Railroad Line Forums - New 18'-0" boxcar Build
Railroad Line Forums
Username:
Password:
Save Password


Register
Forgot Password?
  Home   Forums   Events Calendar   Sponsors   Support the RRLine   Guestbook   FAQ     Register
Active Topics | Active Polls | Resources | Members | Online Users | Live Chat | Avatar Legend | Search | Statistics
Photo Album | File Lister | File Library
[ Active Members: 2 | Anonymous Members: 0 | Guests: 200 ]  [ Total: 202 ]  [ Newest Member: motors ]
 All Forums
 Model Railroad Forums
 The On30 Line
 New 18'-0" boxcar Build
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic |   New Poll New Poll |   Reply to Topic | 
Author Previous Topic: 1/48, 1/43, 1/50 - 25, 28, 32, 40 mm, figure ref. Topic Next Topic: Coast Line RR vol 7
Page: of 38

BBLmber
Fireman



Posted - 11/10/2011 :  8:20:37 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks Jon, I'll have to get an order into jerry on payday.

Mark


W,L,&E

Country: USA | Posts: 6444 Go to Top of Page

Jerry Kitts
New Hire



Posted - 11/10/2011 :  10:03:13 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hey Jon,

The lower door track is made from MacLeod detail parts from the series of parts on the South Pacific Coast Parts. Off the top of my head its parts D-3001 through 3006. The different parts numbers have different sets of doors. They are on our web site. Doug suppled the stand offs, the rest of the track is Evergreen styrene. It could be done with two pieces of styrene if you did not want to go the expense of more parts. Then again you get a number of detail parts that would help the building the box car.

I bend my own hand grabs and for our kits. I use .015 wire its closer to scale than the Tichy .020 wire.


Jerry
Diamond Springs and Fiddletown Ry.

Country: USA | Posts: 37 Go to Top of Page

Jerry Kitts
New Hire



Posted - 11/11/2011 :  03:13:19 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Jim,

I was curious and went back to the train room and measured some couplers. I measured the knuckles as the shape of the body of the coupler is so different on all three types I measured.

The Kadee #26 basically the long shank version of the #5 the knuckle measures 6 inches.

The Kadee #803 On3 coupler measures 9 inches on the knuckle.

The San Juan coupler also measures 9 inches on the knuckle.

The mass of each coupler is very different. Its almost like comparing apples and oranges. The HO coupler does indeed at least with the one measurement comes out a 3/4 size coupler, and certainly is a reasonable coupler to use for such small equipment.

I was thinking more in line with the Colorado roads using full size couplers. I was looking for something that operated well without a trip pin. Most of my 2-8-0s using the front coupler can not couple to a car using the trip pin without sticking the engine front coupler way out front and that bugs me some what.

In the end I will probably end up still using the the #26 couplers because they fit the car well and I can use all our detail parts we provide for the car.

I would like to use the 803 but the 803 and the SJC coupler both use the Kadee pocket and that requires me remove or not use the draft timbers and detail parts that go on them.

Second I need the trip pin as you know I can not reach most of the switching spots on our layout.

I like the idea of a full size coupler, as I said to me it makes the car look as small as it really is. I guess it would be easy to say that as small as the car is why use a full size coupler?

I have tried the PSC brass couplers that are supposed to be working 3/4 MCB couplers but they are really a lot fiddling to get them to work. The PSC full size couplers are about the same mass as the SJC coupler.

Maybe the new Kadee On3 coupler will look better than the 803 and I will have to re-machine the die block to take the new coupler and use my draft timbers too.

It was only my opinion and I was trying to express my reason for using the coupler. I think it looks OK even though I will probably not get to use it to keep the operation on the layout.

What I really would like to do is use our L&P couplers, fits my time period better.



Of course that is not a solution either, even harder to coupler and uncouple.

Its good to disagree, makes for some good threads.


Jerry
Diamond Springs and Fiddletown Ry.

Country: USA | Posts: 37 Go to Top of Page

Mario Rapinett
Fireman



Posted - 11/11/2011 :  05:06:52 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Drawings, Photography and Car finishes ( as new ) are first class by all on this thread. Just wish i had time to finish more of my FHM kits.

Nice to see JE join the group. I still look at his dinky models in the old FSRR mags. Now these are nice. Reminds of the guy from Japan who builds those Sn2 cars.

ciao



Country: Australia | Posts: 5872 Go to Top of Page

morganhillmodels
Engine Wiper

Posted - 11/11/2011 :  1:59:34 PM  Show Profile  Visit morganhillmodels's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I was looking at the couplers over San Juan Car Co. and found this info. seems the 9" sharon "D" coupler was found on most D&RGW equipment. Was the same coupler used on lines like the West side Lumber and Nevada County Narrow Gauge?

Frequently asked Evolution™ Questions

We welcome other questions. Please feel free to email or call us.

The Myth of the Narrow Gauge Coupler

By Chris Lane

The “modern” coupler is really not that modern. The Master Car Builders (MCB) established the contour in the 1890’s as the #5. MCB later became the American Association of Railroads (AAR). Then, as now, their function was to set standards and practices for railroads and the knuckle couple was a major achievement.

This is often referred to as the “Janney” coupler but really, Janney was just one brand name of couplers manufactured to those contours at that time. The knuckle was 9#8243; and the body was approx. 12#8243; deep and about that tall.

A bit later the contour was revised as the MCB “D” which still had the 9#8243; knuckle, but the body contour was slightly beefier. The later “E” has an 11#8243; knuckle and a correspondingly larger body, BUT ALL the couplers are compatible and able to coupler to each other. In computer terms, they were backwards and forward compatible.

Most narrow gauge cars sported the “D” due to their build date. Common brands included Janney, Simplex, Climax, Tower and Sharon, with Sharon being the most common.

So, we can stop referring to couplers as “standard” gauge couplers or “narrow” gauge couplers. There is no such thing and never was. The slight visual differences in size simply reflects differences in coupler brands and the evolution of the contour as time progressed
- Excerpted from 2010 issue of the On30 Annual.




Country: USA | Posts: 238 Go to Top of Page

Jerry Kitts
New Hire



Posted - 11/11/2011 :  3:27:08 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Morning All,

The NCNG and West Side Lumber Company both used smaller couplers, most likely the 3/4 MCB types.



In searching for a photo to show couplers I found this one of a Pacific Coast engine with a full size coupler on the pilot. I was trying to find a photo that showed a 3/4 MCB but all I have are photos that belong to a museum or are privately held and I was allowed a copy as long as I did not circulate the photo.

So I guess there is no standard for what coupler was used by anybody in narrow gauge land. I did not think there was, I like the larger coupler as it helps sell the idea that most of model very small cars. While I like this idea it likely will not be what I use but the old style Kadee that was too big for HO and works out to be 3/4 MCB. I just wish the #5 and #26 had longer trip pins. If I could cut the trip pins off like most do and use a number of different devices to uncouple manually. If I could do that I would not have the problem I have now.

If I could use a coupler like the SJC coupler than I could add a piece of chain between the coupler lift pin and the cut bar and use the cut lever to uncouple just like the prototype. Or use my L&P couplers.

I have used a magnet on a pen like device to uncouple the SJC coupler. I put small ring of soft iron wire on the lift pin and the magnet opens coupler.


Jerry
Diamond Springs and Fiddletown Ry.

Country: USA | Posts: 37 Go to Top of Page

Bill Uffelman
Fireman

Posted - 11/12/2011 :  12:06:50 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
FWIW EBT used 3/4 MCB coupler. They had a casting that mated the small coupler to full size couplers when they were running SG cars on NG trucks.

Bill Uffelman
Las Vegas NV



Country: USA | Posts: 1105 Go to Top of Page

Tommatthews
Engineer

Premium Member


Posted - 11/13/2011 :  4:18:30 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Here are a couple of boxcars waiting to be detailed:



The roofs ...



Here they are hauling a work car. This car was built a few years back. It is clearly out of scale to these cars.



Another comparison to size.



I may build this work car on these frames.


Tom M.

Country: | Posts: 9572 Go to Top of Page

mabloodhound
Fireman



Posted - 11/13/2011 :  4:52:38 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Tom,
Change the trucks to the T-2's on that work car and thin the bolsters a bit. I bet it will match up fine.
Nice work on those scratch built ones.



Country: USA | Posts: 6703 Go to Top of Page

Martin Welberg
Fireman



Posted - 11/13/2011 :  4:53:48 PM  Show Profile  Visit Martin Welberg's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Maybe you should try it with BVM trucks noticed the way lower. Boxcars look great !!


Country: Netherlands | Posts: 6736 Go to Top of Page

Martin Welberg
Fireman



Posted - 11/13/2011 :  4:55:33 PM  Show Profile  Visit Martin Welberg's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Ok Dave's quicker


Country: Netherlands | Posts: 6736 Go to Top of Page

Tommatthews
Engineer

Premium Member


Posted - 11/13/2011 :  5:15:14 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dave and Martin,

I will change the trucks to T-2 and thin the bolsters. That will lower the car. The work car is scale 8 ft. wide so it is a bigger box.

I have started a 6 ft. W x 18 ft. L build. Just having lots of fun


Tom M.

Country: | Posts: 9572 Go to Top of Page

Railtwister
Section Hand

Posted - 11/15/2011 :  6:05:08 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Kitts


Maybe the new Kadee On3 coupler will look better than the 803 and I will have to re-machine the die block to take the new coupler and use my draft timbers too.



Jerry,

A new Kadee On3 coupler? Can you give any details? I can find nothing about this on the Kadee website. This is the first I've heard about this, although I know there has been talk among some of the On30 crowd about Sargent releasing his "S" scale coupler, which should be 3/4" the size of an O scale coupler, because it is supposed to actually be of scale dimensions. Unfortunately it is not a truly automatic coupler since it must be uncoupled with a magnetic wand, and must be centered by hand in order to couple up, just like the prototype.

Thanks,
Bill in FL



Country: USA | Posts: 88 Go to Top of Page

Jerry Kitts
New Hire



Posted - 11/15/2011 :  10:05:14 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Bill,

I searched the Kadee site too and can not find the coupler either. I saw the announcement in last months on line what's new. They had a number for the coupler and that it would be a few months until it was ready. Supposed to compete with the San Juan Car Company coupler. Its supposed to have more detail and the spring inside were it can't be seen.

Jerry


Jerry
Diamond Springs and Fiddletown Ry.

Country: USA | Posts: 37 Go to Top of Page

Railtwister
Section Hand

Posted - 11/15/2011 :  11:00:14 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks Jerry!

Bill in FL



Country: USA | Posts: 88 Go to Top of Page
Page: of 38 Previous Topic: 1/48, 1/43, 1/50 - 25, 28, 32, 40 mm, figure ref. Topic Next Topic: Coast Line RR vol 7  
 New Topic |   New Poll New Poll |   Reply to Topic | 
Previous Page | Next Page
Jump To:
Railroad Line Forums © 2000-2020 Railroad Line Co. Go To Top Of Page
Steam was generated in 0.98 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000