A shelf layout emerging from a turnout

[ednadolski]

Bottom lever for the cars

I have not tried it yet myself, but I think you will have to fashion a sort of fulcrum on the underside of the coupler to allow the lever to pivot so that it can push the pin upwards.  This is what those two holes cast into the bottom of the coupler head are for.  A prototype coupler has a pivoting link but that is way too small to functionally model in any scale.

Check out some of the pics of the couplers on the Protocraft site, and you will see that the bottom-operating types come with a small wire loop that hangs from those two bottom holes, and is used to hold the end of the lift bar.

Ed

[ednadolski]

BTW one other thing I have been trying to devise is, how to make something like the prototype key/slot that lets the coupler shank slide in & out by a few scale inches whenever the coupler is pushed/pulled.  The San Juan coupler has a version with a horizontal slot in the shank so that you can use a styrene strip as the key. However I am not keen on the SJs since I've found that the delrin pin does not drop too readily when coupling (which sort of defeats the purpose).  On the Clouser, it should be possible to drill/mill a slot in the shank, but I don't have a milling machine to do it. 

Ed

[svedblen]

Check out some of the pics of the couplers on the Protocraft site, and you will see that the bottom-operating types come with a small wire loop that hangs from those two bottom holes, and is used to hold the end of the lift bar.

Exactly. Along with the assembly instructions there was some pics (and text) describing how that wire is attached to the lever itself, on the other side of the coupler. So in theory I think I have understood have to do it. I only have to make it happen IRL  I guess that loop will have to be bent few times before it gets the correct size and placement relative the pin.

BTW one other thing I have been trying to devise is, how to make something like the prototype key/slot that lets the coupler shank slide in & out by a few scale inches whenever the coupler is pushed/pulled.

You mean you want to reintroduce the slinky effect  Is that wise? 

But seriously, the sheer weight and momentum of the O scale cars will probably counter any such tendancy. Or it might not show on a small diorama style layout where trains at most are a couple of cars. Anyway, an interesting idea...

... but I don't have a milling machine to do it. 

Can't you just extend the pivoting hole in the shank with a file, turning it into more of a slot than a round hole? Tedious yes, but just as a test?

[ednadolski]

You mean you want to reintroduce the slinky effect  Is that wise? 

The slinky oscillation is a consequence of the spring in the MT coupler design. It is easy to reproduce with the right combination of mass/speed/friction.  I install my Protocraft couplers without a spring, so there can be no oscillation.  I tighten down the box covers enough to keep the coupler from moving loosely, so they do not slip out of line during coupling operations.  (Prototype couplers are heavy enough not to do that.)

Can't you just extend the pivoting hole in the shank with a file, turning it into more of a slot than a round hole?

The Protocraft couplers that I have are the discontinued design that has a vertical slot in the shank rather than a pivot hole.  This does allow for some travel during coupling & uncoupling.  I think the newer (non-Clouser) ones also have this slot (as well as a centering spring).  The slot in the San Juans is horizontal and thus takes a flat bar that also passes thru a corresponding slot in either side of the center sill, like the prototype.  The slots in the pocket are elongated and permit the slack travel.

(FWIW, I think those SJs with the slots may now be discontinued as well  )

Ed

[svedblen]

I install my Protocraft couplers without a spring, so there can be no oscillation.

No, I did not think you used a spring. The reference to the slinky effect was my attempt at a joke 

I tighten down the box covers enough to keep the coupler from moving loosely, so they do not slip out of line during coupling operations.

But do they still swing when negotioating curves or turnouts? Which brings me to a subject I had not really thought about until I received the couplers from Protocraft. Part of the written instructions was a description, originally supplied by some other fellow modeler, showing how he had installed a self centering mechanism. It consisted of a narrow U-shaped piece of piano wire, soldered so that it wrapped the shank from the end, and the wires touching the box sides. See the picture, which I have taken from the Protocraft instructions (I hope that was ok Norm).



I think that looks quite neat, but the question is if such a mechanism is at all needed? If you tighten down the box cover as you say you do, then the couplers will always return to the center position, and stay there, once you have made it out on tangent track again. Right? So the only time there could be a possible coupling problem is if you uncouple on a tight curve and then attempt to couple on straight track. Or do your couplers not swing at all?

[ednadolski]

Oh yes they certainly can swing.  They are just installed a bit snugly, so that they will stay put during normal moves and coupling/uncoupling.   Since I currently do not (yet!) have any cut levers installed, I just lift the pin by pushing up gently from underneath with a tool.  If the couplers are installed loosely, this could easily push them out of alignment so that they would have to be manually re-aligned the next time I want to make a hook.  Also, left to itself a loose coupler could also 'drift' out of alignment during a forward or reverse move, thus also requiring a manual re-alignment.

With the 'slightly snug' installation, the couplers still can swing as needed during normal operation, but (again, like the prototype) they tend to stay where they were the last time they were uncoupled.  Since even a prototype coupler can come out of line, I don't mind having to do the occasional re-lining (so it is prototypical! ).  Another nice thing is that I don't need any centering springs.

On my current (temporary) setup I have a couple of #6 turnouts which lead into relatively sharp reverse curves.  Since the whole layout is very short (under 11') this sometimes leads to uncoupling while one truck of the loco or a car is still on the curve.  The couplers thus are left a bit off-center, which means I will probably need to re-align them the next time, especially when there is a car length/overhang disparity from the previous drop.  (The prototype would of course have the exact same problem under the same conditions.)   To mitigate this, my plan for the new layout is to use longer turnouts (preferably #8 if they will fit) and eliminate as many reverse curves for parallel spur tracks as I can.

No, I did not think you used a spring. The reference to the slinky effect was my attempt at a joke 

Oh I know    It just seems a bit strange to me to see any kind of centering spring at all on those Protocraft couplers.  The conditions are probably different enough that they would not oscillate like the MTs in N scale, but even so it looks to me that they could potentially introduce a bit of unprototypical 'bounce' into coupling operations even in 1:48 scale.  And our models do not have actual brakes after all to keep them in place   (in fact, the Protocraft RB trucks are so smooth, I have to chock the wheels in order to keep an uncoupled car from rolling away!)

Ed

[svedblen]

Thanks Ed. I think I'll follow suit and stay away from any springs and centering mechanisms. A snug fit seems easy enough and more reliable.

[svedblen]

There is not much room on the layout for any structures, but I wanted at least one building of some kind. I settled for a battered old shed or barn, in the far corner. It serves, and has not served, any rail purpose but just happens to sit close to the tracks. Here is what I came up with.



Come along if you want to see how I built it (And yes, I have seen - there is something in my camera lens. But it is inside somewhere, and I don't know where  )

I started with a Masonite base painted black and a frame of scale lumber. All lumber, throughout the build, was cut to length and stained in a bath of India ink before assembly. For size comparison, an O scale figure is seated beside.



Next I cut wall boards from .4 mm plywood and glued in place.





I also added some doors, broken and hanging askew.



Next was the roof frame, and the upper part of the gables.





Now for an extra fun part. Fun because I had never done anything like it before: Metal corrugated roof panels, etched in ferric chloride to get a worn and rusty look. The warning in the how-to-pamphlet that came with the roof panels was true - it is easy to etch the panels to oblivion 





As seen I also added door hinges, made from styrene. The green is supposed to be mildew or fungus of some kind, but I not too happy with the result  I later tried to tone it down 

If you look carefully you can also remnants of batten on the side wall. I added a few of those to indicate that the shed originally had a board-and-batten siding.

Last, some more pictures of the shed in its final scene on the layout.

[MVW]

Beautiful. Looks like it's been there forever.

Jim

[davefoxx]

Wow!  That's just some incredible modeling right there.

DFF

[svedblen]

Thanks guys.

@davefoxx, possible in O scale (and larger scales). Just so you know 

[ednadolski]

Terrific job, and it looks great with all the surrounding overgrown weeds & bushes.  It works beautifully as a view block for the end of the track.  Terrrific!   

Ed

[davefoxx]

Thanks guys.

@davefoxx, possible in O scale (and larger scales). Just so you know 

Haha!  Duly noted.   

DFF

[nscaler711]

@svedblen I wish you would stop lying to us and just tell us the location of where you are taking those photos!!!

 

[svedblen]

Thank you for the kind words, everybody