or bent paper clip to open it? Is this how they work? Man Oh Man. What a handy workable
design! At least it would eliminate the need for a "scale clock". Thanks for the engineering
analysis!!!!! Pat Wider

Yahoo! Groups Links

Tom,

If I understand you correctly, after application of the magnetic wand held above the
coupler or a surplus super-conducting collider magnet held even higher, one still has to
get access to the Sergent coupler's knuckle with a Howard Hughes' finger nail, dentil pick,
or bent paper clip to open it? Is this how they work? Man Oh Man. What a handy workable
design! At least it would eliminate the need for a "scale clock". Thanks for the engineering
analysis!!!!!

Pat Wider


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas M. Olsen" <tmolsen@U...> wrote:

List,

In mid-June, I purchased a set of assembled Sargent Couplers
(#EC87A-125) along with the Magnetic Uncoupling Wand. The price for the
two items with shipping was $18.00. You get five assembled Type "E"
couplers. They work very well and are smaller in size than the Kadee
#58s. Even though I have not had the opportunity to mount them in a
piece of rolling stock, I was able to test how they work. These
couplers are all-metal and are a dark reddish-brown in color which at a
distance make the coupler look as if it were covered with rust.

In reality, they operate just like the prototype. They have a spring
located in the shank ahead of the mounting hole like the MKD-4 Kadee to
absorb the shock when the coupling is made. After uncoupling, they,
like the prototype do not return to center as the Kadee and other HO
couplers available do. They do not mate with other knuckle couplers due
to the size difference between a proto-87 coupler and the present
couplers available with the exception of the cast dummy couplers. The
manufacturer advises that with a little filling on the dummy coupler
knuckle, they will couple. To couple, they, like their prototype
cousins require the services of a brakeman to align the coupler and if
necessary to open one of the knuckles if both are closed. They will
couple if only one is open and both are properly aligned. The present
information sheet from Sergent advises that the current offerings are to
retrofit existing equipment. It is possible that they may offer draft
gear boxes in the future as they said "Stay Tuned!'

This coupler position and open/closed knuckle situation could be a
problem for anyone who has a fairly large hump, staging or flat switched
yard or any other location where the benchwork edge is more than an arms
length or the track centers are close at a distance with rolling stock
close on adjacent tracks. The distance benchwork edge to track
situation is going to be the determining factor as to whether anyone
will want to use these for operations, or just buy them for display
purposes in shows and contests. You have to be able to place the
magnetic wand over top of the coupler head to raise the steel ball out
of it's slot in the locking block in the coupler shank. This allows the
knuckle to open. When the knuckle closes, the steel ball drops back
into it's place and locks the knuckle closed. The prototype couplers
are designed the same way, except there is no steel ball to raise, just
the locking block which is actuated by the raising (or lowering,
depending on whether they are over or under-slung) of the cutting lever
on the car end. In an earlier discussion regarding the operation of
couplers, it was Larry Jackman who addressed the operation as to how
couplers lock and what has to occur to allow them to open. Many thanks
Larry, for making this clear to many who have not had the on the ground
experience in this area.

The ability to open them when they are mounted on passenger equipment
with diaphragms is a valid point. As Tim O'Connor mentioned, the
possible use of anisotropic magnets mounted on a wand designed for this
use and also mounted on an extended wand for distances would solve the
problems in both the passenger and freight situations. In regard to the
comment that the couplers have to be filed down to fit present draft
gear boxes: there was no mention of this in the paperwork that
accompanied the set that I received.

I'm sure that we all will be interested in what Jared Harper's results
as he begins to test these couplers in actual service. The big bugaboo
will be the ability to reach the cars and accurately get the wand into
position to uncouple the cars, or to be able to align couplers with the
cars buried in a yard more than two feet from the benchwork end. This
will really be a test of skill when humping cars, as you will only have
seconds to lift ball to uncouple the cars as they go over the hump or to
uncouple rear-end helpers on the fly. Most fellows that I know will not
use these couplers as they require the operator to get more involved in
the actual work of making and breaking up of trains and in switching
operations. The magnetic couplers in use today allow us to move along
quickly in an operating session, while use of the Sergent couplers will
bring us back to reality as nothing moves fast in actual railroad
switching and in train make-up and break-up operations. Just like the
Army - "Hurry Up and Wait!

But, for display and contest purposes, they cannot be beat! Hopefully,
Sergent will offer a scale draft gear box to make this superbly scaled
coupler. Do not get me wrong, the Quad 58/78 is a tremendous
improvement over the earlier #5 and I will use them until the Sargent is
proved to be good in operation and the problems are solved. Whether
they are depends on what others find when they use them. Jared, please
keep us up on what you find as it will be greatly appreciated!

Tom Olsen
7 Boundary Road, West Branch
Newark, Delaware, 19711-7479
(302) 738-4292
tmolsen@u...

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "S. Busch" <SCSBusch@W...> wrote:

Please Mr. Sam At Kadee,

Yes, I vote for the 78s in bulk, too, as well as :

A USRA STYLE ANDREWS FREIGHT CAR TRUCK

- sprung, of course. Please, please, please ---

Why sprung? The toy cars aren't heavy enough to compress the springs anyway and they
don't equalize so why bother? They also don't roll as well as they could. I hate HO
"sprung" trucks. And while I'm at it Mr. Kadee, please replace those spider-web springs
with something more substantial. I hate looking through the spring groups and seeing the
daylight (layout lighting?) coming through. It's blinding. Jack Spencer rolls his own springs
out of heavier wire and they look great! Other people use brass loco driver springs. In
days of old when knights were bold and Central Valley made trucks with concentric
wheels, their truck springs looked better as well. Phosphor bronze I think. Why can't Kadee
make a similar improvement to the appearance of their trucks? Continuous improvement -
that keeps companies in business.

Sorry but this a sore spot with me.

Pat Wider







Yahoo! Groups Links

To an extent, those turning up their noses to all plastic couplers in
some kind of blanket fashion remind me of the "standing in the
trench" pronouncements of those who in the '60s announced in print
and in word loudly that they would *never* ever buy (or sell)
anything made of plastic, and urged others to do the same. Plastics
were "the death of model railroad hobby" (this was at the time when
the then-new Athearn molded cars were de facto taking over the model
railroad market). Now, just how much egg would you like on your face?
:-[

"All metal" can mean anything from bismuth, lead, brass, aluminum,
steel, zinc, and zamac and other alloys (some pure, but many others
made of of leavings and sweepings), steel, etc. I do have some
pretty terrible couplers" that are "All Metal".

"All plastic" can mean anything from soft new styrene (or similar)
or other unstable plastics to various kinds of very tough aged
engineering plastics . I also have some pretty fine couplers that are
"All Plastic".

The scale Reboxx couplers designed by JP Barger have the potential to
revolutionize the coupler market, especially if developed and
engineered as a part of a true *system* with a scale box, and- if
they are ever produced. What are they made of? *Plastic* but of
course a very sophisticated engineering plastic like the better
current plastic couplers of other manufacturers (including Kadee
itself).

With these thoughts in mind, an awful lot of circumstances can exist
where a given "plastic" coupler could beat out a given "metal"
coupler hands down on multiple fronts, so within bounds, materials
should not be a deciding factor.

A lot of the plastic Kadee-type coupler clones *are* cheaply made of
cheap materials with poor engineering (if any), and because of this,
I retire these couplers while still in their bags; or if already
installed, they are replaced. If feasible, their replacement commonly
will be Accumate Protos, or any version of #40-x Kadees. I have not
used #78s as yet, but have several to try. If the thickness of the
box wall forces the coupler shank to be mounted too low, or the box
needs to be cut short- and i cannot do it, I probably (and perhaps
reluctantly) will set them aside.

I have #58s on the ends of several cabooses and observation cars,
but as Ben Hom has accurately pointed out, the scale effect loses out
to the distractingly-obvious gross oversized appearance of the
"standard" boxes from which the couplers project. All of these are
scheduled for Accumate Proto or #78 replacement (minus glad hands).

Prices (MSRP): Pr. Kadee #58
@ $1.43 .
Pr. Kadee #78 (w. boxes)
@ $2.88
Pr. Accumate Proto (w. boxes )
@ $1.49
Pr. Accumate Proto (w. boxes) bulk @12 $1.33, @50 $1.20).

I have not yet addressed the appearance of any of these "scale"
couplers as they appear with a full sized metal gland hand hanging
below, the diameter of which is some huge percentage of the overall
coupler width. One could make a persuasive argument that this
travesty alone might well negate any overall good effect that one
might otherwise be attempting to make.

Proposal:

Rather than waste further bandwidth on this dead end "materials"
issue, I would propose that we instead concentrate the strength and
moral suasion of this list to the eventual promotion of a common
scale draft gear box that can if necessary be readily adapted to the
established base of the current industry-standard boxes . The AP box
is a good place to begin (as has been proposed), not only because of
size and scale appearance, but because it is already adaptable in
some important respects.

The goal should be to radically change conventional thinking from the
endless attempts to adapt differing couplers (scale or not) to the
current industry-standard oversize boxes to instead adapting new
scale boxes that, in turn, can perhaps hold one or more types of
couplers that are *engineered to fit*.

Denny


--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento

Pat, in that circumstance, you wave your magic wand and open
each knuckle with that same device (which doubles as a pick), as
I said before. Is this practical? Only if the layout is designed so
that the location is accessible. I could ask a similar question about
coupling Kadees on a curve. (If you do switching inside tunnels,
I admit Kadees will usually work better in that case.)

Remember the car was spotted at the siding. When it was spotted
it had to be uncoupled. The uncoupling process opened the knuckle.
It stays open 99% of the time (on our layouts gravity is unable to
close the knuckle.) The other times you wave the wand. This doesn't
seem complicated to me. What am I missing?

I think the only functional difference between the Sergent and the
Reboxx coupler will be that the Reboxx will have a sprung knuckle
with an optional locking pin. I think the intent was to have the best
of both worlds. But since the Reboxx isn't available I'm guessing it
was harder to accomplish technically than was thought.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not converting to Sergents. But it's simply a
compatibility question. The Reboxx is intended to be compatible with
Kadee, but then I question whether it will be as prototypical looking
as the Sergent. If Sergents came in scale draft gear, I might actually
be inclined to convert.

Tim O'Connor

I can ask the same question. How did they get open? Will one or the other be
open 100% of the time? Maybe not. I have a car in a siding - it just happens to
have a closed coupler. Like the prototype. Call it fate, gremlins, bad tea leaves,
who knows?

snagging the wires on scale telephone poles that may
mean planning ahead for a particular move to remote
locations. It's certainly a problem I can appreciate
as I will have to avoid live overhead! But, at least
"we don't need no stinkin' diaphragms"...

David Jobe
Illinois Traction System

Pat et al,

Just received your latest issue in the mail, and based on a quick
glance-through it's another winner! I now have no excuse not to superdetail
my track scale operations among other treats you covered in-depth.

My only complaint is I guess I have to wait another 12 months for my next
prototype fix.

John Boren

While I understand the appeal of the Sergent coupler for many list
subscribers, it lacks one feature that is absolutely essential for many
of us, given the nature of our layouts: it can't be remotely
uncoupled. So all the discussion about how to manipulate the @#$%&*
things is pointless to me; I have to be able to couple and uncouple
cars at a distance without touching them. The only scale-size couplers
that do that reliably are Kadees.

Richard Hendrickson