Date   

Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Charlie Vlk comments that the MK5 Kadee model defines the market.

Well, it is going to take courage to make the change. Kadee already has done so with its PS-line of cars- and their street prices are not that much different from the many competitors that still stick with the older models.

I would propose that the new standard begin with a "scale" box itself, with couplers, large or scale, the shanks and centering devices of each fitted to the box. This would allow those for whom real time operational coupling/uncoupling on their layouts are a priority to use the larger gathering area of the large coupler, while others are left free to maximise scale appearance.

My standard box these days is the scale Accumate Proto.

After the centering boss is removed from the larger box, the AP box is so designed that it can fit inside any MK 5 box with the AP coupler shank staying at the same relative level designed for the original coupler. The length of the box is such that it can reach all the way to the center sill or the body bolster, if need be- visually blanking the empty space so prevalent there in many models. Once the small box is self-centered in the larger box and fastened down, then the walls (sides, back) of the larger box can be taken down quickly with a pair of nippers. Left visible is only the pristine new scale box, nicely centered, looking exactly like it belonged there.

The above method is what I have doing routinely with Sunshine, Westerfield, Branchline, and Accurail cars with cast or moulded-on large boxes, not to mention others. For those who are skeptical about the surprising good visual impact of the small boxes, I would advise them to just try it. Also, take a look at Ted Culotta's cars in RMC. IMHO, one of the great things about their appearance is the prevalence of the scale boxes (with scale couplers, of course!).

A respected modeler has critically commented to me that in operations, the Accumate Proto's distinctive split-shank can apparently be forced open when being heavily pushed on a curve. I have not yet observed this, but I also am not much into operations (at least, not yet!), and I don't have sharp industrial curves (also, not yet!).

Andy Sperandeo comments that he can see no way to uncouple the Sergeant couplers under passenger car diaphragms. I am surprised that he has not yet learned that it can be simply done by utilizing the respective two-handed five-finger manual pickup of the two cars involved, to be then followed by a vigorous semi-coordinated, but basically random shaking and twirling of the two cars until the couplers give up the ghost. This uncoupling method, while always working eventually, also puts to the test one's historical ability to have firmly mounted the details of each car.

Denny




--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Re: UP...right and left indications

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Gregg Mahlkov writes:

The use of train numbers vs. running a train as an extra has more to do with
union contracts and The Rights of Trains under Timetable and Train Order
operations than the specific railroad or area. If a train has an assigned
number and is operated as such, a crew has a right to bid on it.
Interesting. There is definitely a disconnect involved somewhere. For example, we have the chart from the UPHS showing UP frt train schedules in 1944...including train numbers. We have the 1948 Employee Time Table that includes at least three of these scheduled trains across Wyoming. We have a list of names of UP frt trains in the Wyoming and Nebraska Divs for the early 50s. We know the schedule for perishable trains from Cal. And, yet, there are no known photos showing anything but an extra frt train between Cheyenne and Ogden. It may well be that UP had to run all frt trains as extras...although it seems odd. I'm just saying that there seems to be SOME logic to putting the $^$#%$ identification of the train somewhere on or in it. At least someone in operations should know what it is. I can imagine a UP frt train arriving at Cheyenne, eastbound, finding...as usual...several other trains waiting to get into the yard. I can imagine the conductors of all these trains claiming to be SP Forwarder, a high priority train. I mean...it's cold and snowing and the crews are trying to get to the bar at the Hitching Post Hotel. The yardmaster asks the dispatcher which is the SP Forwarder and he replies..."Hell, how should I know." So, they get some lawyers from the hotel's bar and go look through the cars to see which train has the most hooch [ Wyoming imported a LOT of wine from Cal ] assuming its train would be the SP Forwarder.

Extras are
operated off the "Extra Board". Also, if a train is in the timetable, it has
the right to certain sections of track if it is operating within the times
specified in the Timetable. Operating all freights as extras gave the
Dispatcher greater flexibility. So, there was method to the madness of what
showed in the "indicators".
Perhaps. But from the info we see, there isn't anything identifying a train. So...how would a dispatcher know to put the low priority sludge train from Green River into a siding to let the high priority perishable fruit block by? I mean all he has are the engine numbers.
Remember, the perishable schedule had to be met or penalties would ensue. I suppose one might simply infer that a train with PFE reefers might be a perishable train....if eastbound. I can almost imagine a crew grabbing some empty PFE reefers at, say, Rawlins and hauling them back east so they'd have priority. This implies icing MT reefers at Laramie but given the UP record of late, would anyone be surprised?

Mike Brock


Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Tim O'Connor
 

Pat, you (or someone else) got Intermountain's attention, because they
now use either Kadee #5's or #58's on their RTR models. Still not there,
but better than those awful plastic clones.

Frank Angstead was walking around, with a big grin on his face, showing off
their latest creation - the rip-off plastic coupler. He showed it to me, grinning
from ear to ear, and asked me what I thought. I said it looked like a Kadee
coupler but didn't look anything like a real coupler. The grin disappeared in the
blink of an eye.


Re: UP...right and left indications

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
 

Gregg Mahlkov wrote:

Jeff, Mike, and list,

The use of train numbers vs. running a train as an extra has more to do with
union contracts and The Rights of Trains under Timetable and Train Order
operations than the specific railroad or area. If a train has an assigned
number and is operated as such, a crew has a right to bid on it. Extras are
operated off the "Extra Board". Also, if a train is in the timetable, it has
the right to certain sections of track if it is operating within the times
specified in the Timetable. Operating all freights as extras gave the
Dispatcher greater flexibility. So, there was method to the madness of what
showed in the "indicators".
Indeed, on the SOU's Washington Division in the Fall of 1946, many scheduled freight trains were annulled and replaced by extras which allowed the dispatchers greater flexibility - trains could leave earlier or later than scheduled, or a train could be delayed awaiting a connection.

Tim Gilbert


Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Patrick Wider <pwider@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "wmcclark1980" <walterclark@e...> wrote:
Charlie and Denny (and others),

I remember the scathing editorial in the first issue of RPC where they
blasted the HO coupler mfgrs. about the non-scale size and appearance
of the current crop of couplers.
Walter M. Clark
Time stopped in November 1941
Riverside, California
Actually, it was RP CYC Vol. 3. For you history buffs, I patterned the editorial after Emile
Zola's response to the injustice of the Dreyfus Affair.

The inspiration for the editorial was InterMountain's clone (cheap rip-off) of the Kadee 5
&10 coupler. At the time, at one of the train shows, Frank Angstead was walking around,
with a big grin on his face, showing off their latest creation - the rip-off plastic coupler.
He showed it to me, grinning from ear to ear, and asked me what I thought. I said it
looked like a Kadee coupler but didn't look anything like a real coupler. The grin
disappeared in the blink of an eye. Talk about clueless! I then vowed to use the power of
the press to bring the issue the attention it deserved.

Pat Wider


Re: UP...right and left indications

Gregg Mahlkov <mahlkov@...>
 

Jeff, Mike, and list,

The use of train numbers vs. running a train as an extra has more to do with union contracts and The Rights of Trains under Timetable and Train Order operations than the specific railroad or area. If a train has an assigned number and is operated as such, a crew has a right to bid on it. Extras are operated off the "Extra Board". Also, if a train is in the timetable, it has the right to certain sections of track if it is operating within the times specified in the Timetable. Operating all freights as extras gave the Dispatcher greater flexibility. So, there was method to the madness of what showed in the "indicators".

Gregg Mahlkov

----- Original Message -----
From: "jaley" <jaley@pcocd2.intel.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] UP...right and left indications


On Oct 5, 12:01am, Mike Brock wrote:
Subject: Re: [STMFC] UP...right and left indications
The odd thing...to me...about UP was the fact that...they steadfastly
refused to identify a frt
train.
Mike,

This practice was only for stupid people in Wyoming. On the
Kansas Division, the indicators had the train number, just as one would
expect.

Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533




Yahoo! Groups Links









Re: NMRA Standards, conventions, et al

jaley <jaley@...>
 

On Oct 5, 10:21am, Gatwood, Elden wrote:
Subject: RE: [STMFC] NMRA Standards, conventions, et al
How many people go to each one of these events? I only "attended" one
NMRA event; the Long Beach one being in my backyard, and found it to be
a zoo (the parade of baby strollers was astounding). Are Naperville and
Cocoa really getting that large, or has NMRA shrunk down, or both?

Elden Gatwood
Elden,

Permit me to point out that the Naperville and Cocoa Beach PM
meets are very different in structure from the NMRA conventions.

The focus of Cocoa Beach (and, I infer, Naperville), is on the
clinics that take place in the meeting rooms. While there *is* a ballroom
with model displays and a few manufacturers and retailers, it is NOT
really a "train show". This is in marked contrast to the NMRA's "National
Train Show", or (I infer) the Springfield or Amhearst shows.

I, for one, take my enjoyment from attending clinics, and from
talking to like-minded prototype modelers in between the clinics.

[Please note my bias: I am the Clinic Chairman at Prototype Rails
in Cocoa Beach].

Regards,

-Jeff Aley




--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Re: UP...right and left indications

jaley <jaley@...>
 

On Oct 5, 12:01am, Mike Brock wrote:
Subject: Re: [STMFC] UP...right and left indications
The odd thing...to me...about UP was the fact that...they steadfastly
refused to identify a frt
train.
Mike,

This practice was only for stupid people in Wyoming. On the
Kansas Division, the indicators had the train number, just as one would
expect.

Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Re: Drains On Refrigerator Cars

jaley <jaley@...>
 

On Oct 4, 11:36pm, Anthony Thompson wrote:
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Drains On Refrigerator Cars
The description you quoted, Bob, sounds like a refrigerated
trailer drain. On freight cars, the drains on a produce reefer could be
closed (they were hinged to do that), but I'd agree with you that I
doubt they were closed when ice was in use. The time they might be
closed would be if the car were in vent service, or if the car was
being used for other freight, neither vent nor ice service.
Tony,

Why would one WANT to close the drains on a reefer? To keep out
vermin, perhaps?

Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Charlie Vlk writes:

Yes, it would have been better if Kadee and the NMRA had established
something more to scale but that doesn't change the reality of the
marketplace that we have to deal with today.
Yes. My point was that, in 2000, some including myself, were advocating a scale AND realistically looking coupler. As with track and wheel RP's, an additional RP for couplers and coupler pockets would not have supplanted but merely have been in addition to existing RP's and standards. The point is, it would have allowed the NMRA to be a leader instead of a follower.

More than likely, given that some current scale couplers will interface with the Kadee #5, scale couplers and pockets might have been more associated with resin cars and their purchasers...often more interested in scale modeling.

Mike Brock


Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Fred in Vt. <pennsy@...>
 

Pat,

There has been concern with assembly of the couplers in larger scales, however, the HO are listed as being sold assembled. Haven't used them, just seen them on one of our Chapter member's S scale cars. They are nice looking; how they work I can't say.

Fred Freitas

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Wider
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "wmcclark1980" <walterclark@e...> wrote:

> And, of course, if you don't want to compromise at all look at the
> Sergent Proto87 coupler http://user.icx.net/~sergent/index.htm . Wow!
>
I have several questions concerning these good-looking couplers:

1. Has anyone bought them in bulk and used them for an extended period of time on an
operating layout with grades in trains having at least 30 cars?
2. Do they operate reliably over these grades with the associated slack action, unavoidable
jolts, and with pusher locomotives?
3. Will they operate reliably between powered (MU'd) locomotives?
4. Do they stay assembled, that is, does the ACC'd bond remain sound?
5. Apparently, they have to be filed down to fit a scale draft gear box. Has anyone actually
done this?
6. They are sold in batches of 5 with no draft gear box. What the heck????
7. I will need hundreds of the darn things as I convert over. Will this company still be in
business 5 years from now? It has the appearance of a part time, cottage industry,
basement operation. If it folds in a couple of years, we're back to where we started. What's
the scoop here??? At least Kadee has been around for as long as I can remember.

If they don't work reliably or aren't consistently available for the foreseeable future, the
Kadee #78 couplers would be a "good" compromise or the Cal Scale #302 dummy couplers
might suffice. The latter look good but might be a bit oversize.

Pat Wider




SPONSORED LINKS Worldwide travel insurance Travel trailer insurance International travel insurance
Travel insurance usa Travel medical insurance Csa travel insurance


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "STMFC" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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


Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Walter M. Clark
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@c...> wrote:
Denny-
The greater market is for the Kadee #5 box. I would imagine that
the sales
of the Sargeant coupler in the gross box might support tooling a
scale draft
gear and coupler head, but the vast majority of sales are going to
be in the
Kadee #5 box..... many operators just want reliable couplers to put
into
their existing equipment and don't want to deal with hacking away the
existing draft gear to install scale sized boxes.
Yes, it would have been better if Kadee and the NMRA had established
something more to scale but that doesn't change the reality of the
marketplace that we have to deal with today.
Charlie Vlk
Charlie and Denny (and others),

I remember the scathing editorial in the first issue of RPC where they
blasted the HO coupler mfgrs. about the non-scale size and appearance
of the current crop of couplers. Yes, I'd like the Sergent coupler to
fit a more scale box (and I agree that 5 per package is silly) but, to
me, the appearance of the coupler, sticking out from the end of the
car is more noticeable than the box it is in.

Walter M. Clark
Time stopped in November 1941
Riverside, California


Re: Ingoldsby Dump Car

Justin Kahn
 

I just received the latest Gazette, and there is an ad by Cimarron (www.cimarronworks.com) for a "Crystal River Ingoldsby Dump Gon" in Sn3 and On30 (that won't help HO scale modelers much), which is supposed to be a urethane casting with brass detail parts.
I don't know if that is what he heard.
Jace Kahn, General Manager
Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.

A friend asked me the following question. I have no idea what he's talking about. Can anyone help?
Clark Propst

I vaguely remember seeing a kit from Detail Associates (or some such) for an Ingoldsby bottom dump hopper car. Do you recall any such a kit?
_________________________________________________________________
Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Charlie Vlk
 

MicroTrains is not a "defacto" standard..... to be a standard it has to be followed by more than one manufactuer. No one has attempted to produce sharp-edged deep flanges. Arnold Rapidos, bad as they were, were originals and not to the MicroTrains standard.
MicroTrains deep flanges are just plain out of standards as the NMRA RPs and standards for N pre-existed the current plastic wheels. They may be a force in the installed base to be considered and reckoned with, but not a "standard", defacto or not.
Charlie Vlk
Railroad Model Resources

----- Original Message -----
From: "cvsne" <mjmcguirk@cox.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 3:42 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size


There's an interesting correlation between this discussion and the
situation some N scalers see with Atlas code 55 track.

Micro-Trains, a defacto "standard" in N scale, has extra deep
flanges that will not operate on Atlas track (which is, in many ways,
the best looking N scale track on the market today) since the flanges
hit the spike heads. In this case, the Atlas track meets the NMRA's
standards, M-T wheels exceed them -- but the realities of the market
place have caused lots of a hard feelings and nasty comments on both
the "pizza cutter" and "low profile (defending code 55 track) sides
of the coin.

So we have an example of a major manufacturer, Atlas, deciding to
work within the standards even if they know many customers will
object to it.

As previously mentioned, the NMRA standards and RPs are designed to
permit the continued use of older technology. Coupler boxes are a
prime example. The Kadee #5 box doesn't need to be the size it is, it
is that size to accommodate an NMRA Standard or RP (I don't recall
which) that itself was intended to satisfy all comers. Realistically
we cannot expect all manufacturers to retool their cars to accept
scale width coupler pockets -- the limitations are economic, not
mechanical. So, we're stuck with a new breed of scale sized couplers
that are sitting inside an enormously oversized box.

I'm sure however, the NMRA is all over this -- actively engaging its
authority and influence over all manufacturers and
outlining "upgraded and updated" standards that reflect the state of
the hobby today. I mean, that's what the organization did when Al
Kalmbach, Bruce Walthers, and others founded it, right? Has something
changed????

Marty McGuirk (who never saw a single photo showing Al Kalmbach,
Gordy Odegard et al in a vest)









Yahoo! Groups Links








Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Charlie Vlk
 

The current NMRA Coupler Box was designed to accomodate the Devoe, Baker and Mantua couplers. These couplers were off the market by the time the "universal" box was published.
While I was at Kato I was very disappointed to find that fact out.....
The defacto standard of Kadee has completely flumuxed the NMRA into not establishing standards that accomodate it and something better.
It is past time for the NMRA to get the "official" Kadee dimensions or absent their cooperation, scientifically measure them fully and publish them as established (not recommmended, but marketplace) standards. It is
already too late with Accurail, LifeLike, McHenry/Bachmann, Sargeant, etc. independently making their own measurements to produce their couplers that are supposed to work with the Kadee.....but at least manufactuers tooling new cars and locomotives can get baseline dimensions necessary to make new draft gear boxes or coupler mounting areas so they will work with the Kadees.
Same comments in N for the MicroTrains and Accumate couplers.
Charlie Vlk
Railroad Model Resources


Re: Santa Fe Dry Ice Reefers

Walter M. Clark
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Gerard J Fitzgerald <gjf@m...> wrote:
There is a short description in the product review section of the
new issue of
"The Warbonnet" (Third Quarter-2005 [Vol 12, No. 2]) detailing
Sunshine's Sante
Fe dry ice reefers. This very short, but informative review, talks
about three
car designs and the hauling of carbon dioxide from a natural source
near Witt,
New Mexico to Spencer Chemical in Pittsburgh, Kansas. My questions
concern
whether these types of cars were unique to just the Sante Fe? If not
who else
transported carbon dioxide in this manner during the period between
say 1930
and 1950?<snip>

Gerard

Dr. Gerard J. Fitzgerald
Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Bioethics
University of Pennsylvania
Gerard,

Pacific Fruit Express also had cars specifically assigned to transport
dry ice. Beginning in 1937 they converted three R-30-9 cars (nos.
93028 - 93030) by removing floor racks and ice grates and adding
heavier insulation. These were used to serve a dry ice plant in
Wellington, Utah. In 1938 car 94519 was converted, as was 92736 in
1939. PFE returned these to general service as soon as enough R-30-15
cars, converted from R-30-12 (originally classed R-30-10, then
reclassed R-30-12-15, later classed R-30-15) were finished. Six were
rebuilt in May 1939, another 3 in August 1939 and another 3 in
November 1939, all at Roseville, CA, and a final 3 in June 1940 at Los
Angeles. 10 more were converted in April 1943 and another 5 in May 1944.

In June 1947 10 more were rebuilt from R-30-16 class cars, and a final
group of 12 in May 1955. Most of these two batches were classed as
R-40-15 instead of R-30-15, and the total rebuilt for dry ice service
was 52. Even though the first few were specifically built for the
plant in Wellington, Utah, most of the cars wound up serving a plant
in Mosquero, NM. These were phased out about 1960 when mechanical
refrigerator cars had sufficient capacity to enable dry ice shipments
to be made with regular refrigerator cars. All this information is
from pages 136 & 137 of the book "PFE, Pacific Fruit Express" (first
edition) (I know, Tony, I should spring for the second edition), by
Anthony W. Thompson, Robert J. Church and Bruce H. Jones. The correct
information is from the book and any errors are due to my mistakes is
summarizing the info here.

Walter M. Clark
Time stopped in November 1941
Riverside, California


Re: NMRA Standards, conventions, et al

Gatwood, Elden <Elden.Gatwood@...>
 

All;
To relate this topic to something that we can all relate to (?), I would
like to pass on the feedback we get at both the PRRT&HS annual and the
WPM, on what people would like to get at a presentation. Granted, it is
asking the choir, but all the same, these are the folks that will, or
won't, populate the NMRA when all the vesties have long passed over to
the big choo-choo train in the sky.

When asked, folks expressed the desire (and yes, I am paraphrasing for a
lot of them) for:

1) focused, accurate (not general, or "close enough") presentations on a
specific prototype or modeling subject; an example might be what WAS
done with the NMRA "Loads...." publication, versus what MIGHT have been
done, with inclusions of accurate, properly secured loads, well-done
models, featuring AAR loading diagrams and such
2) sharp, legible text and photos
3) well-rendered models, layouts, etc.
4) helpful, instructive information
5) less text, more close-up images
6) LOTS of detail on how, exactly, it was done (not the "here's some
pics; I built the car, then I weathered it using my secret recipe, now
it's done, aren't I cool?" approach; boy, I HATE that)
7) fewer of those boring presentations using old grainy pictures from
the turn of the century
8) NO slide shows
9) NO droning historical recounts (The Wreck of Old No. 7....")
10) NO cliquish closed groups
11) broad appeal, or at least, wide appeal of subject matter
12) more discussion on prototype operations, equipment usage, and actual
facts, rather than anecdotal nonsense
13) No presentations featuring shot after B&W shot of 3/4 roster views
of the same class of steam locomotive
14) Dual track presentations, so if missed, you get another chance
15) no presentations on yet another "XXX RR-themed" layout

I can't tell you how much these folks, and many of you, have helped mold
and evolve the current crop of meets, and also to influence the
direction of The Keystone Modeler, which is, after all, an attempt to
provide you all with what we hoped people could get some benefit from,
that wasn't being currently met.

I hope to see some of you at the WPM this Sunday!!!

Onward and upward,

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
cvsne
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 1:30 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: NMRA Standards, conventions, et al

Now that I don't have to go to an NMRA national convention for "work" I
find I have no interest in going and, frankly, don't miss them.

Naperville, and focused historical society conventions, have more than
made up for the NMRA nationals for me -- most telling was the number of
folks who ask "You going to Naperville?". I don't think anyone has
asked me if I'm going to an NMRA convention.

On the other hand I hope Martin resists notions of "adding more for
attendees" -- which may get dangerously close to "non-prototype
clinics, or free-lanced models -- even some of my own, on display.

<snip>Naperville will be over 400 this year. <snip>
That's big enough -- it doesn't need to get more crowded!

Funny thing, I don't really mind the better NMRA regionals -- I don't
go out of my way to attend them, but don't mind going. But spending the
better part of the price of a brass engine to attend a week long
convention and then go to a train show where it's a lot of excitement
over the newest diesel that makes noise, spits smoke etc . . .

no thanks, BTDT

Marty McGuirk









Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: NMRA Standards, conventions, et al

cvsne <mjmcguirk@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, timboconnor@c... wrote:
I agree with you Marty, but I sure do miss the Rosemont MRIA show
when it coincided with the Naperville show... that was a lot of fun
and
it seemed like -everyone- was there. And not just model rr vendors
either.

Tim O'Connor
Tim,


I miss years when MRIA and Naperville were on the same weekend as well -
- except when Andy stuck me with booth duty on Saturday<g>. Oh well,
rank does, as they say, hath its priviledges.

But no one should confuse MRIA with an NMRA event -- and no one looking
at the gender and build of the "models" in the NASCAR booths would ever
confuse it with an NMRA event . . .

Marty McGuirk


Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

My friend Marty McGuirk wrote: "The Kadee #5 box doesn't need to be the size it is, it is that size to accommodate an NMRA Standard or RP (I don't recall which) that itself was intended to satisfy all comers."

Actually Marty, there is no NMRA standard defining coupler boxes, and the Kadee no. 5 doesn't fit in the NMRA "universal" coupler pocket described in RP-22. I think the real story is that the Kadee no. 5 was designed to fit the common coupler boxes on Athearn plastic cars - a smart move on the part of the Edwards brothers - and the Kadee box was simply designed to hold that coupler and its centering spring.

If the NMRA had the slightest influence on any of this, it's that the Athearn coupler box was meant to hold an X2f-style horn-hook coupler. And while that coupler was designed by an NMRA committee, and quickly picked up by manufacturers anxious to have a compatible coupler, the organization itself declined to adopt the X2f design either as a standard or a recommended practice. But this is all really old, old news and of very little consequence today.

So long,

Andy


Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@mrmag.com
Phone: 262-796-8776, ex. 461
Fax: 262-796-1142
www.modelrailroader.com


Re: Westinghouse AB-8 automatic empty and load brake

D. Scott Chatfield
 

"Brian J Carlson asked:

Guys I was looking through Train Shed Cyclopedia 77 "Freight Car
Construction Details, Underframes and Brakes from the 1943 CBC."
and on page 947 there is a diagram of a Westinghouse AB-8 automatic
empty and load brake equipment. I do not think I have ever seen this
equipment on a car before. What roads and types of cars used this
arrangement? Are there pictures anywhere?

Brian,

Any freight car whose CAPY was more than three times its LT WT was "required" to have empty/load brakes, where a valve lowered the braking effort when the car was empty to help prevent flat wheels.

Note I said CAPY instead of LD LMT (load limit). This allowed roads like the N&W to stencil some of their hoppers with CAPYs well below the LD LMTs (110000 CAPY vs 137500 LD LMT comes to mind on some 55-ton twins whose LT WTs were in the 38000 range), and thus not have to install empty/load brake valve, which they considered a bother.

Scott C

134961 - 134980 of 181087