Date   

Re: [SergentEng] Possibly Going To Kadee's On Passenger Cars

Jacob Damron
 

Nathan:

You said:

As to uncoupling at the platform, why are you trying to assemble a train at said platform? I am not trying to criticize, but in my experience passenger trains are usually assembled at the coach yard and then taken to the depot to be loaded by the yard engine. Then you just need to cut off the goat and tie on the road power. In this instance, I am merely suggesting a different operating plan.

Ideally, yes, we would have a separate coach facility to break down and assemble passenger trains. And building such a module is on the to-do list but it's about four years out. The module I'm building, not just planning, is a near prototypical replica of Dallas Union Terminal from 1961. The footprint of this module is 43' X 20'. Dallas was a busy place and not one that I completely understand the operations on. The terminal was on the north end, the coach yard and engine facilities were in the middle, and the Rock Island and MoPac yards were south with Tower 19. Adjacent to the Union Station was the REA express building with three tracks for those type of cars. My understanding, based upon photos and other sources, was that express head end cars were pulled off on the terminating trains after the power was removed and sent to be serviced by the hostlers. The coach/lounge cars were routinely pulled away separately by the 0-6-0 switcher DUT #7 (early years) or the SW900 DUT #8 (later years) to be serviced in the coach yard. The reverse was accomplished and the train reassembled at the platforms for some of the 80 trains that Dallas saw each day. Some trains, such as my RI Twin Star Rocket, just stopped for pax and bags and then pressed on. 

My module has the REA tracks and the wye facility to turn the trains. In the absence of the coach yard, either by facility limitations or until it's built, we will have to service some trains at the platform. But, regardless of operating philosophy which I would love to continue the discussion on, there is still a need to easily assemble and disassemble passenger cars with diaphragms. I'm a died in the wool Sergent guy but operational capability always trumps prototypical accuracy with me. 

If anyone has a solution I'm all ears. How much magnetic force would it take to push the Sergent ball out of the socket?

Jacob Damron
Ft Worth 

---In SergentEng@..., <thaddeusthudpucker@...> wrote :

I hear and have experienced your problems. If the trackwork is not as good as one gets with a home layout, especially where it needs to travel, as in a modular or sectional club layout, there are going to be issues.

As to uncoupling at the platform, why are you trying to assemble a train at said platform? I am not trying to criticize, but in my experience passenger trains are usually assembled at the coach yard and then taken to the depot to be loaded by the yard engine. Then you just need to cut off the goat and tie on the road power. In this instance, I am merely suggesting a different operating plan.

Out on the road, if you want to preserve the aesthetics of Sergents you could keep an H Sergent on the end of your tail car and on the front of your baggage car, and use Kadee #118 couplers mid train. This way you also keep the Sergents on your power.  They are as close as you can get with a Kadee coupler to an H coupler, and they are what I used before changing to Sergents. Take your handy dandy Dremel tool to the trip pins to get rid of them (unless you use magnetic uncoupling) and shave off the top and bottom of the knuckle. Then you have something that will approximate an H coupler that won't derail adjacent cars. It will have the slack of a Kadee, but without the detailing tendency.

Cheers
Nathan Rich

On Sep 26, 2016 6:50 PM, "jacob.damron@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

Fellow Sergent enthusiasts:


First, let me preface that I love the Sergent coupler in both appearance and operation. I've built and installed over 300 now for myself and others and they work great in freight trains. However, I'm about to lose my mind with these things on passenger trains.


First, I tried to install the Type H coupler on my cars and I couldn't get around the layout without derailing. I operate on Free-mo layouts and the ends aren't always perfectly level resulting in a bit of rise and fall at the module ends. This resulted in the tight lock coupler of the preceding car lifting the trailing cars trucks off the rail and derailing the car. I even went so far as to design and 3D print a new coupler box that would allow for vertical and longitudinal movement to account for these track errors.


However, that still didn't address the issues of coupling and uncoupling a car under the diaphragms. This isn't an easy task, even with the passenger car uncoupling tool, and nearly impossible on a Union Station module that is five tracks away with a train sandwiched by a platform and an adjacent train. 


I've wrecked my brain trying to solve the operational deficiency of Sergent couplers and haven't found a solution. My last idea would be to use an under track uncoupler such as the Kadee to push the ball up and out of the socket to uncouple. But that still would require a centering spring to be designed to allow for remote coupling. 


So, as much as it pains me, the only solution seems to be Kadee couplers, with the hideous trip pins, in order to efficiently operate passenger trains. I cringe at the thought of such but can't see any other solutions. Anyone have any ideas?


Jacob Damron

Ft Worth, TX




 


Re: [SergentEng] Re: Accurail Scale Draft Gear Availbility

Frank Sergent
 

Hi folks,
 
The narrow shank couplers are extremely slow moving compared to the compatible shank couplers. Once I ran out of draft gear boxes, I had little interest in a bulk buy from Accurail that would last 15 years or more, so I started looking into options for lower quantities and noticed they were standard products from Accurail even in bulk (and shown as in stock at the time). My options were (1) to spend big bucks on lots of very slow moving inventory (2) to buy smaller quantity and raise my price on the EN couplers to cover the extra cost of buying the boxes in lower quantity, or (3) quit acting like a middle man and just let my customers buy directly from Accurail. I chose door number 3. Since then, Accurail has indicated these are Temporarily Unavailable. I would recommend contacting them for an anticipated return date of the product. The more demand they have for this product, the more likely they are to bring it back quickly.
 
Frank
 

Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:13 AM
Subject: [SergentEng] Re: Accurail Scale Draft Gear Availbility
 
 

Maybe because Accurail can't supply the parts to Sergent.
Mark Lewis
Stony Point, NC


Re: [SergentEng] Possibly Going To Kadee's On Passenger Cars

Nathan Rich
 

Yeah thats the big problem with mobile laps, they get beat to hell.

Nathan

On Sep 27, 2016 16:35, "'Christopher A. Zurek' zurekc@q.com [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

My idea is to make the people with screwed up Free-mo modules fix them. I get so tired of that problem.

Chris Z.


On 9/26/2016 8:49 PM, jacob.damron@... [SergentEng] wrote:
 

Fellow Sergent enthusiasts:


First, let me preface that I love the Sergent coupler in both appearance and operation. I've built and installed over 300 now for myself and others and they work great in freight trains. However, I'm about to lose my mind with these things on passenger trains.


First, I tried to install the Type H coupler on my cars and I couldn't get around the layout without derailing. I operate on Free-mo layouts and the ends aren't always perfectly level resulting in a bit of rise and fall at the module ends. This resulted in the tight lock coupler of the preceding car lifting the trailing cars trucks off the rail and derailing the car. I even went so far as to design and 3D print a new coupler box that would allow for vertical and longitudinal movement to account for these track errors.


However, that still didn't address the issues of coupling and uncoupling a car under the diaphragms. This isn't an easy task, even with the passenger car uncoupling tool, and nearly impossible on a Union Station module that is five tracks away with a train sandwiched by a platform and an adjacent train. 


I've wrecked my brain trying to solve the operational deficiency of Sergent couplers and haven't found a solution. My last idea would be to use an under track uncoupler such as the Kadee to push the ball up and out of the socket to uncouple. But that still would require a centering spring to be designed to allow for remote coupling. 


So, as much as it pains me, the only solution seems to be Kadee couplers, with the hideous trip pins, in order to efficiently operate passenger trains. I cringe at the thought of such but can't see any other solutions. Anyone have any ideas?


Jacob Damron

Ft Worth, TX





Re: [SergentEng] Possibly Going To Kadee's On Passenger Cars

Christopher Zurek
 

My idea is to make the people with screwed up Free-mo modules fix them. I get so tired of that problem.

Chris Z.


On 9/26/2016 8:49 PM, jacob.damron@... [SergentEng] wrote:
 

Fellow Sergent enthusiasts:


First, let me preface that I love the Sergent coupler in both appearance and operation. I've built and installed over 300 now for myself and others and they work great in freight trains. However, I'm about to lose my mind with these things on passenger trains.


First, I tried to install the Type H coupler on my cars and I couldn't get around the layout without derailing. I operate on Free-mo layouts and the ends aren't always perfectly level resulting in a bit of rise and fall at the module ends. This resulted in the tight lock coupler of the preceding car lifting the trailing cars trucks off the rail and derailing the car. I even went so far as to design and 3D print a new coupler box that would allow for vertical and longitudinal movement to account for these track errors.


However, that still didn't address the issues of coupling and uncoupling a car under the diaphragms. This isn't an easy task, even with the passenger car uncoupling tool, and nearly impossible on a Union Station module that is five tracks away with a train sandwiched by a platform and an adjacent train. 


I've wrecked my brain trying to solve the operational deficiency of Sergent couplers and haven't found a solution. My last idea would be to use an under track uncoupler such as the Kadee to push the ball up and out of the socket to uncouple. But that still would require a centering spring to be designed to allow for remote coupling. 


So, as much as it pains me, the only solution seems to be Kadee couplers, with the hideous trip pins, in order to efficiently operate passenger trains. I cringe at the thought of such but can't see any other solutions. Anyone have any ideas?


Jacob Damron

Ft Worth, TX





Re: Accurail Scale Draft Gear Availbility

Mark Lewis
 

Maybe because Accurail can't supply the parts to Sergent.
Mark Lewis
Stony Point, NC


Accurail Scale Draft Gear Availbility

gtws00
 

I went to order some EN87K narrow shank Couplers and see they no longer come with Scale Draft Gear. They now need to be ordered from Accurail and when I went to order from Accurail they are temporarily unavailble. I sent an email to Accurail and got no reply. Does anyone know what is going on with these and why Sargent stopped supplying these with the EN87 ?

Thanks

George Toman


Re: [SergentEng] Possibly Going To Kadee's On Passenger Cars

Nathan Rich
 

I hear and have experienced your problems. If the trackwork is not as good as one gets with a home layout, especially where it needs to travel, as in a modular or sectional club layout, there are going to be issues.

As to uncoupling at the platform, why are you trying to assemble a train at said platform? I am not trying to criticize, but in my experience passenger trains are usually assembled at the coach yard and then taken to the depot to be loaded by the yard engine. Then you just need to cut off the goat and tie on the road power. In this instance, I am merely suggesting a different operating plan.

Out on the road, if you want to preserve the aesthetics of Sergents you could keep an H Sergent on the end of your tail car and on the front of your baggage car, and use Kadee #118 couplers mid train. This way you also keep the Sergents on your power.  They are as close as you can get with a Kadee coupler to an H coupler, and they are what I used before changing to Sergents. Take your handy dandy Dremel tool to the trip pins to get rid of them (unless you use magnetic uncoupling) and shave off the top and bottom of the knuckle. Then you have something that will approximate an H coupler that won't derail adjacent cars. It will have the slack of a Kadee, but without the detailing tendency.

Cheers
Nathan Rich

On Sep 26, 2016 6:50 PM, "jacob.damron@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

Fellow Sergent enthusiasts:


First, let me preface that I love the Sergent coupler in both appearance and operation. I've built and installed over 300 now for myself and others and they work great in freight trains. However, I'm about to lose my mind with these things on passenger trains.


First, I tried to install the Type H coupler on my cars and I couldn't get around the layout without derailing. I operate on Free-mo layouts and the ends aren't always perfectly level resulting in a bit of rise and fall at the module ends. This resulted in the tight lock coupler of the preceding car lifting the trailing cars trucks off the rail and derailing the car. I even went so far as to design and 3D print a new coupler box that would allow for vertical and longitudinal movement to account for these track errors.


However, that still didn't address the issues of coupling and uncoupling a car under the diaphragms. This isn't an easy task, even with the passenger car uncoupling tool, and nearly impossible on a Union Station module that is five tracks away with a train sandwiched by a platform and an adjacent train. 


I've wrecked my brain trying to solve the operational deficiency of Sergent couplers and haven't found a solution. My last idea would be to use an under track uncoupler such as the Kadee to push the ball up and out of the socket to uncouple. But that still would require a centering spring to be designed to allow for remote coupling. 


So, as much as it pains me, the only solution seems to be Kadee couplers, with the hideous trip pins, in order to efficiently operate passenger trains. I cringe at the thought of such but can't see any other solutions. Anyone have any ideas?


Jacob Damron

Ft Worth, TX




Possibly Going To Kadee's On Passenger Cars

Jacob Damron
 

Fellow Sergent enthusiasts:


First, let me preface that I love the Sergent coupler in both appearance and operation. I've built and installed over 300 now for myself and others and they work great in freight trains. However, I'm about to lose my mind with these things on passenger trains.


First, I tried to install the Type H coupler on my cars and I couldn't get around the layout without derailing. I operate on Free-mo layouts and the ends aren't always perfectly level resulting in a bit of rise and fall at the module ends. This resulted in the tight lock coupler of the preceding car lifting the trailing cars trucks off the rail and derailing the car. I even went so far as to design and 3D print a new coupler box that would allow for vertical and longitudinal movement to account for these track errors.


However, that still didn't address the issues of coupling and uncoupling a car under the diaphragms. This isn't an easy task, even with the passenger car uncoupling tool, and nearly impossible on a Union Station module that is five tracks away with a train sandwiched by a platform and an adjacent train. 


I've wrecked my brain trying to solve the operational deficiency of Sergent couplers and haven't found a solution. My last idea would be to use an under track uncoupler such as the Kadee to push the ball up and out of the socket to uncouple. But that still would require a centering spring to be designed to allow for remote coupling. 


So, as much as it pains me, the only solution seems to be Kadee couplers, with the hideous trip pins, in order to efficiently operate passenger trains. I cringe at the thought of such but can't see any other solutions. Anyone have any ideas?


Jacob Damron

Ft Worth, TX




Re: [SergentEng] Installing Sergent E-type couplers on Walthers Mainline SW-1

Nathan Rich
 

Since the SW1 has an E coupler on it, as long as it is within about a third head height it will be fine. The passenger cars (should) have H couplers, but since the E has none of the tightlock stuff on it, it isn't critical to be exact. In fact, that is why you use an E coupler in the break-in process for the H couplers as you need to work it up and down to catch the tiny bits of flash that persist sometimes and to distribute the graphite.

Nathan

On Sep 25, 2016 1:39 PM, "Andrew Porter ihtsbih_2014@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

Bachmanns GE 44T is a definite candidate for a shortened shank coupler or possibly re-drilling.  


My concern about the mismatch stems from I was planning on using the SW1 for coach yard operations/passenger terminal. 

Andrew
On Sep 25, 2016, at 4:26 PM, "Nathan Rich thaddeusthudpucker@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:

 

My larger suggestion is to 'dry fit' the installation before you file anything down. You might be apprised to find that it is close enough on the Sergent height gauge that no further modification is necessary. As I said previously also, real coupler heights aren't perfect.

Another thing that I also try to do is to pull the head as far inboard as possible to where it starts looking better. One other thing that I find in my travels is that model manufacturers push the couplers out so that trip pins clear pilots and plows, and it just bothers me. The coupler sticks out into the next county on some of these. I think this is one of the biggest reasons why I love Sergents so much, you can make things look so much better. The other problem then is that sometimes it requires drilling a new mounting hole.

Keep us posted though!

Nathan


Re: [SergentEng] Installing Sergent E-type couplers on Walthers Mainline SW-1

Andrew
 

Bachmanns GE 44T is a definite candidate for a shortened shank coupler or possibly re-drilling.  


My concern about the mismatch stems from I was planning on using the SW1 for coach yard operations/passenger terminal. 

Andrew

On Sep 25, 2016, at 4:26 PM, "Nathan Rich thaddeusthudpucker@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:

 

My larger suggestion is to 'dry fit' the installation before you file anything down. You might be apprised to find that it is close enough on the Sergent height gauge that no further modification is necessary. As I said previously also, real coupler heights aren't perfect.

Another thing that I also try to do is to pull the head as far inboard as possible to where it starts looking better. One other thing that I find in my travels is that model manufacturers push the couplers out so that trip pins clear pilots and plows, and it just bothers me. The coupler sticks out into the next county on some of these. I think this is one of the biggest reasons why I love Sergents so much, you can make things look so much better. The other problem then is that sometimes it requires drilling a new mounting hole.

Keep us posted though!

Nathan


Re: [SergentEng] Installing Sergent E-type couplers on Walthers Mainline SW-1

Nathan Rich
 

My larger suggestion is to 'dry fit' the installation before you file anything down. You might be apprised to find that it is close enough on the Sergent height gauge that no further modification is necessary. As I said previously also, real coupler heights aren't perfect.

Another thing that I also try to do is to pull the head as far inboard as possible to where it starts looking better. One other thing that I find in my travels is that model manufacturers push the couplers out so that trip pins clear pilots and plows, and it just bothers me. The coupler sticks out into the next county on some of these. I think this is one of the biggest reasons why I love Sergents so much, you can make things look so much better. The other problem then is that sometimes it requires drilling a new mounting hole.

Keep us posted though!

Nathan


Re: [SergentEng] Installing Sergent E-type couplers on Walthers Mainline SW-1

Andrew
 

This definitely isn't a drooping issue.  Im using underset shank at the moment.  There is no vertical play in the coupler.  It matches perfectly to the coupler height gauge.  I was considering filing down the top of the shank on the E type coupler and using a shim underneath to get the coupler head up a bit in the locomotive.  I might also try filing the pad underneath as you suggest.

Andrew

On Sep 24, 2016, at 1:48 PM, "Nathan Rich thaddeusthudpucker@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:

 

Most times things seem to line up if you put them where they look right. If you need to raise a coupler you could file the pad that the box screws to down a little and be ok. Test fit it before you do anything though. You may be surprised to see you don't need to do anything.

Most of the coupler height issues I experienced with Kadee couplers were more due to the couplers drooping than anything. What really made coupler height critical with Kadee couplers was the trip pin, which I used to cut off most of the time anyway. The trip pins would catch on trackwork or grade crossings (which does happen sometimes to the big guys with a drooping air hose) if they were low. Even if they were up to a third the height of the head different they would stay together. I find that the tensioner spring that goes inside the body of a Sergent coupler prevents drooping, and due to the tighter tolerances of the couplers they are far less likely to bypass each other. If some things are just a little outside the notch on your Sergent height gauge, they'll probably still be ok. Tightlock passenger couplers are not as forgiving, they need to be on spec but E's are pretty forgiving.

Real couplers have a range of heights  that is acceptable to be within, and if things always bypass at a certain spot on the layout I would investigate the trackwork in that spot.

Happy Railroading
Nathan Rich


On Sep 24, 2016 06:34, "Andrew Porter ihtsbih_2014@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
>
>  
>
> *not should be now...
>
> On Sep 24, 2016, at 9:28 AM, "AP ihtsbih_2014@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
>
>>  
>>
>> Hello all,
>> I am continuing my conversion process of my locomotive fleet.  I am not getting to the locomotives that needed overset/under set couplers to fix coupler height problems.  Has anyone installed an E type coupler on an Walthers SW-1, and has anyone had issues with the resulting coupler height?  Is there a way of raising the coupler height on that locomotive? 
>>
>> Thanks
>> Andrew Porter
>
>


Re: [SergentEng] Installing Sergent E-type couplers on Walthers Mainline SW-1

Nathan Rich
 

Most times things seem to line up if you put them where they look right. If you need to raise a coupler you could file the pad that the box screws to down a little and be ok. Test fit it before you do anything though. You may be surprised to see you don't need to do anything.

Most of the coupler height issues I experienced with Kadee couplers were more due to the couplers drooping than anything. What really made coupler height critical with Kadee couplers was the trip pin, which I used to cut off most of the time anyway. The trip pins would catch on trackwork or grade crossings (which does happen sometimes to the big guys with a drooping air hose) if they were low. Even if they were up to a third the height of the head different they would stay together. I find that the tensioner spring that goes inside the body of a Sergent coupler prevents drooping, and due to the tighter tolerances of the couplers they are far less likely to bypass each other. If some things are just a little outside the notch on your Sergent height gauge, they'll probably still be ok. Tightlock passenger couplers are not as forgiving, they need to be on spec but E's are pretty forgiving.

Real couplers have a range of heights  that is acceptable to be within, and if things always bypass at a certain spot on the layout I would investigate the trackwork in that spot.

Happy Railroading
Nathan Rich


On Sep 24, 2016 06:34, "Andrew Porter ihtsbih_2014@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
>
>  
>
> *not should be now...
>
> On Sep 24, 2016, at 9:28 AM, "AP ihtsbih_2014@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
>
>>  
>>
>> Hello all,
>> I am continuing my conversion process of my locomotive fleet.  I am not getting to the locomotives that needed overset/under set couplers to fix coupler height problems.  Has anyone installed an E type coupler on an Walthers SW-1, and has anyone had issues with the resulting coupler height?  Is there a way of raising the coupler height on that locomotive? 
>>
>> Thanks
>> Andrew Porter
>
>


Re: [SergentEng] Installing Sergent E-type couplers on Walthers Mainline SW-1

Andrew
 

*not should be now...

On Sep 24, 2016, at 9:28 AM, "AP ihtsbih_2014@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:

 

Hello all,
I am continuing my conversion process of my locomotive fleet.  I am not getting to the locomotives that needed overset/under set couplers to fix coupler height problems.  Has anyone installed an E type coupler on an Walthers SW-1, and has anyone had issues with the resulting coupler height?  Is there a way of raising the coupler height on that locomotive? 

Thanks
Andrew Porter


Installing Sergent E-type couplers on Walthers Mainline SW-1

Andrew
 

Hello all,
I am continuing my conversion process of my locomotive fleet.  I am not getting to the locomotives that needed overset/under set couplers to fix coupler height problems.  Has anyone installed an E type coupler on an Walthers SW-1, and has anyone had issues with the resulting coupler height?  Is there a way of raising the coupler height on that locomotive? 

Thanks
Andrew Porter


Re: [SergentEng] Accurail #1031 draft gear

David Ditmer
 

Thanks.  Much appreciated for this info.

Dave Ditmer


Re: [SergentEng] Accurail #1031 draft gear

Andrew
 

The coupler boxes are available with Sharon Couplers, not with the ENC87K.  "6 Easy-to-Assemble Die Cast AAR Type E (no boxes included) See Accurail Site to order boxes from them. (Accurail Item #1031 or #1081.)"

 Note that it is a New Item (per Accurail website). They typically give their dealers first cut on new items for 3 weeks or so.  No Idea how long they have been up there on the webpage.  Give it another week or so.  If no change call Accurail and politely ask when they might be available (phone number on direct order page, along with hours).  You may have to try twice because they do not (or didn't last time I called) have a dedicated phone operator (keeps your kit costs low).

 They generally have a positive responsive to customer inquiries (I have had beyond excellent customer service from Accurail (and also Sergent Engineering), including some assembly tricks for cars that didn't want to go together). 

Andrew



On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:54 PM, "John Degnan Scaler164@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:


 
Try http://www.sergentengineering.com/... it appears that they have some in stock WITH the Sergent couplers.


John Degnan



From: "davengcc@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...>
To: SergentEng@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 5:05:12 PM
Subject: [SergentEng] Accurail #1031 draft gear

 
I am a new member and am trying to locate (2) packs of Accurail #1031 draft gear.  Factory website says not in stock.  I want to build up 50 pc. of ENC87K coupler assemblies.  Have tried many retailers to no avail.  Any suppliers out there or an alternate draft gear I could use?

Any info will be greatly appreciated.
Dave Ditmer




Re: [SergentEng] Accurail #1031 draft gear

John Degnan
 

Try www.sergentengineering.com... it appears that they have some in stock WITH the Sergent couplers.


John Degnan



From: "davengcc@... [SergentEng]"
To: SergentEng@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 5:05:12 PM
Subject: [SergentEng] Accurail #1031 draft gear

 

I am a new member and am trying to locate (2) packs of Accurail #1031 draft gear.  Factory website says not in stock.  I want to build up 50 pc. of ENC87K coupler assemblies.  Have tried many retailers to no avail.  Any suppliers out there or an alternate draft gear I could use?


Any info will be greatly appreciated.

Dave Ditmer



Accurail #1031 draft gear

David Ditmer
 

I am a new member and am trying to locate (2) packs of Accurail #1031 draft gear.  Factory website says not in stock.  I want to build up 50 pc. of ENC87K coupler assemblies.  Have tried many retailers to no avail.  Any suppliers out there or an alternate draft gear I could use?


Any info will be greatly appreciated.

Dave Ditmer


Re: Sergents & Diesel plows [1 Attachment]

Tim L
 

I emailed Frank some pics of a Bowser C630 with the type F fitted. I
don't know if he got them. I'll post them here for the group as well,
who knows they might help someone else. I've cropped them rather extensively for posting here.

As one can see, the striker castings on these Alco's are huge and the
head of the coupler should be in front of the striker casting, not
jammed in underneath it. I also tried to see if one could move the
mounting point further forward but that still won't work, you can't
move it forward enough and still be able to screw the coupler in.

A +0.100" extended shank coupler clears everything, but no type F.

James K, nice to hear from you. 500 pairs, well that's the demand part
of the equation for a longer shank type F sorted out for Frank.

Tim
Land of OZ

On 26/08/2016 06:27, James Wall @nsc39dash8 [SergentEng] wrote:

[Attachment(s) <#TopText> from James Wall included below]

Frank and Group,


I have fitted Sergent couplers to two Bowser Centuries(1-C630 and 2-
C636). While none had plows on them I keep running into the problem of
the coupler top plate hitting the top of the coupler. The C630 is
actually a Stewart in N&W. The C636 are Demo 636-1 and Delaware
Lackawanna 3642.

Frank, this was one of the projects I wanted to try the RailFlyer type
on and it does not work. The other was the Atlas scale box and that is
a bust as well. As far as I can tell we need the narrow shank with the
extension the EC87 has.

With the problem on hitting the plow with a F type, I have installed F
types in a Athearn Genesis GP39X and a RTR GP40X, both with plows and no
problems. This may need the same extension as the EC87 as well.

I would say the extension of 0.100 would be good for both projects.

Frank, I will try and take pictures of the problems with the Bowser ALCOs.

Here is a picture of the RTR GP40X with F and plow.