TheRailwire
General Discussion => Weathering, Detailing, and Scratchbuilding => Topic started by: GaryHinshaw on August 12, 2010, 11:47:45 AM
-
As I noted in Weekend Update, ever since Craig@BLMA plied us with his new trucks, I've been struggling to come up with a body-mount coupling scheme that is worth the trouble and that plays well with (near) prototypical ride height. This thread is/will be a quasi-random collection of notes on schemes I've been trying. I don't have anything I'm really happy with yet, but I thought I would throw some ideas out in the hopes that it might lead to something better. Feedback and suggestions encouraged.
Thanks,
Gary
-
Thanks Gary! This will be very helpful for those of us who have struggled with this.
Ed
-
MT 2004 does not work ?
victor
-
I won't go into body-mounting MT's since there is plenty of excellent literature on that. In any case, I have been looking for alternatives to MT to avoid the slinky effect, so I started to look more at Accumates and McHenrys. Since McHenrys don't come with pockets, one has to make something up for body-mounting. I was intrigued by Bryan Bussey's idea of using rectangular brass tubing to make coupler pockets and came up with a minor mod that I thought I would share. The basic parts are shown here:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-LWWbmEJVzjE/TGQZ9r2is0I/AAAAAAAADas/8YmsjfRk_XM/s800/DSCN9882.jpg)
The pocket is 3/32 x 3/16 brass tubing. The Accumate is top left, the McHenry (with a 1-72 screw in the shank hole) is top right. The mod I made is to use a 1-72 x 3/32 set screw (headless) in place of Bryan's 00-90 screw + 1/16 tubing combo. Here is a shot of the set screw in place w/o the coupler (sorry about the Sasquatch focus):
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-N5N5M-wGIws/TGQZ9ugtO6I/AAAAAAAADas/vcz_T3iZFZA/s800/DSCN9879.jpg)
To assemble, just start the screw, add an MT truck washer on the bottom (sliced a bit to fit), insert the shank, then set the screw. The result, especially with the McHenry, is an extremely robust assembly:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Jep4nlzcfbc/TGQZ-eWt4RI/AAAAAAAADas/KcFgDO4BinI/s400/DSCN9884.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-YL1ZiuAhpmU/TGQZ-jpkSbI/AAAAAAAADas/xe0xb2b3RAI/s400/DSCN9888.jpg)
It works equally well with the Accumates: (no more exploding Accumates with this)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7p1YEr9bvtk/TGQZ-giYkMI/AAAAAAAADas/kY5mTWkRwkY/s400/DSCN9889.jpg)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-KFxSph5f7cw/TGQe0XTa8tI/AAAAAAAADas/GLzjN9kgSqo/s400/DSCN9890.jpg)
In this example, the set screw is 1/8" back from the pocket face. It should probably be back a bit further with the Accumate.
The advantages of this approach (all true of Bryan's version) are: extreme strength; customizable pocket length (e.g., extended draft gear), and relatively low cost. The additional advantage of my mod is a slight simplification: no need for the interior piece of tube, and no need to trim the set screw. The disadvantages are: the rectangular tubing is not trivial to work with (unless you have the right tools); the Accumates & McHenrys are really big; these pockets wont work with MT's because there is no easy way to install the centering spring.
I'm still open to this approach, but the coupler size puts me off.
-
I have been able to order bulk Micro Train pockets both 1025s & 1027s (in zip lock bag of 50) via my LHS who adds them to their monthly Micro Train order for about $25 CDN. However I do wish that Micro Trains would sell x10 pairs of 1025s & 1027s like they do the 1015s. --Brian
-
As I noted in the Z scale forum, I was intrigued by the new Full Throttle Z scale couplers. Functionally, these are basically smaller versions of the McHenry: similar shank design, and 2-part knuckle, except that the knuckle spring is a plastic leaf spring inside the pocket. See DKS's extensive review for more info:
http://jamesriverbranch.net/clinic_2.htm (http://jamesriverbranch.net/clinic_2.htm)
From my perspective, this is close to the perfect design, and they're close to the perfect size for N scale. But (there's always a but) they are only available mounted on Bowser trucks and they're expensive: $5-6 a pair depending on quantity. So this is only a test!
When I ordered them, I was expecting to remove the coupler from the pocket and fabricate a new one from brass (or something). It turns out they are too small to work in the tubing above, and there is no convenient next size down that I can find, so I had to look elsewhere. It took me about 5 min. to realize that I should keep the pocket, and the truck bolster hole, which gives me something like this, after slicing off the sideframes:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZCzGIBEY8sg/TGQhDqbydxI/AAAAAAAADas/-7Zyv2JjFWA/s400/DSCN9904.jpg)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-IUcvzmGQthM/TGQhD8E061I/AAAAAAAADas/fxJswGjHU4w/s400/DSCN9905.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8VuvoLuz9Z8/TGQhD9aLMcI/AAAAAAAADas/gD82vilUEIA/s400/DSCN9902.jpg)
Here's a size comparison to the McHenry:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Fkh8GSR3SnE/TGQhC_Khn_I/AAAAAAAADas/Jwfdar0WNh0/s400/DSCN9906.jpg)
The top photo shows the pocket 'right-side-up', but I decided that it would be more convenient to have the pocket flipped over, so I inverted the coupler in the box. Next up is a test on an Athearn tank car.
-
MT 2004 does not work ?
victor
I can't speak for Gary, but I have had problems with existing boxes like the MT 2004 (or its attachment screw) fouling the axles of the adjacent wheelset. There is a need for a much lower profile coupler box for cars with proper ride height, as well as a shorter box for installations on, say, an F-unit.
DFF
-
The Athearn ethanol and LPG tankers provide a good challenge for ride height and body mounting. Because of the screw-on bolster design, the only practical way to lower ride height is to use trucks with lower bolster cross members (e.g. BLMA). Fortunately, these fit perfectly and look great. However, the end platform is then slightly lower than the MT std. height, so either an underslung coupler, like the MT 2004, or something slimmer, like the FT Z scale, is needed.
Here is how I mounted the FT coupler:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-f5C6EPrGhNE/TGQpI0Sj87I/AAAAAAAADas/lqrKa8Alofc/s800/DSCN9929.jpg)
The screw is a 1-72 x 1/8 mounted directly into the tank body (rather than the more flimsly end platform). The resulting assembly is quite sturdy. (These FT couplers are quite sturdy themselves.)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cro4pQjYXq8/TGQpJCUEQ5I/AAAAAAAADas/WBVCZ2GeNGI/s800/DSCN9930.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RRfnasqUn9I/TGQpJegZcOI/AAAAAAAADas/3EF9_1QZh8M/s800/DSCN9937.jpg)
An overall shot:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-YcJX3eetpUI/TGQpJXKu2SI/AAAAAAAADas/OwCqE-UHV_E/s800/DSCN9934.jpg)
-
I agree with Dave's comment about 2004s.
-
One more post, for now. Here is a comparison of a few options:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-e_MCFuUbQUs/TGQtgHR29dI/AAAAAAAADas/vEerKvclcPU/s800/DSCN9926.jpg)
Top is truck-mounted MT 1035 (not bad-looking), middle is FT, bottom is the stock, truck-mounted Accumate. Here is a shot comparing the FT coupler height (right) to the stock MT:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DJlKYM0Djk0/TGQtgbdFCGI/AAAAAAAADas/dt4j2Ls9X-k/s800/DSCN9920.jpg)
[The MT 70T trucks are undersize for this car and tend to accentuate the high ride height.] The FT's will mate fine with the MTs:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-E-tWsakYxNc/TGQthJbK9iI/AAAAAAAADas/mM-ZMAfFzD0/s800/DSCN9944.jpg)
...and with themselves, of course:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ISX7vOFDbsA/TGQthFzDkoI/AAAAAAAADas/xEIZIXNbZD0/s800/DSCN9949.jpg)
So, I'm very happy with everything about these couplers except their price/availability. I think it would be awesome if these were available as separate couplers with pockets. Even better would be a pocket with a more flexible mounting system: something like 1) a hole through the pocket for typical box-car type mounts (though see DKS's clever approach in his review page), and 2) a ring, slot, or prongs behind the pocket that is level with the top of the pocket for other types of mounting (like tank cars & hoppers). If the rear prongs were not needed, they could easily be sliced off. As it is, I'm not falling hook, line, and sinker for the FTs, but it's so close to being an ideal choice...
Comments, alternatives, improvements, etc. welcome.
-gfh
-
... The advantages of this approach (all true of Bryan's version) are: extreme strength; customizable pocket length (e.g., extended draft gear), and relatively low cost. The additional advantage of my mod is a slight simplification: no need for the interior piece of tube, and no need to trim the set screw. The disadvantages are: the rectangular tubing is not trivial to work with (unless you have the right tools); the Accumates & McHenrys are really big; these pockets wont work with MT's because there is no easy way to install the centering spring.
Looks great Gary! One other update - the method can be adapted to MTL couplers by cutting out quarter circle wedges around the screw hole to clear the coupler centering pins.
The FT couplers look intriguing. They might be worth exploring further. Do they come with MTL-compatible trip pins?
-
Awesome work Gary!
-
Very cool thread ...
the Accumates & McHenrys are really big; these pockets wont work with MT's because there is no easy way to install the centering spring.
Yeah, I kinda sorta can't get past the length of the McHenry. I can live with the Accumates as they seem smaller to my eye.
The brass rectangular tubing concept intrigues me - I like it!
Mark
-
Nice work Gary! Thanks for posting this. I have a few questions:
- The FT looks great with the Athearn tanker! What is the longest car and smallest radius curve that you have tested the FT on?
- With the set screw (a) where did you get them from, and (b) do you ever have any issue with them loosening up over time? Maybe a small bit of thread locker could help with that.
- With the rectangular tubing, what's a good way to attach this to the car body? Can it just be epoxied on in some cases? Also, do you ever see any wheel clearance issues with this? (Edit: seems possible to grind away portions of the brass tubing if they have any issues with the wheels/axles.)
Craig -- it's good to see that you are monitoring this ;)
Ed
-
Great work, Gary. I'm particularly excited that you found a very simple mounting approach (simple is always better). Congrats!
I am sorry I couldn't persuade Will to offer them separately. However, you've already shown how tricky this could be. If he had provided couplers with just pockets, you would not have had the chance to mount them the way you did, since the pockets probably would not have included the bolster. So, it worked out well that you did the beta testing; it might help lead the way to new products. Perhaps someday these will be offered separately, but I could not say when the someday might be.
-
Gary, thanks for starting a thread on this. Probably will get my vote for post of the year. ;-)
-
- With the rectangular tubing, what's a good way to attach this to the car body? Can it just be epoxied on in some cases? Also, do you ever see any wheel clearance issues with this? (Edit: seems possible to grind away portions of the brass tubing if they have any issues with the wheels/axles.)
You make the tubing long enough to drill another hole in the back to mount it to the underfloor with standard 00-90 screws. The brass tubing is thinner in height than all current coupler boxes, so the axle clearance isn't an issue.
-
SO, now that we have afix, who's got the best deal on Accumates or FT's at bulk prices? And where are Craig's bulk truck packs???????
-
Looks great Gary! One other update - the method can be adapted to MTL couplers by cutting out quarter circle wedges around the screw hole to clear the coupler centering pins.
The FT couplers look intriguing. They might be worth exploring further. Do they come with MTL-compatible trip pins?
Thanks Bryan. I'd be curious what tools you use to work with this tubing (especially to make an MT-compatible cutout like you suggest). It seems like a mini-chop saw and drill press would be invaluable for bulk production.
The FT couplers were designed with auto-uncoupling in mind but, as I understand it, the knuckle spring was too stiff to allow this to work properly, so the trip pins were clipped off for this run of couplers (but there is a trip pin in there, which is used to secure and pivot the knuckle).
-gfh
-
Awesome work Gary!
Thanks Craig. As you can see, the field is still open; but not WIDE open. ;)
-
The FT coupler almost looks too small for a tank car, as the prototypes would have taller shelf couplers. ;)
Good info on the brass tubing though, will be good for extended draft gear on a variety of models.
-
Nice work Gary! Thanks for posting this. I have a few questions:
- The FT looks great with the Athearn tanker! What is the longest car and smallest radius curve that you have tested the FT on?
- With the set screw (a) where did you get them from, and (b) do you ever have any issue with them loosening up over time? Maybe a small bit of thread locker could help with that.
- With the rectangular tubing, what's a good way to attach this to the car body? Can it just be epoxied on in some cases? Also, do you ever see any wheel clearance issues with this? (Edit: seems possible to grind away portions of the brass tubing if they have any issues with the wheels/axles.)
Ed
Thanks Ed. I hunted around the 'net for set screws and ended up with these:
http://www.fastener-express.com/1-72-x-332-set-screw-cup-point-alloy-qty-20.aspx (http://www.fastener-express.com/1-72-x-332-set-screw-cup-point-alloy-qty-20.aspx)
This outfit was very good and they have a lot of related parts to choose from too. My experience is that once the point is hitting the roof of the pocket, there is enough tension on the threads that they stay in fine. Thread locker would certainly be worth trying, but probably not necessary. Be sure to get a really small Allen wrench too!
I haven't tried many cases of attaching the tube to cars yet... ::), so I cede to Bryan's advice there. I also have not tested the FT couplers too much in the field yet, so this is definitely still beta.
-gfh
-
Great work, Gary. I'm particularly excited that you found a very simple mounting approach (simple is always better). Congrats!
I am sorry I couldn't persuade Will to offer them separately. However, you've already shown how tricky this could be. If he had provided couplers with just pockets, you would not have had the chance to mount them the way you did, since the pockets probably would not have included the bolster. So, it worked out well that you did the beta testing; it might help lead the way to new products. Perhaps someday these will be offered separately, but I could not say when the someday might be.
David, I appreciate your help over on the Z thread. It's only a matter of time before something like this appears ready for N scale prime time.
This actually might be a case where an etched pocket wrapper makes sense (one with little loops to hold the air hose and a little hook to hold the cut lever). But a set of prongs behind the pocket would be the simplest & most robust mounting point, I think...
The FT coupler almost looks too small for a tank car, as the prototypes would have taller shelf couplers. ;)
Good info on the brass tubing though, will be good for extended draft gear on a variety of models.
I agree on the shelf couplers!! Credit Bryan for the tubing (Sep/Oct '07 NSR, I think it was).
-gfh
-
Great info/work as always.
-
As I noted to Gary in weekend update, my problem has not been overhead axle clearence, it has been the width of the coupler box on MT short shank 1015 couplers. I really want to use these trucks on my MT 3-bay Ortner hoppers (which ride very high and are an FEC necessity) but the wheels collide with the coupler box on even a large radius turn (there is little room for any sort of turn before contact by the inside the wheel with the coupler box), it appears that the more narrow the coupler box is, the more extreme the turn it will handle (of course).
How does the brass tube or Z scale Bowser coupler compare in width to the MT?
and this is a GREAT topic!!
-
Jan, I was going to try looking at the Ortner tonight. What min. radius are you going for with these?
-gfh
-
... I'd be curious what tools you use to work with this tubing (especially to make an MT-compatible cutout like you suggest). It seems like a mini-chop saw and drill press would be invaluable for bulk production.
The FT couplers were designed with auto-uncoupling in mind but, as I understand it, the knuckle spring was too stiff to allow this to work properly, so the trip pins were clipped off for this run of couplers (but there is a trip pin in there, which is used to secure and pivot the knuckle).
I haven't tried it yet, but a small milling bit in a Dremel should do it. MTL simply cuts out that square quadrant. I copied the MTL design for the G26 coupler pocket, but on the XIH boxcar I simply used a larger diameter quarter-circle and it works fine. You just need clearance for the pin and it doesn't have to be perfectly shaped, as long as it stops at 180 and 270 degrees.
I love your modified design of the brass coupler pocket. I still have a number of cushioned underframe cars to modify, and your version is easier and better than mine. Plus, you don't have a visible screw head on the bottom face.
By the way, regarding the FT coupler, I would contact the manufacturer and see if they will sell you the coupler parts in bulk. The worst that can happen is that they say no, which leaves you no worse off than you are now. I have a feeling that if you explain how you're using the parts, they will be receptive.
-
SO, now that we have afix, who's got the best deal on Accumates or FT's at bulk prices? And where are Craig's bulk truck packs???????
FWIW, I have an overabundance of Accu-Mates. Originally the G26 was going to have them in order to help keep the cost down. But I mis-measured the diameter of the pivot post when submitting the last tooling modifications, and the Accu-Mate pivot hole is slightly less in diameter than the MTL 1015 pivot hole. Since it was my mistake, it was cheaper to buy a few thousand 1015s rather than fix the pivot post diameter. But in hindsight using the 1015 was a better outcome.
-
The full throttle couplers look awesome. But I'm a little reluctant to spend $5 on couplers, $2-3 on metal wheels on a car that I already converted to MTL and MTL low profile wheels.
-
Bryan, our Railwire liaison to Full Throttle, David K. Smith, reports that Will is unable to sell couplers separately at this time:
http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,21926.msg206220.html#msg206220 (http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,21926.msg206220.html#msg206220)
I am mostly posting the FT part of this thread to report on my tests to date and to suggest what my 'dream coupler' might look like, in case any manufacturer is taking notes. :)
I certainly agree with Daniel that $5-6 a pop is too much for couplers. But that's the price of the trucks (with nice metal wheels) plus couplers. If there were a way for Will & Bowser to market the couplers separately, they would definitely be cheaper, and there would be a whole new market: N scale.
Cheers,
Gary
-
Hi Gary,
The minimum radius the Ortners run on (at the FEC one-trk group) is 18"
I am going to try and post some pictures of what is happening with them this weekend,
have a good one!
Jan
-
FWIW, I have an overabundance of Accu-Mates.
Does that mean you are willing to sell them in bulk?
-
FWIW, I have an overabundance of Accu-Mates.
Does that mean you are willing to sell them in bulk?
DITTO!
-
Bryan, our Railwire liaison to Full Throttle, David K. Smith, reports that Will is unable to sell couplers separately at this time:
http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,21926.msg206220.html#msg206220 (http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,21926.msg206220.html#msg206220)
I am mostly posting the FT part of this thread to report on my tests to date and to suggest what my 'dream coupler' might look like, in case any manufacturer is taking notes. :)
I certainly agree with Daniel that $5-6 a pop is too much for couplers. But that's the price of the trucks (with nice metal wheels) plus couplers. If there were a way for Will & Bowser to market the couplers separately, they would definitely be cheaper, and there would be a whole new market: N scale.
Cheers,
Gary
Ya know...if there are Z Scale folks interested in the trucks/wheelsets you might be able to amortize some of the cost by selling the remaining unmolested parts.
The S.
-
Has anyone tried the AZL coupler yet? How does it stack up next to the full throttle one? I suspect the FT mold includes both the truck and coupler on the same sprue, making sales of the coupler itself unlikely.
Is it pattented? Can someone copy the design? BLMA/Craig.... golden opportunity here!
-
FWIW, I have an overabundance of Accu-Mates.
Does that mean you are willing to sell them in bulk?
DITTO!
Yes, at a good price too. They are just sitting here collecting dust.
-
Here are some shots of the BLMA trucks on MT 3-bay ortner hopper:
1st a body height comparison between the BLMA (left) and MT trucks with FVM wheels (I believe those are 33"):
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_9TdoaaTxNLA/TGa4inD0H8I/AAAAAAAADEQ/mZgf-wUnDO8/s800/P1040130.JPG)
looking at the underside:
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_9TdoaaTxNLA/TGa4qUYtTMI/AAAAAAAADEU/tMoGLwxg5I4/s800/P1040132.JPG)
I removed the MT coupler, but this is actually all the radius I could get on that right side wheel before the wheel hit the coupler box based on the outline of the coupler I had drawn on the body:
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_9TdoaaTxNLA/TGa4yCVzOiI/AAAAAAAADEY/WHB4MqwGDRQ/s800/P1040133.JPG)
thats my report, any ideas?
my best,
Jan
-
Has anyone tried the AZL coupler yet? How does it stack up next to the full throttle one? I suspect the FT mold includes both the truck and coupler on the same sprue, making sales of the coupler itself unlikely.
I ordered a set just to satisfy my curiosity. I'll report back when I get them. Like the FT, they only come with trucks, but they are cheaper.
Jan, my Ortner is on the bench today, but I haven't had a chance to do too much with it. FYI, the FT coupler box is 11/64" wide, compared to 15/64" for a truck-mounted MT box.
Cheers,
Gary
P.S. Conrail? I thought you were building an FEC fleet. Oh, BTW, the end lettering on my SP Ortner says 36" wheels.
-
Nice, I've been looking to start body mounting my cars. what size bit are you using for the set screw hole?
-
It's a 1-72 set screw, so I used a #53 drill, then tapped the threads.
Kadee has a set #247 (http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/page247.htm) that includes a 1-72 tap, a #53 tap drill and #48 clearance drill. I had to cut about an 1/8" off the end of the tapered tap to get the threads deep enough before the tip of the tap hit the roof of the tubing. It was easy to cut the tip with a Dremel diamond cutoff wheel.
-gfh
-
Jan, here is a quick look at the way I'm going with my Ortner hopper. First, here is a proto shot for ride height reference:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1619627 (http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1619627)
Then the shot I posted to WU, showing before & after:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zkZbIk9Vce0/TGi9ceT_z5I/AAAAAAAADas/H8xggd8pla8/s800/DSCN9964.jpg)
I went with the 100T trucks based on the proto photo and the 36' wheel stencil. Here is a shot of the under-frame carnage that was required (not too bad really):
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JOl2mtjpQUk/TGjKcmcEuPI/AAAAAAAADas/UWB82yquY54/s800/DSCN9967.jpg)
I ended up filing about 3 scale inches off the bolster pad; grinding the cross-members as shown until the wheels cleared (be careful not to encroach on the end-rail mounting holes); and I filed about 6 scale inches off the center sill to get the coupler at the right height (this is the trickiest part). Here is an end shot of the car sitting on a 19" radius curve:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-HYageTEKQuY/TGjKcrult8I/AAAAAAAADas/aHefOnDPTbs/s800/DSCN9975.jpg)
There is plenty of clearance between the wheels and coupler pocket, so you should have no trouble down to quite a bit less than 18".
HTH,
Gary
-
Assuming the BLMA trucks are the right width, is the MTL car really that wide? In the proto photo the sides of the car look to be almost in line with the sideframe faces/journals or just a hair inside.
-
Gary,
Thanks! You've showed me the way once again!! Nice work and a huge improvement!
my best,
Jan
-
this is cool .. I can finally redo my small fleet .. can you reuse the MT trucks with 36" wheels?
-
John, I think this would work with MT trucks & 36" wheels (if that is what you were asking). But you would have to file the bolster pad down farther to get the same amount of lowering you'd get using BLMA trucks, because the BLMA trucks have the lowered cross member. Also, if you stick with MT truck-mount couplers, you'll have to file down the end sill even more, while being careful not to file all the way through (!) or to nick the holes where the end-rails mount. I think it should work though.
Sokramiketes, I can certifiably attest that the MTL car is that wide. ;) But I see what you mean about the proto photo. Here is a shot of a CR car from a better angle, which shows a lot more overhang.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1554961 (http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1554961)
The model seems reasonably consistent with that.
Jan, I want to see a reshoot of this photo when you're done:
http://picasaweb.google.com/CPJsoflo/FloridaEastCoastOneTrakLayout#5271164811793983426 (http://picasaweb.google.com/CPJsoflo/FloridaEastCoastOneTrakLayout#5271164811793983426)
:)
-
A little more progress on this topic. I received a set of American Z Lines trucks/couplers to try out, and here's what I decided to do with the first set. [Unfortunately, like the Full Throttle (FT) couplers, these are only available with trucks, but they are less expensive than FT.] Here's what one looks like when the truck is cut off and the assembly is flipped over, like I did with the FT couplers above:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-K9cbodnPGhE/THqux9TidMI/AAAAAAAADas/9gdP_721rPw/s400/DSCN9992.jpg)
The shape of the coupler is not nearly as graceful as the FT, but it's not hideous. The whole assembly is substantially stiffer than the FT, and also somewhat longer owing to the different centering spring design. Another difference is that the bolster ring is at the same level as the top (formerly bottom) of the coupler pocket, which makes it somewhat easier to work with. This seemed like a good candidate for cars with extended coupler pockets, so I pulled out a Red Caboose beer boxcar and tried the simplest thing possible, just drill and tap a 1-72 hole and screw it in the floor:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-tUs8jXiDzTs/THqux0L4iuI/AAAAAAAADas/bfWGrw_Hmjo/s400/DSCN9996.jpg)
To my delight, this gave a perfect coupler height when paired with the BLMA 100T trucks, so this is about as easy as it gets. Here are a few side views:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-tTaBxro6-Kw/THquyAxKhyI/AAAAAAAADas/cJ5e2YKo_Ew/s800/DSCN9997.jpg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-YOzDrNgUg6Y/THquyTXq_EI/AAAAAAAADas/17_sOXQdzRM/s800/DSCN0001.jpg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-URFcuwVAAEQ/THquyUvW52I/AAAAAAAADas/G3C619eddGM/s800/DSCN0009.jpg)
In the last shot, you can see how much lower the car rides on the BLMA trucks than the stock MT trucks; in particular, there is no gap between the side frames and the skirting. There is a slightly annoying tendency for the AZL coupler pockets to angle up from the floor, but this actually helps achieve the proper coupler height and saves me from having to mill out the floor a bit, so I'm sticking with it.
Now that I have made the plunge, I needed to come up with a robust way to add air hoses and cut levers to these cars. The BLMA cut levers come with a nice etched bracket for attaching the handle end of the lever, but nothing for attaching to the coupler (pocket). Same with the air hoses; so I tried making some attachment points using HO lift rings (Detail Associates #1101), and this turned out really well (i.e. decent looking and sturdy). I drilled one #76 hole on the side of the box, and one in the middle of the bottom (see 2nd picture), and I used ACC to attach them. I glued the air hose into the side ring with ACC and liquid plastic cement (the lift rings I'm using are plastic). For the cut lever, I glued the handle end to the bracket, but I just inserted the other end into the bottom lift ring without glue. This way I can still remove the coupler if it needs servicing.
Now, if you look from the right angle, you can almost imagine the air hoses are connected:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-_cbLS6rYVis/THqvw8X02uI/AAAAAAAADas/qxQaUzNs4kM/s800/DSCN0039.jpg)
Unfortunately, they really miss by a mile:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-e71AW30lgrA/THqvwhPJkRI/AAAAAAAADas/dGS5TSzkQuU/s800/DSCN0038.jpg)
though you could probably bend them a bit more to make it closer :). In the last two shots, the Atlas tanker has FT couplers that I tried mounting in a new way. I'll post some notes on that when I get some better pictures taken.
Cheers,
Gary
-
Here's another approach to mounting the Full Throttle couplers that seems pretty versatile and reliable. It's a variant on a scheme that David K. Smith showed in another thread: namely, attach the roof of the coupler box directly to the floor of the car. DKS used a countersunk flathead screw to good effect:
http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,21926.msg206178.html#msg206178 (http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,21926.msg206178.html#msg206178)
I tried a variant that I thought would be a little easier for cars like the Ortner hopper where the coupler is mounted to a thin end platform: I used a short piece of .040 styrene rod as a pin:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-p841imEAbGM/THrJJ7DDp5I/AAAAAAAADas/iif62INGqak/s800/DSCN0050.jpg)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Y7uStaFhwXc/THrJJyzKfZI/AAAAAAAADas/G0NzbqBNESw/s800/DSCN0053.jpg)
A #60 drill bit gives a good press-fit hole, and it's easy to trim both ends of the rod to the necessary length. I attached the roof with Goo for a semi-permanent bond. These FT couplers look right at home on the Ortner:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-o_mZN10OWuE/THrJKDcqedI/AAAAAAAADas/J0NuxnCqj0s/s800/DSCN0066.jpg)
and in combination with the BLMA trucks, the overall effect is much more believable:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-W4U5DRA0QfU/THrJKMGipUI/AAAAAAAADas/0Ma8dZJDImI/s800/DSCN0063.jpg)
[Still needs corner handrails and a trip to the weathering center though.] I used the same method on the Atlas 17K tank car:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-g9Ui86JGJnU/THrJyu14v3I/AAAAAAAADas/cjLvD-oxEFo/s800/DSCN0047.jpg)
Here you can see where the styrene rod is trimmed flush with the end platform (not very neatly...). You can probably also make out the lift ring holding the air hose in place. Some painting & weathering still to come.
-gfh
-
For mounting the air hoses, try drilling a hole that fits the hose pin in the end of some .040" square rod and mount the rod. It's worked well for me.
-
This is the best coupler thread ever!
Thanks for sharing your work, its giving me a few things to think about and try.
-
Good tip chessiefan, I'll give that a try too.
Thanks for the feedback DrifterNL [blush]. Unfortunately, cost is still a big issue with these couplers since they're only available with trucks. I really think something like the Full Throttle design with a more universal style coupler box (with attachment points for hose & cut levers) is just the ticket for N.
-gfh
-
You're really doing some marvelous, ground-breaking work, Gary. My hats off to you for thinking of leaving the bolster intact for mounting. Brilliant move.
-
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_t_cm3oU0yFU/THrJKDcqedI/AAAAAAAACw4/4KMJ__PU824/s800/DSCN0066.jpg)
Some great work there Gary. I think you should have a crack a replacing the molded on grabs on the ends of these cars too. There's not a lot of above deck details on these cars and I think some free standing grabs would really make these cars pop!
I did some body mounting work on the weekend too - photos later of some work on an RC autorack and the Trainworks quad hopper.
-
Ok, I've got a bunch of Trainworx 100T 4 bay open hoppers to body mount, thankfully these cars come with a body mount tab built into the underframe with a pre-drilled hole. I'm still deciding on on a "standard" for the fleet, but he's Sunday's experiment with a MTL 1015, MTL Barber Rolling Bearing truck, FVM 36" wheels:
(http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll3/Costellis/Models%202010/CTRN01.jpg)
(http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll3/Costellis/Models%202010/CTRN02.jpg)
I'm pretty happy with the end result and ride height looks good too. There wasn't enough clearance for the BLMA truck to swing - the offset bolster on the MTL truck helps here. The pad and hole seems perfect for the MTL Z scale coupler if you wanted to take that route....
-
That looks great James. Does that mount point put the coupler at the correct height? Getting that right is the biggest down side of body-mounting in my book. Just out of curiosity, where does the BLMA truck snag? Against the hopper chute? (Believe it or not, the Ortner in the above post is the only open hopper in my entire fleet.) I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with the auto-racks; I've never been a big fan of the MT 1019s.
Point well taken about the Ortner hand grabs, but it is a slippery slope my friend. On the other hand, I'm probably headed down that slope already, so why stop now? ;)
-gfh
P.S. Thank you David. [blush2]
-
Clearly we need rubber air hoses with small magnets in the end so they will hook together and look right but easily pull apart.
Craig, oh Craig! ;D
-
Great idea Leo!! (Getting the polarity to match would be a trick though...)
This whole thread is really just a thinly-veiled wish list for Craig's development team. If Craig hooked up with "Full Throttle" Will, they could take the world by storm. At least our corner of the world. ;)
-gfh
-
That looks great James. Does that mount point put the coupler at the correct height? Getting that right is the biggest down side of body-mounting in my book. Just out of curiosity, where does the BLMA truck snag? Against the hopper chute? (Believe it or not, the Ortner in the above post is the only open hopper in my entire fleet.) I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with the auto-racks; I've never been a big fan of the MT 1019s.
Thanks Gary. The pad does put the coupler at the correct height for this set up - but you will obviously have a small amount of variability based on what truck and wheel size option you use. My process was to find a truck and wheel set that worked and looked acceptable (ride height) and then lined it up against the MTL coupler height gauge.... and chose the coupler type from there. The 1015s and 1025s have the same mounting height, but the 1025 have a longer coupler pocket and did not fit on the Trainworx pad. I did have to use a countersunk 00-90 screw on the 1015 to clear the axle on the FVM wheel.
The BLMA truck snagged against the hopper chute yes.
On the RC autorack I used a 2003 (?? the short-shank underslung one anyway) but have yet to test it operationally. I did take a quick photo, but will need to take a couple more (ie, you don't need to see my crooked decal work).
J.
PS - you are well down that slope....
-
On the RC autorack I used a 2003 (?? the short-shank underslung one anyway) but have yet to test it operationally. I did take a quick photo, but will need to take a couple more (ie, you don't need to see my crooked decal work).
Don't know about the 2003 ... but I do know that the 2004 body-mounted after the MTL auto rack is lowered will put the knuckle at the correct height.
-
So just by putting the BLMA trucks on the Beer car and the orntner car will lower the car correctly? I would love not to have to file bolsters!!! I got a few Chessie orntners to lower and 3 or so Red Caboose Beer cars. This post came at just the right time I just had my Chessie ornters out wondering just how I would proceed at lowering them!
-
Unittratin, the RC beer cars don't need to be filed, just plug & play. But the Ortner pad needs to be filed, and some material needed to be carved out to clear the wheels. Here's the link to an earlier post with some pictures:
http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,21980.msg207130.html#msg207130 (http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,21980.msg207130.html#msg207130)
It's pretty straightforward and definitely worth it because they ride way too high out of the box.
-Gary
-
Great idea Leo!! (Getting the polarity to match would be a trick though...)
two micromini-magnets, or a magnet with 2 poles. Have one pole farthest away from the car it's mounted to, and the other closer.
Something like this: car| N/S | car
car| S/N | car
The issue is where to find said tiny magnets. The hose itself could be magnetized with the micromini magnet, it might mess around with the trip pins (if one uses them) or cause the hoses to connect towards the base.
-
Great idea Leo!! (Getting the polarity to match would be a trick though...)
This whole thread is really just a thinly-veiled wish list for Craig's development team. If Craig hooked up with "Full Throttle" Will, they could take the world by storm. At least our corner of the world. ;)
And I'm reading and watching... ;) Great work everyone! Glad we are finally seeing little improvements in N Scale that so many have been waiting for...
Our next freight car announcement (coming in a few weeks) will have everything situated properly - ride height, trucks (a new style!), body-mounted couplers, etc. Can't wait!
-
So, Craig, when do we get working airlines and air brakes, which I'm sure will require new BLMA super-detailed trucks? I guess you'll also need a retrofit air compressor to install in locomotives, along with DCC control, of course.
:D
One day, maybe one day....
-
There wasn't enough clearance for the BLMA truck to swing - the offset bolster on the MTL truck helps here.
That offset bolster is the problem... in order to put the centerline of the MT 1015 in line with the last side stake (which is where the bolster is on the proto), the model's bolster has to be moved... which precludes using a correct 100T truck on it.
-
This is a really neat thread and I hope that you guys are successful in attaining the full throttle coupler at a reasonable price if that is indeed the best way to go.
Regarding airhoses, I think it was at about the same time that I read the Dave Davis Great Model Railroads article and the Jim Smith Wright article from one of the UK mags. There is a PDF of the UK article floating around on one of the yahoo freight car groups, though I am not sure which one. Both articles used fridge magnet flecks. I couldn't find the bungee cord they were using in a size small enough for N and turned to thread soaked in PVA glue (you can get the glue at art supply stores) with the magnet flecks attached to the end. They do work ie the PVA coated string was flexible enough to join the two hoses together but they DO need a solid mount and that can depend a lot on the type of draft gear you are trying to use. When I asked around on one of the other N scale lists I was told that Mr. Davis had presented some equipment with the magnetic hoses at Naperville some time ago. I was really hoping that he would be there so I could pick his brain on the subject but unfortunately I didn't get to run into him.
Andrew Hutchinson
-
That offset bolster is the problem... in order to put the centerline of the MT 1015 in line with the last side stake (which is where the bolster is on the proto), the model's bolster has to be moved... which precludes using a correct 100T truck on it.
I know what you are saying.... but moving the bolster on a fleet of coal hoppers in order to use a correct truck isn't realistic nor is it a good use of my time, especially when we don't have a "correct" (ie, scale) body mount coupler to go on it. So yes, the design of the Trainworx hopper is the "problem" (more so than the MTL truck).
Until such time that BLMA or anyone else makes a "correct" 4 bay (western) 100T coal hopper that enables the use of a "correct" 100T truck, the MTL offset bolster is not a problem, but a solution.
One can only hope that manufacturers start designing their future projects to enable the use of the BLMA trucks and body mount couplers.
-
Well, we already have a number of manufacturers who design their products with body-mounted couplers. As new product innovations (such as the BLMA trucks) become available, they will be incorporated in future products when appropriate. This has happened with various coupler and truck designs in the past, so there is no reason to believe this won't continue.
-
So, Craig, when do we get working airlines and air brakes, which I'm sure will require new BLMA super-detailed trucks? I guess you'll also need a retrofit air compressor to install in locomotives, along with DCC control, of course.
After we get rotating roller bearings. ;)
-
This actually reminds me of something I do really want to see with magnets.
I want working diaphragms on passenger cars that have little magnets in them to keep them together so they look right.
-
After we get rotating roller bearings. ;)
I've been slowly adding BLMA trucks to select cars (mostly Bluford 86'ers, which gives the a real nice look BTW) and I'll be damned if I'll change them again to ones with rotating bearings! Still waiting for the bulkpacks, Craig...
Someone needs to come out with an automatic scale coupler for body mounting (in bulk packs without a truck)... and no slinky. Working air hoses, rotating bearings are all fine and good, but lets get that coupler first.
-
I still want a coupler that works that gives close coupling on the two Kato SD40-2s that I own. The MTLs leave a huge long jump between units.
This will probably only be solved by tooling a new SD40-2 with scale hoods. ::)
-
I've been slowly adding BLMA trucks to select cars (mostly Bluford 86'ers, which gives the a real nice look BTW) and I'll be damned if I'll change them again to ones with rotating bearings! Still waiting for the bulkpacks, Craig...
Someone needs to come out with an automatic scale coupler for body mounting (in bulk packs without a truck)... and no slinky. Working air hoses, rotating bearings are all fine and good, but lets get that coupler first.
And while we're dreaming, I'll take some quality turnouts.
-
And while we're dreaming, I'll take some quality turnouts.
http://www.handlaidtrack.com/
-
And while we're dreaming, I'll take some quality turnouts.
There are some innovators that have appeared on the N scale mfg scene who have, dare I say, re-invigorated N scale. They have shown a remarkable ability to zero in on the things that are lacking; that have stalled N scale. The RTR rapido coupler days once seemed universal unless it was MTL. The idea that only the larger mfg's can bring a locomotive to market has been shattered. Body mounted couplers are now appearing on RTR cars (and a real hats off to Bluford and their 86'ers... the high degree of thought that went into that body mount design is evident - compare their 86'er to the TWX cars out of the box). That a scale (or closer to scale) automatic coupler is probably on someone's radar, or already on CAD somewhere, is likely. It is probably closer than we think.
Heck, it may be waiting to be announced on an upcoming release.
-
I know what you are saying.... but moving the bolster on a fleet of coal hoppers in order to use a correct truck isn't realistic nor is it a good use of my time, especially when we don't have a "correct" (ie, scale) body mount coupler to go on it. So yes, the design of the Trainworx hopper is the "problem" (more so than the MTL truck).
Until such time that BLMA or anyone else makes a "correct" 4 bay (western) 100T coal hopper that enables the use of a "correct" 100T truck, the MTL offset bolster is not a problem, but a solution.
One can only hope that manufacturers start designing their future projects to enable the use of the BLMA trucks and body mount couplers.
I'd actually blame the truck more-so than the car, that pffset on the 1015 is quite... well.. .useless... though given there were other trucks (even in MT's own line) that don't have that offset... I guess you could blame car design decisions too.
-
and a real hats off to Bluford and their 86'ers... the high degree of thought that went into that body mount design is evident -
Hat's off would go to Walthers on that design.
-
Hat's off would go to Walthers on that design.
::) And do you know who used that system before Walthers, Robb?
-
Hat's off would go to Walthers on that design.
Ok, then hats off to Bluford for bringing it to N... truck mounted couplers on the 86'ers are less than adequate.
-
::) And do you know who used that system before Walthers, Robb?
Bluford borrowed the design from Walthers... that's from the horses mouth.
-
::) And do you know who used that system before Walthers, Robb?
Accurail?
-
Warning! --- Thread Drift --- Warning!
Lets not undo Gary's fine documentation here eh?
-
Continuing with my obsession with minutiae (literally) and tank cars (apparently) we come to my favorite N scale tank car on the market today: the Atlas corn syrup tanker:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XcgqS16qwps/TIbAEQc6MVI/AAAAAAAADas/DtsL0jlJ4Xc/s800/DSCN0089.jpg)
I just love the squat lines and fine detail on this car, but it poses a bit of a challenge for body mounting because the under-frame is attached with two mounting lugs outboard of the bolsters, leaving very little room for couplers (this precludes using MT truck-mounted couplers for example). Instead of tank-mounting the couplers like I did with the ethanol tanker, I found the end platforms to be stiff enough to support the coupler box, so I went that route with the Full Throttle coupler:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-5k5mdzI3f7w/TIbAesk38BI/AAAAAAAADas/wb8r-1wvOzU/s800/DSCN0104.jpg)
There is *just* enough room to accommodate the box w/o overhang, but the lid of the box was fouling the tank, so I cut it shorter, as illustrated here (though not quite as short as the lid in this picture):
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Uw8XbByHplk/TIbAUOSx2nI/AAAAAAAADas/QphJEEAQZ8c/s400/DSCN0109.jpg)
I then drilled a #60 hole in the lid about 8 scale inches behind the front face, and a corresponding hole in the end platform (where the dimple is) to accept a .040 round styrene pin for strength. The lid and pin are glued to the platform with Goo, then the box is snapped in place. Here's the result, along with BLMA trucks, air hose, & cut lever:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Nhdj0VdiEV4/TIbAE3y1S0I/AAAAAAAADas/8h5UrfEYB7w/s800/DSCN0108.jpg)
[The whole shebang still needs painting & weathering, of course.] The couplers sit at exactly the right height with the BLMA trucks, without having to file bolsters or any such nonsense. One of the best things about this change is that it brings the car spacing in by about 50%, and it just looks cool with those air hoses & cut levers:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-cuhGcX2gICo/TIbAEUCAw2I/AAAAAAAADas/x8d9oGoZJBg/s800/DSCN0093.jpg)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-l515DSM6dUA/TIbAEu2zA5I/AAAAAAAADas/p9aeYvUqppY/s800/DSCN0100.jpg)
I really like these couplers. Time to start testing them in a long train... I'm a little antsy about the end-platform-mounting.
-gfh
-
This is really awesome. The only thing missing now are shelfs!
-
The only thing missing now are shelfs!
Add that to the list please, Craig. ;D
-
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_t_cm3oU0yFU/TIbAEUCAw2I/AAAAAAAACx4/hsbQI73ZACY/s800/DSCN0093.jpg)
I coulda bet money that had to be HO! Great work Gary! You are definitely advancing the state of the art!
Ed
-
Add that to the list please, Craig. ;D
Done and done!
Looking great Gary!!
-
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_t_cm3oU0yFU/TIbAEUCAw2I/AAAAAAAACx4/hsbQI73ZACY/s800/DSCN0093.jpg)
I coulda bet money that had to be HO! Great work Gary! You are definitely advancing the state of the art!
Ditto. Most excellent work! Please keep it coming.
-
Gary, you're work warrants a...
-
Just occurred to me that it might be helpful to show how the Full Throttle coupler compares to the standard N fare side by side:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6J-I5tk-h0w/TIhTswuHwLI/AAAAAAAADas/KGBJ0mtiqAU/s800/DSCN0121.jpg)
Front left & right is an FT in its box and out of the box. Back-left is a standard MT truck-mount box and back-right is a McHenry shank. The FT box is about 2/3 the size of an MT box in each dimension, and the shank is about 2/3 the size of a McHenry shank. This compactness really opens up a lot of options, but the knuckle itself is almost as tall as an MT, so the height tolerance is not much tighter than normal. Add to this: no slinky effect, no McHenry spring, and we have the ideal package. If only it were available separately....
[I do like the shape of the McHenry knuckle, just wish it weren't so big.]
-gfh
P.S. Thanks lock, the check is in the mail. :P
-
Gary, lovin this thread. What's the scoop on uncoupling these new designs and what is your preferred uncoupling tool? I'm trying to figure from the pics if a bamboo skewer will do the job with the FT couplers. Not necessarily a problem if it won't, just trying to understand the cost for the great benefits you've been posting.
(Quality, cost, delivery; you can have any two you want by sacrificing the third!)
-
Hi Coxy, a bamboo toothpick works just fine. As DKS noted in his excellent review (http://jamesriverbranch.net/clinic_2.htm), the FT coupler was designed to be automatic but it didn't quite work as planned, so that aspect was shelved for now. But the knuckles do separate easily with mechanical (as opposed to magnetic) force.
-
Gary,
Out of curiosity, how close are the dimensions of the K&S rectangular brass tubing to those of the FT coupler box?
-
Bryan, unfortunately not quite close enough. The i.d. of the tubing is about .165 x .070 while the i.d. of the FT box is about .135 x .040. The width is just large enough that there is no tension on the centering spring:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-yzJfPjsQ9_E/TIj__3Hx9iI/AAAAAAAADas/Ps8yIOGyJsk/s400/DSCN0133.jpg)
Also, the couplers look a little bit 'lost' compared to the size of the tube, but not too bad:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-kxiAIZ2MU-Q/TIj__3MJtJI/AAAAAAAADas/gu9yigVPh0c/s400/DSCN0135.jpg)
I have not been able to find a closer tubing size on the web, but if someone knows of any, I'd love to hear about it. However, if you're interested in retro-fitting a car with this tubing already installed (as I'm guessing you are) there is one possibility that might be of interest: K&S has a channel stock with an i.d. of .125 x .032 (1/8 x 1/32) that fits the shank nicely:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VgyS2yTnU_M/TIkESj-XQZI/AAAAAAAADas/nssWPM8dxUs/s400/DSCN0148.jpg)
and telescopes into the tube:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-arHLzL9gE_o/TIkAAMnBAeI/AAAAAAAADas/xUmkCAovzQI/s400/DSCN0140.jpg)
Depending on coupler height requirements, you could either telescope it in the top half or bottom half, then secure it with the screw you're already using. By the way, the shank hole in the coupler is perfectly sized for an 00-90 screw. It should be mounted about .010 behind the front face of the box, so you might also need to trim the length a little bit.
Cheers,
Gary
-
Gary,
What's your source for the FT coupler?
-
Good question. I've been using Z Scale Monster:
http://www.zscalemonster.com/full_throttle/100/ (http://www.zscalemonster.com/full_throttle/100/)
just don't look at the price! (Actually the price is not bad for trucks plus couplers, but I don't need Z trucks.) So far I've only bought two 4-packs to satisfy my curiosity. Not sure what will happen in the longer run, but hopefully other options will present themselves.
-gfh
-
Just an FYI, reselling the coupler-less FT trucks (or the FT wheelsets, if the truck is destroyed) is not that hard. A number of modelers, including myself, are interested in these parts.
-
Bryan, unfortunately not quite close enough. The i.d. of the tubing is about .165 x .070 while the i.d. of the FT box is about .135 x .040. ...
I have not been able to find a closer tubing size on the web, but if someone knows of any, I'd love to hear about it. However, if you're interested in retro-fitting a car with this tubing already installed (as I'm guessing you are) there is one possibility that might be of interest: K&S has a channel stock with an i.d. of .125 x .032 (1/8 x 1/32) that fits the shank nicely ...
Actually, I was curious for developmental purposes how close they were. Out of necessity, I'm going to be working with MTL knuckles for at least the next two ESM projects. The FT coupler boxes look good on the tank cars and appear to mate well with MTL couplers, but one of my concerns is the lack of reliable magnetic uncoupling. The inside dimensions of the brass tubing being .030" higher and wider than the FT box notwithstanding, it appears the outer dimensions are nearly identical based on your pics here, so working with a coupler box based on the K&S specifications is a possible interim step.
-
Ah. The o.d. of the FT box is 1/64 smaller in each direction: 11/64 x 5/64 vs. 12/64 x 6/64 (3/16 x 3/32) for the tubing. The depth is about 13/64.
-gfh
-
Just a thought, how hard (and costly) would it be to make a box from etched brass? (Maybe Craig could lend some wisdom here?)
Ed
-
That will be known within the next couple of months.
-
That will be known within the next couple of months.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
I like this thread. Can anyone recommend a way to mount z scale couplers using the channel onto MT 50 foot boxcars? IE, what size channel and screws do I need?
-
Tom, a few questions: are you talking about an N or Z boxcar? Do you want extended draft gear or not? Are you thinking of the MT, FT, or AZL couplers?
As I noted above, I haven't found a very good option for fitting FT couplers into brass stock (the available sizes don't work very well - but the channel-in-tube scheme could work). For N scale box cars with extended draft gear I have been going with the AZL couplers, as in this post (http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,21980.msg208462.html#msg208462). The couplers don't look quite as good as FT, but they're decent, and the installation is pretty simple.
-gfh
-
I'm thinking about N scale boxcars that have the extended draft gear. I would use MT Z scale couplers (mainly because I have a stash of them).
-
This entry is less about body-mounting than it is about ride height and detail corrections, but ride height and body-mounting go hand in hand, so bear with me.
Even though I'm in transit, I'm still devoted to Tehachapi, which means lots of centerbeams. Red Caboose is the only game in town for 73' cars, but some of the details on their more modern single-panel and open-panel cars are amiss: e.g., the wheelbase is too short and the end bulkheads aren't quite right. (The opera window & standard panel models are fine.)
Changing the wheelbase is straightforward: remove the underframe weight and cut the bolsters off just inside the truck pad and glue them to the floor in line with the last post in the centerbeam (and the little tow loops). While you're at it, switch the trucks to BLMA 100T trucks for a much better ride height and appearance. This will require grinding some material to clear the wheels, but this is simple. (No need to file the bolster pad though.) Here's how mine looked at this point:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sFMCogYTHNs/TNY5P9dVG6I/AAAAAAAADas/lKLBp8UKIlQ/s800/DSCN0481.jpg)
This puts the model at just the right height for body-mounting the Full Throttle couplers directly to the floor of the car, as shown above. I used the same styrene rod approach that I used on the corn syrup tanker (http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,21980.msg209267.html#msg209267). I also added the now-standard air hose, cut lever & crosswalk to the package:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3KnTXzIl9bY/TNY5DpMPNII/AAAAAAAADas/mLQKDYndI9s/s800/DSCN0452.jpg)
The last detail change was to partially correct the end bulkhead. The end ribs on the prototype are all horizontal, but that would have been a pain to correct neatly, so I skipped that. But a more visible change is to slice the top flange off the outer bulkhead section, and the triangular flange off the end of the top rib. These can be seen as light green bits in the above photo (I haven't touched up the paint yet). Finally, I added a grab-iron to the top of the bulkhead since it's such a visible detail.
The net effect is to give the car a much lower profile, both in ride height and overall height of the end bulkhead:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lO9WnY2teJc/TNY5EaBjopI/AAAAAAAADas/WMs2qfTfKbU/s800/DSCN0457.jpg)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-kvGrgXwQaTE/TNY5E6C_SSI/AAAAAAAADas/pQqpSVD0ATU/s800/DSCN0468.jpg)
Now I'm going to need a few more so I can model this train, which is headed for Tehachapi:
http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=203309&nseq=0 (http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=203309&nseq=0)
:D
-gfh
-
Now I'm going to need a few more so I can model this train, which is headed for Tehachapi:
Yikes! Just a few more...
-
The net effect is to give the car a much lower profile, both in ride height and overall height of the end bulkhead:
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_t_cm3oU0yFU/TNY5EaBjopI/AAAAAAAAC3g/8D7ELlo0kkU/s800/DSCN0457.jpg)
I'm always impressed at how much better these centerbeams look when lowered. Great work, Gary! 8) 8) 8)
With the lowering & body-mount couplers, what kind of curve radii can these cars negotiate?
Thx,
Ed
-
Hi Ed. I haven't tested this rigorously, but so far I've had no trouble with the 19" curve on my test track (w/o easements), either alone, or coupled to the short-wheelbase corn syrup car, also w/ body-mounts. Since I'm still intending a 20" min. w/ easements, I'm happy with that. But I can do a little more testing with smaller radii to stress it -- I'll report back.
Note that the truck side-frames just clear the lower edge of the sidesill (close to prototypical (http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=41012)), so that is not really an issue unless you have sharp vertical curves.
Cheers,
Gary
-
Interesting message:
http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=125910
-
Interesting indeed. I just posted a link there to this thread; hopefully that doesn't ruffle any feathers over there.
-gfh
-
Good to hear!
I need to get cracking on lowering the TLT cars. Man those cars ride on stilts. I added Atlas trucks and those dropped it a smidge..but they are still taller than MT cars!
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_nAmtu1n1UKs/TNsW_ma45UI/AAAAAAAAlH4/11KqC_2kwjI/s800/IMG_4788.JPG)
-
Oh man, a Mr. Yuk moment.
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_QX27vm9tLgw/TNuTLt951VI/AAAAAAAAFw0/7SX3-JSU4DE/s800/IMG_4788%20copy.jpg)
Jason
-
Interesting indeed. I just posted a link there to this thread; hopefully that doesn't ruffle any feathers over there.
-gfh
Deleted.
-
Deleted.
Almost immediately. Methinks a feather was indeed ruffled.
-
Deleted.
??? I still see it in reply #3:
http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=125909 (http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=125909)
-gfh
-
Odd - it's back now ??? They must be reading this. ;)
To get back on topic, I just installed AZL couplers using Gary's methods to one of the nice Athearn 60' auto part boxcars. Adding 100t BLMA trucks helped the ride height - no bolster filing necessary. The AZL couplers are at a good height, but seem to come apart when a sufficient force is applied to them. I'll certainly try out the Bowsers when they are offered separately (and hopefully with a nice way to mount them).
-
I'm definitely in. Will someone please update this thread when these are announced as available?
-
I'm definitely in. Will someone please update this thread when these are announced as available?
Absolutely. I have a vested interest in what happens along these lines.
-
Odd - it's back now ??? They must be reading this. ;)
Yeah it was gone too when I checked when Gary posted. Now it is back.
Anyways...I too would be into getting them for the couplers.
-
This just in from Uncle Will:
Dear Creative N Scalers,
OK! I was in touch with Lee from Bowser, and here is the story. He is hesitant to market these for N Scale because he doesn't have any idea how well they will work with the larger heavier Scale! They were, of course, made for a much lighter Z Scale use. But if they work for you he sees no reason not to sell them without the wheelsets for you. He did want me to give you a caveat, that there can be no guarantees on them since they are being used for something not originally intended. Also, he has no idea how many would be wanted/ordered. Hopefully this is not just a flash in the pan, but the "Bucklers" will continue be useful for our N Scale friends.
All that being said, he will experiment for ways to package them when sending them to me and thus, I will be experimenting for a way to send them to you. I think small baggies of pairs is in the making, but not sure just yet. Also, he said he will leave the trip pins long (like on the MTL talgos), as some of you had wished, and if you want them cut off, a little nipper on your end will work. The cost per pair will be approx. $3.50. Depends on how we package them for you. We'll do it as cheaply as possible! And it will be no muss-no fuss packaging. They will, no doubt, be sent in plastic cases that I use for either the truck/couplers or rolling stock. Or, perhaps, the Bowser plastic cases may prove more suitable? You will be ordering through Full Throttle, directly, as a specialty item for N Scale. They will not be available on the open-market. In all likely hood they will come in 5 or 10 pair units...still to be determined.
Now, here's the catch. How many? I told Lee that Tess should get right on it and that we should make about 2-300 pairs so that I could have them here, ready to go. But, I don't know if that is a good projection or not? So, now I need specifics. If you all would be so kind as to get back to me with some sort of definite order, I can figure out how many of these "Naked Talgos" (without wheelsets, and with trip pins) we should construct. That should let me know how many I should plan to have on hand at any time, so that Tess can assemble a correct amount, enough to always have some available here at FT, and not so many that I will be buried with them.
Please get back to me on this matter, and let me know your thoughts and wishes. Thanks!
Faithfully,
Will
I'll post his email address as soon as he gives me the ok to, but you can PM me for it in the meantime, if you want to try some. I highly recommend them.
-Gary
Note added: Will wants to hear from you: <dewaa128@aol.com>
-
A follow-up message from Will:
Thanks, N Scalers,
I'm just trying to get an idea of how many Tess should assemble and that Bowser should send to me. I will get back to you with payment particulars, etc. when they become ready! Thanks, again!
Faithfully,
Will
PS: Be sure to tell others that are interested to contact me and send me their E-mail addresses.
-
Maybe I've missed it but what would 5-10 pair units run $$$ wise?
-
Maybe I've missed it but what would 5-10 pair units run $$$ wise?
The cost per pair will be approx. $3.50. Depends on how we package them for you. We'll do it as cheaply as possible!
Not cheap, but cheaper than before.
-
I'm on board for twenty sets to start. If all works well I'll get another 50 in the next six months.
-
I got back to Will with my number as well.
-
Progress on the Full Throttle "naked Talgo" front. Will has received the initial shipment from Bowser and is ready to take definite orders from folks. He should have already sent email to those who responded earlier, but in case you didn't and are still interested, you can probably still get some. Here is the note he sent out:
Dear N Scale Modelers,
Please excuse the generic nature of this E-mail, as I'm trying to reach all of you that have shown interest in these Z Scale Naked Talgos. Well, finally, I have received my first shipment of this beast! Ha, ha! What is not funny is that Bowser sent me 500 pieces instead of 500 pair! However, I contacted Lee immediately and he is putting Tess right on it! Hence, I should have the remainder next week, and I can finally take your orders and payments. Yes, let's firm this up!
Please get back to me with a confirmation of your initial orders, and I will make up an invoice for you, which I will send Eposte-Haste! I will then expect payment. Of course, PayPal is easiest for me, but you may also send a personal check if you wish.
When using PayPal, send payment to: dewaa128@aol.com
When sending a check, make it out to William Dean Wright and send to:
[omitted by gfh - contact him by email at the address above for the postal address]
I'm sorry it has taken this long to get back to you all, but such is the nature of "special orders." Now that the Holiday Season has past us, it should be easier and quicker to make this sort of thing happen. I hope! Nonetheless, It is time for me to take your actual orders and get to sending out these wheel-less talgos with the long trip pins. I'm ready if you are! Thanks for your patience and understanding, and I really hope these work out for you! Keep me informed!
Faithfully,
Will
I encourage you to give these a try.
-Gary
-
Just an update, my 20 sets are on the way.
-
My 12 sets arrived today, so hopefully I can get those installed this weekend.
-
... Changing the wheelbase is straightforward: remove the underframe weight and cut the bolsters off just inside the truck pad and glue them to the floor in line with the last post in the centerbeam (and the little tow loops)...
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_t_cm3oU0yFU/TNY5EaBjopI/AAAAAAAAC3g/8D7ELlo0kkU/s800/DSCN0457.jpg)
Gary,
I understand that the wheelbase was incorrect for the model. But aren't those the bolster ends sticking out on the sides? Don't they have to be moved outward (or removed and reconstructed) as well?
-
Gary,
I understand that the wheelbase was incorrect for the model. But aren't those the bolster ends sticking out on the sides? Don't they have to be moved outward (or removed and reconstructed) as well?
Absolutely! Good eye Bryan. This is a good example of my Do No Harm policy: since I doubted I could shave those off neatly enough - in a finite amount of time - nor add new ones under the ratchet that looked good, I punted. Same with the end ribbing on the bulkhead and the framing along the top of the centerbeam, neither of which are correct for this car. The wheelbase error, the ride height, and squaring off the bulkhead top were easier to fix without leaving visible scars. And they really enhance the overall silhouette of the model.
Cheers,
Gary
-
Hi Everyone, I just thought I'd take a crack at what a photo-etched brass coupler pocket for an N-scale body-mounted coupler might look like, and I'd like to ask for your thoughts and feedback. Here is a crude sketch:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/NscaleEtchedCouplerBox.jpg)
I haven't settled on any specific dimensions, or even which couplers this might support: Accumate, McHenry, and/or Full Throttle. The FTs might be the closest to scale size. I wanted to keep it simple, so this is not much more than a slightly refined version of the good old 3/32" x 3/16" rectangular brass bar, with dimensions to be optimized for a specific coupler, plus a few cosmetic details.
Anyways my thought is that the black areas represent 0.010" half-hard brass, the red is a half-etch, and the white areas are fully etched through. Assembling the coupler pocket starts by forming the two sides of the main body into a C-Channel shape. The bottom and top pieces are then attached, perhaps using CA or perhaps soldered if extra strength is needed. The front screw is used to hold the coupler in the pocket, and the rear screw holds the pocket to the carbody. The pocket could also be epoxied to car body in cases where a screw might not be practical (e.g. a tank car or hopper).
There are a few other notes: there is a small hole in the bottom cover to allow for attaching the end of a cut lever. Also, the two tabs on the side of the bottom cover are meant to be folded up, so that a BLMA air hose can be CA'd into place.
Thanks for looking, please let me know your thoughts.
Best,
Ed
-
Ed,
I'll take a dozen to start, and I'd like to set up a regular purchase/shipping arrangement.
Oh wait, you need to etch it first. Drat.
I'd say do three sizes - one for FT, one for MTL, and one that would fit everyone else. That way I can get all my fleet converted with the couplers I have.
-
Thank you for rebooting this topic Ed! Your design is very close to what I have been thinking of; but I have failed to draw mine because of the learning curve required on the free CAD package I have... Now you've prompted me to sketch it out in Power Point to keep the ball rolling.
Here is my sketch in the same color scheme as yours (plus blue, which is a half-etch on the back); also with no dimensions, just concepts:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-dv9j1tCbq54/TnKCbM-qOLI/AAAAAAAADlg/NhgWP4pI-0U/s800/Coupler_pocket.png)
The similarities:
* .010 etched brass
* fold-up sides
* bottom cover with screw hole and fixtures for cut lever & air hose
* multiple screw holes.
The differences:
* no top plate (I'm not sure what function yours serves...?)
* half-etch fold-up lip
* tab & slot fixture for the bottom cover to provide longitudinal stability
* a top plate that extends further back than the sides to allow for mounting flexibility (including extended draft gear). The red circles are half-etched dimples with the idea being that you would drill out the hole that best matched your car's mount point. (There are probably way too many half-etch dimples and more cover material than needed, but this is just a sketch.)
A few other notes:
* The big hole in the bottom cover is 00-90 clearance size. The white hole on top is a 00-90 tap size. The idea is this: if the main mount point is this position, you would ream the hole to clearance size and simply screw a long 00-90 all the way through to hold the (FT) coupler and mount the box. If this is not a suitable mount point (e.g. extended draft gear) you would tap 00-90 threads and use a short screw to hold the coupler and cover, then drill another clearance hole at the best-located red hole and mount the box. Any extra top-cover material behind the mount point can be trimmed to suit.
Comments? Let's get a test run going soon!
Thanks,
Gary
P.S. What is the function of the slots in your side panels?
-
Hi Gary, I like what you've put together! Let's bat this about a bit more and see if we can come up with a drawing to send out to an etching house.
I've updated my sketch to incorporate your ideas (again, please pardon the crudeness):
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/NscaleEtchedCouplerBoxv002.jpg)
I’m still lacking dimensions, so we'll need to hash these out. I'm traveling at the moment so it'll be a few days before I can get back and take some measurements. One key question: which coupler would be good to target for a first cut? It’ probably a choice between the FT or the McHenry, and it seems like the FT would be the one to pencil in, considering that it is closer to scale and seems to work well, but I also have concerns about the availability. I've got a few on order to try out but I was wondering -- do you think Will could maybe get just the bare coupler, without any truck? What would we need in terms of quantity to make that happen?
One dimension that is affected by the coupler choice is the overall width. This is an important one, since the width is what limits the truck swing and therefore the curve radius that a car could negotiate. I don't think axle clearance is too much of a concern, since the overall vertical height ought to be less than any plastic coupler pocket. The other thing to consider is the size and location of the coupler screw hole. It should be sized such that no bushing is needed, and it should be located so as not to overtly restrict coupler swing, yet also not let the coupler stick out too far. If we get the vertical size right, then I'm not too concerned about the coupler drooping or sticking up too far.
One thought that I had that doesn't show up on the sketch: it might be better to go with 0.015" brass stock over 0.010, as that would make the half-etch areas a bit more sturdy. Also, I've drawn the pilot holes for the 00-90 body mount screws somewhat smaller, with the idea that they could be located closer together and thus a little easier to customize to the specific car. However I'm wondering, how hard is it to hand-drill thru brass? If it's tricky to do with small bits, then maybe we'll want to etch just a few 00-90 tap-sized holes in key places.
Cosmetically, one idea I've worked into the sketch is that the half-etch sides of the bottom cover will project past the vertical sides of the pocket, in order to get that sort of 'beam/flange' look that the prototype has: http://www.mellowmike.com/Prototypes/2bay_axle.jpg. Similarly, the thought behind the 'slots' was to emulate the look of the key/slot on the prototype (as in the .jpg).
Thoughts?
Ed
-
FT internal coupler pocket dimensions
W: 0.132 in.
L: 0.184 in.
H: 0.034 in.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 09:22:38 PM by David K. Smith »
Aha, I found these dimensions from David in another thread. So for the FT coupler we should use these as the inside dimensions of the pocket.
Ed
-
Hi Ed,
I like what you've got there. The side slots and bottom flange are a nice touch, and the tabs on the rear of the bottom cover should be good enough to maintain position under load. (Without some kind of tabs, there is very little to prevent the coupler post screw from torquing forward under load.)
I agree with DKS' posted inside dimensions. (These FT boxes are really small!) The center of the coupler post/screw hole is 0.110" back from the front face of the FT box, so I would stick with that here. (By the way, I definitely vote for FT dimensions here. There is no way I'm interested in going to this trouble for a beefy McHenry...) I'd love to convince Will to just sell bare couplers - not that I would succeed, mind you.
A few other comments:
* I think .010 brass is likely to be quite strong, but trying a few thicknesses is probably warranted. The little housings on the back of Traincat's signal heads are folded .010 boxes and they're really tough: (and not dissimilar to an FT box in size)
http://www.traincat2.com/images/models/1300903.jpg (http://www.traincat2.com/images/models/1300903.jpg)
* I would be inclined to drill the mounting hole(s) out with a Dremel. For a 00-90 screw, the tap drill is a #60 and the clearance drill is a #55. These are plenty beefy for a Dremel, and a starting dimple makes it very easy to get a good accurate hole.
* I'd be inclined to keep the sides full thickness, and to make sure the inside of the side walls are smooth, so the centering leaf springs can work smoothly. I'm a bit unclear in your drawing what direction the fold should go, but if the sides come up, out of the page, the slot detail will be on the inside of the box. :P
* I've been trying to come up with some kind of folding loop on the bottom cover to hold a cut lever, rather than just a hole. I'll think about that still.
* I'd vote to chamfer the corners of the fold-up lip, like in MM's picture.
Cheers,
Gary
-
Okay, I decided to update my sketch with more accurate relative dimensions for the FT box:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-rzteG2N4bWA/TnMMd69GgOI/AAAAAAAADl0/tfprHR9MeYI/s800/Coupler_pocket.001.png)
The scale is 1 Keynote pixel per mil (.001") :| I have not yet included the side slots or the cut lever and air hose fixtures, but that's next. Also, I'm not totally happy with the fold-up lip yet.
One small functional concern is the fact that the box cover tabs are only half-etched, so they might not mate as tightly to the slots as full etches would, but it's probably ok. (I reverted to two sets of tabs to withstand both pushing and pulling loads on the coupler post screw.)
I'd love to try something like this out soon. Do folks with experience think something like this is at all close to being functional for a contract etching shop, if an actual dimension is supplied?
Thanks,
Gary
-
Looking good Gary! I’ll start playing around with the DraftSight this weekend, and see how it works out. Looks like PPD recommends doing this as a layered drawing, I’ll look into the details.
Sounds like the FT is the way to go. I recall someone saying that the McHenry resembles a ‘boxing glove’, and the more I look at it the more I think I agree (tho it’s less noticeable when 2 cars are coupled, and I do like some of the other detailing on the McHenry).
I think the 0.010” should be fine, as long as the fold lines don’t turn out to be a weak point. Presuming then that the half-etch produces a 0.005” thick brass, I’m wondering what a good width for the fold lines would be. I would think that the thickness of the metal stock (0.010” in this case) should work. Question: which side of the bend is best for the fold line to be on?
Going with four cover tabs should be fine. Since the cover has the half-etch running the length of either side, the inside surface of the cover will actually extend into the inside pocket space by the depth of the half-etch (i.e., 0.005” in this case). I think this extra overlap makes a stronger overall assembly, it’s just something to keep in mind when figuring on the size of the side panels. One alternate idea: Instead of a half-etch along each side, would it be any better to do this as tab-and-slot?
Do you know: what is the actual thickness of the FT coupler shank? I’m just wondering how much vertical clearance it will have, if the interior height is the 0.034”. I would think that just a few mils are all that is needed to allow free swing, but if the cover plate screw is put on tight, could that cause any binding?
Cosmetically, I agree on the chamfered strike plate (confession, I was just being a little lazy with the drawing). I like how you’ve done it so that it projects a little bit wider than the pocket body. We might want to consider doing it as an (optional) third detail piece that gets installed with a little CA, that could maybe also include a bit more face detail, a la the MM .jpg (not sure if that’s getting into overkill).
For the side slots, if we do the full 0.010” thickness of the sides, then the slots would have to be a simple full etch-thru, without details. Again we could easily include a few optional detail parts for modelers thus inclined, however these would be pretty tiny, and again maybe it’s overkill?
Also I’m all for a fold-out loop on the bottom, I think it’s just a matter or working out the dimensions. If it works out OK for the bottom cover, then maybe we could also do it for the side, to hold the BLMA air hose. What diameter holes do we need for these?
Cheers,
Ed
-
which side of the bend is best for the fold line to be on?
Aha, answered my own question: the same side as the fold:
http://www.tech-etch.com/photoetch/formedguide.html
(http://www.tech-etch.com/photoetch/images/Depth_Etch_Bend_Lines.gif)
-
Looking good Gary! I’ll start playing around with the DraftSight this weekend, and see how it works out. Looks like PPD recommends doing this as a layered drawing, I’ll look into the details.
That would be great!
Sounds like the FT is the way to go. I recall someone saying that the McHenry resembles a ‘boxing glove’, and the more I look at it the more I think I agree (tho it’s less noticeable when 2 cars are coupled, and I do like some of the other detailing on the McHenry).
I agree. There is some nice detail on the McH, and this could be readily adapted, but I'm more bullish on the FTs for now.
I think the 0.010” should be fine, as long as the fold lines don’t turn out to be a weak point. Presuming then that the half-etch produces a 0.005” thick brass, I’m wondering what a good width for the fold lines would be. I would think that the thickness of the metal stock (0.010” in this case) should work. Question: which side of the bend is best for the fold line to be on?
I'm basing .010" on my experience with the Traincat signal housing boxes. It's a comparable size to an FT coupler box and plenty rugged when folded. As you noted, the half-etch fold lines should be inside the fold, and they should be roughly one metal thickness wide. That is how I have drawn it now.
Going with four cover tabs should be fine. Since the cover has the half-etch running the length of either side, the inside surface of the cover will actually extend into the inside pocket space by the depth of the half-etch (i.e., 0.005” in this case). I think this extra overlap makes a stronger overall assembly, it’s just something to keep in mind when figuring on the size of the side panels. One alternate idea: Instead of a half-etch along each side, would it be any better to do this as tab-and-slot?
The way I've drawn it, the inside of the bottom cover would be flush with the inner surface of the indents on the side face. [Clear? ;)] I'll add dimensions to the drawing. I think it might be worth running a few variant designs at the same time.
Do you know: what is the actual thickness of the FT coupler shank? I’m just wondering how much vertical clearance it will have, if the interior height is the 0.034”. I would think that just a few mils are all that is needed to allow free swing, but if the cover plate screw is put on tight, could that cause any binding?
The ring that sits around the center post is the thickest part of the shank. It's about .030 thick, but I can measure it more carefully. Binding could be an issue, but if we size the vertical dimensions well, I doubt the cover plate could flex enough to bind. Only one way to find out...
Cosmetically, I agree on the chamfered strike plate (confession, I was just being a little lazy with the drawing). I like how you’ve done it so that it projects a little bit wider than the pocket body. We might want to consider doing it as an (optional) third detail piece that gets installed with a little CA, that could maybe also include a bit more face detail, a la the MM .jpg (not sure if that’s getting into overkill). For the side slots, if we do the full 0.010” thickness of the sides, then the slots would have to be a simple full etch-thru, without details. Again we could easily include a few optional detail parts for modelers thus inclined, however these would be pretty tiny, and again maybe it’s overkill?
These boxes are really small. Most of the detail will be completely lost, especially the side slots, because the box is relatively short and squat compared to the proto box.
Also I’m all for a fold-out loop on the bottom, I think it’s just a matter or working out the dimensions. If it works out OK for the bottom cover, then maybe we could also do it for the side, to hold the BLMA air hose. What diameter holes do we need for these?
I'm playing around with some ideas. Stand by. ;)
Cheers,
Gary
-
Okay, here's another iteration of the sketch:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-fvRPraXkJ4E/TnOHyb3n9DI/AAAAAAAADmI/N8qOJV6ztoc/s800/Coupler_pocket.001.png)
Notes:
* I added some extra side material to the extension tab behind the pocket. This folds along with the sides to make a shallow channel for additional stiffness. I think this will be a very beefy, but simple, structure.
* I added half-etch slots to the outside of the side panels to suggest pocket detail. I think anything more would be overkill on these small pockets. And by leaving the inner surface smooth, there is no chance for the centering leaf spring to hang on something.
* I added two foldable loops: one for an air hose and one for a cut lever. I'm not sure if the fold lines are in the best position here, but this would make the front face of each loop flush with the front plane of the pocket.
* I tweaked the shape of the fold-up lip. I like it better this way.
Any comments or suggestions for improvement?
Thanks,
Gary
P.S. In this drawing, the red folds would be out of the page, the blue folds into the page.
-
Looks pretty good Gary, I just make a few minor tweaks:
- Make the slots for the cover as a thru-etch, and extended the sides. This should make the assembled unit a little stiffer/stronger.
- Rotated the tab for the cut lever by 90 degrees, so it could take a cut lever from the side without requiring any bending (not sure it's facing the right way).
Thoughts? Seems to me we're getting close! 8) 8) 8)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/Coupler_pocket001.jpg)
-
Brilliant! That's a much better tab & slot layout. Now I see what you had in mind there.
The cut lever loop is definitely better in that orientation (and that was roughly what I was originally thinking). The only minor concern is that there could be a tendency for the coupler to snag on the gap while negotiating a turn. That was why I put the loop off the end; but then you have to hook the end of the cut lever to thread this loop.
By the way, I think it should be rotated 180 deg. We're looking at the inside of the bottom cover, so as drawn, the loop is closer to the air hose side of the pocket. I think it's better to have it closer to the other side.
Let's try a test run! Can you try to draw it up in CAD? :lol:
-gfh
-
Looks like I need to get my hands on some FTs then.
No thoughts on the MTL Z coupler or even (gasp) the N?
-
Hi James,
I think this basic design would port well to an Accumate or McHenry style with some simple dimension changes. We could look into that if there's interest.
The MT design is slightly more problematic because of the centering spring which pushes against the center post in the standard box. I think it would be tricky to assemble these when the center post is also the screw that holds the cover on. You'd have to somehow keep the spring compressed while placing the cover on, then get the screw through, then release the spring tension. Lord knows, the MT couplers are hard enough to assemble as is! If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.
Cheers,
Gary
-
I think I'd rather play with the FTs.... I went back through the thread and had another look at the photos.
-
Let's try a test run! Can you try to draw it up in CAD? :lol:
Sure thing! I've got DraftSight fired up, now it's a matter of going thru the learning curve. I've also located a few design guides to digest, tho at this point I don't anticipate any drastic changes. I expect to be a bit tied up over the next few days but I'll post updates as available.
BTW are you still thinking PPD, or are there any other places to consider?
Ed
-
Sure thing! I've got DraftSight fired up, now it's a matter of going thru the learning curve. I've also located a few design guides to digest, tho at this point I don't anticipate any drastic changes. I expect to be a bit tied up over the next few days but I'll post updates as available.
Great! If you want to shoot me any draft files I can have a look and maybe learn along with you. (That would help me reboot my hand rail project too...)
BTW are you still thinking PPD, or are there any other places to consider?
If they're good enough for Chris333 (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=24561.msg241412#msg241412) they're good enough for me. :) I didn't have anyone else in mind at this point.
-Gary
-
I just sent another order to PPD yesterday.
-
Ed clued me in that this thread had been revived. Some observations come to mind after reviewing the recent postings:
- Brass fold-up draft gear - This is roughly the initial design I had for the X58, and I decided to go away from it for a number of reasons. How are you going to anchor the pivot post without it being visible, especially on the extended draft gear of a cushioned underframe? What material will be pivot post be? How are you going to firmly secure the pivot post to brass stock so thin so that the load of pulling a long freight consist (if the cars are up front near the motive power) will not compromise the integrity of the post and or draft gear? How do you fold up the three sides and attach the lid so that it looks like a complete rectangular housing, with no gaps between the folded sides and the lid? With an etched draft box, I would look at stainless steel rather than brass. Slightly more expensive, but no integrity problems with the housing itself. The pivot post is another issue.
- FT couplers - aren't these difficult to come by, and aren't they pricey as well? Designing draft gear that fits only the FT coupler and not common N scale couplers is a mistake in my opinion. The de-facto standard is the MTL coupler, and any new coupler box should take that under consideration. All other N scale couplers work in an MTL coupler box, but the reverse is not true. The inside of any draft gear box should be equivalent to an MTL 1015 box, regardless of what the wall thickness or outer dimensions are. If getting the spring into the box is an issue, then the design should be re-thought. The redesigned X58 draft gear is a prime example.
- Etching artwork - you guys are overthinking how you represent half-etches and full etches. Keep it simple - use red/black or magenta/black to represent back/front (I use magenta because then the artwork can be split easily into CMYK plates). Wherever there is no etching on the top half, that artwork is black. Whenever there is no etching on the bottom half, that artwork is magenta. Any white areas represent full etch. You also should have two layers to your artwork (top and bottom) - all detail on the top layer is black and all detail on the bottom layer is magenta. So, if you have a "fold line" where the metal bends up, then there would be no black and the line would appear to be magenta. If you have a "fold line" where the metal bends down, then there would be no magenta and the line would appear to be black (if you could see the artwork from behind). Also, the thickness of your fold lines (and your relief detail) is determined by the thickness of the metal to be etched. They must be at least half the thickness of the metal. If the brass is .30mm for example, then your lines can be no thinner than .15mm. And finally, you should measure by millimeters instead of inches. Aside from being a "less messy" measuring system, the units are much smaller than inches and therefore you have greater precision to work with. I do all of my solid modeling and etching design in mm.
-
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for the thoughtful (and thought-provoking) comments! Feedback like this is exactly why we posted the drafts here. A few quick comments:
* First, this is in no way intended to be a commercial product, just a curiosity-driven experiment. I have ~50 pair of FT couplers that I'd like to put to use, but my experiments with body-mounting the stock FT draft gear have been so-so. I'm hoping this is a better, but still cost-effective, solution.
* Design - I am quite concerned about the support post for the coupler. The idea at present is to use a 00-90 screw to hold the cover and serve as the post (it is just the right size for the FT shank). For non-extended draft gear, this screw can extend into - and attach to - the car under-frame in most cases. In this instance, both the top and bottom holes would be 00-90 clearance holes. Alternatively, the top hole could be tapped with (a few) 00-90 threads, but this is marginal, and probably renders this approach a poor solution for extended draft gear. (One could use a 00-90 nut over the top cover of extended gear, but it would look ugly.) In all case, I imagine that a second mounting screw further back would form the main box attachment point. Note also that the tab & slot design for the cover plate is intended to provide longitudinal support to resist torquing the screw/ coupler post. It remains to be seen if that is sufficient. I'm not sure I see the issue with the housing: do you think this tab & slot design will lead to unsightly gaps? I think we just have to see how that goes. I'm all for trying stainless steel, and/or thicker stock.
* FT couplers - As noted above, I have a big stock of FT couplers I want to put to use and this is intended to address that. If it seems promising, I would like to lobby FT to sell couplers without draft gear (just like McHenrys). This may be a pipe dream, but at least I'd like to make better use of my existing stock. If someone thinks this is worth resizing to fit MTs or McHenrys, great!
* Artwork - I'm sure Ed N. is taking notes. ;) The reason this thread languished for so long is because I haven't had time to do a proper CAD drawing. When Ed posted a draft, I decided to spit some ideas out in a simple drawing program to get some concrete ideas exchanged. I think your CAD suggestions are great.
Thanks again,
Gary
-
Thanks Bryan for sharing your thoughts! ;)
How are you going to anchor the pivot post without it being visible, especially on the extended draft gear of a cushioned underframe?
We could add back in the top strip that was in one of the earlier sketches. The length of the screw would have to be just right, in order to avoid protruding thru the top. A threaded post might be worth considering, tho it would be a bit more complex.
Another option could be to simply make the parts in 2 lengths, regular and extended.
How are you going to firmly secure the pivot post to brass stock so thin so that the load of pulling a long freight consist (if the cars are up front near the motive power) will not compromise the integrity of the post and or draft gear?
Good Point. If the 0.010" isn't enough, we could consider a heavier gauge brass (perhaps just for the lid). The K&S #262 tubing is a 0.014" wall, and that looks pretty beefy for N scale.
Gary, is there a way we can whip up a quick confidence test? Something maybe like a strip of the 0.010" brass, bent over itself into a U shape, and with an FT coupler mounted on a screw going thru two holes drilled into the ends of the brass strip. This assembly gets anchored on one end of a test track and coupled to a consist of locos. Then run the locos to put a tension load onto the coupler/brass assembly, and keep adding locos to see how the assembly holds up.
I'm not sure what the average drawbar pull is for a typical N scale loco, but we probably want to show this can handle something like 6 locos at a minimum, if we want it to work in long trains. This would also demonstrate the viability of the FT coupler for N scale applications.
How do you fold up the three sides and attach the lid so that it looks like a complete rectangular housing, with no gaps between the folded sides and the lid?
The lid actually extends past the sides, to simulate the look of the prototype (as per the MM pic). To eliminate visible gaps, there is the tab/slot arrangement, plus the half-etch in the lid creates a recess to accept the edges of the pocket sides.
use red/black or magenta/black to represent back/front.
I was basing the sketches on the PPD examples. For actual artwork, I'll do something layered up in a CAD drawing, as per PPD.
Thanks again for the great input! ;)
Ed
-
Found this on http://www.atlasrr.com/Reviews/gp40.review.htm, for the drawbar pull of a single N scale loco:
"The drawbar pull of .8 ounces equates to about 20 typical N scale cars on straight, level track."
So 6 locos would be 4.8 ounces. If the FT coupler can lift a weight this size, it should be fine for most N scale uses.
Ed
Edit:
My order of FTs just arrived so I was able to do a quick test: the FT holds up fine with hanging a 10-ounce weight from it. (Ditto for an MTL and a McHenry). I probably could have done more, if I wanted to push it to the failure point. The 10 oz. is the drawbar pull of 12 locos, so the strength of the coupler itself doesn't seem like a problem.
Now I gotta find me a strip of the 0.010 brass.... ;)
Ed
-
Good timing on the FT delivery Ed. I definitely agree that the couplers themselves are plenty robust, so the screw/post support is really the main issue for loading. I think the concept as sketched is still viable, but here's another idea to kick around:
We could invert the design and make the top be the cover piece and have it made of thicker stock. This would allow more threads in the top hole, for cases where one didn't want the screw to protrude through the top. This would preclude any bottom flange detail, and would be a bit more unwieldy to assemble.
One benefit of thinner stock is that it's more compatible with lower ride height. For example, .010 stock is just the right thickness for mounting to an IM Trinity 5161 hopper with BLMA trucks to match the MT coupler height gauge. Anything thicker would require increasing the ride height, shaving the under-frames, or compromising on the coupler height.
Just a reminder: back on p. 1 I did some experiments with set screws in rectangular tube stock and those seemed very robust, even though they were only screwed though one surface. This gives me hope...
-Gary
Note added: By the way, here is my simplistic picture of the physics of the current design:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-5SBJeePfoaY/Tnl4FR4WqBI/AAAAAAAADmg/8bzubVZhzYw/s800/Coupler_pocket_force.002.png)
The red vectors show the forces acting on the screw/post: drawbar pull to the right, counter-forces applied by the top & bottom box plates to the left. If the top & bottom plates are held rigidly together in the horizontal direction by tabs & slots, then the top & bottom counter-forces are equal and there is no net torque about the (top) threaded screw position. In that case the only function of the threads is to maintain tension on the bottom plate to engage the tabs in the slots. This is a very modest requirement.
-
One other comment: I'm thinking we should reduce the number of half-etch dimples by ~50%. I'm a bit worried that the dense spacing we have now will almost form another fold line, and I doubt we need that much resolution on potential mount points.
-gfh
-
Seems to me that as long as the screw goes thru both the top and bottom plate (both of which probably want to be threaded BTW), then the strength/integrity should be fine as you say. The drawbar load on the screw/post would be distributed onto both plates, and there should be no opportunity for enough torquing that could cause either plate to deform under the load.
So the case of concern is the one where the screw only goes thru the bottom plate and is held only by the tap threads. I.e., that is the extended draft gear case. To handle that, we could avoid the single-plate case and do something where the screw still goes thru both plates, and then just add a small sheet of cosmetic brass (or even styrene) on the visible portion of the top plate to cover up the top screw hole and the end of the screw. It would look something like this proto pic: (http://www.mellowmike.com/Prototypes/Coupler.jpg) Since this cosmetic cover is only on the visible portion, it doesn't change the ride height. The only slight twist is that the screw would have to be trimmed flush with the top of the pocket before applying the cosmetic cover, but that should be manageable. If the screw is provided at the right length, then trimming could be avoided.
Thoughts?
Ed
-
Hi Ed,
I definitely agree that the screw needs to go through both top & bottom plate. In addition to torque issues, I don't see how the bottom cover would stay in place if it weren't screwed to the top somehow.
I like the idea of a cosmetic cover for extended draft gear. We could add a half-etch dimple at the appropriate position to accommodate a bit of the screw tip. This could also serve as an alignment pin for gluing the cover on.
-gfh
P.S. I downloaded Google Sketchup/Layout to play with. I really don't care for the DraftSight interface very much...
-
Hi Gary, a quick update from my end: I'm coming along on the DS curve, I've figured out how to set up the scale/grid/snap, as well as the layers that PPD uses. Takes a little getting used to but overall not too bad. For this first draft I'll figure on 0.010" brass, so I will draw the half-etch fold lines at 0.010" wide.
I was going over the dimensions for the FT coupler box and I noticed that the exterior dimensions of the FT coupler pocket are pretty close to the #262 brass tubing. So I was wondering: have you tried the FT couplers in the brass tubing? The interior height dimension is larger on the tubing, but that could be taken up by a washer or shim.
Along those lines: have you tried the FT in cars that have an integral body-mount coupler pocket? I'm thinking of newer cars like the BLMA Trinity reefer, the Athearn 2-bay hopper, and the new MT PS2 high-side. These pockets are all sized for either the MT or the McHenry, with an internal pivot post that is too large for the FT. So while they will not need an aftermarket pocket, it seems these cars still will need some work to convert to the FT, minimally to remove the post and drill/tap for the 00-90 screw, plus a shim as above. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Ed
-
With Ed's help, I finally got over the hump and put these drawing into a properly layered CAD drawing. The picture below is an image exported from the .dwg file showing the layout, with black being full metal (.01 brass), red being a top-side half-etch, and blue a bottom-side half-etch.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-qwdX4TfFWQg/TshM5T83xmI/AAAAAAAADoE/5eQXB1uGGvU/s400/CouplerPocket_v1p2.png)
The concept hasn't changed much since the last cartoons, but I thought I would post in case the experts looking on see any gaffes that would render this hopeless before we get it ready to submit.
I'm not really thrilled about the screw/post combo for extended draft gear, but that isn't a primary application I have in mind. In any case, I'm almost thinking I could live with a pan head screw being exposed on the top, and that the bottom cover could be fastened with a nut, which wouldn't be easily visible.
For the growing number of cars that come with body mounts, I'm thinking an FT conversion could be enabled by using a channel shaped insert, where the channel serves to narrow the interior pocket width, and provides a new bottom cover. This could still retain the tabs for air line and cut lever, if desired, but it would have to be a new, redrawn part.
-gfh
-
Wow, I missed a couple months worth of discussion in this thread. Thought good threads came to "Best of Wire" when the discussion was complete but it's apparently a living archive...
Gary, the etching artwork isn't quite right if that's meant to be the production drawings. (And if it's not and it's just to illustrate the fold lines in one shot, just let me know)
There should only be two layers worth of color for the actual part. One layer for the top "mask" and one layer for the bottom "mask". If there is a half etch from the top, you just don't include masking on the top layer. Likewise for the bottom. Having three colors will confuse PPD.
(Though they do like the tabs to be on a separate 3rd layer, green)
What CAD was used? Maybe I can help.
-
I'm sure not a CAD pro, but if you want I can e-mail you a file that I have sent to PPD.
-
Thanks for the feedback. The drawings were done in DraftSight, which is a free 2d CAD package that works on a Mac, but I believe the .dwg it writes is portable... at least that's the intent.
The working drawing is actually spread out over 6 layers for ease of use: 3 outline layers and 3 fill layers. The image above shows the 3 fill layers, and I was imagining exporting those to a separate file for PPD, but I hadn't quite gotten to that stage yet. But now I'm confused about your description (and I should reread the PPD guidelines). I think you're saying that I should think of the process as two half-etches, one from each side, and anywhere the half-etches overlap is a full etch, correct? So I need to generate a top layer and a bottom layer for the two half etches, each with their own color.
Chris, I'd love to see a sample drawing, just to make sure I have it right. You can email me using the envelope icon. I'll forward it to Ed too.
Thanks!
Gary
P.S. I'd be happy to start a fresh thread. But I always felt this topic lacked closure in my mind and I'm hoping to correct that.
-
They're here....
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oqsB_Qmkdpk/Tvt7TpbwKhI/AAAAAAAADug/PwW1aZ9KHxg/s800/DSCN0796.jpg)
The first sample of boxes from PPD showed up in today's post! So far everything seems to have been rendered perfectly as per the drawings. Now I just have to hope that the drawings were right, but a quick comparison to the FT box looks promising. Updates as they become available.
-gfh
-
I got a chance to fold and assemble the first box and it's looking good so far. I'll give the first sample a B+ for now and will proceed with some trial mounts on various cars. Here is a quick look at the folded parts and one of the assembled units - first the outsides of the box and lids (there were two lid designs run):
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fNduwtR88AQ/Tvu5wnw5TgI/AAAAAAAADu4/yqiFHelU6xM/s800/DSCN0800.jpg)
and the insides:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-1tkBbqeBMJU/Tvu5w7gC5uI/AAAAAAAADvI/jI8sMaGKunk/s800/DSCN0797.jpg)
The main box structure on the left folds into a channel that has shaped sides and a channel shaped extension for mounting flexibility. The extension can be readily trimmed to length as necessary, and there are several dimples for starting screw holes where desired. There is also a fold-up flange and a fold-out loop for an air brake line. The two lid designs are identical except for the fold down loop that accommodates a cut lever: one design folds longitudinally, the other transversely. The latter required etching a gap in the lid which might lead to lid weakness, but so far it seems ok. Here are some shots of an assembled box:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-r9Cy00uFUvI/Tvu5xw9PqfI/AAAAAAAADvo/j2pTff_tkRk/s800/DSCN0818.jpg)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-bvCqYGkwwOA/Tvu5wzWuXYI/AAAAAAAADvM/hFt595Q6lEM/s800/DSCN0805.jpg)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-FKaV2KjevLY/Tvu5xIOw7vI/AAAAAAAADvU/uYKVoBmaBjo/s800/DSCN0808.jpg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-ZRdgGos7vjw/Tvu5xd1hpbI/AAAAAAAADvY/lon7qaeMMKY/s800/DSCN0811.jpg)
Some evaluation notes:
* The basic box dimensions are perfect for the Full Throttle coupler. The coupler has pretty much the same functionality in this box as it does in the stock plastic box. (The problem with the stock box is that it is difficult to body mount in most N scale situations - hence this project.)
* It is very rugged. Even the fold-out loops are quite strong. So this should stand up to abuse on the layout.
* There were a few fit issues:
- The two screw holes ended up being slightly larger than drawn. The lid hole was supposed to be a .055 clearance hole for a 00-90 screw and it's a bit larger, but it still holds the screw head, so it's not really an issue. The top hole in the channel was supposed to be a .040 tap hole for a 00-90, but it ended up almost as a clearance hole, so the threads are barely biting in the top hole. I'll shrink the holes in the drawing for the next run, and I'll work around it for these samples.
- Same for the air line hole. I was hoping it would be a press fit that didn't require glue (or just a dab). It fits quite nicely, but it will definitely require glue to stay put as is. I'll shrink that a bit too.
- Two issues on the lid: 1) there is a small interference in the front corner under the air line loop. Easily fixed with a spot of half etch, but for now a bit of minor filing on the loop will do. 2) The fold-up back interferes with the flanges on the extension. I need to notch the corners of the back. Can't believe I didn't notice that ahead of time... :facepalm:
In general, I'm really excited about these and can't wait to put some in service and abuse them a bit. More soon.
Cheers,
Gary
P.S. James at PPD Etching (http://www.ppdltd.com/) was great to work with. Once I got my basic drawing skills set up, the whole process was very simple. I highly recommend them!
-
Sounds good and looks even better Gary!
Seeing as our paths didn't cross at Tehachapi this year, I'll have too see how I can get some of the FT couplers of you or direct from FT.
I just got my desktop upgraded before Christmas, so hope to move on to my own etching projects in the new year. That etched fret is definately motivation.
-
- The two screw holes ended up being slightly larger than drawn. The lid hole was supposed to be a .055 clearance hole for a 00-90 screw and it's a bit larger, but it still holds the screw head, so it's not really an issue. The top hole in the channel was supposed to be a .040 tap hole for a 00-90, but it ended up almost as a clearance hole, so the threads are barely biting in the top hole. I'll shrink the holes in the drawing for the next run, and I'll work around it for these samples.
Seems like you would want both holes to be clearance holes... I know you're thinking that the screw could hold the box together, but if that top hole is threaded it's going to be that much more difficult to use that screw to snug the coupler box to the underframe without a gap allowing the box to rotate. Perhaps using a drop of glue (canopy cement? goo?) would be more appropriate to hold the box together and keep a full clearance hole.
-
Here's my first test install - a BNSF trinity hopper, compared to a stock model with MTs:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-OXmk8XZiMbI/TvxbuIW3QcI/AAAAAAAADwY/NTlugAJ4CVM/s800/DSCN0837.jpg)
The installation was very simple, just drill and tap one hole for the mounting screw:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-EsHo4Dy-hqE/Tvxbto29mBI/AAAAAAAADwM/2j5_7AQivDE/s800/DSCN0823.jpg)
I trimmed the channel by one dimple to fit here. I'll probably add a second screw in the back for rotational stability. Here's a side view showing how much the BLMA trucks lower the car, and how these low profile boxes still give the right coupler height:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-QVdxrmhNV4E/TvxbtcyEyNI/AAAAAAAADwI/L2Mc3E7UoiY/s800/DSCN0824.jpg)
The couplers operate silky smooth in this box. More soon.
Cheers,
Gary
-
Here's my first test install - a BNSF trinity hopper, compared to a stock model with MTs:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-OXmk8XZiMbI/TvxbuIW3QcI/AAAAAAAADwY/NTlugAJ4CVM/s800/DSCN0837.jpg)
WOW, fabulous work, Gary!!! I am totally blown away!!! Makes the old couplers look almost like Lionels by comparison!
Just a few comments:
- Have you noticed any droop? From the pics there doesn't seem to be any.
- Have you run these on any tight-radius curves?
- From looking at this it seems that one could use a dab of 5-minute epoxy to cement the pocket into place where a screw would not be workable.
- On the hopper, the only change for the ride height is the BLMA truck?
Can't wait to see what these look like on the Athearn Tank car and as an extended draft gear box! 8) 8) 8)
Ed
-
Thanks for the feedback guys. A few more comments now that I'm more awake:
- Mike, you're definitely correct that two clearance holes are best for cases where the box mounts directly to an under-frame. My thinking was that I could start with a tap hole and ream it to a clearance hole for those situations (which are probably the vast majority). A tap hole potentially gave me options for other applications like extended gear or maybe tank cars where the box is under a flimsy platform. But that may not be true in practice, we'll see.
- Ed, the droop is minimal - the box dimensions seem to be just right. I haven't run these on any curves yet, but I'm planning to saw a lot of roadbed for them this afternoon. :lol: I think you could use epoxy for these just fine, but you'd still need a screw to hold the coupler, so maybe I'm missing your point. RE the ride height: yes, the only change there was BLMA trucks. But to be fair, the hoppers are shipped with an MT washer installed (even though it's not needed for coupler clearance), so part of the difference just comes from removing the washer.
- James, I can hook you up with a few FT couplers and boxes (see next post) if you're interested.
-gfh
-
Future plans:
I have about 60 pair of FT couplers from Uncle Will's 'Naked Talgo' offering last year. My plan is to try out a few more installs with the current set of box samples (and send some to Ed N for testing), tweak the details of the design, then order enough boxes to get me through the stock I have.
If anyone else has some FT's and would like to try these boxes, send me a PM or email and I can order enough to cover the demand. I don't know the price yet, but based on the sample, I'm guessing it will be ~$1.50 per pair. I'd be able to give you an exact cost before any order was placed. I'm thinking I'd like to get the next order in some time in January.
By the time I deplete my current FT stock, I'm hopeful that there will be a new N scale coupler on the scene. If not, I'll probably go back to the FT trough.
Cheers,
Gary
P.S. The best thing to come out of this so far is the etching experience, as it opens up so many new doors. I highly recommend it.
-
Nothing like the smell of a freshly etched brass sheet first thing in the morning. :D
Too modern for me, but they do look great!
-
Gary! That's haut!
The S.
-
Any updates? I want to start converting my cars over shortly.
-
Sadly, only limited progress, as I've been somewhat obsessed with bench-work lately. Let me see if I can wrap up the drawing mods this week. PPD was pretty quick to turn around the etchings once I got the file to them, so hopefully it won't be too much longer.
-gfh
-
Here are a few recent pics with an FVM Boxcar:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0370-resize.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0373-resize.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0367-resize.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0366-resize.jpg)
I'm playing around with some ideas for a 'next gen' of the coupler box, and I'd like to solicit ideas from folks. Here were a few thoughts I had:
- Make a 'regular length' and 'extended length' (any suggestions on dimensions?)
- Add an air hose as an etched-on part of the lid.
- Add some way to fit in a second mounting screw, to prevent pivoting and reduce the need to over-tighten the primary screw.
Any other comments? I'll see if I can work in all the ideas and post a pic of the artwork before sending to PPD.
Thanks,
Ed
-
- Add some way to fit in a second mounting screw, to prevent pivoting and reduce the need to over-tighten the primary screw.
Have you considered having adding a narrow tab to the back of the unit, that could be bent upwards to stick into a dimple drilled in the bottom of the car floor?
The dimple would only have to be drilled deep enough to hold the tab--it wouldn't have to go all the way through the floor, thus avoiding appearance issues. And people who didn't want to use the tab could either leave it flat (so it lays against the bottom of the floor) or cut it off.
(edit--typo fix)
-
Um , Ed . . . . . :facepalm:
Seriously cool dude. I'll take a couple dozen when you are ready for production.
Zox's idea about a tab and dimple seem right to me, and way easier then doing a second drilling. I also like the added air hose idea - I keep having a devil of a time figuring out where to mount the great BLMA ones I have on hand. And the extended draft gear version would be cool, but then I'd need a website with the appropriate draft gear boxes listed for all my rolling stock so I mount the right ones.
But again, well done.
-
Have you considered having adding a narrow tab to the back of the unit, that could be bent upwards to stick into a dimple drilled in the bottom of the car floor?
I second the idea. Micro-trains cars, and some others, already have a second hole for this. It's used for the little post that comes on the 1027 and is used for precisely the same purpose. Make it the same spacing and it will work for a lot cars without even drilling the dimple.
-
Ed, I tried to go back and look at the v2 file you sent me (months ago!) and my copy of DraftSight had expired, so I'll try and download a new copy soon and help you get another version of these done. I personally have a moratorium on all loco and rolling stock projects until I get the upper deck of TBC running. But this this project - and etched loco handrails - are still of great interest.
-gfh
P.S. Love that Railbox.
-
I really like how this is going. Just does anyone know how well the FTs hold up under long trains? Say 100+ cars?
-
I really like how this is going. Just does anyone know how well the FTs hold up under long trains? Say 100+ cars?
FTs are remarkably strong. One reason is that the have a solid (not split) shank. I think they were tested and could withstand something like over 5 pounds of pull, but don't quote me on that.
-
I don't how these would hold up to 100+ cars in N, but I think they do fine in 100-car coal trains in Z (in talgo-style trucks). As DKS notes, the couplers and draft gear have plenty of strength; the key will be to maintain vertical alignment, which requires careful body-mounting.
Truth be told, we're just messing around here. These are still not available as a standalone item, so you'd be hard-pressed to afford 100 pair. We're just buying time until the NZT Proto-Mates come along. That said, I do really like these FT's still.
-
According to this page on Atlas (http://www.atlasrr.com/Reviews/gp40.review.htm), 20 average N scale cars take about 0.8 ounces of pull on level+straight track. I've tested a single FT to statically lift a 10-ounce weight, and I'm convinced it could do more than that. So the strength doesn't seem to be too much of a concern.
We're just buying time until the NZT Proto-Mates come along.
Also there is the learning curve of building & using a box like this, which may come in handy by the time we have the NZTs.
In the meantime, I was wondering if any folks were interested in more FTs? My understanding is that Will is all sold out, but he might be open to doing more if we can get him some kind of number.
Thanks,
Ed
-
I do like the box, being it seems like a good option for cars with open ends that make mounting MTs difficult.
I'd like to do be able to do these, however most of my cars will probably just be MTs...
-
- Mike, you're definitely correct that two clearance holes are best for cases where the box mounts directly to an under-frame. My thinking was that I could start with a tap hole and ream it to a clearance hole for those situations (which are probably the vast majority). A tap hole potentially gave me options for other applications like extended gear or maybe tank cars where the box is under a flimsy platform. But that may not be true in practice, we'll see.
Brass is *VERY* easily soldered. The coupler box could soldered together (if needed) and any possible extensions or custom mounts (made of brass) could also be easily soldered to the box.
-
I've put together this sketch for a revised, standard-length pocket. As always I'm very interested to hear critiques/comments/questions.
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/CouplerPocketWithHose.jpg)
Here are the key changes in this version:
- Added an etched air hose & pipe, in place of the fold-out tab for mounting a plastic part. With this one, you simply fold it up along the two half-etches on the side of the cover, and bend the hose proper to whatever shape you want. This is closer to scale than the plastic part, and I also found that with the previous design the plastic air hose could interfere with the coupler swing.
- I'm experimenting with a mounting system that uses two 00-90 screws instead of one. The trick with the single screw is that I had to make it pretty snug in order to securely mount the pocket and keep it from moving; however that could easily cause the coupler to bind. With two screws, one screw serves as the pivot for the coupler, while the other has the job of securing the pocket to the carbody. Two screws also eliminates any rotation, and makes for a sturdier mounting overall. To install, simply drill and tap two 00-90 holes (and I'm considering a drilling template for the fret). Note that the holes for the pivot screw are sized for a 00-90 tap, while the other holes in the pocket are sized for a 00-90 clearance. I think this will also be useful with an extended pocket design.
- I shortened the overall length of the pocket, so that it can be installed without trimming. Likewise, I shortened the cover length, to avoid clearance problems with the second mount screw. There is also now one cover instead of two. The shorter length and one less cover means that more usable parts can be etched from a sheet of brass.
- The fold-down tab for a cut lever is now more like a 'hook'. I think this combines the advantages of the two different tabs in the previous design. It avoids a potential interference point for the coupler shank, and still allows a cut lever to be installed without having to make an additional bend in a fairly precise location. Of course, if you don't want a cut lever, the entire tab is easily trimmed off.
- An extended pocket would be longer with more of the clearance holes. Also the pivot screw tap hole in the pocket body becomes a half-etched hole on the inside of the pocket. The pivot screw is therefore shorter and goes not penetrate through the top side of the pocket; it is held in place by the threads through the cover. The cover in this case would I think need to be CA'd or soldered into place. The air hose too would change, becoming like one of those 'looped' style ones that are on cushioned draft gear on the prototype.
Thanks for looking!
Ed
-
Ed,
I like this design a lot - the hook for the cut lever is a nice touch. I'm curious however why not just do the pointed dimple that can fold into the car body in a whole? That said if you go to production I'd be happy to beta test some.
-
I'm curious however why not just do the pointed dimple that can fold into the car body in a whole?
Excellent point Phillip. My main thought is that having one screw sort of 'overloads' the one screw with too many jobs -- it has to serve as a pivot point, and hold the cover on, and hold everything securely in place. The would be OK except that those jobs tend to conflict, in that it is hard to secure everything yet still function as a pivot point without the binding. So going with two screws is like a division-of-labor that removes that conflict, and it has the added benefit of also acting like the dimple without affecting the primary function of each screw. (I think it's simpler than it sounds -- sometimes I just use too many words that only add to the confusion!)
Not that altho there are two clearance holes, the idea is to use only one of them. The only reason for including both is that I thought it might be useful in situations where one hole or the other might line up better with a factory-drilled hole like on some cars.
Thanks,
Ed
-
I also think that having to drill and tap 2 screw holes for each coupler is overkill. When I body-mount MT couplers I mount them using a single screw then I wick some CA glue around the pocket. When the glue hardens, it creates a tiny lip around where the coupler pocket meets the cars floor. The pocket is not able to twist at all. Using CA glue is much faster and less pain than installing another screw.
-
Looks good Ed! Thanks for pushing this along, since I let it languish... I have a few questions/comments, some based on rereading my notes in this earlier post (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg250889#msg250889):
* Did you shrink the holes a bit relative to the spec for 00-90 tap and clearance holes? In my notes above, I found the holes came out about 15-20% bigger than spec'ed. That said, I'm not sure I see the advantage of etching the two clearance holes all the way through, vs. having maybe 3 half-etch dimples, zero or one of which could be drilled through for a 2nd screw.
* It seems like it would be really simple to add a small fold up tab on the back of the body part for stabilization, as has been suggested. It could always be removed if desired.
* It looks to me like the back lip of the cover should bit slightly narrower still, to avoid interfering with the box sides. Not by much - just a few thou.
* I like the hose. I can't tell from the drawing, but is it sized to be roughly square in cross section? If not, it could tend to buckle when bent. (The hose detail looks great!)
* Nice design on the cut lever hook - that should work really well. I would love to have a corresponding part to glue to the car body for those cases where I would bend my own levers from wire. Something simple with a straight rod extension that would fit snugly in a #80 hole in the car.
* Finally - just to confirm - I am interpreting the drawing as if I were looking at both parts from above. Then the red lines fold up out of the page, and vice versa for the blue. That makes the uneven tabs line up in the correct sense.
Thanks again!!
-gfh
-
* Did you shrink the holes a bit relative to the spec for 00-90 tap and clearance holes? In my notes above, I found the holes came out about 15-20% bigger than spec'ed. That said, I'm not sure I see the advantage of etching the two clearance holes all the way through, vs. having maybe 3 half-etch dimples, zero or one of which could be drilled through for a 2nd screw.
Gary,
I suspect that you already know this but I figured that I would mention this, just in case. The etching process undercuts the design by about half of the thickness of the material being etched. That is when the material is etched from both sides. So if you are etching from 0.010" brass, holes will be 0.010" larger in diameter than the artwork.
-
You're right Peteski, it's an additive correction, not a multiplicative one. Got that Ed? ;)
-
Thanks dudes for the comments! Lemme see if I've got the main points:
I also think that having to drill and tap 2 screw holes for each coupler is overkill. When I body-mount MT couplers I mount them using a single screw then I wick some CA glue around the pocket. When the glue hardens, it creates a tiny lip around where the coupler pocket meets the cars floor. The pocket is not able to twist at all. Using CA glue is much faster and less pain than installing another screw.
No question, a single screw would be easier if possible. One thing tho about the MT pockets is that they have a center post which can support the cover and reduce binding when the screw is tightened. However the pivot hole in the FT coupler is too small to allow for a post (it just about clears the 00-90 threads without much to spare). I'm thinking that's not necessarily a bad thing, since a post would make both the coupler and the pocket significantly larger, even tho it does make it harder to get away with a single screw. (BTW the original plastic FT pocket has a post, but it's solid, and no screw.)
Since this design doesn't rely on the pivot screw to hold into the body of the car, it isn't really necessary to tap threads for it (assuming I properly allow for undercut on the tap holes). All that's needed in a car body hole is enough diameter to clear the 0.0470" thread diameter. Also FWIW I do tend to prefer a glue-free installation (probably 'cuz I too often end up with CA where I don't want it... :D)
* Did you shrink the holes a bit relative to the spec for 00-90 tap and clearance holes? In my notes above, I found the holes came out about 15-20% bigger than spec'ed. That said, I'm not sure I see the advantage of etching the two clearance holes all the way through, vs. having maybe 3 half-etch dimples, zero or one of which could be drilled through for a 2nd screw.
This draft doesn't contain any allowances. My MT data sheet for a 00-90 shows a 0.0470" diameter, a tap of 0.0380" (#62 drill), and a clearance of 0.0465" (#56 drill, actually sounds a tad snug to me). So for 0.010" brass it sounds like the tap wants to be drawn at 0.0280" and the clearance at 0.0370". Does that sound about right?
Re: dimples, I ended up not using any of them on the original version. With a two-screw approach it seemed to me that etched holes would save a bit of drilling. What do you think of this idea: in place of several holes/dimples, how about an oval slot (etched to a clearance width)? That saves on drilling, and might be a bit easier to use with pre-drilled holes in the car body.
* It seems like it would be really simple to add a small fold up tab on the back of the body part for stabilization, as has been suggested. It could always be removed if desired.
Easy enough to add, tho I'm not sure if it means any less drilling - seems the choice is either drill for the second screw, or drill for the tab. (Maybe I've overlooked something here?)
Also - if located on the back, does it (potentially?) encroach on the bolster?
* It looks to me like the back lip of the cover should bit slightly narrower still, to avoid interfering with the box sides. Not by much - just a few thou.
Sounds like a good idea, but do we get about 0.005" back on each edge anyways, because of the undercut?
* I like the hose. I can't tell from the drawing, but is it sized to be roughly square in cross section? If not, it could tend to buckle when bent. (The hose detail looks great!)
It's about 0.012" or 2 scale inches across. I actually put a half-etch lengthwise on each side of the hose, on the back (blue) side so it is hard to see in this picture. It's only a few thou wide -- not a true half-etch, but just knocking a bit off the edges to help make an impression of something round. Considering undercut, I'm not sure if it is needed, but I might leave it in to see how it works out.
* Nice design on the cut lever hook - that should work really well. I would love to have a corresponding part to glue to the car body for those cases where I would bend my own levers from wire. Something simple with a straight rod extension that would fit snugly in a #80 hole in the car.
Let me see what I can come up with. There are a lot of variations on the proto, so it will probably be generic-looking.
* Finally - just to confirm - I am interpreting the drawing as if I were looking at both parts from above. Then the red lines fold up out of the page, and vice versa for the blue. That makes the uneven tabs line up in the correct sense.
Correct. The one exception is the red half-etch lines on either end of the tab slots in the cover. Those don't fold, they are just recessed to receive the corresponding edge of the pocket side walls.
Thanks for the great feedback guys!
Ed
-
Ok Ed, I guess that a double hole is a reasonable solution. Even if it is there, it doesn't prevent someone like me from using a single screw/pivot, then preventing the coupler pocket from twisting with some carefully placed CA glue. :P
I wanted to double-check what I stated earlier and PPD states that the undercut is only 20% (not 50%) of the material thickness. So you'll need to recalculate the hole size. Better yet, you might want to double-check by contacting PPD directly. They should have no problem assisting with critical things like hole diameter. For more info see the "Tolerances" section in http://www.ppdltd.com/web_site_3/DG_Line_width.html (http://www.ppdltd.com/web_site_3/DG_Line_width.html)
I'm not sure where I remember the half-thickness (or 50%) undercutting of the etched material. It was probably for single-sided etching.
-
Thanks Peteski... the PPD page shows the formula, B = 20% of T, where B is the undercut amount, and T is the material thickness.
(http://www.ppdltd.com/web_site_3/DG_Line_width/IMAG002.JPG)
But the way the pic shows here, a hole should actually be a smaller diameter... about 2 x 0.002" for a 0.010" metal.
This is triggering a dim recollection from somewhere in my murky brain. Gary, at one point did you tell me that PPD was using a more "aggressive" etch process with these pockets? Would that account for the 15%-20% larger holes that you saw?
Edit: I think it's probably OK to undersize the holes on the drawing. It's not too much of a deal to enlarge a hole with a drill, but making a hole smaller is a lot more difficult...
Thanks,
Ed
-
Easy enough to add, tho I'm not sure if it means any less drilling - seems the choice is either drill for the second screw, or drill for the tab. (Maybe I've overlooked something here?)
Also - if located on the back, does it (potentially?) encroach on the bolster?
Please forgive me if I messed this up--I've not done any etching--but I believe what we're discussing for a pocket with a tab would look something like this:
(http://lordzox.com/mrr/2012/pocket_with_tab.png)
It would actually be less likely to interfere with the bolster, since you don't have the width of the screw-head to worry about.
As pointed out earlier, the hole for the tab wouldn't have to be nearly as deep as a hole that has to "grab" a threaded fastener, so you might not need to drill all the way through the floor. You're also saving the cost of a second screw, and possibly the time needed to tap the second hole.
-
Ed, you better contact PPD and ask them. From my past experience with etching I would be inclined to say that the peak as shown in the drawing is where the mask in the original original artwork would end (there is definitely undercutting going on during etching). That drawing is a bit ambiguous. As stated at the bottom of that page: If you have any specific questions not covered, or have any questions about these guidelines, please feel free contact us and we will be happy to discuss your artwork queries.
If you get this right then there will not be any drilling required. :D
-
I think it's probably OK to undersize the holes on the drawing. It's not too much of a deal to enlarge a hole with a drill, but making a hole smaller is a lot more difficult...
This is what I go by for myself.
Another way is to make a few tests next time you send something out, but that takes time and a few bucks.
-
Another way is to make a few tests next time you send something out, but that takes time and a few bucks.
Or as I said, ask the techs at PPD. That way there will be no doubts about what needs to be done to end up with the properly sized holes. 8)
-
I dug up some old info about holes sizes from the first run of these boxes. Sadly, I can't fully reproduce the numbers I had before, but my bottom line recommendation would be to spec the tap hole at .036 and the clear hole(s)* at .050. Here is the exchange I had with James at PPD on the subject last January:
Hi James,
Just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that my etchings showed up last week safe & sounds, and they are awesome! There are a few things I'll want to tweak in the next run, but first I have a quick question for you about hole sizes. As drawn, I had two holes specified: one at 40 thou dia. and one at 55 thou dia. Since these were sized to be tap & clearance holes, respectively, for a 00-90 screw their dimensions are somewhat critical. When I measure them, they come out as ~50 thou and ~62 thou, respectively, so about 5 thou larger in radius. Does this sound about right to you? Do you recommend that I draw the new holes about 5 thou smaller in radius?
Thanks,
Gary
Gary
It's a little difficult to say, since you drew bits that were under tolerance. It is more likely that the guys pushed the etch to get the parts that should not have worked to work, leaving the holes over etched. Does this make sense to you? On material thicker than 0.4, we would suggest adding 5-10% if the dimension is super critical, but on thinner material we
would not bother, I suspect this is more likely the case that it was over etched.
Thanks
James Debnam
A few notes:
- Today, I remeasured some holes on the boxes I have left over and I can not reproduce the numbers I quoted above. I am getting much closer to spec values. That said, the tap hole is just a bit too large to be reliably tapped. I agree that slightly undersizing is easier to deal with since the holes can easily by reamed to spec. afterwards.
- The comment James made about "pushing the etch" has the following context. When he reviewed the original artwork, he warned me that some items like the old air hose and cut lever tabs would be dicey. He said it was worth a try though, and he mentioned beforehand that they would "push the etch" to see how it goes. That aspect turned out really well.
- I'm not sure what James meant by the comment: "since you drew bits that were under tolerance." That could either mean they were speced too small or they were subject to a spec. I never followed up, but I'm getting a bit Talmudic now. ;)
-gfh
*P.S. I'll post a few more general comments in a separate post.
-
Why is it critical that the screw tap the etch? My thought was the screw needs to pass the brass and secure to the body of the car that has been tapped?
Great work, regardless and I love how the FT coupler looks. I must admit I'm in coupler hold mode. Waiting for an announced new product from a company that has three letters in it's name!
-
Warning - this post contains no useful information, it's just an historical re-creation. ;) I still stand by the recommendation of .036 and .050.
Earlier today I measured the holes with my steel ruler and was getting numbers close to what were spec'ed in the drawing, with an uncertainty of a few thou. This puzzled me because in January I had earlier measured them to be larger. I now recall that I used my calipers back then, so I remeasured them today with those and I do get the larger values I got earlier. Hmm. Next I measured my ruler graticules with the calipers and I got numbers that are a few thou too large... I re-checked that the calipers were correctly zeroed, and I calibrated them by measuring some code 55 rail, which came out bang on .055. I think the problem is a bias in the way I measured the holes with the calipers. I'm not able to get the caliper prongs into the holes, so I just place them in front of the hole and estimate the diameter (the same way I measured the ruler graticules). This must introduce a small measurement bias.
Bottom line is that the etched holes came out a few thou too large, based on tests with actual holes and actual screws.
-gfh
-
A few more general comments:
- I see that you changed the cover hole to a tap hole. That's probably fine, but having both the top and bottom holes threaded could be tricky since that forces a quantized spacing (integer number of screw threads) between the two surfaces. It would be easy enough to ream one or the other to a clearance hole though. (BTW Scott, the original motivation for a tap hole was to allow the box to be "standalone". In the situation you mention, both holes could be clearance.)
- I can't tell from the drawing, but is the shorter lid still long enough to clear the coupler shank? Re the back flap, I think taking off .002 from each side is about right. There is no harm having this flap be slightly narrow, but it's a pain for it to be too wide.
- How long is the overall part now (neglecting the fold up lip)? I'm still keen to try these out on tank cars where they would mount directly to the tank. As an example, the length I would want for an Atlas corn syrup tanker would be about .34", so I'm hoping your drawing is at least that long. ;)
- The slot idea sounds good. Hopefully it's strong enough. Your point about the pitfalls of an alignment tab are well taken. Maybe there should be a short version, like Zox' drawing, with a tab, and a long version, like your drawing, with holes/slots?
- I honestly don't mind a generic cut lever bracket. And roger on the cover slots - I knew those didn't fold.
Thanks again!
Gary
-
Why is it critical that the screw tap the etch? My thought was the screw needs to pass the brass and secure to the body of the car that has been tapped?
The "screw tapped into the etch" was in the description of a possible long-draft/cushion coupler, where the shank of the coupler is beyond the body of the car, and therefore can't be supported by the same screw that attaches the coupler box to the car.
For the "normal" coupler as pictured, the screw does indeed pass through the box and shank and secures to the floor.
-
OK, thanks.
-
Great feedback guys, and many thanks once again! This is one of the really awesome things about TRW!
Rob, thanks for the image, that does help me to 'get the picture' --- literally! ;) What you have there is shortened the pocket back into basically the single screw design, where the tab does the same job vis a vis rotation as the second screw. I'm still unsure about the idea of one screw being as strong, so let me give you an example. In this picture here (http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0367-resize.jpg), note how close the mounting screw had to be drilled to the edge of the car floor in order to put the pocket where it needed to go. So I am a little concerned that in some cases, there might not be enough material in the right place for a secure screw attachment. And even with adding a tab (or using CA), there is still the concern about binding (since there is no center post).
Peteski & Gary, I'll definitely remember to check with PPD. It sounds like I should start with the dimensions that Gary recommends for tap and clearance. On James' comment about 'under tolerance' that sounds to me like he might have meant that the cut lever and air hose holes were drawn a bit too small to etch reliably for the thickness of the metal. So to make sure the holes would etch thru, they decided to "push the etch" which I guess means leave the brass exposed longer in the etchant so more of the metal gets removed. Which of course also means that the tap holes, dimples, and everything else had a little more material taken off too --- good thing you made the tags as large as you did ;) (BTW what dimension did you use for those?)
Why is it critical that the screw tap the etch? My thought was the screw needs to pass the brass and secure to the body of the car that has been tapped?
Well, we're using it in a couple of different ways. If the screw is just to hold the pocket on, and serve as a coupler pivot, then the only hole that needs to be tapped is the one in the pocket body, the hole in the lid can be a clearance. OTOH, with an extended coupler pocket, we don't want the pivot screw poking out the top of the pocket, so we use a shorter screw in that case and the tap-size hole in the cover allows the screw to hold om there. BTW I was thinking in that case, the screw would not hold the cover on, so the cover would have to be glued (or even soldered) onto the body of the coupler. Alternately, I could make the tabs longer so that they could fold up after the cover is put on, and thus hold the cover in place.
- I see that you changed the cover hole to a tap hole. That's probably fine, but having both the top and bottom holes threaded could be tricky since that forces a quantized spacing (integer number of screw threads) between the two surfaces. It would be easy enough to ream one or the other to a clearance hole though.
Agreed. I think this situation came from me conflating two separate use cases.
- I can't tell from the drawing, but is the shorter lid still long enough to clear the coupler shank? Re the back flap, I think taking off .002 from each side is about right. There is no harm having this flap be slightly narrow, but it's a pain for it to be too wide.
That part of it is unchanged. I'll be sure to take the 0.002" off each edge.
- How long is the overall part now (neglecting the fold up lip)? I'm still keen to try these out on tank cars where they would mount directly to the tank. As an example, the length I would want for an Atlas corn syrup tanker would be about .34", so I'm hoping your drawing is at least that long. ;)
I think it's currently now more like 0.300". If that's not enough then maybe an extended version could be used? Do you have any dimensions that you want to see for that?
- The slot idea sounds good. Hopefully it's strong enough. Your point about the pitfalls of an alignment tab are well taken. Maybe there should be a short version, like Zox' drawing, with a tab, and a long version, like your drawing, with holes/slots?
Perhaps. I need to get started on the extended version, and see what I can tell from looking at that.
Cheers!
Ed
-
Hi Ed, good point about the screw location being close to the edge of the floor. I had the same issue with the grain hopper installation, in the 2nd photo of this post (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg250919#msg250919) you can see how the screw was actually impinging the gap between the sill and end cage. These couplers and boxes are small!
You're correct about the 'under tolerance' comment - James was especially referring to the cut lever tab in the old 2nd cover design: he wasn't sure the gaps were large enough to etch through. By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by 'tabs' in that comment, the attachment 'sprues'? I think those were .02" wide?
RE tank car dimensions, the only dim. I have is the 0.34" length. Is there something else you wanted? I never had a problem trimming the longer version down wih etching scissors, so longer is better from my perspective. Same with lots of dimpled holes... ;) My one concern about a slot is that the pocket could slide forward under stress, if that is the only significant attachment point. It's probably fine, it's just a minor concern.
Cheers,
Gary
-
Gary, it sounds that like for the tank car it might work to trim down the elongated version to the size that actually needed for the specific car. Soldering too has been mentioned; for some open-end type installations it maybe would work to solder some brass strip onto the pocket, and then epoxy the strip to the frame members. I'll dig out a tank or two and give them a look-over.
I'm not worried about the slot having any sliding. The pivot screw should prevent that the same way that it prevents torquing. On an extended pocket, the pivot screw couldn't work that way, but I'm thinking in that kind of installation it might be desirable to have a second mounting screw anyway.
BTW I found a really cool etching guide that talks about the etching profiles: http://www.hollywoodfoundry.com/Docs/Metal%20Etching%20Principles%20and%20Rules.pdf (So now I have some reading to do!) ;)
Ed
-
OK gents, here it is... Coupler Pocket 2b: (apologies, that's not a Shakespearean reference! :D )
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/CouplerPocketWithHose2.jpg)
Changes in this revision:
- Re-sized tap holes to 0.036" and clearance holes to 0.050" diameters
- Shaved 0.002" off the edges of the fold-up tab on the cover
- Converted the two single clearance holes to a slot, to allow use of pre-drilled holes
- Widened the long slots on the cover to allow for 'cusping'
- Cleaned up some of the 'under tolerance' areas around the air hose
I still have to come up with the elongated version. The main differences will be of course the length, plus the S-shaped hose, and the tap hole in the pocket goes from a full etch to a back-side (blue) half-etch.
Looking forward to your feedback!
Thanks,
Ed
-
Isn't the elongated hole a bit wide? Or was that the goal? Also, isn't the color of part which is to remain supposed to be black with white where everything will be etched through? Or will the artwork colors be reversed later?
Also, what are the rectangular holes in the side walls for? It was probably mentioned earlier and I just missed that (I'm a late arrival to this thread and I didn't read all of the previous posts). :oops:
-
Isn't the elongated hole a bit wide?
It's the 0.050" for the 00-90 clearance. I think perhaps just looks wider because the other hole got smaller.
(BTW on this image I had the grid turned on. The white dots are on a 0.005" spacing, so that can be used as a guide for the dimensions on this one.)
Also, isn't the color of part which is to remain supposed to be black with white where everything will be etched through? Or will the artwork colors be reversed later?
I think there are a variety of conventions & preferences, but not any one way to do it. My understanding is that it's a matter of telling the etcher which colors you want for the full, half-front, and half-back layers. Besides, this is what Gary used for the v1, so it must be good. I'm just following his footsteps ;)
Also, what are the rectangular holes in the side walls for? It was probably mentioned earlier and I just missed that (I'm a late arrival to this thread and I didn't read all of the previous posts). :oops:
No worries, those are just cosmetic, to give a suggestion of some of the detail on a proto pocket like this one (http://www.mellowmike.com/Prototypes/2bay_axle.html). It does look kinda crude on the drawing, but on the pocket it will be pretty small, even in close-up pics of the finished model.
(BTW that reminds me -- I still gotta do the cut lever bracket for Gary....)
Thanks for looking ;)
Ed
-
Looks good Ed. A couple more things:
- It seemed like the tab & slot arrangement worked very well before. Do you think it needs to be enlarged?
- Re the little side slots - it would be good to check that they won't catch or interfere with the coupler centering spring whiskers.
Did I send you the guidance from James about how to size the sheet to maximize roll efficiency? I recall that the best width to use was ~285 mm (I'll double-check that). Anything less than that is wasted (i.e. paid for). The other dimension is flexible, since it just comes off the spool.
Let's roll!
-gfh
-
- Re the little side slots - it would be good to check that they won't catch or interfere with the coupler centering spring whiskers.
That is exactly the reason I was curious about those slots. I guess I should have been more specific in my question. :facepalm:
Even if they don't interfere with the whiskers, if the whiskers will rub against that area, then the sharp edge of those slots might wear grooves in the outside surfaces of the whiskers. Maybe those slots should be half-etched on the outside only? That will still give a visual queue that there is some extra detail in that area.
-
Like they were originally. ;)
-
Thanks guys for the excellent point about the whiskers (I didn't even think about that). You're right, it should be a half-etch from the front (red) side, I'll add that change. (You're right about the original too... if it ain't broke.... <sheepish>)
On the long slots, I thought it would be good to make them about 0.003" wider than nominal after looking thru some of those design guides. Holes are easy to enlarge, slots are almost impossible. I'd have to check the size on the v1 drawing, but I'm guessing one reason v1 came out OK here was because of the over-etch. Since this one doesn't have the little holes I'm not sure that PPD would produce identical results. Could very well be overkill, but it seems like a slightly safer hedge -- what do you think?
BTW Gary if you could forward a copy of that guide from James, I'd be very appreciative.
Thanks,
Ed
-
Here is revision 2C, updated as follows:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/CouplerPocketWithHose2c.jpg)
- Adds the elongated pocket
- Cover for the elongated pocket has the 'looped' kind of air hose like on this proto (http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc97/notllr/ttxbend.jpg). Since I could not draw it actually hanging under the cover, it will need a bit of gentle bending when installed.
- The air hose for the 'standard' cover has been re-drawn and now includes a curve.
- Added a folding 'hook' for installing a cut lever bent from wire.
- Changed the side slots back to a half-etch.
Please let me know your comments. I'm getting ready to put this into a fret and send it out for etching, so if anyone is interested in some sample parts, please send me a PM.
Thanks!
Ed
-
Shouldn't the hole in that elongated cover be etched through (not half-etched)?
I also don't understand that super-long curved up hose in the elongated coupler pocket's cover. John Holmes of Z-scale couplers? :trollface:
-
Shouldn't the hole in that elongated cover be etched through (not half-etched)?
On the extended pocket, the pivot screw could end up in a visible location. So rather than have it protrude thru the top, the idea with the half-etch is to use a shorter screw that would not be visible. The half-etch just gives a little bit of recess to receive the end of the screw. This does raise the question of how to hold the cover in place. It would have to be glued or soldered (the latter probably being the sturdiest). Alternately, I thought of maybe extending the tabs that go thru the cover and adding a half-etch so that they could be bent to hold the cover in place, but I'm not sure how sturdy that would be.
I also don't understand that super-long curved up hose in the elongated coupler pocket's cover.
It's a generic version of some of the proto air hoses, like these for example:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc97/notllr/centaout_zps70931a43.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc97/notllr/nadxbend_zps272a25f8.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc97/notllr/bnsfairlineholder_zpsbe77aa2f.jpg
The 'looped' hose doesn't always correspond to an extended pocket on the proto. However, since the cover is the same, you could use either type with the standard or extended pocket as desired.
Ed
-
Thanks for the explanation Ed. Only one thing I don't like is that on the extended pocket you depend on the threaded hole in the cover (which only has a depth of a single thread) to keep the pivot screw tight. Also since the cover hole is the female thread, the screw will not be perpendicular to the cover but it will be tilted by the angle of the screw's thread. While that is not much, my anal personality doesn't like that. :facepalm:
-
* I tend to agree that the half-etch top hole might be problematic. In addition to Peteski's worry (which hadn't really occurred to me), I have a hard time picturing cutting a 00-90 screw to the precise length needed to sit in the dimple, while threading tightly to the cover. Perhaps it doesn't need to if the cover is soldered on, but it would be desirable. (I also have a hard time imagining holding such a short screw.) The dimple can always be drilled through if it turns out to be a problem, then the screw can be cut & ground from above. Unsightly perhaps, but probably functional.
* Another thought is that it might be desirable to make the the cover an integral part of the box. This could be achieved by having it joined with a fold on the opposite side to the air hose. There is really no need for the cover to be removable since coupler maintenance can be achieved by removing the screw and pulling the coupler out. What we really want is a rectangular box with screw holes. The downside of that approach is that you lose the lower flap extension, but that is not really a key feature of the prototype, and the left-right symmetry is already broken by the air hose detail on the one side, so it wouldn't really be that noticeable. Another downside is that it might be tricky to fold, but the functional advantages are potentially significant.
* The looped air hose looks interesting - I'm curious to see how it does with bending.
* I'm afraid I don't understand the bends in the cut lever bracket... :? If the blue etch were red it would make more sense to me. What am I missing?
Cheers,
Gary
P.S. I'll see what I can dig up from James' correspondence.
-
I'm scratching my head about the screw for the extended pocket. So far it seems to me that the best approach is what you suggest, Gary: go thru the top and then cut off the protruding portion with a Dremel cut-off wheel. Perhaps the unsightly top could then be covered with a strip of brass or styrene, kind of like the top plate in this image:
http://www.mellowmike.com/Prototypes/Coupler.jpg
I have a slight concern that it might not be so easy to remove & replace the screw, if trimming it leaves any burrs on the threads. But I'm not sure if that's worth worrying about.
Regarding a shorter screw, Gary I looked back and noted this pic that you had posted a while back on the first page of this thread (hope you don't mind me re-posting here):
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-N5N5M-wGIws/TGQZ9ugtO6I/AAAAAAAADas/vcz_T3iZFZA/s800/DSCN9879.jpg)
My main question is, how well did this hold, when only threaded from one side? I'm guessing this is 0.014" wall tubing... our pocket cover is only 0.010, but OTOH the 00-90 is a finer thread, with a pan head that should add strength. Maybe it would hold well enough, if the cover hole were etched smaller and then properly tapped? Also re: length, the coupler box screw on the Athearn 2-bay hopper is a 00-90 and only 0.075" long including the head. Tiny, yes, but perhaps workable -- what do you guys think?
I like the idea of a folding cover. Do you think it makes sense to do that too for the standard length? Here is a thought: what about two bottom flaps, one that folds over the other? That would give us a 0.020" thick bottom cover; more than the 0.014" tubing so it should be plenty of metal to securely anchor a 00-90 screw from one side without protruding through the top. No glue or soldering either. (Might have to re-work the hose attachment, but that seems doable.)
On the cut lever bracket, the rightmost tab folds up, and is meant to go into a #80 hole in the floor of the car. The next segment lies flat against the bottom of the car. The segment with the angled side then folds down, perpendicular to the floor of the car. (Hope that's clearer, it's one of those things a picture shows right away, but words take some effort.)
Thanks again guys for all the great feedback. Thanks too Gary for sending those notes from James, I'll be poring over them in detail ;)
Ed
-
My main question is, how well did this hold, when only threaded from one side? I'm guessing this is 0.014" wall tubing... our pocket cover is only 0.010, but OTOH the 00-90 is a finer thread, with a pan head that should add strength. Maybe it would hold well enough, if the cover hole were etched smaller and then properly tapped? Also re: length, the coupler box screw on the Athearn 2-bay hopper is a 00-90 and only 0.075" long including the head. Tiny, yes, but perhaps workable -- what do you guys think?
Ed,
keep in mind that none of the hobby screws have full thread which extends all the way to the base of the head. So, you cannot tighten the head all the way against the surface of the coupler pocket. There might be fully threaded screws available but if they are, they'll be quite pricey (in 00-90 size).
Also, that photo made me think about another possible issue. The coupler will pivot on the sharp threads fo that 00-90 screw. How durable will that be in a long run? It might be ok on short trains with not much stress on the couplers but what if you run 100-car trains going through curves for hours at a time, year after year? Will the screw's sharp thread wear out the coupler shaft's hole?
-
Use brass rod, glue/solder it in, and be done. If you really had to get in there, you still could. But does it really need to be serviceable to the point of using a 00-90 screw?
-
I've been working on some attempts to drill and tap 0.010" and 0.015" brass for a 00-90 screw, and it has turned out to be rather unsatisfactory. The brass is simply too thin to hold a screw with such fine threads.
An alternate approach for the extended pocket might be to lightly solder the 00-90 screw onto the cover, then trim it with a Dremel to about 0.030" (the thickness of the coupler shank) from the inside face of the cover. Then install the coupler and cover in place on the body, and use solder or CA to hold the cover into place.
Another option to that last solder/glue step would be to make longer tabs where they go thru the cover -- these could be folded over with a pliers to hold the cover in place.
I agree that a 3/64 brass rod could work instead of a screw (perhaps with a bit more trimming), tho I wouldn't be too worried about excessive wear from the coupler rubbing against the screw threads. Before things get to that point I'll hopefully be replacing these with the NZT Protomates anyway ... :D
One other thing I did was to try the FT couplers out in the ExactRail body-mounted coupler boxes. It was pretty straighforward, all I had to do was remove the center post with an X-acto blade, and add a 00-90 washer to take up the extra space in the pocket when installing the coupler. Here are a few pics:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0392-resize.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0395-resize.jpg)
Cheers,
Ed
-
Wow Ed, that's slick . . . makes me really wish FT had their couplers sold separately.
-
Hi Ed, sorry to be slow to respond... but here are a few more thoughts:
* Thanks for the clarification on the cut lever bracket. That makes sense and looks good.
* I think the standard length pocket is probably ready to go unless you want to try to draw up a 1-piece version first. I don't think it's necessary though, since I'm now inclined to solder or glue the cover on in any case.
* For the extended pocket, I think a rod might be better than a screw. One option is to use an .040 styrene rod pressed through both the top and bottom holes, then trimmed to length. If the holes were properly sized for a press fit, it could still be serviceable. I think the drawing you have would work as is, except that the bottom hole should probably be a bit smaller (maybe .035). This would give people the option to drill and/or tap the top & bottom holes as desired. Beyond that, I think it's too hard to predict how well this may or may not work; we just need some samples.
I'm definitely in for some and will be happy to front you some money for them.
Cheers,
Gary
* RE the ExactRail box: I was trying the same thing the other day and it did look quite feasible. I didn't go as far as to cut off the post though, since I have banned myself from any serious work on rolling stock until I get my upper deck track work finished. ;) Two quick questions though: 1) how is the centering action with the FTs in that box? It seemed like it should be ok. 2) What is the car spacing like with two FT-equipped boxes hooked up? Is it too close?
-gfh
-
I've been checking this most insteresting topic over time but have had nothing to contribute until recently. In the process of building the TrainCat chlorine car I ran into a challenge regarding coupler mounts. I'd prefer not to mess with Z couplers. The design of the car makes 1015s a bit of a problem from a coupler height standpoint. So I pulled out the 3/32" x 3/16" brass tube Gary started with way back. I used the Accumate pivot pin, first drilled out with a #55 bit to clear a 00-90 screw and then sliced off of the truck mounted coupler pocket. A brass shim from the chlorine car kit replaced the washer Gary used to fill the vertical dimension gap.
(http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o235/SAHRR/CL_CouplerPocket.jpg)
I really like this set-up. Easy to do. The fussiest part is cutting and drilling the hole in the channel. The proper manufacturing setup would make quick work of this task I'd think. I've been body mounting 1015 because:
1) They're easy to assemble and are widely available
2) They couple and uncouple reliably
3) They allow better spacing between cars for aesthetic purposes while maintaining operability
I don't like the pogo effect when backing a train but dislike the big gap between cars the Accumates introduce. Perhaps this is a good compromise. However unless the pocket can be mass produced I'm not really interested in cutting and drilling all those pockets.
My two cents FWIW.
Steve
-
Awwright! The Coupler v2 etchings have arrived! Here they are:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0420-resize.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0424-resize.jpg)
I'm really impressed with the way these came out. There was one glitch in the etching process, where the long slot in one of the extended pockets was dropped from the masks and ended up solid. PPD is going to re-run those parts.
Here is what these look like assembled:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0425-resize.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0426-resize.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0427-resize.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0432-resize.jpg)
And here is a quick test of one of the extended pockets mounted on an FVM boxcar (cut lever is WIP):
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0440-resize.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0434-resize.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0441-resize.jpg)
The holes for the pivot screws did not come out overly large. To assemble these samples, I tapped out the hole in the main body with a 00-90 tap, and I drilled the hole in the cover to enlarge it to about a 0.046" diameter. I haven't yet tried soldering the cover to the body, but I think that doing so would make it easier to install the coupler and attach it to the car.
In the image with the boxcar, you can see that I have not yet trimmed the pivot screw. But in this case, since it is under the coupler platform it is pretty well hidden and barely noticeable.
About the only thing so far that I would do differently in a next revision is enlarge the little 'hook' for mounting a cut lever. It came out so small that it is pretty delicate, and takes a bit of care when forming.
As soon as I get the corrected parts from PPD, I'll send out samples.
Cheers!
Ed
-
SWEET! Just in time for the holidays. :lol:
I was actually getting a hankering to try some of these again soon. How big a fret did you end up making?
Nice job!
-gfh
-
Excellent work!
-
Superb!
-
(http://whiteriverandnorthern.net/images/thumbsup.gif)(http://whiteriverandnorthern.net/images/thumbsup.gif)
-
HAWT, and maybe just what I need to get back to the work bench!
-
Hi guys, thanks much for the good words. I'm hoping to make progress on some assembly and installations over the next few days or so. Gary, this etching is an A4, let me know too if you're interested in a copy of the .dwg file. BTW that file came out rather large, since PPD had asked me to include the front & back masks -- did they ask you for that, or did they work from the layered drawing you sent them?
Ed
-
Hi Ed,
I'd love to have the file. How did you end up diving these vis a vis extended vs. standard? I'm more in need of standard ones.
Cheers,
Gary
-
Very very nice! I have been waiting to hear progress on this as I want to start doing mine. Thanks Ed.
-
Ed sent me some samples of the v2 pockets to play with and I've put them out on a few cars. I'll share one example and a few thoughts. I had another example prepared, but as I was bringing it out to the layout for a test run, I dropped it on the garage stairs.... :facepalm: It was a new Atlas 20k tanker that worked out great. Happily the couplers and pockets survived the fall intact, even though the end platform shattered.
The example I do have is an IM 2-bay cement hopper, which was pretty straightforward, except for one thing (see below). First, a shot of the assembled pocket:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Lz2HEt7fg7g/UOZF6rtenWI/AAAAAAAAEmg/dCxranzDLDU/s640/DSCN2201.jpg)
For this build, I tapped 00-90 threads in the top hole and reamed out an .041" hole (#59 bit) in the bottom lid. I soldered the lid on, inserted the coupler, then threaded an .040" styrene rod in from the bottom for a coupler post. I trimmed the bottom of the rod more or less flush and left the amount shown out the top to help prevent pocket swivel (see below). Using a rod here is not necessarily better than a screw, but it can be, depending on circumstances. (For example, with an extended pocket, the top could be trimmed flush and be essentially invisible after painting). It is easily strong enough for its function and it's very secure with the threading.
To mount it to the car, I drilled two holes in the end flooring, as shown. The only trick here is that the location of the coupler post is right at the joint between the end cage and the floor, where there is no structural integrity. In this example, I'm only using the outer hole to accept the styrene post, to help prevent pocket swivel -- it seems to work well. The pocket is attached with an 00-90 screw through the inner hole. It's pretty strong just as is, but I'm thinking a nut might be wise (and hopefully not too unsightly), but I don't have any 00-90 nuts on hand to try this. Here's the bottom:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-5TMwoWB6Rek/UOZF6KzZyAI/AAAAAAAAEmY/QB7Ss1tvqvs/s800/DSCN2198.jpg)
and the end:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Q9M7NfnpXd0/UOZF5hcrj_I/AAAAAAAAEmQ/oLX_p2_TK5Y/s800/DSCN2194.jpg)
These pockets and couplers are really sweet - Ed did a great job on v2 and I think they're pretty much ready for the real world, save for a few cosmetic items. Now that I actually have a layout, I took this out for a test drive by putting it at the head end of a 25 car (12' long) train and ran it through Tehachapi Loop (almost 2.4% grade, 18" radius curves) and it performed great! :lol:
The only issue I had with this car was getting the coupler height right. Here is a comparison to a stock MT truck-mounted coupler:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2tmibkm4vSE/UOZF5teujOI/AAAAAAAAEmU/MSt7F-IUhZU/s800/DSCN2195.jpg)
It's too high, even though the car has been lowered by using BLMA trucks (which look much more appropriate under this car). I already have a .010" shim between the floor and the pocket, so I either need a bigger shim, or I need to lower the ride height a bit more by shaving the bolsters. Not sure which way I'll go yet, but probably the pocket shim, since the ride height is pretty good as is. (Still, I had no issue running it on the layout.)
Going forward, I think the air hose details could use a bit of tweaking, as well as the cut lever bracket. One thought I had about the hose was to try and wrap it with some heat shrink tubing to give it some more relief. The smallest size I had on hand was a little too big, and I'm not sure if smaller stock is readily available, but I'll to look into it.
Functionally, I think it's there! Again, kudos to Ed for driving this forward!!
-gfh
P.S. Most of the tank car ideas I have in mind would require an extended pocket, but a standard style lid. I wonder if it makes sense to add some more standard style lids to the fret?
-
Ed, Gary,
I'm sold! Here I was planning to blissfully spend the next few months body mounting a surfeit of couplers one of our other members kindly sent along (!) And now I have to wait to get a dozen or so frets of these from ya!
Should we start a Company Thread name? My initial, only one cup of coffee vote is for Gary & E'ds Reliable Coupler Service - Kepping the Rail Wire together since 201X.
8)
-
Excellent work Gary and Ed! It looks fantastic and the deployment looks viable for a fleet. It is enough to make me move to body mount couplers.
Now comes the real issue. Are these couplers really available? I'm still waiting to see what David/NZT comes up with, but this looks like my second choice.
-
Well if DKS produced his coupler in these pockets (royalties to Ed and Gary included of course) Then we'd have one of those rare Win-Win situations . . .
Just sayin . . . .
-
+1 :D
-
Will these be for sale?
I need some! I'm working on a caboose that if it comes OK I might offer for sale and I really need a solution like this.
I have started to design my own but why reinvent the wheel? I'd only need the standard length one.
Paul
-
Well if DKS produced his coupler in these pockets (royalties to Ed and Gary included of course) Then we'd have one of those rare Win-Win situations . . .
Believe me, it's on the radar. Maybe not for release #1, but...
-
Okay, so remind me...
Will these only work with the FT couplers? (And how do you get those again?)
Will it work with MT couplers (N or Z scale?)
Just weighing various issues here, including money...
-
Hmm, lots of good questions here... I'll try to answer them as best I can:
* FT's are compatible with all 3 N scale couplers: MT, Accumate, McHenry. This post (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg206847#msg206847) shows an example of an FT mating with an MT; sadly they don't couple automatically, because of size differences in the knuckles, but they will stay coupled if you couple them by hand (by lifting one car). They do a little better coupling automatically with Accumates and McHenry's. Compatibility is one reason I am trying to stick with the MT height standard.
* It would be fantastic if the Proto-Mate shank were compatible with this pocket, but the highest priority for David should be a good design from first principles. In the long run, my hunch is that Proto-Mates will be the way to go, but I don't have any real insights there.
* The only reliable way to obtain FT couplers is to buy the full Talgo truck, which is expensive (see for example Zscale Monster's store (http://www.zscalemonster.com/full_throttle/100/)). Last year, William Dean Wright, the FT developer, made "naked" (wheele-less) trucks available at a discount, but they were still expensive (maybe $3.50 a pair IIRC?) and that may or may not be an option going forward. Now that we have a viable pocket, all we really need is the coupler itself, without the FT pocket (which is only made as part of the truck). Perhaps we should explore purchasing the coupler alone?
* The pockets are specifically sized for the FT couplers and they will not work, as is, with the 3 main N scale couplers. The design could easily be resized to accommodate either an Accumate or a McHenry (interchangeably), but I have no personal interest in doing so. With the styrene post option, I can also imagine how this design could be adapted to accommodate an MT, but I shudder at the thought of trying to assemble them with the MT centering spring, and I think MT already offers plenty of pocket options.
* The intention is certainly to make these available to anyone who might want them, but we have not worked out the details of how. My thinking was that we would start with a "group order" from PPD and go from there, but I haven't discussed this with Ed, or anyone else, lately. Please stay tuned on that front.
Cheers,
Gary
-
My point of view, FWIW...
My interest in this would mainly be for better looking extended cushion couplers. However, I'm dealing with a club environment where I would like to maintain complete interoperability, but can't control what couplers are going to be on other guys' equipment. We also have track conditions and grades that make height tolerances a big deal.
Thus being limited to FTs is a bit of a deal breaker, regardless of cost. I have no love for N scale MTs, but for now I'm afraid to go a different route.
MT really doesn't make any kind of part that's good for modeling extended cushion couplers. So it would be great to have a product like this that would allow that (and look better!).
Or I can just wait until Dave brings out his NZT coupler, and see if it passes the reliability test, and if his coupler can be used with your box (or a similar one), that might be the best of all worlds.
-
jb, I think the biggest problem with FT's is their cost and niche availability. But I do think you could run them in a club environment without too much trouble. The test train I'm running them in has a real dog's breakfast of couplers, wheels, etc. and they're working fine. Unless your track is really wonky, I don't think you'll have any more problems than usual with coupler height since FTs are not that must shorter (vertically) than MT's.
My biggest concern with extended draft gear is coupler overhang on curves. Even with 18" radius curves, I have had cases where an overhanging coupler forces a neighboring truck-mounted car off the tracks:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-w7IoWWD8gtU/T7EmN0NF5oI/AAAAAAAAEEE/gtPg7jbNsy0/s800/DSCN1167.jpg)
In this shot the car on the left is a Red Caboose beer car with a bound-mount AZL coupler (which is very stiff in it's centering), the car on the right has a standard MT truck-mount and it has been twisted off the rails by the overhang. I'm hoping the new pockets and the freer FT couplers will fix this problem, but I haven't tried it yet.
As noted above, it would be fairly easy to resize this pocket to accommodate Accumates or Mchenry's, but that's not anything I have time to do myself. If there was sufficient interest, we could explore ways to make that happen. It would be more challenging to make this style of extended pocket work with MT's, and it's probably not worth the trouble.
If you'd like to try a few pockets let us know, but you'd have to scrounge up your own FT's... ;) I need to coordinate with Ed about the logistics for another order, we'll post specifics here when we have a plan.
Cheers,
Gary
-
Say Gary, that's a fantastic job on the hopper install, thanks for posting that! I'll have to get myself some 0.040" styrene and try that out (a 00-90 screw is easy enough to trim with a rail nippers, but getting it flush with the top edge of the pocket takes some filing).
I've installed these FTs and pockets on about 10 cars so far. Seems that each car takes a bit of tinkering to get the right height. Some cases are a matter of lowering the carbody (which for most models is an improvement anyway). I've been using the MT gauge and trying to get the FT coupler to line up with the vertical mid-line of the gauge. As long as the FT is no higher than the top edge of the MT, or no lower than the bottom edge, then it seems to work OK.
I've been looking forward to putting these together into a train to see how they operate, so I've finally got my old Loop layout set back up (this took a bit of effort to get lights, power, wiring, and some rudimentary staging). Here are a couple of videos to show the results. This first one is a 10-car train, with every car plus the loco installed with the FT couplers. The cars also are all-metal wheels (I'm planning to ban plastic wheels from my layout). I'm running it uphill with the loco pushing all the cars, to see how the body-mounted couplers work out on a fairly stiff grade (over 2%) and 18.75" curves. Looks like it runs pretty smoothly (hopefully the YouTube jitter isn't too bad for most folks -- I have a slow connection):
This next one is the same train going downgrade. Best part is, I can run the train at very slow speed, and these FT couplers completely eliminate the 'slinky' effect:
Finally, just for comparison, here is a similar train also running downhill. This is the same loco, track, and speed setting as the previous clip, the only difference is that these cars all have MT couplers. As you can see, the slinky effect is very pronounced, esp. on the last few cars:
I did one other test, tho I don't have a clip of it: I put all 20 cars into one train, with the FT-equipped cars for the back half. With two locos pushing from the rear, the entire train runs uphill and thru all the curves without a hitch. So far I have not had any unexpected uncouplings with any of the FT-equipped cars.
I'm continuing to install these FTs on more cars and engines, including some like the BLMA reefer with longer overhang.
Thanks for checking these out! ;)
Ed
-
Now that's a Tehachapi video!! (Needs sound though. :trollface:)
Beautiful work Ed. I'd like to see how you handled the LPG tanker as that is one of the next ones on my list. I agree that fine-tuning the coupler height is one of the most finicky parts of the operation, but I think that true of any body-mounting campaign. I have an idea for some additional shims to include in the next fret.
-gfh
P.S. I'm really surprised how bad the slinky is on that last vid. I don't think I've ever seen it quite that bad. Did you start jerking with the controls after the loco was out of view. ;)
-
P.S. I'm really surprised how bad the slinky is on that last vid. I don't think I've ever seen it quite that bad. Did you start jerking with the controls after the loco was out of view. ;)
If only that were the case, then I could have saved myself a heckuva lot of time and money. Unfortunately, it really is like that, and it does it every time. Anyone who doesn't believe the video is more than welcome to come over and see it in person. And there isn't anything special about this set of cars, it happens on anything with MT couplers.
Ed
-
Needs sound though. :trollface:
Definitely! The furnace running in the background doesn't quite cut it! :facepalm:
Ed
-
While I am still not encouraged to release all of the ProtoMate details yet, I can say the following, in the event it has any impact on this (or any similar) project...
The ProtoMate coupler should be a drop-in for most existing modern coupler pockets; that is, the shank hole is the same diameter as that of the Accumate, etc.
Shank will be offered in multiple lengths (probably two for starters).
On the initial version, the knuckle will be centered horizontally along the shank. Other variations will come in time.
Knuckle size for the N scale version will be in keeping with competitive products, although it may be very slightly taller than some for greater reliability, with true zero draft angle on the inner faces. The Z scale version is actually intended to be a "finescale" N scale version, and may be slightly smaller than existing Z scale couplers. Shank parts will be the same as the N scale version so they can drop into existing pockets.
Other notes:
No slinky; the spring is not linear, nor is it in line with the shank.
Trip pin is fitted in a hole that runs the full height of the knuckle, so it won't pop out.
Both halves of the split shank engage the fulcrum, so they will not blow apart.
No parts (such as plastic springs) extend backward beyond the shanks where they engage the fulcrum, so the required pocket size is the absolute minimum.
-
David, I hope you're prepared to offer 100-packs. Seriously. This is coming at a perfect time for me. I'm in the middle of changing eras and have sold almost everything I own in order to start over. Going all body mounts and Z scale couplers. Can't wait to see this in person.
-
Thanks for the peek behind the curtain David!
-
You know those moments where you see something and thing "there's the future"?
I just had one of them popping into this thread, not having have checked in in a while. Particularly, these:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Lz2HEt7fg7g/UOZF6rtenWI/AAAAAAAAEmg/dCxranzDLDU/s640/DSCN2201.jpg)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Q9M7NfnpXd0/UOZF5hcrj_I/AAAAAAAAEmQ/oLX_p2_TK5Y/s800/DSCN2194.jpg)
Wow. Just wow.
-
If only that were the case, then I could have saved myself a heckuva lot of time and money. Unfortunately, it really is like that, and it does it every time. Anyone who doesn't believe the video is more than welcome to come over and see it in person. And there isn't anything special about this set of cars, it happens on anything with MT couplers. Ed
Do those cars also have metal wheels? And are the wheels clean? Are there flanges hitting spikeheads? Are they well weighted cars? Is the track in gauge?
Ed it's not that I don't believe you or the video. (I know we've butted heads over this before). I used to get slinky like that all the time on my old layout with old Atlas cars and dirty plastic wheels (on code 80, if that matters). But these days if I run a local at the club with mostly newer cars that come with more weight, or with MT cars or Roundhouse cars with the metal underframe, (and all this on ME code 55), I just don't have those sorts of problems. Sometimes I see it in the cabeese or the last car, less often the second to last car. But usually I can switch a yard all day without thinking about slinkys.
I'm really just curious about this and trying to help you and others out. (Not that I'm trying to short shrift the FT solution either, as it looks all good to me. I guess I thinking more of others here who might not be ready to go that route.)
-
Do those cars also have metal wheels? And are the wheels clean? Are there flanges hitting spikeheads? Are they well weighted cars? Is the track in gauge?
- about 50/50 metal/plastic
- yes, most are new or nearly so
- nope, all are lo-profile flanges
- factory default weight
- yep (and freshly cleaned too)
usually I can switch a yard all day without thinking about slinkys.
No question, the problem is far less apparent on straight/level track, and with shorter cuts of cars. It's just a matter of finding the right operating conditions that cause the springs to resonate. Downhill, longer trains, mix of curved/tangent track, and low speeds seem to be main contributors. Of course, these are the things that are in abundance on Tehachapi :D
Ed
-
The Z scale version is actually intended to be a "finescale" N scale version, and may be slightly smaller than existing Z scale couplers. Shank parts will be the same as the N scale version so they can drop into existing pockets.
Not sure I'm clear - do you mean that the Z coupler will drop into existing N scale pockets, or existing Z scale pockets (like the FT, or the MT905)? If they drop into the stock FT Z pocket, then that would fit into these etched ones without any changes.
Thanks,
Ed
-
The Z scale version is actually intended to be a "finescale" N scale version, and may be slightly smaller than existing Z scale couplers. Shank parts will be the same as the N scale version so they can drop into existing pockets.
David, thanks indeed for a peek at some of these specs - very helpful! Do I take from the above note that the Z scale coupler will not fit the Full Throttle or AZL pocket, or do you mean same design as N, but smaller size? If the former, that would be problematic for Z scalers (or for people who want to use these pockets).
It sounds like it wouldn't be a bad idea to draw up a pocket sized for Accumates that would then also transfer to Proto-mates.
-gfh
-
Z couplers would drop into N pockets. A version for Z pockets may be in the realm of possibility, but initially all shank parts would be identical, designed for the N market.
-
From the 'because I could' department (not to be confused with the 'because I should' department), I tried to reproduce Ed's slinky video, but I failed. I set up an almost-the-same consist (we must shop at the same boutiques) and ran it down the same stretch of the Loop as his, but was unable to get any significant pogo action. I did get a bit when the train was rounding the curve coming into that stretch, but nothing like what Ed is showing. So I backed it up to the Tunnel section, which is on a very slight down-grade (where there is very little tension in the springs) and filmed a series of runbys at successively slower speeds to see if I could trigger a resonance. The best I could do was on the last/slowest runby, which produced a modest pogo in the last 3 cars - here is the gripping evidence:
https://vimeo.com/57135979 (https://vimeo.com/57135979)
If you listen closely, you can even hear the pogo. Otherwise it is not very compelling video. I am at a loss to explain why Ed's case is so severe.
-gfh
P.S. The cars all have MT couplers here - but probably a mix of front-sprung and back-sprung. I didn't check.
P.S.^2 Thanks DKS.
-
From the tank car rescue department, here is another body-mount example. This is the Atlas 20K tank car I dropped last week: :facepalm:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mjbGrkd_hPQ/UO9-aKUTBxI/AAAAAAAAEnQ/CjJaxcieZ00/s800/DSCN2204.jpg)
To mount these couplers, I removed the screw from the lug that holds the base to the tank, shaved it down a bit, until it was in the same plane as the bottom of the walkway, then screwed a pocket onto the lug with a 00-90 screw (which replaces the original screw just fine, and still holds the tank in place):
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-M0fAlDQT3Nc/UO9-bJwE9CI/AAAAAAAAEnc/hpQR4kEg0Vg/s800/DSCN2230.jpg)
Fortunately, I was able to repair the busted walkway with some Plastruct Bondene:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-dYf2GLnQdt4/UO9-cRDLS1I/AAAAAAAAEnk/fRqLJ9NWzNs/s800/DSCN2232.jpg)
and she's better than new. Add some BLMA 100T trucks for a better ride height and we're done (except for weathering):
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Vqty89IJeng/UO9-aM7_NPI/AAAAAAAAEnI/vwiK6D3oq2w/s800/DSCN2218.jpg)
By the way, the factory wheels that ship with these cars are awful. The tread is so rough, they feel like they're rolling on concrete rails. And the mounting lug precludes one from swapping in MT trucks with couplers. This body mount solutions works really well, I think.
-gfh
-
Wow Gary, that tank car looks great! Nice repair job too! ;)
Re: the slinky, if you have a slight grade and little tension then I would expect it to be significantly less. I'm speculating too that a mix of front/back sprung couplers might make a difference, as that could work to absorb some of the resonance. The resonant speed will definitely vary with the exact makeup of the train as well as the track curvature and gradient.
For grins tho you might want to give it a try with say 8-10 autoracks, those have always given me trouble :D
Ed
-
Sorry if slightly OT, but now I think I must have seen it all:
How cool is that? :D
Ed
-
Just like how the real ones work! :trollface:
-
Just like how the real ones work! :trollface:
Lol, yeah! (that's nuts!)
-
Sorry if slightly OT, but now I think I must have seen it all:
How cool is that? :D
Ed
Nice find! Ok now I'm thinking, hum.....it will only take me 5 years to upgrade the couplers on all my rolling stock, then I can begin to source micro magnets.... :facepalm:
-
This can be done in N. Here is one supplier with magnets small enough to work for N, http://www.bjamagnetics.com/html/micro-magnets.html (http://www.bjamagnetics.com/html/micro-magnets.html), although pricing isn't mentioned.
The problem with this approach is it's "ended" because of magnet polarity. If you flip one of those cars in the other direction, both ends will not work, they will push the mating hose away. Cool idea in theory, but the reality of incorporating this into operations would be a pain in the tuckus.
FWIW, I can't find these on eBay. Don't know whether they're no longer listed or I'm fighting eBay's new brain-dead search engine. :x
-
The problem with this approach is it's "ended" because of magnet polarity. If you flip one of those cars in the other direction, both ends will not work, they will push the mating hose away. Cool idea in theory, but the reality of incorporating this into operations would be a pain in the tuckus.
Actually, you can make this work. The trick is to mount the magnets transversely, so that the poles face sideways. As long as they are oriented consistently (e.g., North is always pointing to the left), the magnets will attract. Used this trick to make close-to-scale couplers for T scale.
-
You know, I thought of that (or something similar) about 10 minutes after posting. The über-small cylinder magnets can also be polarized transversely if you're talking about a custom order, but keeping the N-S versus left-right orientation straight would be... uh... "fun".
-
I have been experimenting with the air hose detail on the etched pockets over the last week or so but I haven't hit on anything I like better than Ed's etched hose (which is being tweaked for the next rev). The issue with the present rev is that the hose is a bit too short (fixable) and it's almost invisible (but close to prototypical).
I tried using some heat shrink tubing around the etched hose to give it more "body", but I was unable to find any that was small enough to work well.
I also tried some wire insulation: the best looking was 36 ga, which has an outside dia. of about 0.016" (2.5", N scale). But this was too small to push onto the existing etched part, so I cut it short and pushed the insulation onto the stub. Sadly, the insulation is too stiff to retain any curvature, so it doesn't look very good. It might be possible to etch a thinner hose that the insulation would fit over, but it's not obvious that it would look much better than a re-worked etched part.
I was fantasizing about trying some magnets with this approach, but at such a small size, my guess is that they'd be too weak to overcome the stiffness of the insulation. Something like monofilament is probably better, but that would just hang down and look dumb on cars that aren't coupled. All in all, way more trouble than it's worth. The etched hoses are probably still the best and simplest way to go.
-gfh
-
You know, I thought of that (or something similar) about 10 minutes after posting. The über-small cylinder magnets can also be polarized transversely if you're talking about a custom order, but keeping the N-S versus left-right orientation straight would be... uh... "fun".
That's pretty simple too, actually. Use a magnet permanently mounted on a jig to establish the orientation of those being attached to the hoses.
-
I won't go into body-mounting MT's since there is plenty of excellent literature on that. In any case, I have been looking for alternatives to MT to avoid the slinky effect, so I started to look more at Accumates and McHenrys. Since McHenrys don't come with pockets, one has to make something up for body-mounting. I was intrigued by Bryan Bussey's idea of using rectangular brass tubing to make coupler pockets and came up with a minor mod that I thought I would share. The basic parts are shown here:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-LWWbmEJVzjE/TGQZ9r2is0I/AAAAAAAADas/8YmsjfRk_XM/s800/DSCN9882.jpg)
The pocket is 3/32 x 3/16 brass tubing. The Accumate is top left, the McHenry (with a 1-72 screw in the shank hole) is top right. The mod I made is to use a 1-72 x 3/32 set screw (headless) in place of Bryan's 00-90 screw + 1/16 tubing combo. <snip>
To assemble, just start the screw, add an MT truck washer on the bottom (sliced a bit to fit), insert the shank, then set the screw. The result, especially with the McHenry, is an extremely robust assembly:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Jep4nlzcfbc/TGQZ-eWt4RI/AAAAAAAADas/KcFgDO4BinI/s400/DSCN9884.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-YL1ZiuAhpmU/TGQZ-jpkSbI/AAAAAAAADas/xe0xb2b3RAI/s400/DSCN9888.jpg)
It works equally well with the Accumates: (no more exploding Accumates with this)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7p1YEr9bvtk/TGQZ-giYkMI/AAAAAAAADas/kY5mTWkRwkY/s400/DSCN9889.jpg)
<snip>
In this example, the set screw is 1/8" back from the pocket face. It should probably be back a bit further with the Accumate.
Nods to Bryan and Gary for this.
I'm gonna give this a try. It looks like all but the set screw is available from K&S (tubing, 1-72 tap & dies). I need to source the set screws and whatever size allen wrench that goes with it (Gary?).
I plan to use the Accumates since they are easy to get and not as huge to my eye as the Mchenry.
-
Hi Mark,
I had to dig a bit, but I did relocate my source for the set screws:
http://www.fastener-express.com/1-72-x-332-set-screw-cup-point-alloy-qty-20.aspx (http://www.fastener-express.com/1-72-x-332-set-screw-cup-point-alloy-qty-20.aspx)
and I discussed them a bit more here (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg206898#msg206898). I don't recall that I ever actually got a suitable allen wrench for these - my recollection is that I made do with a jeweler's screwdriver that fit in the head. But Fastener Express carries wrenches and could probably point you to a suitable one.
If I were going to be doing a lot of these, I would want to have some better tools than I do for metal working. For example, a mini chop saw, like this one (http://www.micromark.com/microlux-mini-miter-and-cut-off-saw,9639.html) would be quite handy (I don't know if that one is any good though). A mini drill press would also be handy for getting the hole locations precise. This was one factor that lead me towards the etched pockets.
Hope it works for you though!
-gfh
-
If you are looking to buy that mini chop saw you might want to look at this:
http://www.harborfreight.com/bench-top-cut-off-saw-42307.html
I don't have either, but HF is ~$50 less.
-
Good grief, $28 for any power tool is ridiculously cheap. Seems like the blade mounting screw was the biggest complaint, but one reviewer had a suggested improvement. For that price it's definitely worth a try.
-
Harbor Fright is impossibly cheap. I feel guilty when I walk out of that store. Some stuff is just land fill material, while other stuff actually works better than expected. I picked up a compressor with a 3 gal tank, and double action air brush for $75. So far it’s working perfect. Not at the level of an Iwata, but more than good enough for what I’m doing.
-
Suggestion for the 36 AWG insulation as brake hose: Heat it while holding it to the proper curve (long piece works better). This is what I did for brake hose on the sharks I used to own:
(http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/511/1_00003.jpg)
-
I have some good news on the coupler availability front. I've just received my special order from Bowser for additional couplers, and I was able to buy them as a standalone part without any truck/wheels/box at a cost of $0.50 per coupler ($1 per pair), plus shipping. Now I have enough couplers to continue with conversions and testing.
Here is a quick picture. (I noted that these arrived with the trip pin clipped off. I had not specifically requested that these be cut off, but that's fine by me since it saves me the task of doing it myself.)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0509_zpsd6bde3fc.jpg)
Anyone interested can order these directly by calling Lee English at Bowser as follows (with thanks to Gary for putting together the contact info). Be sure to specify the Bowser Z-scale coupler only, with no truck and no coupler box. Figure on a timeframe of about 3-4 weeks.
Phone: 570-368-2379 Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET
Orders: 800-327-5126 Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET
Fax: 570-368-5046: (24 hours a day)
E-Mail: bowser@bowser-trains.com
They don't have a separate part number for this item, so there is no provision for a simple web-site purchase at this time.
As for the pockets, I've put together an updated fret which I have sent out for etching. The main differences are that the air hose is better sized, and some areas have been beefed up a bit for better strength. As soon as these arrive I'll post more pics.
Cheers!
Ed
-
Great news ED!
I will get on the horn and order some up. I've been dying to try out your coupler box samples with these. I also need to upgrade the Bluford transfer caboose, as for some reason the stock ones on that look massively oversized.
Mike
-
Glad to hear they arrived. I placed my order a few weeks ago. Once those, and the new fret of pockets, arrive, it's off to the races! Big thanks to Bowser for agreeing to make these available standalone.
:lol:
P.S. I'm continuing to torture test the conversions I've done so far and they're doing great under pretty stressful conditions.
-
This is good news indeed. Any idea about when the pockets will be made available to JQP and how much?
-
The v3 pockets arrived today from PPD:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-V9NcHsxN9co/UTcNcNia6iI/AAAAAAAAEwI/khoee3Sfies/s800/DSCN2374.jpg)
I did a quick fit test and they seem to be good. Sadly I won't have time for any test installations for the next several days, but maybe Ed will, then we can start collecting orders for a group buy. The new air hose detail looks good, as do the other tweaks.
I'd say the pieces of this project have now come together, thanks mostly to Ed and Bowser.
-gfh
-
Can you tell me how many pockets are on a fret? Want to go ahead and order the couplers and trying to avoid the "10 weenies and 8 hot dog buns" scenario. :facepalm: :D
-
Ed set up two custom frets for this run, one for each of us. I got about 80 pair of pockets on half of an A4 sheet. The pocket artwork is modular, so I think the setup for the next run depends on demand. Don't know pricing yet...
-
I've finally gotten my new helix installed, so I can put together a train of more than ~20 cars to see how the Z-scale Bowser couplers perform with the etched pockets in a longer train. Here is a video that I shot of a train with four Kato locos pulling a string of 44 cars up the grade on my little Tehachapi Loop layout:
Not a valid vimeo URL
In this train, the first 14 cars are equipped with the Z-scale Bowser couplers. Most also have the etched pockets, tho some of the Exactrail cars have the factory-installed body-mount pockets. The lead loco also has the Bowser couplers installed (using the plastic FT coupler pocket). The remaining cars have a mix of MicroTrains/Accumate/McHenry couplers. Since I haven't had the time to convert them all, I put the cars with the Z couplers at the head end where they would have to endure the greatest stresses.
I'm pretty pleased with how the Bowser couplers have performed so far. I only have had one coupler separation with them, which turned out to be my fault due to a poor installation resulting in a substantial height mismatch. I actually have had more separations with the other types of couplers - the Accumates simply let go from time to time, and the Micro-Trains have a tendency to uncouple due to the slack/pogo action when the train is descending the grade at low speed (around 5-10 scale mph).
I'm also encouraged by how the Bowser couplers behave while traversing the tight S-curve at East Walong before the train enters Tunnel 10 (you can't see Tunnel 10 in the video, but it's just out of the frame to the left, too close for the camera to focus). Those curves are only about 16" radius, yet no cars have ever stringlined while going thru there, even with all the power at the front of the train.
BTW I also can't say enough about how I am liking the metal wheels. Used to be with plastic wheels that one engine could pull about 9 cars up the grade, but with metal wheels one engine can pull about 11 cars. Plus I think the track stays cleaner for longer.
Now it's on to doing more conversions!
Ed
-
That is so awesome! Nice sound clip too.
-
That is so cool. Love the whole scene!
-
Ed,
I don't recall seeing pics of your layout before (maybe I need more coffee) but that scene, and that train, are seriously basted in awesome sauce! Gary, the bar has been set!
As to the couplers, this just confirms my suspicions that the coupler boxes you guys have been designing ought to be a standard on my layout as well. I have already started body mounting on the rest of my fleet, so the holes will be drilled and tapped when these go into production.
-
Philip, Ed's Loop has been an inspiration to me for a long time.
:)
-
Very inspirational, indeed! The sound effects were also nicely done.
-
Man, I'll confess I somehow don't recall having ever seen Ed's layout either. It's downright crazy good.
Just got my order of couplers in...it's pretty amazing how stinkin' small they are! I have some from the previous order (with truck frames and coupler boxes) and they were no doubt small, but seeing just the couplers (200 of 'em) in a ziploc....about like looking at a ziploc one-fourth-full of black pepper! I couldn't help but think..."I spent $100 on this?". :scared: :o ;) Then I was thinking...no way there's 200 couplers in there...pile is way too small. :oops: Trust me, I totally appreciate what I'll be getting out of them and completely believe it will be worth it....but buyer's remorse sure smacks you upside the head there for a second!
Now anxiously awaiting the final tweaks and the eventual release of the coupler boxes. (well not that anxiously really....I got plenty of stuff to do in the mean time)
-
I just got my order yesterday too and had the exact same reaction, even though I was used to their size. In my case, however, I had ordered (and paid for) 200 pair, but was only sent 200 couplers (100 pr). Good thing my instincts told me to count.... To Bowser's credit, they are correcting the error with no questions asked.
-gfh
P.S. I have not actually completed an installation with the latest run of the pockets, but they look to me like they're ready for prime time, so we'll get on that soon...
-
I have not actually completed an installation with the latest run of the pockets, but they look to me like they're ready for prime time, so we'll get on that soon...
It's taken me some time to get around to it, but here are a few quick pix of the latest pocket, installed on a WIP boxcar. This is the short-hose version, with the new etching replacing the previous version. Cut levers are made out of 0.005" stainless steel wire:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0514.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0515.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0516.jpg)
One thing I should have included in the etching is a height gauge. Ah well, maybe in the next run... :D
Ed
-
Dang! 8)
-
I just got my order yesterday too and had the exact same reaction, even though I was used to their size. In my case, however, I had ordered (and paid for) 200 pair, but was only sent 200 couplers (100 pr). Good thing my instincts told me to count.... To Bowser's credit, they are correcting the error with no questions asked.
I guess I better count mine closely. I just quickly counted out 50, which looked to be about a fourth of my pile. (I only got 100 pair, 200 total)
-
What's the blue glue in this pic?
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0514.jpg)
-
Hi Tim, actually that's just some paint. I installed this pocket to replace an older version of the pocket, which I had painted. (The blue I used was not a very good match for the blue on the ends of the car -- some sloppy work on my part :oops:)
Ed
-
So how can we get on board to purchase some etchings?
The S.
-
Ha here I was hoping for some magic Delrin or brass stickem that'll teach me. :ashat:
Wonderful video by the way.
Hi Tim, actually that's just some paint. I installed this pocket to replace an older version of the pocket, which I had painted. (The blue I used was not a very good match for the blue on the ends of the car -- some sloppy work on my part :oops:)
Ed
-
That video is incredible! Excellent modeling. 8)
-
I've been busy lately so my progress has been slow, but at last I have a few more pix to show of some completed coupler/pocket installations. These show both the 'standard' length air hose and the 'extended' length air hose:
(NOTE - Click on each image for full-sized pix)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0613.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0593.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0623.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0620.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0617.jpg)
I'm really liking the way these look on the coupled cars, it almost looks like the hoses are actually joined :) :
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0624.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0611.jpg)
And just for grins, here is a comparison showing the installed pocket with the Bowser coupler next to a typical Micro-Trains coupler:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0627.jpg)
I am also getting to the point where I am going to be ordering more parts from PPD, and since a number of folks have expressed interest I wanted to get started on making a list of names and how many parts you might like. I'm going to make a new fret layout for this, so I can't yet give an accurate idea of what the cost might be, but I will follow up with that as soon as I know more.
Since there parts can be assembled in a couple of different ways, I was thinking of doing a small fret for each type of part, with 8 parts per fret (enough for 4 cars). This would let folks can mix-and-match to get exactly what they want. The main choices for the covers are the standard length and extra length air hoses, and the choices for the pocket body are the standard length (for regular boxcars, hoppers, gons, and such) and the longer length (for longer boxcars, tank cars, and such). The covers and bodies are completely interchangeable. There are also the mounting shims, which are either full-thickness or half-thickness. So that would work out as follows:
Fret A: 8 covers, standard air hose
Fret B: 8 covers, elongated air hose
Fret C: 8 pocket bodies, standard length
Fret D: 8 pocket bodies, extra length
Fret E: 8 shims, full thickness (0.010")
Fret F: 8 shims, half thickness (0.005")
There are also the little 'hooks' for cut levers, but these are easy enough to include with the covers. I make my cut levers from wire, tho I also have in mind to make etched ones, but that is a future project :D .
This is of course open for ideas & suggestions, so please be sure to let me know your thoughts.
Thanks!
Ed
-
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0627.jpg)
Looking at this photo, the couplers seem to be of nearly identical size. It's almost entirely the brass mount that accounts for the difference in appearance:
(http://lordzox.com/mrr/2013/bowserz_mtn.jpg)
I have to wonder--if an MT coupler were installed in an etched-brass mount, could it be made to look just as good as the Bowser coupler-and-mount combination?
-
Looking at this photo, the couplers seem to be of nearly identical size. It's almost entirely the brass mount that accounts for the difference in appearance:
(http://lordzox.com/mrr/2013/bowserz_mtn.jpg)
I have to wonder--if an MT coupler were installed in an etched-brass mount, could it be made to look just as good as the Bowser coupler-and-mount combination?
I really hate to put it this way, but are you looking at the same photo I am? To my eyes the MTL is easily 40% larger, if not more. Maybe I'm biased from seeing how significantly smaller they are with normal magnification but I would be shocked if they're less than 40% difference. I certainly haven't mic'ed one out to see so I can absolutely be proven wrong about that.
I'm not knowledgeable enough about the etched-brass pockets to know if using an MTL would be possible, but I certainly can't see how it could work. Personally I wouldn't even care to try, given the success of the trials thus far and the fact that I don't desire magnetic uncoupling. The only potential wet blanket for me is if the frets are unreasonably expensive, but ( a ) I don't think that's gonna be the case and ( b ) that would still be an issue even if you were trying to cram an MTL coupler in there.
And just for grins, here is a comparison showing the installed pocket with the Bowser coupler next to a typical Micro-Trains coupler:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0627.jpg)
I was about to reply with this same photo to basically validate what is being done here. What an outstanding look, and I cannot wait to get my frets ordered. (now I just have to try to figure out which ones....)
Note: Following is just a placeholder list while I figure out how many I want of each part...disregard for now.
(45) Atlas Coalveyors
(20) Atlas Tank Cars (17,360;17,600;23,500;25,500)
(12) Gons (LBF 52/65ft;Atlas 52ft; MDC 52ft)
(21) Walthers Ballast Cars
(10) Misc "Long" Cars (Beer Cars? Cryo Cars?)
(21) Fret A: 8 covers, standard air hose (84 cars)
(4) Fret B: 8 covers, elongated air hose (16 cars)
(21) Fret C: 8 pocket bodies, standard length (84 cars)
(4) Fret D: 8 pocket bodies, extra length (16 cars)
(3) Fret E: 8 shims, full thickness (0.010") (12 cars)
(4) Fret F: 8 shims, half thickness (0.005") (16 cars)
(3) Fret G: 8 long shims, full thickness (0.010") (12 cars)
(4) Fret H: 8 long shims, half thickness (0.005") (16 cars)
-
Outstanding Pete. Depending on cost, I'd probably be in for one of each fret as I had all the rolling stock mentioned, but not in huge quantities.
-
Hmmm, so tempting...
The Bowser coupler looks a bit smaller to my eye, and more true to shape. The absence of the trip pin is a huge improvement. I think though that one major difference is the absence of a spring in the former and the lack of slinky effect during operation.
-
I think though that one major difference is the absence of a spring in the former and the lack of slinky effect during operation.
That's quite right, the Bowser coupler has no spring and thus does not slinky under any conditions.
The Bowser coupler is significantly smaller than the N-scale MT. The MT 905 being a Z-scale coupler is closer in size to the Bowser, but still has a spring and will therefore exhibit the slinky even in a brass pocket. Since the 905 has a wider shank, it would not be possible to make a brass pocket for the 905 as small as can be made for the Bowser. (And IMHO it would be a bear to assemble with that tiny spring.)
I've been very pleased so far with the performance of the Bowsers. It is possible to couple them to other couplers such as the MT, Accumate, Kato, and McHenry. I haven't had any unwanted uncouplings with the Bowsers, whereas with other kinds the MTs will uncouple frequently under certain conditions (long train descending grades at slow speeds), and the Accumates seem to just let go on occasion when they feel like it.
I'm also able to install the Bowser couplers in locomotives, using the coupler box that came with the Full Throttle trucks. If you look closely on the video I posted a few pages back, you can see that the lead loco had the Bowsers in a gray-primer painted FT box. It is coupled to the following unit which is equipped with the standard Kato couplers. My near-term goal is to completely upgrade all the cars & locos in that video to the Bowsers.
Ed
-
Nice progress Ed. I especially like the GNTX gon, which is one of the cars on my short list of conversions (which is not a short list at all). Quick question: have you converted a car (e.g. an ExactRail boxcar) that was already body-mounted to start with?
I'll reinforce what Ed said about reliability: in my experience, these couplers are much better at coupling in the first place, and staying coupled once engaged, than MT's are. This is mainly due to tighter tolerances in the design and the absence of a slinky effect. They just work. You can see some more comparison photos, and an overhead shot showing how well these mate, in this post (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg206847#msg206847) back on p.1 of this thread.
Now that they are available at an affordable price from Bowser (and I think these boxes won't be too expensive either) this is an ideal solution for me -- maybe until the Proto-Mates come along... ;)
-gfh
P.S. Thanks again to Ed for bringing these to market!
-
Now that's what I call a worthwhile coupler alternative to the standard offerings . Too bad I got into N in 95 and not now . Going to have to get me some . Swapping magnetic ability for much improved proto looks is an easy decision for me .
-
I got into N, and Kadee couplers, way way earlier than that. It's too late for me to ever contemplate switching, but I'm glad to see this two-year stretch of R&D come to a favorable conclusion.
-
Ugh. I just got the 2nd half of my order of FT couplers from Bowser (they only sent half the order originally) and they're all defective. So if you have a recent order from them, be sure to check for the following. During assembly, the (trimmed) trip pins were all inserted improperly causing the lower loop on the knuckle to deform, and in some cases break:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-IwM7jSt3QNc/UYlTnRDPl2I/AAAAAAAAE_U/OYSGvofHEuw/s800/DSCN2528.jpg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-xDE2SSWXnas/UYlTnTVDxEI/AAAAAAAAE_Y/lFxOInZ-AmQ/s800/DSCN2530.jpg)
Unfortunately, the ones that haven't broken already are very weak, and therefore useless. I have contacted Bowser and I expect they will replace the order, but I just wanted to give y'all a heads up. I've never seen anything like this in the rest of my stock, so hopefully this is an isolated incident.
-Gary
P.S. Thanks Bryan. Just the other day I was thinking how long this has been in the works for. Mostly just due to breaks in the action.
-
How the hell did I miss this thread?
I was part of the group buy for the Bowser couplers several years ago. They have been sitting on my dest becasue I have not found an acceptable coupler pocket. I would like to try one fret of regular and one fret of long pockets to start.
-
Fret A: 8 covers, standard air hose
Fret B: 8 covers, elongated air hose
Can you elaborate on where you would use "standard" versus "elongated"? I've tried reading back through the thread a few times but don't seem to be finding that part of the dicussion. I recall the initial attempts were too short overall.
Fret C: 8 pocket bodies, standard length
Fret D: 8 pocket bodies, extra length
I'm assuming the pocket body length is basically "cushioned underframe" versus not. Correct? Would tank cars generally use the standard length?
Fret E: 8 shims, full thickness (0.010")
Fret F: 8 shims, half thickness (0.005")
Are the shims simply for correcting coupler height or some other use. And are they a required part? (i.e. top of the pocket body?)
My short list of how I'm planning to use these is: Atlas Coalveyors, Various Atlas Tank Cars (17,360/17,600/23,500/25,500), Various Gons (LBF/Atlas/MDC 52ft and LBF 65ft), and Walthers Ballast Cars. I have 100-pair of the Bowser loose couplers and another 20-pair of the previous order with the Z trucks.
-
Can you elaborate on where you would use "standard" versus "elongated"? I've tried reading back through the thread a few times but don't seem to be finding that part of the dicussion. I recall the initial attempts were too short overall.
Really it depends on your proto. I've seen the long hoses on more cars than I would have thought, such as boxcars, reefers, coil cars, and centerbeams; and the regular hoses on open & covered hoppers, gons, and tanks.
I'm assuming the pocket body length is basically "cushioned underframe" versus not. Correct? Would tank cars generally use the standard length?
Pretty much, tho that too depends upon which model it is. So far I've only installed a couple of Athearn LPG tanks, IIRC Gary has done a few others.
Are the shims simply for correcting coupler height or some other use. And are they a required part? (i.e. top of the pocket body?)
Not strictly required. This too depends on the specific model, and sometimes the trucks and wheel sizes, as well as how much you might have to shave off a bolster. I've been going with a coupler centerline height of 0.216" nominally above the railhead (same as the prototype 34.5", and matches the MT centerline as well IIRC). That works out to the top edge of the pocket body at a height of 0.246" above the railhead, so if I can get the underside of the car to that height then I don't need a shim.
Ed
-
Ugh. I just got the 2nd half of my order of FT couplers from Bowser (they only sent half the order originally) and they're all defective.
Yow, what a major bummer! I'd guess that perhaps they get assembled in some kind of press, and something was seriously out of alignment. Hopefully they get those replacements to you really soon.
Ed
-
I've been working on getting a drawing together, and it is almost ready to go. It looks like the cost should work out to $2 per fret. Each fret has 8 parts, and since one car needs 2 bodies and 2 covers, that works out to $1 per car. There are a total of 8 different types of frets, as this picture shows:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/Frets_001.jpg)
(IMPORTANT: please note that this drawing supersedes any/all previous lists, so be sure that you refer to the parts from this drawing.)
To go ahead with an order, what I need is for all interested persons to please send me a list of exactly which parts you want, specifying the quantity for each type. I'd like to submit the order in two weeks, so please have your requests to me by then. The drawing may need to be revised based upon how the request numbers work out. Once the parts arrive (and look OK) then I'll notify everyone, and you can send the payment (paypal) for the parts + whatever shipping you prefer. I expect the order will take about 2-4 weeks after placement.
As always, if you have any questions or see anything that I've overlooked, by all means please let me know. I'm glad to work together on this, it's exciting stuff! ;)
Cheers!
Ed
-
To clarify -- this etched pocket only accepts the bowser coupler? Accu-Mate and McHenry couplers will not fit?
-
That's correct Bryan - the dimensions are specifically intended for the FT couplers. The design would work just as well with Accumates and McHenry's if the pocket dimensions were adjusted. Ed might be willing to do that, or provide the artwork for someone else to do that. But he has the latest files, so I'll let him respond.
-Gary
P.S. This design will not work well with MT couplers.
-
Ed, this looks like a great way to package the parts, and I think the price is turning out to be quite reasonable. I'll make up my wish list and send it to you off line.
Just to add a few comments about some of the questions raised: the body and cover styles are interchangeable. The only difference between the two cover styles is the air hose length - consult your prototype. The choice of body length requires a bit more thought, and since we've only completed a handful of installations between us, we don't have an MT-style conversion sheet prepared. But here are some rough guidelines:
* cushioned under-frames required the long body.
* many other installations benefit from the long body, e.g. mounting couplers to tank car tanks, rather than end platforms.
* similarly, many cramped installations will benefit from the short body.
For reference, the overall length of the short body, when assembled, is 0.300" from the back of the spine to the front of the pulling face; the long body is 0.350". Both can be trimmed to a shorter length, but that can mean opening the back of the slot (which I have not found to be a problem).
The shims are strictly for convenience when fine-tuning coupler height. It is useful to have pieces cut to the same size and shape as the box, but they are not needed for many installations (and/or you can easily fashion your own). IIRC, the MT height gauge specifies an under-frame height of 0.266" for MT body mounts, while these boxes want 0.246" to maintain the same coupler height as the center of the MT (and prototype) standard. In practice however, I often lower cars and/or have situations where I don't end up using a shim. YMMV.
Let us know if you have any other questions.
-Gary
-
Some thoughts before you jump into this without a bungee chord:
- Do you plan on marketing this product, or just making it available to Railwire members who request it?
- How readily available are the Bowser couplers, how reliable are they, and how do they perform coupled to the other brands?
- You tested the coupler assembly under simulated load, but did you test it under load in practical use while connected to additional coupler assemblies as well as other coupler brands, and through various trackage configurations?
- Did you test the coupler assemblies through S curves to test side-to-side action and confirm the equipment remains on track?
- Did you test the coupler assemblies on long cars with short wheelbases, such as the Greenville 60' boxcar, to confirm the equipment remains on the track?
- Did you test the coupler assemblies behind long wheelbased motive power with body-mounted couplers through various radii trackage to confirm the equipment remains on track?
- Why not design the coupler pocket to accept Accu-Mate and McHenry couplers if the dimensions are not adversely affected?
- How do you uncouple the Bowser couplers without touching the cars, with a RIX-type tool?
-
Why not design the coupler pocket to accept Accu-Mate and McHenry couplers if the dimensions are not adversely affected?
Not possible. Completely different internal geometry.
-
Some thoughts before you jump into this without a bungee chord:
...
Bryan, I know it's a long thread, but I'm pretty sure most if not all of the answers are there if you read through it.
-
I've followed the thread throughout.
-
Many of these questions have been covered, but this is a sprawling thread, so I'll collect the answers here for ease of reference.
• Do you plan on marketing this product, or just making it available to Railwire members who request it?
Speaking for myself, the only plan at the moment is to make them available to interested parties on a co-purchase basis through this (and subsequent) announcements. The only serious testing that has been done is on Ed and my layouts with selected equipment, where they have performed extremely well. If a plan to market them as an actual product develops, we will need to do more testing, especially on the minimum radius questions. But this is a niche item that will never generate large sales numbers, and I have neither the time nor inclination to get into the manufacturing business. I can't speak for Ed in this regard though.
At the moment I would only encourage anyone interested in trying them to purchase a small lot for testing before committing to a significant purchase.
• How readily available are the Bowser couplers, how reliable are they, and how do they perform coupled to the other brands?
The good news - which makes this scheme feasible at all - is that Bowser has agreed to sell the couplers as a separate item for $1 per pair. See this post for ordering details:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg309136#msg309136
The couplers themselves are extremely reliable. The most comprehensive review I'm aware of (outside of this thread) is by DKS:
http://jamesriverbranch.net/clinic_2.htm
For my money, they are the best coupler available in N or Z, period. Their shank design is very similar to the McHenry, but they employ a cast-on leaf spring for closing the knuckle, instead of a separate coil spring (and they are about half the size). They will mate well with MT, Accumate, McHenry and Kato N couplers (and MT Z couplers). See, for example:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg206847#msg206847
Caveat: to mate with an MT you have to physically lift one coupler over the other (similar to a Kato-MT mate), but they touch-mate to all other brands.
• You tested the coupler assembly under simulated load, but did you test it under load in practical use while connected to additional coupler assemblies as well as other coupler brands, and through various trackage configurations?
Yes. These two videos show examples: 13 to 16' long trains being pulled up a 2.3% grades through ~18" radius curves. The leading cars are FT equipped (with these pockets), the rest of the train is a random mix of 4 brands, including some FT's:
Not a valid vimeo URLNot a valid vimeo URL
I have not tried them under significantly heavier loads (steeper grades, or longer trains) but these tests were fairly extreme relative to my needs. Inspection of the couplers during these tests gave me no reason for concern whatsoever: the couplers showed no sign of deformation under stress nor any tendency to ride up or down relative to its mate (the latter being helped by the snug pocket dimensions).
• Did you test the coupler assemblies through S curves to test side-to-side action and confirm the equipment remains on track?
• Did you test the coupler assemblies on long cars with short wheelbases, such as the Greenville 60' boxcar, to confirm the equipment remains on the track?
• Did you test the coupler assemblies behind long wheel-based motive power with body-mounted couplers through various radii trackage to confirm the equipment remains on track?
Yes, but only to the extent I needed to for my application. For example, I have mounted extended pockets on some Red Caboose 62' beer cars (which have a short wheelbase). These performed fine with 18" radius curves (including S curves), but have not been tested on sharper curves. Similarly, I have run standard-length equipment behind locos with body-mount couplers through 18" curves with no problems. (Note: I did have an issue with AZL couplers in extended pockets causing neighboring cars to derail on S curves, but those couplers are much stiffer side to side.)
Like any body-mount campaign, minimum radius will have to be considered by the user on a case by case basis. But the FT couplers in these pockets have almost the same side-to-side flexibility as an MT coupler, so they don't really present any new challenges in this regard.
• Why not design the coupler pocket to accept Accu-Mate and McHenry couplers if the dimensions are not adversely affected?
Sadly, the dimensions are not compatible. If the box were sized for a McHenry, for example, the FT coupler would have no centering tension, and it would sag in the box. One of the beauties of the FT coupler is that it accommodates a closer-to-scale draft gear. But again, a trivial resizing of the design would accommodate Accumates & McHenry's.
• How do you uncouple the Bowser couplers without touching the cars, with a RIX-type tool?
Yes, manual uncoupling is achieved with a Rix-type tool. Magnetic uncoupling was not able to be made workable by the FT developers.
-Gary
-
I should add that there are larger issues associated with the performance of body-mounted vs. truck-mounted couplers that have little to do with the specific coupler brand, especially with 89' flats and auto-racks. In my experience, when these cars are at the head of a long train, the body-mounted cars will tend to string-line when going around curves upgrade (even 18" curves), and the truck-mounted cars will tend to derail going downgrade due to torsion on the trucks. (This experience is based entirely on MT-equipped cars).
I have not yet committed to any single approach with my longer equipment, until more testing can be done. But again, this is not germane to the FT couplers, and I don't wish to debate the larger question in this thread.
-gfh
-
Hi Bryan, just to reiterate what Gary wrote, I don't have any intent to market or productize these pockets. I'm happy to make this available to interested folks, but at the end of the day it's really still just a research project. At present I don't have an interest in doing this sort of thing for any other coupler, partly due to time limitations but also since IIRC the Accumates & McHenrys will fit in the rectangular brass tubing anyways.
Ed
-
Very good gentlemen. It sounds as if you've considered all of the options.
-
One question...can you post the information about the mounting hardware and where to order it from. Assuming, just a screw or two and possibly styrene rod? And also maybe the appropriate drill/tap set.
Better yet, maybe order a bajillion of them and offer a handful of them as another $2 component? Pretty sure this isn't something any typical hobby shop is gonna carry, so ALL of us will be ordering them from somewhere, no?
-
Assuming, just a screw or two and possibly styrene rod?
TWSS.
(Figured I'd beat y'all :ashat: 's to it. ;) )
-
The accessories needed are minimal:
* a stock of 00-90 screws (pan head or round head).
Walthers has quite a variety as do numerous other suppliers. (You might want some 00-90 nuts too, but I haven't used any yet.)
* a 00-90 tap.
Walthers and MT both offer these, among others.
* Drill bits:
#64 or 65 to make a tap hole in the car body.
#59 or 58 to make a clearance hole for the styrene rod (see below).
#55 for a 00-90 clearance hole (if needed).
* 0.040" styrene rod,
e.g. from Plastruct.
I have been going through some installations with the last fret and I was thinking I would write some coherent notes on suggested techniques and will post them here in a day or two.
HTH,
-gfh
-
While we're summarizing...
Has anyone tried installing these couplers on a locomotive? A quick scan through the thread didn't reveal anything.
-
Has anyone tried installing these couplers on a locomotive?
Yes, if you look closely you can see them on the lead loco in the video referenced in this post:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg313560#msg313560
This uses the coupler box that came from FT (it is still painted a primer gray in the video). I am thinking of ways to either use the brass pocket or make one specifically for locos (i.e., a simple, folding box without the air hose).
Ed
-
OK I'm sold. Expect a PM shortly. 8)
-
Hi everyone, I just wanted to post an update on the order status.
I've just completed the drawing and sent the order in to PPD for etching. There are no changes to the actual parts, but since this is the first run for this specific drawing, I decided to start by ordering a single fret so that I would have the opportunity to make sure that everything etches correctly with no problems. Once I have a good fret in hand I can go ahead and order enough additional frets to take care of everyone's requests.
So I figure this will add 2-3 weeks to final delivery, but it reduces the impact & cost in the unlikely event of an issue creeping in. (Simply put, this is a CYA for myself ;)). On the upside, this does give a little more time for anyone still interested in getting some parts. Thanks for bearing with me on this.
Ed
-
Bad news, I'm afraid. As I posted up-thread (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg318650#msg318650), I had a problem with the 2nd half of my last coupler order from Bowser. I just received this brief note from Lee English:
Dear Gary
Sorry but I will not be able to supply the couplers.
I have had mold and assembly problems.
I will issue a credit to you card.
Sorry I cannot help you
Thank you
Lee English
Bowser Mfg
I don't know if this means that Bowser is also pulling out of providing couplers for Full Throttle as well, but it would seem to. I have asked Lee for a clarification, and will let you know if I hear anything back. Suffice it to say that I am very bummed by this development, as I was very pleased with how this project was turning out. I think I will proceed with plans to convert ~150 cars with the couplers I have on hand, but now I have to be very selective with my projects.
Ed will be in touch with those who placed pocket orders to verify amounts before he orders the follow-up frets he mentioned above, in case anyone wishes to change their plans.
-Gary
P.S. I'm really looking forward to those Proto-Mates now!
-
"P.S. I'm really looking forward to those Proto-Mates now!"
What "Proto-Mates"???
-
"P.S. I'm really looking forward to those Proto-Mates now!"
What "Proto-Mates"???
Coming soon from NZT (http://protomate.blogspot.ca/).
8)
-
Here is Lee's response to my query about the future availability of these couplers:
at this time full throttle will be the only source.
Thank you
Lee English
Bowser Mfg
He is a man of few words, but apparently he still has the means to supply Full Throttle, so that will continue to be an (expensive) source. If you are still interested in a direct source through Bowser, please feel free to write him directly and let him know.
-gfh
-
Here is Lee's response to my query about the future availability of these couplers:
He is a man of few words, but apparently he still has the means to supply Full Throttle, so that will continue to be an (expensive) source. If you are still interested in a direct source through Bowser, please feel free to write him directly and let him know.
-gfh
Or Full Throttle has stock on hand, once that dries up . . . .
-
Although I cannot reveal too many details regarding this issue, I can say that Bowser's problems affect Full Throttle as well. Best not to contact FT asking for them, as they will be unable to spare any extras.
-
So...did the tooling that Bowser has for these couplers fail? Is it likely that Lee has determined that the return on investment will not warrant revised tooling?
-
Based on the last samples I received, it looked like an assembly (fixture) problem, but Lee did say he had mold problems too. I have to believe that Bowser's ROI here was pretty slim, otherwise Lee would be more aggressive about fixing it. I think we're just SOL on this project, and just when I thought we had a nearly perfect solution. :oops:
-
Ugh. I just got the 2nd half of my order of FT couplers from Bowser (they only sent half the order originally) and they're all defective. So if you have a recent order from them, be sure to check for the following. During assembly, the (trimmed) trip pins were all inserted improperly causing the lower loop on the knuckle to deform, and in some cases break:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-IwM7jSt3QNc/UYlTnRDPl2I/AAAAAAAAE_U/OYSGvofHEuw/s800/DSCN2528.jpg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-xDE2SSWXnas/UYlTnTVDxEI/AAAAAAAAE_Y/lFxOInZ-AmQ/s800/DSCN2530.jpg)
Unfortunately, the ones that haven't broken already are very weak, and therefore useless. I have contacted Bowser and I expect they will replace the order, but I just wanted to give y'all a heads up. I've never seen anything like this in the rest of my stock, so hopefully this is an isolated incident.
I finally got a chance to sit down and filter through all 200 of mine under magnification. After only a few and figuring out what I was looking at, it was pretty obvious which were defective even to the naked eye. Although, a handful where the piece had completely broken off meant I couldn't rely on the naked eye to tell if they were actually good or not. 120 of my 200 were bad. :RUEffinKiddingMe:
To me, it clearly looks like an assembly issue, not a mold problem, although I do suppose that if the mold is distorted somehow then that could throw off the alignment of the holes. Anyway, whatever the reason, it stinks! Hopefully the couplers will be available again in the near future. I'm still trudging forward with what I have on hand.
-
Well this sucks :(
-
FWIW, I expect Bowser to issue purchasers a credit for any defective couplers without question. I haven't seen my credit appear yet, but I have no reason to think it won't come through soon.
I didn't get any follow-up response from Lee about future plans, so I don't have any particular reason to think these will ever appear from Bowser again, but I have no reliable intelligence on this.
Major bummer for sure.
-
Well, maybe there is a break in the clouds after all. Lee just sent me a note saying he thinks he has the fixture repaired and that he can still make it work. Now he just needs someone to assemble them. (I suspect that last person to do the job was ham fisted and broke the fixture, and a bunch of couplers in the process.)
I offered to assemble them myself if that was the only thing standing in the way of completing my order. Stay tuned, there is still hope.
-gfh
-
Good news from Lee: he now has a working assembly fixture again and is back in the coupler business. There are some changes to the ordering process and the price has gone up, but they are still quite affordable. He is now asking $1.60 per pair with a minimum order of 50 pair. Shipping is free within the USA and should be less than $15 for international shipping.
This is a personal project, not a Bowser project, so he is only accepting payment via check or money order (US funds), sent to his personal address. Rather than posting that address here, I would advise you to send him an email to confirm the terms, then he can send you the address. He can be reached at:
Lee English <bowser at bowser-trains.com>
Replace the ' at ' with '@'. I think Ed will be contacting those who have placed pocket orders to confirm quantities. Contact him by PM if you would still like to order some and haven't already.
-Gary
-
I think Ed will be contacting those who have placed pocket orders to confirm quantities. Contact him by PM if you would still like to order some and haven't already.
Yes, I will follow up with everyone who has previously requested some pockets. By all means please feel free to PM me with any questions, changes, etc.
Thanks,
Ed
-
Awright! The set of test etchings has arrived and are looking good:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0712.jpg)
With this, and especially with the good news that Lee has fixed the assembly issues, I want to go ahead with the order for everyone. Over the next day or so I will PM everyone to confirm quantities, and then I'll put in the order. Also, it's not too late for anyone who hasn't yet ordered any parts. And once again, no need to send any money for now, I prefer to handle that once I have the parts in from the etcher.
Thanks everyone for you patience on this! ;)
Ed
-
Good news, everyone! I've just sent off the order for additional frets to the etcher, so it won't be long now before we have parts for all those who had requested some. Once I have the parts from the etcher, I will contact everyone regarding payment and shipment.
I've also just received my latest order of couplers from Lee. These are looking really good, so I'm glad to see that the assembly issues have been resolved.
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0805.jpg)
Cheers,
Ed
-
Interesting that Lee is leaving the full trip pin intact. They are usually clipped off, because the trip pin does not work the way it is supposed to on these couplers. They were intended to be a magnetically-actuated coupler, just like MTLs, but there are multiple fatal flaws in the design that prevents this.
-
The last defective batch (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg318650#msg318650) I got had the pins clipped and seemingly inserted backwards. I'll speculate that they're easier to assemble with an intact pin. IIRC, the "naked talgo" order I got from Will a while back had the full pins too. The first thing I do is trim them off.
-
Good news -- the etchings have arrived, and I will now be able to ship these out to the folks who have requested them. Here is what they are looking like:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/a29f7ee1-c9f7-4749-86fe-1d462c1c5554.jpg?t=1375063757)
I'll be PMing everyone who has been waiting for parts with the shipping and payment info. I'm really looking forward to seeing pictures from everyone, and discussing all the various installation scenarios.
Cheers,
Ed
-
Ed, these etchings seem to look like stainless steel (not brass). Or is that just the way the photo was taken?
Stainless steel doesn't solder easily...
-
That's the photo, probably just the way it picked up the reflections of the overhead lights.
Ed
-
Seems to me this thread is overdue for an update. Here are some IM Trinity 5161 hoppers that I have finished converting. For these, I drilled & tapped for a 00-90 screw through the flat/simulated coupler pocket. This part of the model is very thin, so you have to use a light touch, and be careful not to overtighten the screw as it is easy to strip the thread. The other thing I did was to file the styrene rod flush with the top surface of the brass pocket, otherwise the slight bump can cause the coupler to tip downwards and hang too low. So there is nothing right now (except friction) to prevent the pocket from pivoting on the mounting screw, but I will fix that with a couple of dabs of epoxy. You can also see in some cases that I did not trim the mounting screw. I'll take care of that later (probably when I get these to the detailing/weathering stage) altho even as they currently are I don't find the long screws to be too obtrusive, at least not while running in a train.
I'm finding it handy to assemble these in batches. Here are my key steps:
a. Cut the covers & bodies from the frets with an X-acto blade. Be sure to remove all the tags.
b. Drill out the cover holes with a #59 (0.041") bit. Drill from the inside surface, to avoid creating a burr that can interfere with the coupler.
c. Form the bodies and the tab on the back end of the cover. (I don't form the air hose or cut lever hook at this point.)
d. Mount the cover on top of the body. To do this, I have a small strip of wood with a thin groove cut into it. I lay the pocket body flat and top-down on the wood, with the strike plate in the groove. This holds the body in place while I put on the cover (and in the next step when I solder it).
e. Once I have enough pockets assembled (typically 8-16), I solder the covers to the bodies. I use the Supersafe green gel flux and as little solder a possible. I only solder where the tabs come thru the slots in the cover. All parts are then cleaned with alcohol.
f. Paint the parts with a light gray primer from a rattle can. To hold the parts for painting, I take a piece of corrugated cardboard and punch some slots with the tip of a screwdriver. I then place each pocket into a slot, end first so that the coupler end is sticking up.
g. After the paint dries, I install a coupler in each pocket. Place a coupler in the pocket and line up the shank hole with the holes in the pocket. Insert a piece of 0.040" diameter styrene rod from the bottom side of the pocket and out thru the top hole. It takes a few twists on the rod to 'screw' the rod thru the upper hole in the coupler body, since this hole is slightly smaller than the bottom hole. Once the rod is in place, trim it off on the bottom side with a flush cut pliers. I also cut the trip pin off the coupler at this point.
h. Install on a car as needed. Form the air hose and cut lever hook, and then paint/weather as desired.
Ed
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0840.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0841.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0842.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0843.jpg)
-
...I'm finding it handy to assemble these in batches. Here are my key step...
Reading this and seeing all of that... this comes to mind
-
Looking good Ed. I'm actually taking a bit of time out of layout work to go through a similar exercise with some ACF 2- and 4-bay hoppers. (Will post some pics eventually...) I follow pretty much the same steps to assemble them - and doing the soldering and painting in batches is very helpful. I like your idea for a painting handle.
One thing I've found useful in some installations is to leave some styrene rod exposed on the top of the pocket and drill a second .040 hole in the floor to receive it. This helps prevent pocket twist. Sadly, this does't really work for the 5161's because the pockets extend beyond the under-frame just enough to preclude it.
-gfh
-
I've also been working on a coupler pocket for locomotives. Here is something that fits in the Kato C44-9W:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0861.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0865.jpg)
The holes and the interior measurements of the box are the same as the regular pockets. For this pocket I was trying out the 'folding box' idea, which works fairly well. The only minor thing is that (as you can see in the picture) the box doesn't want to stay fully closed by itself, but that's no problem once it's installed in the model.
The installation of these was pretty simple. I just used a 00-90 screw set into the pivot hole that was already there for the factory coupler, after tapping it for a 00-90 thread. The only thing to watch out for is to make sure that the screw isn't too long, otherwise it will come out thru the walkway (and no, I did not have to learn that the hard way :D).
To get the correct height, I used a shim of 0.020" styrene, ACC'd to the top side of the pocket and drilled out to clear the screw. Sorry but it is hard to see the shim in these pictures. I haven't tried this on any other models except the Dash-9, but I expect it should fit on most Kato diesels.
This does of course leave some significant gaps in the pilot since the original opening is so oversized. It should be straightforward enough to fill the gaps with some styrene strip. I'm also thinking about some kind of etched overlay for the pilot, but that's a project for another day ;)
Ed
PS - Gary, I'm looking forward to seeing those hoppers! ;)
-
That's really slick Ed! A few questions:
- How do you like the folded box compared to the lid?
- It's fortunate that the shank length allows you to use the existing hole location for the pivot screw. Do you know what kind of minimum radius is required when two Dash-9's are coupled with FT's?
- Do you think a box like this would work as an insert in the new generation of body-mounted-MT-equipped rolling stock?
-gfh
P.S. The biggest challenge I have had with pusher ops so far is when a consisted rear unit, with long-shank Kato couplers, pushes against a truck-mounted couplers and torques the last freight car truck off the rails. The combination of body-mounts on the freight cars, and the shorter shank FT couplers on the locos will solve that - and look way better to boot. (The current incarnation of short-shank Kato couplers produce the wrong coupler height on the Dash-9's. :RUEffinKiddingMe:)
-
- How do you like the folded box compared to the lid?
It's definitely faster, and I certainly don't miss the soldering. I'm trying to come up with a way to allow it to stay fully folded. Making the etch lines a couple of mils wider might do the trick by allowing some slight overbend, but I'm not sure if the etching process can can produce that level of precision consistently from sheet to sheet.
- It's fortunate that the shank length allows you to use the existing hole location for the pivot screw. Do you know what kind of minimum radius is required when two Dash-9's are coupled with FT's?
I've got a few locos coupled together and running on my layout, and they seem OK on my sharpest curves which are ~ 16.5" radius. These Z scale couplers actually do a better job of holding the consist together than the factory-installed long shank Kato couplers. With the factory couplers I typically could run only a few circuits around the layout before one of them would let loose, but I haven't seen that at all with the Z couplers.
And of course, the enormous coupling distance of the long-shank factory couplers is ludicrous from an appearance perspective.
- Do you think a box like this would work as an insert in the new generation of body-mounted-MT-equipped rolling stock?
I can't say, I really don't have any idea of what the MT dimensions are. I'd be concerned about the coupler height, and the diameter of the pivot post.
The Z couplers can fit in the ExactRail box with a 00-90 washer, if the post is trimmed away. Might be able to do something similar with the MT box. Aesthetically tho, that still leaves behind a fairly oversized plastic box.... :facepalm:
P.S. The biggest challenge I have had with pusher ops so far is when a consisted rear unit, with long-shank Kato couplers, pushes against a truck-mounted couplers and torques the last freight car truck off the rails. The combination of body-mounts on the freight cars, and the shorter shank FT couplers on the locos will solve that - and look way better to boot. (The current incarnation of short-shank Kato couplers produce the wrong coupler height on the Dash-9's. :RUEffinKiddingMe:)
Longer trains on grades are a challenge with DPUs, because you can have one part of the train going upgrade while the rest of it is level or downgrade. Even tho I've speed-matched all the engines, the speeds still show variations because the loading changes dynamically as different parts of the train move across the vertical inflection points. So it is almost inevitable that the cars in front of the DPUs will be in compression at some point, and that's where the body-mount couplers have the advantage.
I've also seen the case where truck mount couplers can derail in a long train descending a grade. If the train is long enough, then the weight of all those cars can push against the head-end engines just as hard as if it were a DPU. So you get the same situation where the compressive forces put enough torque on the truck-mounted cars that one of them derails -- typically the lightest one, or perhaps the two cars with the greatest mismatch in overhang.
Ed
-
Thx Ed. Good news on the min radius. The close coupling vastly improves appearance.
RE the MT body-mounts, I should have been more clear: I was thinking of the newer cars like the Exactrail boxcars, with their integral draft gear boxes, not the original MT boxes. But it sounds like a box insert is not needed for the ER cars.
RE DPU's: I still prefer to control the rear units separately for best performance, but that requires a fair amount of (fun) attention. :lol:
-gfh
-
Here's a quick update on an installation that I've actually completed. Another IM 2-bay cement hopper (need a bunch of these for my cement plant at Monolith). Here's a before & after comparison:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-keVFVBHVVqk/Ul881Vwp2KI/AAAAAAAAFmo/E-zML9e9joU/s800/DSCN2802.png)
On the right is a stock model with MT 70T trucks & couplers, on the left is one with BLMA 100T trucks and Bowser couplers. The BLMA trucks improve the model a lot IMHO: the underslung bolster lowers the ride height and the longer wheelbase fills the space under the car much better. (The ride height itself is not that much lower, but the hopper chutes are fractionally much closer to the rails than before; and since my cement plant site is at eye level, I notice this stuff.) Here are a few closer shots showing the coupler and draft gear:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-GVsFYyQPPgA/Ul881-hbA5I/AAAAAAAAFms/Vzz25fzJTmE/s800/DSCN2808.png)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-e_srY9bpIGY/Ul88001AcLI/AAAAAAAAFmk/kJDcUOIa39E/s800/DSCN2784.png)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Qu5k_Y5ivJ0/Ul880z3ShBI/AAAAAAAAFmY/Sua8NvolIFw/s640/DSCN2789.png)
The best thing about these pockets is how small they are: about two-thirds the width and half the height of an MT box, so they're pretty easy to use in a variety of situations. The downside of their size is that everything else looks kind of chunky now: the handrails and even the wheel tread width... Oh well - they look really good in person, especially now that they're painted.
I have half a dozen other cars also done now; I'll post a few more pics when I finish weathering them. (Still need to add some cement residue to this hopper too.)
-gfh
-
Beautiful Gary!
-
Hey Gary that's looking real good! The reduced height is always an improvement. (The BLMA trucks are great, I just wish there was a way to get bulk pricing on them.)
I guess you've installed these with one hole drilled for the mounting screw, and another for the styrene rod? One thing I noticed on some cars, the metal around the rod can 'dimple' upwards a bit if you drill/enlarge the hole from the inside of the box. In some cases that can be enough to keep the top side of the box from fitting completely flat against the floor of the car, causing the whole pocket/coupler to have a slight downwards tip or droop. So I will either drill a slightly larger counterbore to the rod hole, or file the whole rod/dimple flush with the top of the pocket (in cases where I would not be using the rod to prevent rotations). The filing doesn't seem to affect how well the rod remains secured in the pocket holes.
Re: the chunky look, the Athearn 2-bay hoppers have finer/wire handgrabs. They also have an integral plastic box sized for the McHenry couplers.... I haven't gotten around to trying the Z couplers in those, but that is on my short list. I'm hoping to use the trucks that comes with the Athearn hopper, tho I've upgraded mine to the FVM metal wheels.
Ed
-
Ed, I agree that keeping the top flat is important for level mounting. After I tap the top hole for the pivot post, I file off any raised portion to make sure the top is flat. Then, when I screw the plastic pivot post in, I trim the top end flush with the box top to keep it flat (I have abandoned the idea of using it to prevent rotation - see below). Even with the post trimmed flush, it is held securely by the threads in the lid. I then mount the box to the car with a screw through the rear slot of the box. To keep the box from rotating I use some Pliobond on the joint to complement the screw. The combination is rock solid even on some of the extended draft gear I have now mounted (photos coming soon).
I'm really glad to have gotten 100% of the way through a few samples now. The results look great and the system performs as well as it looks. This approach is a keeper in my book.
BTW, now that I have a few painted samples, one detail that really pops is the angle cock valve, which stands out nicely against the black air hose. Very nice job you did on these!
-gfh
P.S. The Athearn 2-bays are really nice, and I have a few of them in the queue. But what the N scale world really needs is a Trinity 2-bay (http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=44409), not yet another ACF 2-bay... I did pick up a few undec Trinity 5161's to see if I could chop them down to 2-bays without making a hash of it. We'll see...
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cg-RWlaFndM/UlIb3VlXAgI/AAAAAAAAFdw/tvis8ue5VTI/s640/DSCN2789.jpg)
-gfh
They look damn fine on that ballasted track with painted rail clips. :D
-
But what the N scale world really needs is a Trinity 2-bay (http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=44409), not yet another ACF 2-bay... I did pick up a few undec Trinity 5161's to see if I could chop them down to 2-bays without making a hash of it. We'll see...
Just to indulge in a little thought tangent..... I wonder how hard it would be to make these out of an etched metal kit? Doesn't look like there would be a need for too many cast parts, except maybe the air reservoir & valve. Anyone have any blueprints? ;)
Ed
-
Some time ago, the TrinityRail site had pdf pages with basic dimensions of most of their cars. Sadly those pages seem to be no longer posted (though they do have a Request Info contact page). Here is the link to the 2-bay 3281 cuft hopper (https://www.trinityrail.com/productdetails.aspx?id=41&catid=27) page.
FWIW, I think this would be a tricky project for etching (mainly getting the curves right) and I think bashing this from the 5161 is not that difficult, if you're willing to overlook a few seam placement issues (I am). I think the hardest part will be cutting down the roof walk in a way that doesn't look butchered.
But please feel free to give it a shot!
-gfh
P.S. How about a 3230 cuft PD hopper (https://www.trinityrail.com/productdetails.aspx?ID=40&catid=27) while you're at it? :lol:
-
Cars continue to trickle* out of the shops. I'm a sucker for the most generic cars in the modern fleet: plain black tank cars, plain grey hoppers, etc. Here is an Atlas 4-bay hopper with new trucks, couplers & cross walks, and some very light weathering (mostly these proto cars just seem to fade/chalk and accumulate some grime around the seams):
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-dU1AiiCw5MA/Ul9A-sZzPbI/AAAAAAAAFnQ/9aObGni8CXo/s800/DSCN2811.png)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-kyByBLGh-7I/Ul9A-lmUcFI/AAAAAAAAFng/ROTGOBmoNX8/s800/DSCN2820.png)
I have tried to be very careful about standardizing coupler height, so I was a bit miffed when I got everything re-assembled on a pair of hoppers and found this:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-bN1FvS6YD_I/Ul9A-kLzvGI/AAAAAAAAFnU/OzVi0u1xUjg/s800/DSCN2823.png)
Both couplers individually pass my height tests , but one must be epsilon high, and the other epsilon low. I'm sure they'll be fine in normal duty, but I haven't stress tested this pair yet. So far I think I'm achieving a tolerance of about ±.01", which is probably about what is needed.
-gfh
*Trickle is the operative word here. Between lowering ride height, changing trucks & couplers, adding a few details, applying conspicuity stripes and/or graffiti, and weathering, I'm spending a few hours per car. I think I need TK's stop watch! :D
-
So far I think I'm achieving a tolerance of about ±.01", which is probably about what is needed.
I've been using the MT height gauge. I try to line up on the nominal centerline height (0.216"), and my limits are that the upper edge of the Z coupler can be no higher than the upper edge of the gauge coupler, and the lower edge of the Z likewise can be no lower than the lower edge of the gauge. At some point I'll convert the gauges to the Z coupler too (might be easier now that I have the loco boxes to play with).
I'm spending a few hours per car.
That somehow reminds me of this:
(http://www.powell-shirts.com/images/Baddayfishin.jpg)
-
For some reason, the center of the N coupler in my MT gauge is higher than 0.216" (more like .225" IIRC), so I have been using my calipers as a gauge and sighting the center parting line on the knuckle. I also have one Bowser-equipped car I set aside as a standard to compare to. I think these will be fine, and this is the worst pair I've had to date - it was just annoying. On top of that, one of the bolster holes in this hopper developed a split, so it wouldn't retain the bolster pin reliably. These cars would benefit from a beefier bolster than the little cast-in tube they have.
-
Both couplers individually pass my height tests , but one must be epsilon high, and the other epsilon low.
In looking at that photo carefully, I notice the one on the left appears to "droop" just a little more, for lack of a better word. And I wonder if this drooping varies with individual couplers depending on where it happens to sit at any given time. I imagine there is a bit of vertical play within the coupler box, and so after being moved the coupler itself may come to rest within a range of positions. Just wild speculation, mind...
-
In looking at that photo carefully, I notice the one on the left appears to "droop" just a little more, for lack of a better word. And I wonder if this drooping varies with individual couplers depending on where it happens to sit at any given time. I imagine there is a bit of vertical play within the coupler box, and so after being moved the coupler itself may come to rest within a range of positions. Just wild speculation, mind...
Perhaps a very thin shim inside the box (say 0.002" or so) is worth a try to see if it helps. Another thought, perhaps this could be a case like I mentioned previously where the box ends up getting installed with a slight tip. I had one case like this, and I corrected for it by installing a thin shim between the pocket and carbody (on the bolster side of the screw only). A bit inelegant, but it seemed to work.
Ed
-
Hi all
I know it's maybe a dumb question, but ... I've very few cars with a body-mount coupler, so I've not so much direct experience.
One friend here ask about "minumum track radius" as he have some tight curves up to 22-23 cm ( more or less 9") and expresses concern that this modification can take to some trouble.
Can somebody tell us about his experience or give a "dumb rule"? Relation with car length, etc ....
Thanks in adv :)
Cheers
-
Hi all
I know it's maybe a dumb question, but ... I've very few cars with a body-mount coupler, so I've not so much direct experience.
One friend here ask about "minumum track radius" as he have some tight curves up to 22-23 cm ( more or less 9") and expresses concern that this modification can take to some trouble.
Can somebody tell us about his experience or give a "dumb rule"? Relation with car length, etc ....
Thanks in adv :)
Cheers
The problem you will run into is when you have a mix of car lengths. If all of the cars are roughly the same length, tight curves will not be much trouble (except when backing). But if you have 40-footers mixed in with 60-footers, then you'll start flipping cars.
-
Thanks for the feedback guys. Ed, I too have sometimes used shims behind the screw to level out a slightly drooping box -- it looks like I need to break the glue joint on this one and do the same. Should be pretty straightforward.
In the meantime I've got two Intermountain reefers just about done - these being the first completed example of cars with extended draft gear. (Still need to add a bit more weathering to them before they are truly complete.) The first step was to lower the ride height by filing the raised ring on the bolster pad flat and switching to BLMA 70T trucks. This made the floor height exactly right for the draft gear with no further fiddling required. This pair of shots shows the new ride height and how much thinner the etched boxes are than the MT boxes:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-pSltWfGfuo0/Ults3z9PC5I/AAAAAAAAFlM/I5ksB-l8PEw/s800/DSCN2972.png)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-XWSqaxIYBxM/Ults6_F-8XI/AAAAAAAAFlc/U1gmviU9x2o/s800/DSCN2970.png)
And some shots of the draft gear before & after:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-z42edrlAG_Q/Ultq4LiHSmI/AAAAAAAAFjk/zHqGhUO5Eec/s800/DSCN2959.png)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1go74bCzIEc/Ultq463IHTI/AAAAAAAAFjs/DwZSwNmgOPo/s800/DSCN2955.png)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-QOTtZoUz9F4/Ultq5QZNtKI/AAAAAAAAFjw/WCUKZ0STFCc/s800/DSCN2954.png)
Almost ready for service in the Edison packing house district:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9BsuJO9an2I/UltrHPcdnhI/AAAAAAAAFkA/JjJQBTaS9iY/s800/DSCN2962.png)
Thanks for looking.
-gfh
-
Gary,
Those ARMN reefers look great. Did you use off the shelf decals for the graffiti?
-
Thanks Ryan. Yes, these are mostly straight from the Blair Line sets (http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/N-Scale-Decals-s/1442.htm?searching=Y&sort=3&cat=1442&show=30&page=1&brand=Blair%20Line). Up close the halftone printing is a bit rough, but it looks quite good from a foot away, and their selection is pretty authentic.
-
Wow, huge difference there.
-
I've installed some more of these couplers on some Kato locos, here is a video:
The first maxi car on this train also has the etched pockets + couplers. These were pretty straightforward to install on the maxi (tho if you look close, you can see that I haven't gotten around to putting the end walkway back on :oops:).
These couplers do connect to the Kato couplers, with a tad bit of coaxing. BTW with the stock Kato couplers, this consist had chronic problems with undesired uncouplings. Since I switched to the Z couplers, that problem has disappeared.
I've also put together another batch of pockets & couplers. These are both the regular and long air hose versions. I also primed them and pre-painted the air hoses:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0889.jpg?t=1382665557)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0888.jpg?t=1382665620)
Now it's on to doing some more installs! :)
Ed
-
Excellent! The close coupling on the locos is great. A few questions:
1. I gather the stack conversion is on a DI set? Did you have any issue with the end platform being rigid enough to maintain a stable coupler height? Did you use a screw, or just glue?
2. I'd love to see a side view of one of the extended hoses. I've been a bit puzzled about how to best form the bends so that the end of the hose is in a good location. Mine tend to want to stick out beyond the coupler quite a bit.
My work bench has a similar number of pockets in a similar state. I've got a string of tank cars in the queue this weekend. :)
-gfh
-
Nice train, Ed.
-
1. I gather the stack conversion is on a DI set? Did you have any issue with the end platform being rigid enough to maintain a stable coupler height? Did you use a screw, or just glue?
Yes, that's the DI car. I used a good old 00-90, just be sure to use a light touch when drilling and tapping (but if you can drill & tap an IM 5161 hopper, the DI maxi is no problem :) ).
2. I'd love to see a side view of one of the extended hoses. I've been a bit puzzled about how to best form the bends so that the end of the hose is in a good location. Mine tend to want to stick out beyond the coupler quite a bit.
Here you go:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0623.jpg)
The trick here is to form an additional bend in the "air pipe" segment just below the "valve". The prototype often has a 90-degree elbow installed here (see this reference image (http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US7267306B2/US07267306-20070911-D00000.png)). However I could not make the same bend in the drawing for the etching, because that would have put the hose into the middle of the bottom cover. So I consider this additional bend to be a normal step in the assembly process. Just try to keep some amount of radius on it, rather than letting it turn into a 'kink' ;)
Nice train, Ed.
Thanks Ben! When I visited the real Loop about 10 years ago, I saw a stack train much like that one, with mostly the blue Hanjin and Senator containers. So I always had it in mind to try to model it some day. (True, it had older engines and not ES44s.) Years ago I bought a bunch of the DI Senator containers, and DI finally (at long last!) did a run of the Hanjins as well (and some of the Kato cars came with the Hanjins). So I now have enough of the right containers to make a train, tho I may try to pick up a few more containers & cars, since that real one didn't have the spine cars either.... ;)
-Ed
-
Thanks Ben! When I visited the real Loop about 10 years ago, I saw a stack train much like that one, with mostly the blue Hanjin and Senator containers. So I always had it in mind to try to model it some day. (True, it had older engines and not ES44s.) Years ago I bought a bunch of the DI Senator containers, and DI finally (at long last!) did a run of the Hanjins as well (and some of the Kato cars came with the Hanjins). So I now have enough of the right containers to make a train, tho I may try to pick up a few more containers & cars, since that real one didn't have the spine cars either.... ;)
-Ed
As something of a historian of double-stack operations, I can always tell when someone is basing a train off a prototype moment rather than throwing together their random collection of containers with paint schemes they liked. ;) Oh, and I knew you tacked on the TOFCs just to make the train longer, but there's probably a prototype for that somewhere.
-
Thanks for the air hose info Ed. The diagram is very helpful - I'd forgotten that the prototype hoses don't hang down because they're supported by a cable. That makes a difference in how to shape them.
-gfh
P.S. I too appreciated the container consist. That's why it bugs the h*ll out of me that I can't get modern 53' cans in Hunt and Schneider... :RUEffinKiddingMe: Oh, and I too have yet to apply hitches to my BLMA spines. ;) No problem though because I can't buy 53' trailers anyway. :RUEffinKiddingMe:
-
Ed,
That's a great layout you have there. I loved watching that!!
One question about an observation I saw in the video. That farmer sitting on a milking chair trying to get milk from a Bull is quite funny! :o
Jon
-
Thanks Jon, I was wondering if anyone would comment on that! :D You know what they say about a prototype for everything... I only hope that the Loop Ranch folks won't take any offense! :D
Ed
-
P.S. I too appreciated the container consist. That's why it bugs the h*ll out of me that I can't get modern 53' cans in Hunt and Schneider... :RUEffinKiddingMe: Oh, and I too have yet to apply hitches to my BLMA spines. ;) No problem though because I can't buy 53' trailers anyway. :RUEffinKiddingMe:
Better not look at Athearn's HO releases this month... :RUEffinKiddingMe:
-
Better not look at Athearn's HO releases this month... :RUEffinKiddingMe:
Tell me about it, pretty much everything on my intermodal wish list is already produced by Athearn in HO.... It would be a no-brainer for them to do these in N, given the rather huge gap that exists now, and the potential sales volume (I would think the Ntrak crowd would eat these up). I've given up on DI ever producing 53' containers or trailers again. I've heard rumors about other N scale 53' trailers in the works, but nothing yet. Who knows, maybe we'll have a glut soon - in the meantime thank goodness for Kato cans.
Now back to couplers! :)
-
Awright! I now have a train that is fully converted to the body-mounted, Z-scale Bowser/Lee English couplers! Here is a video, with a count of the cars being left as an exercise to the viewer! ;)
Most of these cars are installed with the etched brass coupler pockets. In a few cases (such at the Atlas coil cars and Athearn 2-bay hoppers) the car already had an integral body-mounted pocket that would have been hard to remove cleanly, so I just installed the Z-scale coupler in that. Even tho the integral pockets are significantly oversized, it is not noticeable enough to me to be bothersome when in a running train. Here are a few before/after pics showing this kind of conversion:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0990.jpg)
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0989.jpg)
I'm particularly struck by how much larger these stock couplers appear, compared to the Z-scale coupler.
On some of these cars I installed the etched pocket by simply gluing it to the underside of the car with CA. I wasn't sure that this would be strong enough, so I tested it out by locating these cars right behind the engines, where they have to bear the full weight of the rest of the train. As you can see in the video, this turned out to be strong enough even in a very long train like this one being pulled up grade through some pretty sharp curves.
The centerbeams were an interesting conversion, both the 68' and 73'. In addition to gluing the pocket in place, I also lowered the car by installing a new bolster made from a strip of .060" x .125" styrene. To do this, I had to trim back some of the die-cast metal weight on the underside of the car:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o153/ednadolski/IMG_0987.jpg)
It isn't terribly pretty, but I figure that no one is looking underneath the car when it is rolling on the layout. Besides, the greatly improved appearance made by lowering these cars is well worth the tradeoff, IMHO ;) .
One other point: with body-mounted couplers, the 73' RC centerbeams have too much overhang to track reliably thru the very sharp S-curves that I have there at East Walong (16.5" radii, plus the >2% grade). I consider this to be a function of the track geometry with respect to body-mounted couplers on long cars, and not an issue with the Z-scale couplers themselves. To compensate, I used an experimental version of the coupler pocket that had an additional pivot hole etched closer to the front face of the pocket. This allows the coupler to swing with a greater angle, and thus track better thru the very sharp curves. You can see in the picture above that the pivot screw is installed in this other hole. Note that this was not needed on the shorter MT centerbeams.
The other operational concern with the centerbeams is of course that they are very lightweight for their length. Thus it is more reliable to run them near the tail of the train. I found this to be true even when running these centerbeams with their factory-installed couplers, so no surprise there. (Actually, the light weight seemed to make them more susceptible to the slinky effect, which thankfully is now a thing of the past with these Z-scale couplers) ;)
Ed
-
P.S. The biggest challenge I have had with pusher ops so far is when a consisted rear unit, with long-shank Kato couplers, pushes against a truck-mounted couplers and torques the last freight car truck off the rails. The combination of body-mounts on the freight cars, and the shorter shank FT couplers on the locos will solve that - and look way better to boot. (The current incarnation of short-shank Kato couplers produce the wrong coupler height on the Dash-9's. :RUEffinKiddingMe:)
Thread necromancy ...
I'm not 100% sure that this will work for the Dash 9's, but I had similar coupler height issues on my AC4400s and GEVOs when I wanted to replace the long shank couplers with the standard short shanks. They ended up too high. I then tried the short shank couplers for the NW-2, which have a straight shank (instead of an underslung one) and the height was just right.
Here's a TB thread I started a while back about it: http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?147987-Kato-GEVO-couplers-why-so-high (http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?147987-Kato-GEVO-couplers-why-so-high)
-
How do I purchase some of the FT couplers?
Also, how can I get in on the coupler pocket etch? Would it be possible to get the drawing so that I can include it in a larger etch I plan to do for some cars?
-
The couplers may be purchased directly from Lee English at Bowser:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg324793#msg324793
but his minimum order is 50 pair @ $1.60/pr. For the pockets and/or artwork, you'll need to contact Ed, but he will probably respond to this post.
Best,
Gary
-
Hi John, I do have some pockets on hand. Please see this post for details (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg319095#msg319095), and send me a PM if you are interested.
Thanks,
Ed
-
Ed, I have sent you a PM about these.
David Cutting
Cutting Edge Scale Models
http://cescalemodels.wix.com/cesm
-
The other operational concern with the centerbeams is of course that they are very lightweight for their length. Thus it is more reliable to run them near the tail of the train. I found this to be true even when running these centerbeams with their factory-installed couplers, so no surprise there. (Actually, the light weight seemed to make them more susceptible to the slinky effect, which thankfully is now a thing of the past with these Z-scale couplers) ;)
Great progress Ed. Thanks for sharing.
As you're probably aware, running centerbeams toward the end of a train is not unprototypic. Prototype centerbeams are comparatively light cars when empty. Railroads generally have operating rules governing the positioning of light cars like centerbeams and autoracks on heavier trains in mountain territory. In general, lighter cars are usually not allowed at the head end and have to be placed further back in the train.
These empty centerbeams and boxcars stringlined at Caliente horseshoe in the summer of 2010 when train forces exceeded their ability to hold the rails.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7001/6489513185_c51d438edc_o.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7160/6489500119_1728e57106_o.jpg)
-
Those are some mean-looking pics Steve -- tons of steel lying around just like little plastic toys! One thing I noted was how the trucks stayed on the one overturned car, I thought they were only held together by gravity but I guess they don't just pop off in all cases.
So what was the cause of that stringline - perhaps some DPUs went dead? what part of the train were those centerbeams in? BNSF may need to revise their operating rules. Man, I would not want to be the guy responsible for that.
Back on to the couplers: has anyone done any work on these lately? I've been tied up with etching projects and the GP9, but I did manage to get started on another batch of conversions.
Ed
-
Actually, I'm looking at these for my narrow gauge stuff. I've read through the thread, and I can't seem to find the diameter of the coupler's screw hole.
-
Actually, I'm looking at these for my narrow gauge stuff. I've read through the thread, and I can't seem to find the diameter of the coupler's screw hole.
On the samples I have, 0.0465" passes through; 0.048" does not.
Regards,
-
Isn't the hole designed for a 00-90 screw?
-
Thanks, y'all!
-
Isn't the hole designed for a 00-90 screw?
Not sure if it was designed for that, but it fits perfectly.
-
It is designed for a 00-90 tap. I don't recall the exact diameter, but the drawing had to be a bit smaller to compensate for the etching process (which leaves holes a bit bigger than drawn). So there inevitably will be some tolerance.
I don't much use the 00-90 screws any more (and the metal is a bit thin for holding onto the threads anyways). I prefer the 0.040" styrene rod, and so far none have failed or fallen out.
Ed
-
Not sure if it was designed for that, but it fits perfectly.
Following on from Gary's comment, I suspect the hole in the coupler shank was simply designed to fit the pivot pin in the Full Throttle coupler box - which measures between 0.044" and 0.0445" diameter - and it is purely fortuitous that a 00-90 screw fits so well! For this application, my real preference would be for a 00-90 screw with the threaded portion stopping about 0.046" - 0.048" from the screw head so that the coupler had a smooth pivot pin. Ed's use of 0.040" rod accomplishes the same thing with a little more end play for the coupler.
Cheers,
-
Does anyone here happen to have a pair of the FT couplers I could purchase to experiment with without having to do a full bulk order?
-
Does anyone here happen to have a pair of the FT couplers I could purchase to experiment with without having to do a full bulk order?
You can buy a 4-pack here:
http://www.zscalemonster.com/full_throttle/100/
-
Man those coupler boxes and FT coupler conversions are SICK!! sign me up I need 1000 ;) ok... Not 1000... But I could use about 100... Is Lee still taking orders for just couplers? I have looked into those while tinkering in Z scale...
Was hoping to see the Protomate by now but this might be a great alternative to waiting and using MTs... Hate the slinky effect....
-
I can't believe this thread is now 8 years old.... :facepalm: I've been largely preoccupied with layout work for the last 5 years, but I've taken a hiatus for a few weeks to go back into production mode on some body-mounting projects. I thought I would share a few of the results here.
I am still very Gung Ho on the "Bowser Buckler/Lee English" Z scale coupler (I purchased 300 pair from Lee a while back) and the etched brass pockets that @ednadolski and I designed, and Ed perfected (see up-thread for details). [I was quite intrigued when the MT Tru-Scale couplers came out, but after experimenting on a few cars, I quickly decided they were not for me.]
The new projects have all been covered hoppers and tank cars. I'll share the tank cars first and save the hoppers for another post. First up is GATX 35690, an Atlas 17K tanker that first appears on Reply #46 of this thread (on Aug 29, 2010!). I'm proud to report that the car is now finished and in service, 8 years later, though it has developed a patina of rust in the intervening years.... :P
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1817/29251528467_7fb5a26987_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LyRJiH)
With the etched pockets, it is straightforward to mount the coupler box directly to the bottom of the tank, which makes a very stable installation. The low profile of the etched box also makes it possible to lower the ride height a bit using BLMA trucks. Here is a before & after comparison of two other 17K tankers that shows the subtle difference in ride height and car spacing:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1833/44140001202_372d3a1446_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2afv3xu)
Next up is my second favourite N scale tank car: the Athearn LPG tanker:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1840/44188199641_b12334529d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ajL5g4)
In this case I kept the stock trucks since the ride height was fine. Happily, there is a mounting tab just outboard of the truck bolster which the coupler box mounts to which gives the perfect coupler height. (This conversion is going to be more difficult with the new body-mount LPG cars...)
Last up, for now, is my favourite N scale tank car: the Atlas corn syrup tanker. I love the squat lines and fine detail on this model:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1841/44192213681_e3daea310c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ak7DuD)
With the etched pockets and BLMA trucks, it's possible to lower the car by a full 9" (scale):
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1833/44188194641_1d45a15d3c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ajL3LR)
and also to decrease the car spacing from 6' (platform to platform) to 3.5':
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1885/44140005512_8deed42211_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2afv4PN)
Here's a 3/4 view showing a bit more detail on the coupler itself:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1857/44188204831_f581f9879b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ajL6Nx)
Thanks for looking.
-
Looking good, as always @GaryHinshaw
-
Is there any chance you will do an etched coupler box group order again. I missed out the first time, and would like to get in on it if you do another run. Thanks.
Jeff
-
Stunning Gary, just stunning :o
Otto
-
Jeff, I will definitely be ordering some more in the coming 2-3 months, so yes. @ednadolski was kind enough to send me the most recent art work (I just need to update my software so I can read the file... :facepalm:). I'll post info here when I'm closer to pulling the trigger.
Here is one more shot that shows the pocket a bit more clearly:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1889/44140005792_bd5449b0c3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2afv4UC)
-
Jeff, I will definitely be ordering some more in the coming 2-3 months, so yes. @ednadolski was kind enough to send me the most recent art work (I just need to update my software so I can read the file... :facepalm:). I'll post info here when I'm closer to pulling the trigger.
Excellent! Thank you Gary. The cars look great too!
Jeff
-
Yeah, those tank cars do look really, really good. While the cars come already nicely detailed, the weathering, the closer-to-scale weathered metal wheels, and of course the smaller couplers, all contribute to the "rigth" look. Those cars look H0-ish (and that is a compliment)! :)
-
my favourite N scale tank car: the Atlas corn syrup tanker. I love the squat lines and fine detail on this model:
Those look pretty neat in O scale too :D
Ed
-
I would love to see what you've done with one of thOse!
-
I would love to see what you've done with one of thOse!
Not much to look at so far, just sitting on P:48 trucks and with most of the details stripped off:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/7/medium_818-020918160118.jpeg)
I really need to get one of these for it: https://www.shapeways.com/product/NG72SUWAD/atlaso-trinity-17-6k-gal-tank-car-conversion-bolst?optionId=65248654
Ed
-
Cool. Somehow it's gratifying to see that O scale requires just as much work as N scale to bring things up to snuff. ;)
Nice looking turnout in the works there!
-
(Indulging in a bit of additional thread drift ;) )
It depends on one's idea of 'snuff'.... for most O scale the Atlas stuff is generally pretty well detailed and RTR. For P:48, of course the term 'RTR' is incongruous, and OOTB means basically a blank canvas. :D
Ed
-
It depends on one's idea of 'snuff'....
Well, trucks & couplers at least, just like N scale. ;)
Here's a car that has been in my Unfinished Projects box for longer than I care to admit: an Intermountain 60' flat car that someone carelessly left out on the main line:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1867/42675657180_aea6ad3d59_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2826U5L)
(Sorry about the distracting backdrop artifacts.) These cars are slightly high riders out of the box (and the couplers are too high - go figure), but they are easy to lower with BLMA trucks and LEZ couplers:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1891/42675669920_bf8855dc67_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2826XSq)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1847/42675678440_ad5d382289_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28271pj)
The etched pockets work really well in this conversion. (The weathering is really only intended to satisfy the 1-2' rule, not the 4" rule, like that last shot... :|)
-
That’s really great looking Gary. I wouldn’t have expected that car to get that low.
Did you print the background on adding machine tape? :D
-
That lowered car looks fantastic! 8)
Ed
-
/>
That never gets old...
So is the latest run of IM flats a re-run? They look really nice.
-
Thanks guys.
Smike, the weathered OTTX car is from an early run of the flats, the HTTX is from the latest run. Sadly the new run has some assembly issues: the sides are overlays glued to the metal deck and 2 of the 3 I received have some sags in the corners. You can see that in the HTTX car in this shot (before I weathered the OTTX car):
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1868/30610543548_fa4541d076_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NCX39d)
I might have to break a glue joint to fix it. I would recommend inspecting before purchase, if at all possible.
Did you print the background on adding machine tape? :D
I know, right? :P Just a really old test print from my struggling inkjet. To be replaced, eventually.
-
Thanks Gary, a little disappointing on the current run, its hard to get motivated to purchase higher end rolling stock that needs fixing. Great work on the weathering.
-
@GaryHinshaw I love the weathering you're doing to these models, particularly on the wheels. Are you painting the inside of the wheels brown? Do you have a method for doing so? And what color of paint do you use? I assume you're using BLMA or FVM wheels?
-
Thank you Peter. You ask an excellent question regarding colour: I couldn't remember and I thought I had written it down, but obviously not in this thread. I found a Weekend Update post from last year though where I described the process:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=45252.msg586422#msg586422
Hope this helps,
Gary
-
Crap, now I know these ride a little high. :facepalm:
-
I am very late to this party but after experiencing continued issues with Micro-Trains couplers, I wanted to give this a try. Gary kindly provided me with half a dozen sets of couplers and etchings to experiment with:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/11/1731-050819134418-119451422.jpeg)
De-fretting and cleaning up the parts was straight forward:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/11/1731-050819134418-119451257.jpeg)
Folding the etched parts also went well, and they fit together well:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/11/1731-050819134420-11947782.jpeg)
Soldering the lids on was more of a challenge, in particular trying to limit the heat build-up, hold the pocket still, and limit the amount of solder. I settled on a method of holding the parts in a heat sink and used as little flux and solder as possible. my 35 watt iron may be too big a weapon for this and a smaller 12 watt iron might be more appropriate. After filing away the excess solder, this is what I have:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/11/1731-050819134421-119481404.jpeg)
The couplers seem to fit in alright:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/11/1731-050819134422-11949358.jpeg)
I made a styrene jig for establishing a standard mounting height:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/11/1731-050819134423-119501450.jpeg)
This told me that for the Atlas Hart ballast cars, I needed a .020" shim. One problem I encountered was that the etched box was too long and had to be trimmed short to clear the bolster; specifically the tab and slot extending off the rear. At this point I realized that my etched parts were longer than the assembled sample Gary gave me, so I guess there are different versions of the etching. Trimming the tab and slot was actually a benefit as once the slot was open at the rear end, the screw could be mounted onto the car, the coupler box slid underneath the head, and the screw then tightened to secure the coupler. Here is the coupler underneath the car:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/11/1731-050819134425-119521670.jpeg)
This top view shows that the coupler is too far out from the end of the car, as I used an existing hole:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/11/1731-050819134424-11951877.jpeg)
This photograph shows a car on the left with my original MT 905 fit, and the car with my first FT fit on the right:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/11/1731-050819134426-119521679.jpeg)
I selected these cars because the MT 905s do not stay coupled and have been a source of frustration. My next step is to equip all five ballast cars with the FTs and undertake some road tests, including my next op sessions to obtain some feedback from operators.
Tim
-
I selected these cars because the MT 905s do not stay coupled and have been a source of frustration. My next step is to equip all five ballast cars with the FTs and undertake some road tests, including my next op sessions to obtain some feedback from operators.
The car with MTL 905 looks pretty good to me. Have you tried to figure out why they don't stay coupled, but didn't arrive at any meaningful fix?
-
The 905s look good and were a solution for cars where it was not possible to mount a full size coupler at the correct height. Unfortunately they have been very unreliable in operation, frequently letting go during switching back and forth. I have not been able to determine the cause; they do need to be centered exactly or they won't work at all.
Tim
-
@GaryHinshaw Do your etched pockets work for MT Truescale couplers?
-
Unfortunately they have been very unreliable in operation, frequently letting go during switching back and forth. I have not been able to determine the cause ...
It's not a bug, it's a feature: your switching moves are emulating the way the couplers were designed to work in automatic "hands free" operation:
Time: 59 seconds:
/>
Time: 6m 53s:
/>
By design, the couplers can separate whenever the they are not directly in line and the slack runs. You don't need a magnet if the cars are on a curve. I've had those unwanted separations occur often (and quite repeatably) under the right conditions (downgrade on a curve, in a slow moving train).
Ed
-
Do your etched pockets work for MT Truescale couplers?
No, they do not fit.
Ed
-
Soldering the lids on was more of a challenge, in particular trying to limit the heat build-up, hold the pocket still, and limit the amount of solder. I settled on a method of holding the parts in a heat sink and used as little flux and solder as possible.
I use a small scrap of plywood with a thin slot cut by a razor say blade. I lay the (formed) pocket body upside-down, so that the 'buffer plate' sits in the slot. This holds it steady enough to place the lid, apply flux, and then solder. I usually do about 12 or so at a time. Very little solder is needed.
Ed
-
Thanks for the responses Ed. I've had the same experience with 905's and was never motivated to try and solve it. These LEZ couplers really fit the bill for me.
Good to see this coming along Tim. RE the length, could you use the shank hole in the body to mount the box? That way you could trim the back flange off entirely. Not sure if the screw holes on an Atlas hopper are compatible with this though.
For posterity, my technique for assembling the boxes is as follows:
1. Trim the body piece shorter, if necessary, before folding.
2. Fold the sides into a channel, but leave the buffer plate unfolded for now.
3. Fold the back flap of the lid.
4. Press fit the lid onto the tabs on the channel, brush a bit of flux on the lid around the tabs.
5. Put a drop of solder on a fine-point iron and touch it to each tab. The solder will typically wick into the joint and require no filing. While soldering, I hold the assembly in place by pressing down on the lid with a wooden toothpick.
6. Finally, fold the buffer plate and air hose pieces.
-
Did anyone ever check to see if these are still available separately? I thought someone was going to ask with in the last year or so.
-
I understand that @ai5629 contacted Lee English about the couplers a few months ago and Lee confirmed that he will still sell them, but only in bulk: a minimum of 50 pr. I believe the price is still $1.60/pr. The process is by direct email:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg324793#msg324793
Sadly, the only avenue for getting the boxes is through me or Ed ordering from PPD and distributing them ourselves. I'd love to find a way to make these available without involving us as middlemen. I might contact PPD to see if they would support 3rd party orders, since they have the artwork. Other distribution avenues are also being explored.
-
I was able to get 50 pairs of FT couplers from Bowser this past Winter. I have been waiting for a group buy of the coupler box frets since obtaining them. Hopefully I and others will be able to get them via a group buy or directly from PPD. It would be a tragedy if these were not made available at least one more time. Thank you.
Jeff
-
Thanks for the update Jeff. We'll get you some one way or another!
-
Sadly, the only avenue for getting the boxes is through me or Ed ordering from PPD and distributing them ourselves. I'd love to find a way to make these available without involving us as middlemen. I might contact PPD to see if they would support 3rd party orders, since they have the artwork. Other distribution avenues are also being explored.
The caveat is that a single full fret is rather large, and the quantities of each type were estimated based upon what folks were asking for at the time the fret was designed. So whoever orders the fret(s) takes that chance of ending up with a number of parts that no one wants.
Changing the fret is doable, but (a) will take time to re-draw; and (b) will have to incur the cost of a new photo-tool.
Ed
-
Availabilty is the reason I have stayed away from the FT couplers (pure and simple).
If they ever become easy to get - I would be very interested.
-
Reviving a very old topic with new technology. As reported elsewhere (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=51144.0), I got a new 3-d printer for xmas and I've spent the last week trying it out on various design ideas. Here's a new concept for a 3-d printed LEZ coupler pocket that I'm quite happy with now. The basic idea is a box with an integral post and a retaining ring around the pulling face with a lid that slides on and plugs in from the back of the box. The photo below shows the build progression, and a grab of the drawing:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50790666108_0497d5ef20_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kocrvN)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50790672883_8a9188dee1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2koctwB)
This box has no provisions for mounting (other than gluing it to a car, say) but the design is intended as a module that can be incorporated into a larger design that includes mounting provisions. As an example, I incorporated this into a replacement end-frame for a Kato Maxi-I well car set (a work in progress), as shown in the following sequence:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50790667053_d58d43434d_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kocrN6)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50790668108_a0f9acd52a_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kocs7h)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50791420816_daf8c9409f_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kogiS1)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50791422026_7fb13b38b9_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kogjdS)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50790672263_83b64ba656_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2koctkV)
I need to tweak the dimensions of the plug at the back of the lid, as the fit is quite tight at the moment, but once that is dialled in, I'm happy to share the .stl files with anyone who wants to use and improve the design. It's really dead simple, and with the advent of affordable at-home 3-d printing, the possibilities for customizing are virtually endless.
I also welcome comments on suggested design improvements. My motivation was to have all the structural elements (the post and retainer) part of the box itself and to have the lid be easily removable, and serve only the function of keeping the coupler in the box.
-
That's a real clever design with that sliding lid Gary!
-
Awesome. Awesome awesome awesome! If the astrophysics gig doesn't work out, you have a future in industrial design. :trollface: :facepalm:
Seriously, that's really impressive, especially holding tolerances as well as you have.
Curious... does the LEZ auto-couple to the MTL TSC? It would be cool if it did, but the TSC couples to itself very tightly so I have to wonder.
-
what couplers are those?
-
what couplers are those?
I'm guessing Lee English Zscale.
-
I'm guessing Lee English Zscale.
Yes, the name has sort of evolved over time. They are a Z-scale coupler made by Lee English, who works for Bowser, but initially were obtained by @GaryHinshaw thru the folks at Full Throttle (a Z-scale shop) so you might occasionally hear or see them referred to as "Full Throttle Couplers" or "FTs". That reference is obsolete however, as is "Bowser Bucklers" (which refers to the Z-scale trucks that included the coupler).
A bit more of the history: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg206840#msg206840
These couplers have worked well for me over the years since this effort came about, as they are strong, reliable, and eliminate the slinky (note, my use case is long trains with little actual switching, where a slinky action is a fatal flaw). I haven't done much new work with them lately, as my own N-scale modeling work has taken a back seat to various "life happens" kind of stuff over the last few years. There have also been some stretches of wait-and-see as other coupler types (such as the @DKS Protomate and the Micro-Trains Tru-Scale designs) have been explored as alternatives to the sizing and slinky problems of the traditional Micro-Trains couplers. It should be noted that the LEZs are distinct from those and are not to be confused with them.
Availability-wise, these posts have the latest info that I am aware of:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg324793#msg324793
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg628156#msg628156
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg628180#msg628180
HTH,
Ed
-
Would it be possible to sub part of the post with a hole for a screw to more easily mount to other cars?
-
Would it be possible to sub part of the post with a hole for a screw to more easily mount to other cars?
Seems doable, tho I would say what I found at least with the brass parts is that the more I do, the less and less I use a screw. I just CA them to the car body, after first assembling the coupler with a bit of 0.040" styrene rod as the pivot. The rod simply pushes/twists into and thru the holes, and trim when done. So far no problems with either the rod falling out or the pocket breaking off the car body.
Ed
-
Thanks Ed.
I just wasn't sure what kind of bond one would get with these Resins and whatever substrate they'd be attached to, be they metal or plastic.
-
Thanks for the feedback. I'm definitely happy with the sliding lid design (assuming my plug tweaks work as expected), and Ed has the history of the LEZ exactly right, of course.
@C855B - no bueno on the Tru-Scale compatibility, as you expected. They actually almost mate, but the finger on the LEZ knuckle wraps around too far to engage with the Tru-Scale:*
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50792781712_9d48a15c29_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2koohpJ)
For reference, here are a few more comparison shots to the Tru-Scale box (I don't remember if this is the short or long shank version):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50792661526_a76df084d9_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2konEFy)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50792662091_37f9efbb7b_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2konERi)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50792663286_6398683338_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2konFcU)
The outer dimensions of this LEZ box are 5.2 mm (l) x 3.9 mm (w) x 2.0 mm (h). The top of the box is 1.0 mm above the centre line of the coupler, so to obtain the MTL standard coupler height of 5.5 mm above the railhead, you need to mount this to a floor that is 6.5 mm (41 scale inches) above the rails (or higher). Anything lower would require car mods.
@wazzou it would be straightforward to replace the post with a matched pair of holes and use a 00-90 screw for mounting, but the post is only 2.6 mm behind the front face of the box, so that's problematic for a lot of cars. I think a better approach is to mimic what we did with the brass pockets: to extend the box back a few mm as a channel and mount through a screw hole in the channel. That is probably how I will approach a generic mounting scheme. (BTW, this particular sliding lid requires ~1 mm of clearance behind the box). But I gather Ed has had good luck with gluing as well.
Given how easy it is to design and print custom configurations with this new printer, I haven't really thought much about a "universal" box design. Since I have so many cars to convert en masse, it is actually more efficient now to design a custom part that fits a particular car so that I don't have to fiddle with cars mods, shims, etc. Just design, print, and install, like the Maxi-I example. (I can't stress enough how much this printer is changing my approach to modelling.)
*P.S. I know that Jason did some nice work with a revised Tru-Scale box design, but honestly, I never really gave the Tru-Scale couplers a second look after they came out because of their lack of compatibility and stiffness, so I didn't really follow the details of that program.
-
Gary, that Maxi-I conversion sure is interesting. Is that a Gold Medal Model's etched walkway on top?
Also is that an N-scale or Z scale coupler that you have on the truck-mount mated to the Maxi-I in the one photo?
I'm sure it was covered upthread but do the LEZ mate just fine to standard MT N-scale couplers?
-
Thanks jb. Yes, the walkway is a standard GMM etch from the Gunderson Husky Stack set. The interior walkways will need to be custom etched to match the Kato's, so I may draw up a new end walk while I'm at it. Not sure yet.
The truck-mounted coupler is a standard MTL, and yes the two couplers mate fine, but it takes a bit of force in some cases. (It seems like some of the 3rd-party MTL designs do a bit better in this regard.) Ironically, the larger Accumate & McHenry couplers mate with the LEZ even more easily. This overall compatibility really sold me on the LEZ couplers.
-
I'm torn on the MTL true-scale.
Coupling effectiveness, in terms of staying coupled, is awesome. The tight latch means that the small head is more effective than bouncing Z scale couplers (MTL variety). I think it's the extra friction of the tight coupling. They pull great and deal with slight height variations better.
But they don't work out of the box. You need to do Jason's long arm fusing and cuts to get them to swing in the coupler box. Then you have to put them in a reasonable box. The 1015 box is huge. It doesn't fit anywhere reasonable on a car body. The 905 style box would be better, something along what Jason developed would be ideal in injection molded plastic.
So I get where the Bowser coupler comes in. Do they stay coupled in long, heavy trains? Or do they slide up and down like MTL Z scales?
-
So I get where the Bowser coupler comes in. Do they stay coupled in long, heavy trains?
See for yourself:
(N.B. that's uphill, but of course the same train had to go back down again on the hidden helix, which is not in this video nor do you see the transitions between up/down grades. I would literally let the thing just run laps, hands off and unattended.)
Ed
-
Mike, I think Ed answered your question, but I'll second it. I've never had a problem with the LEZ couplers on my layout, even at the head end of long heavy trains. I don't have as many conversions completed as Ed does, but I have run cuts of 10-15 LEZ-equipped cars at the head of 35-40 car trains up and down 2.2% grades. No problem.
Would it be possible to sub part of the post with a hole for a screw to more easily mount to other cars?
@wazzou here is an example of a box I customized for screw-mounting to a BLMA spine car. The idea is pretty generic though. The stock spine car has a cast-on threaded post to to hold an MTL coupler, so I filed that down, put holes in the roof and lid of the LEZ box, beefed up the lid thickness a bit and moved the back wall forward to provide more stiffness as close to the screw post as possible. I also added a pair of flanges to the top of the box to seat into slots in the bottom of the spine, so as to avoid the inevitable twisting that occurs with generic screw-mounted boxes like this. Here is a grab of the drawing, which took maybe 45 mins of CAD time, starting from the basic box:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50806704396_2348a1851c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kpBD91)
The hole in the roof aligns with the old coupler post hole (which I drilled through and tapped for a 00-90 screw):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50805959203_2d3b7b3267_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kpxPBR)
The hole in the lid is a clearance hole for a 00-90 screw which secures the coupler (the lid still has a minor fit issue that needs attention):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50806815862_e6074e2f1c_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kpCdgQ)
The flanges completely eliminate any twisting, so the screw doesn't need to be so tight that it causes the coupler to bind. The back wall in the lid also precludes binding. Here it is from above:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50806813632_db9a1226d4_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kpCcBo)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50806702136_4e81658158_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kpBCt3)
The ability to easily customize a box to a particular application like this has me 110% convinced that this is the way to go with future body mounts. The turnaround time from concept to reality is hours, the cost per item is pennies, the quality is near to injection molding, and the customization means that the installation time is short, so converting a fleet is feasible. These printers are nothing short of revolutionary in my book.
-
Nice. The corners even look nice and sharp.
-
That is nice. Two questions:
One, do these LEZ couplers uncouple easily manually, using picks, bamboo skewers and such?
Two, how does one get one’s hands on the LEZ’s today?
Thanks, Otto
-
Mike, I think Ed answered your question, but I'll second it. I've never had a problem with the LEZ couplers on my layout, even at the head end of long heavy trains. I don't have as many conversions completed as Ed does, but I have run cuts of 10-15 LEZ-equipped cars at the head of 35-40 car trains up and down 2.2% grades. No problem.
Excellent and thanks for the feedback. (You too Ed). I use them in 30 car z scale trains but the shorter, lighter cars are a completely different dynamic than n scale.
-
Two, how does one get one’s hands on the LEZ’s today?
Thanks, Otto
Received from Lee English today:
Z Coupler (only) $1.90 per pair minimum order 50 pair
Pay by Check or Money order only
Made out to Lee English
The couplers are not a Bowser product.
No shipping charge if USA address.
Shipping by first class mail with tracking
Thank you
Lee English
1302 Jordan Ave
Montoursville PA 17754
-
Thanks John for doing the leg work on that and sharing the reply.
-
Thanks indeed John. Good to know. I still have a few hundred on hand, but I should probably order some more to have on reserve.
By the way, I'd be happy to share these design files, but honestly, they are so simple that it almost seems pointless. It's really just the inside dimensions that are important, especially if you plan on customizing the mounts, adding details (which I still plan to do), etc.
-
By offline request, here are links to the basic coupler box and basic slide-on lid, as illustrated below:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50811971307_b122f56e17_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kq5CNP)
Box: https://www.tinkercad.com/things/7Mj9rn1m28z-lez-pocket-basic/edit?sharecode=Macx_o6AhlVkpormuryPHANCkv9LwPXn_4Pc7838kV4
Lid: https://www.tinkercad.com/things/dmz9d4NSIED-lez-pocket-lid-basic/edit?sharecode=ZJBtbmocDFekQ_BZ1BmjOR32veAjo_acNjIUEyDKx1g
I believe you need to have a (free) Autodesk account to access these in TinkerCAD, but then you should be able to copy them and tweak them to fit your needs. I won't change this basic design, but I will definitely continue to evolve it in other files with different mount points, added details, etc. A few quick notes:
1. For mounting with a 00-90 screw, you can replace the post with a pair of holes centred 2.6 mm back from the box face. A 00-90 clearance hole
is about 1.25 mm.
2. The slide-on lid requires about 1 mm of clearance behind the basic box, so that should constitute a stay-out zone in your designs.
3. To maintain a standard coupler height of 5.5 mm above the railhead*, the top of this box should be 6.5 mm above the railhead. You can design in shims as appropriate.
Enjoy, and share your work. :)
*P.S. I find that most truck-mounted MTL couplers are closer to 5.3-5.4 mm above the railhead. It's a small difference from the standard, but you should test your installation for compatibility.
-
Thanks Gary!
-
Thank you very much Gary
-
The ability to easily customize a box to a particular application like this has me 110% convinced that this is the way to go with future body mounts. The turnaround time from concept to reality is hours, the cost per item is pennies, the quality is near to injection molding, and the customization means that the installation time is short, so converting a fleet is feasible. These printers are nothing short of revolutionary in my book.
This is high praise from the guy that mapped the big bang :) I agree 100%
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/WMAP_2010.png/330px-WMAP_2010.png)
-
The ability to easily customize a box to a particular application like this has me 110% convinced that this is the way to go with future body mounts. The turnaround time from concept to reality is hours, the cost per item is pennies, the quality is near to injection molding, and the customization means that the installation time is short, so converting a fleet is feasible. These printers are nothing short of revolutionary in my book.
Agreed, although unfortunately this is out of reach for many modelers.
Hopefully, someone will start making at least some of the more common coupler pockets available for N scalers.
Mark
-
This is high praise from the guy that mapped the big bang :) I agree 100%
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/WMAP_2010.png/330px-WMAP_2010.png)
Arguably the ultimate backdrop... ;)
Ed
-
Agreed, although unfortunately this is out of reach for many modelers.
FWIW, the Photon Mono I am using cost $229 USD, so about the price of a sound loco. Not cheap, indeed, but they open up a world of possibilities, beyond coupler pockets.
Arguably the ultimate backdrop... ;)
That is literally true. :lol:
-
FWIW, the Photon Mono I am using cost $229 USD, so about the price of a sound loco. Not cheap, indeed, but they open up a world of possibilities, beyond coupler pockets.
Not too outrageous, will have to look into the cost of the resin as well. I could probably rationalize it if I can get a certain friend to do the cad work for a certain common N&W hopper. :lol:
For the time being I will probably stick with some of the ideas posted in this thread (3/32 x 3/16 brass tubing, etc).
Mark
-
By offline request, here are links to the basic coupler box and basic slide-on lid, as illustrated below:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50811971307_b122f56e17_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kq5CNP)
Box: https://www.tinkercad.com/things/7Mj9rn1m28z-lez-pocket-basic/edit?sharecode=Macx_o6AhlVkpormuryPHANCkv9LwPXn_4Pc7838kV4
Lid: https://www.tinkercad.com/things/dmz9d4NSIED-lez-pocket-lid-basic/edit?sharecode=ZJBtbmocDFekQ_BZ1BmjOR32veAjo_acNjIUEyDKx1g
Looks like the link has expired, @GaryHinshaw do you mind re-posting?
Thanks,
Ed
-
Sure, here you go:
Basic pocket:
https://www.tinkercad.com/things/7Mj9rn1m28z-lez-pocket-basic/edit?sharecode=MREVlnf0RKuE9d3-dLzSlnm0QEO-Qdn7gLYQZCr4yFA
Lid (now with a tapered plug):
https://www.tinkercad.com/things/faJ3HDMpqyP-lez-pocket-lid-taper/edit?sharecode=Tivw3mQg7Y1HPhfOxAjzgdASXpbKmsrvV3WULX6fAsU
And here is a pair of links to the pocket I'm using for the spine cars. This has holes in the top & bottom for a 00-90 screw that doubles as a coupler pivot post and a box mounting screw. It also has some additional details on the side that are still kind of in development. The flanges on the top corners of the box are sized to mate to the spine car and should probably be removed or modified for other screw mount application.
Pocket:
https://www.tinkercad.com/things/0pgJ1HxNq48-lez-pocket-blma-spine/edit?sharecode=87mHc8kgl01SsTP5dxWcFYtkHMmLd7EQ9cZepfJ5ifg
Lid:
https://www.tinkercad.com/things/kgY4kqZ4w0x-lez-pocket-lid-spine-taper/edit?sharecode=pbc-YsU-omjrQIP9SmPrtyE1wtG2CPvBDCs3uQm1UyI
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50996810178_4db0e9a98a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kGpYXU)
P.S. I have no idea how one is supposed to manage files in Tinkercad. I guess mature designs should be hosted somewhere else like Thingiverse for people to use... I'm open to suggestions.
-
Good news from Lee: he now has a working assembly fixture again and is back in the coupler business. There are some changes to the ordering process and the price has gone up, but they are still quite affordable. He is now asking $1.60 per pair with a minimum order of 50 pair. Shipping is free within the USA and should be less than $15 for international shipping.
This is a personal project, not a Bowser project, so he is only accepting payment via check or money order (US funds), sent to his personal address. Rather than posting that address here, I would advise you to send him an email to confirm the terms, then he can send you the address. He can be reached at:
Lee English <bowser at bowser-trains.com>
Replace the ' at ' with '@'. I think Ed will be contacting those who have placed pocket orders to confirm quantities. Contact him by PM if you would still like to order some and haven't already.
-Gary
Bump, due to some recent asks on this wrt obtaining couplers.
Ed
-
My last contact with Lee was in Feb'22. The only change from the above info is that the price is now $2.00 a pair. Here is a response from Lee with the latest info:
On Feb 7, 2022, at 4:49 AM, Bowser Manufacturing <bowser@bowser-trains.com> wrote:
Yes the couplers are still available
$2.00 per pair plus $15.00 for shipping to Canada. Check or money order only. US funds please
Thank you
Lee English
Bowser Mfg, 1302 Jordan Ave
Montoursville PA 17754
www.bowser-trains.com
570-368-2379
s&h in USA $8.95 per order