Date   

Re: investment casting couplers

Peter York <peterdyork@...>
 

I agree 100%.




On Monday, March 29, 2021, 10:25 AM, Jamison Amis <zenstudy@...> wrote:

My experiences with Sergents on an assortment of cars and locomotives favors the .040 shortened shank.  Outside of more modern cars that utilize cushioned draft gear, the spacing of the pivot post most manufacturers seem to be using looks best with these in place of standard-length shanks on 90% of what I've done installs on.

That said, I would place the short shanks no less than 2nd or 3rd on the list.

Jamison Amis

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021, 9:37 AM UP4096 <up4096@...> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]

Hello, everyone.

These days, I have not stopped in the development of the coupler.

Now I want to share some new informations with you all.

I developed mold assembly technology. A brief description of it is: separate the coupler head and the shank, make a specific mold for the needs of different shank lengths, and then combine it with the mold of the coupler head.

In this way, the production of couplers of different specifications can be completed very quickly.

 

Except for the automatic extension version, additional coupler versions I can provide are as follows, now they are preparing to be moulded:

1, E

2. E with 0.01" extended

3. E with 0.013" extended

4. E with 0.04" shortened

 

5. Shelf Bottom E

6, Shelf Bottom E with 0.01" extended

7, Shelf Bottom E with 0.013" extended

8. Shelf Bottom E with 0.04" shortened

 

9, F

10, F with 0.01" extended

11. F with 0.04" shortened

 

Now, I would like to ask you to give me some suggestions as to how the demand for these couplers of different lengths ranks.

Here is my guess:

1, Standard length

2, 0.1" extended 

3, 0.13" extended 

4, 0.04" shortened

 

In consideration of reducing the scale of the production line, can I omit 3 and 4?

 

Thank you.

 

Lei


Re: investment casting couplers

Jamison Amis
 

My experiences with Sergents on an assortment of cars and locomotives favors the .040 shortened shank.  Outside of more modern cars that utilize cushioned draft gear, the spacing of the pivot post most manufacturers seem to be using looks best with these in place of standard-length shanks on 90% of what I've done installs on.

That said, I would place the short shanks no less than 2nd or 3rd on the list.

Jamison Amis


On Mon, Mar 29, 2021, 9:37 AM UP4096 <up4096@...> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]

Hello, everyone.

These days, I have not stopped in the development of the coupler.

Now I want to share some new informations with you all.

I developed mold assembly technology. A brief description of it is: separate the coupler head and the shank, make a specific mold for the needs of different shank lengths, and then combine it with the mold of the coupler head.

In this way, the production of couplers of different specifications can be completed very quickly.

 

Except for the automatic extension version, additional coupler versions I can provide are as follows, now they are preparing to be moulded:

1, E

2. E with 0.01" extended

3. E with 0.013" extended

4. E with 0.04" shortened

 

5. Shelf Bottom E

6, Shelf Bottom E with 0.01" extended

7, Shelf Bottom E with 0.013" extended

8. Shelf Bottom E with 0.04" shortened

 

9, F

10, F with 0.01" extended

11. F with 0.04" shortened

 

Now, I would like to ask you to give me some suggestions as to how the demand for these couplers of different lengths ranks.

Here is my guess:

1, Standard length

2, 0.1" extended 

3, 0.13" extended 

4, 0.04" shortened

 

In consideration of reducing the scale of the production line, can I omit 3 and 4?

 

Thank you.

 

Lei


Re: investment casting couplers

Jordan Glogau
 

Why don't you use a free survey tool like Survey Monkey.

This way you're not guessing and/or making the decision
with too small of a sample.

What about getting the URL of the survey to one of the
MRR groups on Facebook?

Regards,
Jordan Glogau


On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:34 AM UP4096 <up4096@...> wrote:

Hello, everyone.

These days, I have not stopped in the development of the coupler.

Now I want to share some new informations with you all.

I developed mold assembly technology. A brief description of it is: separate the coupler head and the shank, make a specific mold for the needs of different shank lengths, and then combine it with the mold of the coupler head.

In this way, the production of couplers of different specifications can be completed very quickly.

 

Except for the automatic extension version, additional coupler versions I can provide are as follows, now they are preparing to be moulded:

1, E

2. E with 0.01" extended

3. E with 0.013" extended

4. E with 0.04" shortened

 

5. Shelf Bottom E

6, Shelf Bottom E with 0.01" extended

7, Shelf Bottom E with 0.013" extended

8. Shelf Bottom E with 0.04" shortened

 

9, F

10, F with 0.0" extended

11. F with 0.04" shortened

 

Now, I would like to ask you to give me some suggestions as to how the demand for these couplers of different lengths ranks.

Here is my guess:

1, Standard length

2, 0.1 inch extended 

3, 0.13 inches extended 

4, 0.04 inches shortened

 

In consideration of reducing the scale of the production line, can I omit 3 and 4?

 

Thank you.

 

Lei


Re: investment casting couplers

Kevin Packard
 

Lei,

I'm glad to see that you are working on producing these.  In regards to the demand of the different lengths of shank, I think it would be this:

1.) Standard length
2.) 0.130" extended
3.) 0.10" extended
4.) 0.040 shortened

The longer extended shank is more appropriate for the long couplers seen on modern US prototype railroads.  At least it is to my eye.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

-Kevin


Re: investment casting couplers

UP4096
 
Edited

Hello, everyone.

These days, I have not stopped in the development of the coupler.

Now I want to share some new informations with you all.

I developed mold assembly technology. A brief description of it is: separate the coupler head and the shank, make a specific mold for the needs of different shank lengths, and then combine it with the mold of the coupler head.

In this way, the production of couplers of different specifications can be completed very quickly.

 

Except for the automatic extension version, additional coupler versions I can provide are as follows, now they are preparing to be moulded:

1, E

2. E with 0.01" extended

3. E with 0.013" extended

4. E with 0.04" shortened

 

5. Shelf Bottom E

6, Shelf Bottom E with 0.01" extended

7, Shelf Bottom E with 0.013" extended

8. Shelf Bottom E with 0.04" shortened

 

9, F

10, F with 0.01" extended

11. F with 0.04" shortened

 

Now, I would like to ask you to give me some suggestions as to how the demand for these couplers of different lengths ranks.

Here is my guess:

1, Standard length

2, 0.1" extended 

3, 0.13" extended 

4, 0.04" shortened

 

In consideration of reducing the scale of the production line, can I omit 3 and 4?

 

Thank you.

 

Lei


Re: Sergent Engineering Coupler Installation List

Kevin Packard
 

Nearly every model I've done uses the standard width mounting hole.  The only models that do not are the Genesis 5161 hoppers, and those require the narrow shank due to the scale draft gear.

Length of the coupler shank is largely dependent on what the modeler wants to use.  Almost every car I've done can use a standard length shank.  The only reason to use a longer shank is if the prototype requires it (modern cars).  I have placed Sergents on Accurail, Athearn RTR, Athearn Genesis, Exactrail, Scaletrains, Walthers, Atlas, LBF, Intermountain, etc.  Also used in Details West draft gear.

Note that some applications will require some filing on the coupler where it sits in the coupler box if it is too thick.  I've encountered this when using Details West draft gear, as well as a handful of factory models, though I can't recall which ones.

-Kevin


Re: Couplers

Kevin Packard
 

Sorry it's been so long since I've been on here.  I've been crazy busy with other things in life and haven't done much railroad modeling this last year.  I haven't done much with printing couplers either.  It's good to see that others are working on getting these couplers out, from S scale printable files to possible casting by Chris Costello.

Andrew sent me a couple sets of cast type F's in bronze.  They work fantastically and are gorgeous in the natural bronze.  I haven't painted them yet because they look so good....but I'll need to because I haven't yet see a prototype with shiny gold couplers.  They've seen lots of action and not a failure.

On that note, the 3D printed ones I have done have not failed during normal operation.  I had one type F break when I clumsily let a Bethgon slip out of my hands into my carrying box, and it landed on one of the couplers.  It broke right at the shank.  But normal operation seems to be fine with the type F's.  I have not had good luck with printing the long shank E's.  Those are thinner at the shank and break easily.  What I need to do is see if I can figure out how to modify the STL file to give the shank a bit more width for strength.   Or better yet find a way to combine the lower shelf with the main body in a single print, while still allowing the knuckle to be inserted.  Not sure I can do that.

People have asked about printing the knuckles.  I've tried it and it does not work.  The knuckle is extremely thin around the mounting holes, where the pins insert from top and bottom.  On any sort of force the plastic fractures and the knuckle pulls right out.  I've tried several times.  Also, the knuckle tends to be too big (original files were designed slightly larger to account for material shrinkage) and does not fit or operate well.  I am not good enough at CAD to be able to correct any sizing issues.

Lastly, there is another source for dummy couplers made from Sergent's files.  Check out HO3DIM (https://www.ho3dim.com/).  I believe this is Ian Clasper, who designed a whole set of dummy couplers that removes the locking parts of the couplers so they can be manually connected.  These are excellent for unit trains or anything that does not need to be uncoupled all the time.  I'm going to pick some up for my unit Bethgon train that I'm building.  Those cars do not need operating knuckles, and the one piece design will give them a lot of strength.  And the price is right too.

-Kevin


Pending admission

Chris Stickney
 

My name is Chris and I’ve just become interested in using sergent couplers in my ho trains 




Re: Introduction!

Gary Olszewski
 

Hi Loren. How are you doing?  Looks like Collinsville RPM is a go. 



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone



-------- Original message --------
From: "L. J. Casey" <ljcasey1@...>
Date: 3/16/21 1:25 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: SergentEngineering@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Sergent Engineering] Introduction!

there's a name that looks familiar to us IC(G) types that attend the St LouisRPM meet....:)

Welcome.

LJC

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:45 PM Gary Olszewski <go.1955@...> wrote:

Former Locomotive Engineer on BN out of Chicago. Model BN / IC in 1969-70

 

Gary E. Olszewski

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 



--
Loren (LJ) Casey
Maryville,IL

--
Loren Casey
Maryville, IL


Re: Introduction!

Gary Olszewski
 

Hi Guys,

 

  TP, never figured to find you hear.

 

  Just made my reservations for Collinsville yesterday!

 

Gary O.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: thomas brooks
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:49 PM
To: SergentEngineering@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Sergent Engineering] Introduction!

 

Yo Gary, Glad to see you’re here

 

TP

For all you other guys, I was Gary’s conductor on several occasions!

 

 

 



On Mar 16, 2021, at 2:21 PM, L. J. Casey <ljcasey1@...> wrote:

 

there's a name that looks familiar to us IC(G) types that attend the St LouisRPM meet....:)

 

Welcome.

 

LJC

 

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:45 PM Gary Olszewski <go.1955@...> wrote:

Former Locomotive Engineer on BN out of Chicago. Model BN / IC in 1969-70

 

Gary E. Olszewski

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

 

 


 

--

Loren (LJ) Casey
Maryville,IL


--
Loren Casey
Maryville, IL

 

 


Re: Introduction!

thomas brooks
 

Yo Gary, Glad to see you’re here

TP
For all you other guys, I was Gary’s conductor on several occasions!




On Mar 16, 2021, at 2:21 PM, L. J. Casey <ljcasey1@...> wrote:

there's a name that looks familiar to us IC(G) types that attend the St LouisRPM meet....:)

Welcome.

LJC

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:45 PM Gary Olszewski <go.1955@...> wrote:

Former Locomotive Engineer on BN out of Chicago. Model BN / IC in 1969-70

 

Gary E. Olszewski

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 





--
Loren (LJ) Casey
Maryville,IL

--
Loren Casey
Maryville, IL


Re: Introduction!

L. J. Casey
 

there's a name that looks familiar to us IC(G) types that attend the St LouisRPM meet....:)

Welcome.

LJC

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:45 PM Gary Olszewski <go.1955@...> wrote:

Former Locomotive Engineer on BN out of Chicago. Model BN / IC in 1969-70

 

Gary E. Olszewski

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 



--
Loren (LJ) Casey
Maryville,IL

--
Loren Casey
Maryville, IL


Interest in the Group

Jordan Glogau
 

Hello:

My name is Jordan Glogau, I just started to get back into model railroading.  I am 71 years old and the last time I was involved with MRR was in the late 1950's to the mid 1960's.  Professionally I was involved with high tech and helped put together one of the first internets for the Department of the Army in 1986.  Yes, internet, before it was a proper noun.

I am stunned by how much as changed and how much hasn't.  Since I have done a lot of programming DCC is very exciting to me because you can do your own coding with an Arduino.  So I am brushing up my skills in that regard.

But couplers, holly mollie, Lionel had decoupling tracks back then and in some ways not much has changed.  Got interested, if not obsessed, with the whole issue and just found out about SergentEngineering's prototypical couplers. The group is doing some amazing work especially the work on remote coupling/decoupling.

I hope to learn a lot more and contribute in some manner.

Regards,
Jordan Glogau


2021 Red River Prototype Modelers Meet

Jacob Damron
 

Fellow Sergent Users:

Our group, the Texas Railway Modeling and Historical Society, is hosting our inaugural Red River Prototype Modelers Meet here in the D/FW metroplex. This meet will be held at the Forest Hill Civic Center on June 26, 2021 from 9 am to 6 pm. This is on the east side of Ft Worth along I-20. 

The lack of an RPM here in the Lonestar State has been a major gap in our prototype modeling community and we hope to correct that. Last year would have been our inaugural year but Covid altered those plans for us. So, 2021 will now be our inaugural event. We selected the month of June to avoid conflicts with other RPM's such as Benton, St. Louis, and Naperville. Those are all wonderful RPM's and we hope to build something worthy of this community here in Texas. 

For more information including our vendors, raffle donors, and clinics please visit RedRiverRPM.org

Jacob Damron


Introduction!

Gary Olszewski
 

Former Locomotive Engineer on BN out of Chicago. Model BN / IC in 1969-70

 

Gary E. Olszewski

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Re: pending membership

Matt
 

Hello Proto48Patrick
Do you still have any of the HO Sergent couplers left if so which ones. I maybe interested in buying some from you.

Matt


Re: Interest

Andy Reichert
 

Hi Matt,

For the sake of being picky. Proto:87 is specifically a wheel profile and track flange ways model engineering standard. The realism and accuracy of the rest of the model is whatever the modeler makes of it. By definition therefore Sergent couplers fit in the latter category.

That said, the couplers are both highly accurate and ingeniously operate virtually prototypically. I'm a big fan.

Andy

On 3/12/2021 8:03 AM, Matthew Harris wrote:
Hello to whom it may concern I'm sending this email to inform those who are apart of this special interest group that I m a avid model Railroader who specializes in highly detailed museum quality models. I recently have made the switch from rp25 to proto 87. I look forward to hearing from you and those who are user's of Sergent couplers.

Matt
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


Restart on the EC87K and Lower shelf E's

Matt
 

Hello does anyone know roughly when Frank will be restarting the casting process for the standard length type E's along with the lower shelf E's. I know he said sometime this month.

Thanks Matt


Interest

Matthew Harris
 

Hello to whom it may concern I'm sending this email to inform those who are apart of this special interest group that I m a avid model Railroader who specializes in highly detailed museum quality models. I recently have made the switch from rp25 to proto 87. I look forward to hearing from you and those who are user's of Sergent couplers.

Matt


Re: Type F couplers

Bryian Sones
 

Hi David,

I would be interested in some of these too if they are not all gone.

I sent you a PM

Kind Regards, 

Bryian Sones
Union Pacific Prototype Modeler
Murrieta, CA


On Thursday, March 11, 2021, 11:21:32 AM PST, Nick Campbell via groups.io <nick_jps@...> wrote:


I would like to buy the double shelf couplers if they are still available.
Thanks, Nick Campbell


On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:16 PM, David Colvin
<djc148@...> wrote:
I have a couple of bags of made up regular, and double shelf couplers that need a new home.
 
David C
On 03/11/2021 11:34 AM Todd Fisher <tftrainman1@...> wrote:
 
 
Trying this again I know it's a long shot but does anyone happen to have about 35 pair of Type F couplers they'd be willing to part with? I still have an entire coal train I'm working on that needs them. Preferably the .130 shank if possible.  Thanks 

401 - 420 of 2722