Preview of upcoming MTL True-Scale Coupler system

[nkalanaga]

Somebody would be answering questions about that joint if it had happened in Pasco yard in the 60s or 70s.  They got upset if a car hit too hard from the hump, and anything over 5 mph was too hard.  The goal was 4.  Anything much over that risked damage to the contents, and the claims department DID NOT like that.

[jagged ben]

Hard to damage grain.  One wonders if the engineer in the video was thinking about that or if the crew just wasn't on their game

[wmcbride]

I want to couple up some cars like that using my N scale Alcos!

But what I need are these new couplers. Like yesterday. I hope Oregon is humming with the sounds of production...

[cjm413]

So.....I converted a pair of FVM boxcars to scale couplers....
1. I just finished off a bottle of Cab Sav....
2. I ran out of scale couplers....
3. I had a pair of each of the standard and long shanks...
4. I think that the long shanks look better.

For the later run FVM cars that come with 1015's, it should be nothing more than a direct replacement.

For the earlier run FVM cars that come with truck-mounted couplers, the pictures show the trucks with the offset kingpins and bolster height to use as an alternative to filing down the bolsters in order to reuse the original trucks.

[nkalanaga]

Jagged Ben:  You might be surprised.  Ever see the hopper gates come open on a grain car?  They slide, and if not latched right, can be jarred open.  We fed a pair of pigs for four years (a pair a year) on grain scavenged from Pasco yard.  Little piles everywhere from leaking hoppers.

True, most leaked because the gate was bent, or the elevator didn't close it right, but some were the result of rough handling.

Not relevant here, but they also smashed a boxcar once, although not with a loco.  The Walla Walla branch had some old bridges, with strict weight limits.  The only way to run 100-ton cars on it was to use idlers between the loads.  When humped, the idlers stayed with the car in front, as a pair, since the loads were going to a barge transfer there in Pasco.  Being cheap, and short of grain cars, the BN didn't use good boxcars for the idlers.  They used the oldest ones they could find, many of them ancient NP wood boxcars.  They did have steel center sills, but that's about all.  These were NOT revenue cars by any means.

On one occasion, the upper "master retarder" didn't slow the pair, and the "group retarder", controlled by the newly installed computer, grabbed it too hard, stopping them dead.  The following pair hit them, hard, and the idler couldn't take it.  The frame buckled, and pieces of wood went all directions.  After they got the retarders cleared and inspected, humping resumed, but the pile of debris was there for some time.

My father went back to running the retarders manually while the programmers rechecked their code, but as far as I know, they never found any problems.  The computer controlled the retarders through the same relay-based "analog system" that the manual board used, so it may have just been a stuck relay.

[johnb]

For the later run FVM cars that come with 1015's, it should be nothing more than a direct replacement.

For the earlier run FVM cars that come with truck-mounted couplers, the pictures show the trucks with the offset kingpins and bolster height to use as an alternative to filing down the bolsters in order to reuse the original trucks.

these are the ones with the FVM's with the 1015 clones

[jagged ben]

Nkalanaga, thanks for educating me.

[nkalanaga]

There were a lot of "interesting" things happening in railroad yards back when "loose car" railroading was the norm.  Most didn't make the news, but every now and then one would.  I can remember a couple of times the local paper ran a shot of two engines "cornered", where one was fouling a turnout, within the clearance point, and a crew tried to get by it.  Yes, the railroads used to let the press in the yard to take pictures of such things!

And, more than once, a car got loose from the yard and headed out on its own.  North (NP east) wasn't a problem, as that was uphill, and the hump faced south.  South was (SP&S east), (SP&S west), (NP west) and the Walla Walla branch, with a junction and wye at the south end of Pasco, and another junction across the river in Kennewick, all controlled by the operator in the Pasco depot.  One could watch him, and his interlocking board, through a platform-side window.

If a car got loose, and made it all the way out of the hump yard, and through Pasco town, to the depot, it could go left or right.  Left was the SP&S east to Spokane, up the Snake river, and the Walla Walla branch.  They tried to route loose cars that way, as the SP&S was uphill from Ainsworth Jct, and the Walla Walla branch had very little traffic.  In any case, the switch SHOULD be locked for the SP&S.

If it went to the right, it would cross the Columbia to Kennewick, where it could also go either way.  To the right was the NP to Tacoma, through Kennewick town.  It was uphill, but had a lot of crossings before the car would stop.  To the left, it was all downhill to Vancouver/Portland, with nothing to stop it except hand-thown switches.

They once lost a piggyback flat with two trailers of US mail.  They made it to Wishram and the Oregon Trunk junction, halfway to Vancouver, before the Wishram yard crew managed to derail them.  They weren't going fast, probably 30 to 40 mph, but once past Kennewick it was a steady down grade all the way, where the SP&S had been rebuilt each time a new dam was added on the Columbia.

The only reason they put engines on Vancouver-bound trains was for the air brakes and horns.  Once the train was moving it really would roll all the way on its own!  Coming back the grade was easy, gaining about 300 ft in a little over 200 miles.  the UP like to put 15,000 hp on a 50 car train going down the river, and run as fast as they could.  The BN would put a pair of GP-38s, 4,000 hp, on 100 cars, and save a lot of fuel.  The main motive power consideration was to have enough power in Vancouver to pull the next train back!

[Maletrain]

Nkalanaga,

Man, there must be a country song in that story, somewhere

[x600]

I'm just wondering why it takes 5 Alcos to pull 5 cars up to Mt. Pocono? So they'll have 1 to pull the 4 dead ones back?

On another topic, I'm in for the new MT coupler, no matter how hard I have to smack my little plastic cars.
Joe, put me down for a few hundred!

Greg O.

[cjm413]

Someone mentioned that the test cars that were provided were MTL 40' and/or 50' box cars.

If these couplers (including the coupler boxes) are designed to be interchangeable with the 1015 (including the coupler boxes), it appears that one would have to do at least one of the following steps to get the correct coupler height on a MTL 40' or 50' box, or alternatively, any other model with the same size bolsters that otherwise provide enough clearance for truck-mounted couplers:

1) if using the stock MTL underframe and trucks, add enough shims between the coupler box and underframe to lower it to the coupler to the correct height;

2) if mounting the coupler box directly to the underframe and using the stock trucks, filing/milling down the bolsters; or

3) if mounting the coupler box directly to the underframe and leaving the bolsters alone, using new trucks with lower bolster arms, e.g. BLMA (and in some cases, having to grind away part of the underframe to clear the wheelsets)

With options 2 or 3, this could be an opportunity to develop additional products to help promote the use of these couplers (and 1015's), whether "retro" underframes that are better suited for frame-mounted couplers, or alternatively, more trucks with lower bolster arms to complement the limited types and more limited availability we currently have to choose from.

[bbussey]

Interchangeable from the standpoint of being to swap-in one product for the other without modifying the host model?  Yes.

Interchangeable from the standpoint of mating with one another?  No.  Which means it doesn't matter if there is a difference between the horizontal planes of the magnetic coupler and the True-Scale coupler.

[Missaberoad]

Interchangeable from the standpoint of being to swap-in one product for the other without modifying the host model?  Yes.

Interchangeable from the standpoint of mating with one another?  No.  Which means it doesn't matter if there is a difference between the horizontal planes of the magnetic coupler and the True-Scale coupler.

This actually brings up a good question... What is the height of a prototype couper and how does that relate to the current standard?

[wcfn100]

This actually brings up a good question... What is the height of a prototype couper and how does that relate to the current standard?

2' 10-1/2" to center which would be 0.215625".  The MTL sheet says their centerline is .216" but that could use a real measurement check probably.

Jason

[Maletrain]

This actually brings up a good question... What is the height of a prototype couper and how does that relate to the current standard?

Interestingly, "Model Railroader Cyclopedia - Volume 1" gives the height of the center of the coupler face above the rail as 33-1/2" for freight engines and 34-1/2" for passenger engines.  For N scale, those become 0.209" and 0.216".  The NMRA standard is 0.216".