Adventures in prototypical True-Scale coupler pockets.

[C855B]

00-90 and I go back a long, long time. I cut my teeth 00-90 tapping on Con-Cor lead sillplates in the '60s and '70s. Drill the "correct" size, the tap invariably jams and breaks if you don't back it out on each half turn. Seriously. Drill big enough to not jam, not enough teeth left to hold the screw (CA wasn't generally available then). In our case, I simply figured as soft as the plastic was, the tap would simply ream its way through the guide hole and be more than sufficient. Didn't want to drill to size, over concern the teeth left would be relative mush given the granular nature of the material.

It worked fine for the first fastening, but after the third removal/replacement diagnosing the drawbar issue, it was clear I was losing threads. The screw was getting too easy to turn; you know how threaded fasteners feel as they're on the verge of stripping out. I'm going to continue my search for 00-90 x 1/4" flathead wood screws and see if there is a solution to be had there.

[peteski]

I'm going to continue my search for 00-90 x 1/4" flathead wood screws and see if there is a solution to be had there.

Is there such a thing as a 00-90 x 1/4" flathead wood screw?  00-90 implies a machine screw thread (not wood-type threads).  You probably mean  00-90 x 1/4" flathead wood machine screw?

00-90 x 1/4" flathead machine screws are readily available.

[C855B]

My bad - #00 x 1/4" flathead wood screw. I found a source who even has #000 x 1/8" wood screws. I just don't need 3000 quantities.

This source had them in brass, slotted head. I'm waiting until I can find a source for Phillips head. I know they exist, just have to keep digging.

[C855B]

I was installing TSC long-shanks in the stock boxes on several cars this past week, and in the fooling around was surprised by how little pressure it took to couple. So I thought maybe I should quantify it for comparison, and setup the same test.

A quick recap of the test results from early last week:

• "Regular" MTL Magne-Matics - 5
• Stock MTL TSC Short Shank - 50 (!!!! - something like 60 SMPH)
• Your mod - 15

And now:

• Stock MTL TSC Long Shank - 5

Surprised the heck out of me. One important variable in the test - this was with a heavier but maybe more normal car (60' box) than the shorty ore jennies. But even if we doubled the "score" to 10, it would still be at near-prototype coupling speeds, and comparable to the kiss-coupling with the Magne-Matics. Food for thought.

[wcfn100]

Good info Mike.  I wish I had a way to compare the couplers I've made. 

Jason

[C855B]

I think the lesson learned here is the short shank versions are for drop-in replacements in Atlas and Kato locos, where the long shank won't fit. Long shanks on rolling stock whenever possible.

And of course, it makes perfect sense - more lever arm against the springs, all other dimensions (and spring strength) being the same. Duh.

[wcfn100]

@C855B, if you're interested I think there's enough space to redesign the ore car adapter to handle an unmodified coupler.  You would lose the side-to-side and vertical play, but perhaps the ore car being so short, that wouldn't be an issue.


Jason

[C855B]

Good idea. I'm on board if you want to give it a go. But before you do, let me try a test by gluing a couple of long shank boxes to the existing car, even if they stick out.

[C855B]

OK... tested the stock long shank TSC CA'ed to the ore cars, which fit with no problems. Did not do the full test protocol after determining they took more force to couple by hand than did the boxcars modified last week. Same product on different cars, so what was the variable? The type of car it's on? Hardly.

Discovery after about an hour of trying various combinations determined coupling force is directly related to alignment. If perfectly aligned, you can almost blow on them* and they will couple. The slightest bit off, and it will take a small amount of force to slide the faces into alignment, and there will be an audible click. The alignment observation is reinforced because I fabricated a template when installing on the boxcars (six identical cars). Placement on the ore cars was eyeballing it.

Conclusion at this juncture is accurate placement on the car is paramount for low-impact coupling. So the ore car insert is definitely the way to go. However, allowing the stock whiskers to handle centering is a good thing. Also, long shank requires significantly less coupling force than the short shank, for reasons mentioned previously.

Yes, if you're game, let's try a version of the ore car adapter to fit the unmodified long-shank TSC. Like you mentioned, losing lateral swing shouldn't be an issue, which raises the question whether a free-swinging coupler solves operational issues. The stock coupler box absolutely needs more lateral ability, but is it possible to get that without losing centering?

* - I play the tuba. My idea of the force of "blowing" might not be everyone else's.

[Lemosteam]

* - I play the tuba. My idea of the force of "blowing" might not be everyone else's.

Ahahaha.  Stunning visual!

[Ken Ford]

Is creating a "long neck" draft gear that would allow representation of non-cushioned couplers on a typical piece of rolling stock practical?  It might start getting rather long.

[C855B]

Is creating a "long neck" draft gear that would allow representation of non-cushioned couplers on a typical piece of rolling stock practical?  It might start getting rather long.

You may not have had a chance to work with the product. "Long shank" does not protrude from the box any more than "short shank". It simply has a longer box, with a longer shank inside the box. The cars I have converted you cannot tell the difference until turning the car over. The longer box may not fit in some conversions such as Kato and Atlas locos or other rolling stock where the 1015 is a drop-in. My edu-guess is that's why there is a "short shank" version.

[Missaberoad]

Pictures of the UP cars are near impossible to find and I have found no shots of them in trains.

@C855B a few in service shots to add to your collection... (some better then others.)

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/486173/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/3921/
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1611421
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3379314
http://dailyranger.com/home_page_images/almanac060312web.jpg
http://dailyranger.com/home_page_images/061815_a_3_atlanticcity.jpg

and a nit to pick the Atlas ore car is a B&LE prototype not a Minnesota (DMIR/GN) Car... 

[C855B]

Those last two in the list are killer, Ryan. Just what I was looking for. Thanks! Of course, they blow away the dozens of Hay Bros. taconite loads I installed with a single hump. [...sigh...]

[wcfn100]

Just wanted to update this thread since I've seen a few sales of the TSC coupler box.  I made the mistake of pulling out all my junk that I want to sell which always takes over all my time.  For some reason I forget what a pain in the butt it is and how much time it takes.

So I'm packing it all back up this weekend and getting back to what I enjoy, freight cars and coupler boxes.

This weekend is the Rocky Mountain Toy Train Show and MTL is supposed to be there.  I'm going to press them on the future of the TSC and ask again for bulk packs of just the couplers.

Info about new coupler boxes should start here again next week.  Thanks to those who have supported this.

Jason