Date   
Kato coupler conversions

Alan Hummel
 

 Hi,my name is Alan.

I have 2 SD40&2 Kato GP35 diesels. The number on the SD 40 boxes is respectively:37-O1R&37-01Q. The GPs,I don't have in front of me,but the actual engine numbers on those diesels are 4416&4420. All 4 diesels are in CSX YN2 lettering/paint schemes.

I noticed all 4 diesels have "Horn hook" couplers on them&there's a round plastic "peg" that holds the coulers in place. Their SD40-2 brothers have Kato couplers&a coupler box on.Am wondering what type coupler box needs to be installed here? Narrow shank possibly?

Second question is how do I get to the couplers? Does the whole upper frame have to come off? Oddly enough,I haven't actually been able to find any mounting screws if in fact there are any.(?)

Should I use long shank coupers on  SD&GP diesels? I plan to have 28/26 radius curves on the Mainlines,so except in turnouts,there won't be any sharp curves.(?)

If anyone's interested in these diesels,these are all new in the boxes&since I have an extensive line of diesels,I could be persuaded to part with them,I think.

 

Thank you.

Alan

Re: Taking the Plunge

Kevin
 

Hi Dave,

The deformation of the end of the pin is so small it's almost not noticeable.  I started with the punch on a very light setting and slowly worked up until I could not push the pin out with a toothpick.  This expands the end of the just enough to keep it captive. I always clean the ball recess because once I put the coupler together I can't take it apart easily.

Kevin 

Re: Taking the Plunge

Frank Sergent
 

Hi All,

As some have noticed, our EC87A's are indeed assembled by expanding the pin on the bottom cover. There is also a glue dot added underneath the coupler after assembly to ensure the cover doesn't split away from the top casting under heavy load.

If you try this at home, use very little pressure. The operation here is done in a specially designed pneumatic press that first seats the cover tightly against the top casting and then applies a controlled pressure to a steel pin that expands the "rivet". The application of pressure is actually very slow compared to the snap of an automatic center punch or the whack of at hammer. That is not to say that you can't successfully do the operation with a hammer or and automatic center punch. With a little practice that results in a small pile of defective couplers for "scenery items", you can probably figure out how to do the operation reliably. I still recommend glue on the bottom of the coupler thumb to prevent separation under load.

Frank

Re: Taking the Plunge

Alan Hummel
 


FFFraank


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

Hi All,

As some have noticed, our EC87A's are indeed assembled by expanding the pin on the bottom cover. There is also a glue dot added underneath the coupler after assembly to ensure the cover doesn't split away from the top casting under heavy load.

If you try this at home, use very little pressure. The operation here is done in a specially designed pneumatic press that first seats the cover tightly against the top casting and then applies a controlled pressure to a steel pin that expands the "rivet". The application of pressure is actually very slow compared to the snap of an automatic center punch or the whack of at hammer. That is not to say that you can't successfully do the operation with a hammer or and automatic center punch. With a little practice that results in a small pile of defective couplers for "scenery items", you can probably figure out how to do the operation reliably. I still recommend glue on the bottom of the coupler thumb to prevent separation under load.

Frank
 
Frank:
I'm very confused after reading this post. To me it seems that the glue is being applied on the bottom part of the coupler thumb;how is this holding the bottom part of the coupler in place putting glue on the thumb where there appears to be no seem? I'm sure I'm missing something here but not sure exactly what. I understand about the pressure to the pin to spread it out before assembly so when assembled it can't break away.
Thank you.
Alan

Re: Taking the Plunge

Frank Sergent
 

Re: Taking the Plunge

Alan Hummel
 




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

Alan,

See step 7 here:


Frank

Thank's Frank but am still missing the point here. The instructions,(which I went to your website 1st to check out),say put a dot of glue on the outside of the coupler bottom on the thumb. In my mind I'm thinking this glue should be put between the 2 coupler halves to keep them from pulling apart. So how is the glue placed on the outside of the thumb beneficial if it's not making contact with both coupler part surfaces? Again,I think my mind is thinking 1 thing while the glue may actually be for another reason.(?)
Thank you.
Al

Re: [SergentEng] Re: Taking the Plunge

Alan Hummel
 

 
On Monday, May 12, 2014 9:18 PM, "ahummel72@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 



---In SergentEng@..., wrote :

Alan,

See step 7 here:


Frank

Thank's Frank but am still missing the point here. The instructions,(which I went to your website 1st to check out),say put a dot of glue on the outside of the coupler bottom on the thumb. In my mind I'm thinking this glue should be put between the 2 coupler halves to keep them from pulling apart. So how is the glue placed on the outside of the thumb beneficial if it's not making contact with both coupler part surfaces? Again,I think my mind is thinking 1 thing while the glue may actually be for another reason.(?)
Thank you.
Al


Re: [SergentEng] Re: Taking the Plunge

Alan Hummel
 

Ok,I think I got it about the drop of glue on the thumb on the bottom half of the coupler. I didn't know I could increase magnification on the pictures,but under magnification,it looks as tough there's a slight open spot that when a drop of glue is placed in that spot,it makes contact with the upper thumb. Did I get it right this time?
Al

On , Alan Hummel wrote:
 
On Monday, May 12, 2014 9:18 PM, "ahummel72@... [SergentEng]" wrote:
 



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

Alan,

See step 7 here:


Frank

Thank's Frank but am still missing the point here. The instructions,(which I went to your website 1st to check out),say put a dot of glue on the outside of the coupler bottom on the thumb. In my mind I'm thinking this glue should be put between the 2 coupler halves to keep them from pulling apart. So how is the glue placed on the outside of the thumb beneficial if it's not making contact with both coupler part surfaces? Again,I think my mind is thinking 1 thing while the glue may actually be for another reason.(?)
Thank you.
Al




Update on S scale couplers?

Trevor at The Model Railway Show
 

Hi group - and, specifically, Frank:

Any update on the release of the reworked S scale couplers? I'm keen to try some of these - I'm looking for the ones compatible with the Kadee draft gear boxes.

Thanks in advance, Frank, for any information you can share. I look forward to putting these to the test and, I hope, to converting all the equipment on my layout.

Cheers!

- Trevor

---

Trevor Marshall

Port Rowan in 1:64

A CNR branch line in southern Ontario, in its twilight years

Re: Update on S scale couplers?

ve3nkn@...
 

Hi Trevor
I am also waiting for the new S couplers for my Niagara Southern Railroad.  I have seen how well the HO couplers work and really want to convert my whole On30 railroad.  I will be picking up the recommended Rustoleum Rusty Metal Primer on my trip to Kimberton this weekend with the MLM.

Re: Update on S scale couplers?

Frank Sergent
 

Very very soon.

Frank

Coupler dimension info

Tim L
 

Hello all,

Thanks for letting me be a part of the group. I got my first Sergent
couplers way back 2004. I loved them but after breaking a couple of
the ball locking tabs off the knuckle while cleaning up the castings
I gave up on them. I think I might still have an unopened packet of
those old types somewhere!

Anyway, with the new materials, manufacturing processes and assembly
fixtures I'm ready for Sergents again and have a couple of questions I
hope the group can answer. I did email them to Frank but I suspect he
hasn't got the time to answer these.

Does anyone know what the distance is from the C/L of the pivot to the
coupler pulling face (basically tip of the inside of the knuckle) for
both compatible and narrow shank? Some manufacturers give the C/L pivot
to the back of the coupler head but that is pretty useless for figuring
out the correct coupled distance between rollingstock. A lot of what I
have to convert will only be able to be done with the cast on coupler
pockets so this info is very handy.

Accurail doesn't publish this info so does anyone have the dimensions
(length / width / height / front of box to pivot and mounting holes)
of the Accurail box included with the narrow shank couplers?

I know the above is a long read but the info will help me make some
good informed decisions on what I need to get.

Best to 'ya all,

Tim
Land of Oz

Re: Coupler dimension info

Frank Sergent
 

Hi Tim,

I think the drawings in the Files archive for this group has the dimensional data you are looking for. If not, let me know.

Thanks,
Frank

Re: [SergentEng] Re: Coupler dimension info

Tim L
 

Thankyou Frank, that's exactly the information I was looking for.

Best to 'ya all

Tim
Land of OZ

On 24/05/2014 14:06, fsergent@... [SergentEng] wrote:
Hi Tim,


I think the drawings in the Files archive for this group has the
dimensional data you are looking for. If not, let me know.

Thanks,
Frank

So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Morgan
 

Has anyone else used them yet? What were your thoughts? I ask, because I bought two packs of the kit-form couplers for my birthday. (Slow retrofitting) Also bought two sets of spare ball bearings bedause I launched most of mine with the 144pack of Type Es across the pasture before I got good at them. When they arrived, I counted the hours until I was home from work, slapped all the Hs together and as many Es as I had the balls for, let the glue dry s few days, and outfitted a Business Train for the INRD in Hs and some locos in Es. 


Now, of those couplers, all of the Es are in tact minus one I superglued shut (still useable as a dummy) and TWO of the H couplers are alive. What the Hell!?


Now, of the Hs, a few I only have myself to blame on. One was on a car left on the club, coupled up to another car. I didn't think anyone would bother them, because they obviously weren't club cars, or theirs, and they couldn't couple up. But I neglected to count in the ignorant stupidity of myself and the ten year old junior members of the club, who judging by the pile of cast metal under the car grabbed hold of something he wanted to run without asking ANYONE and tried to pull it free. Bless its little heart, that Type H held onto the other car just as long as it could but the perpetrator finally bent the coupler in half and snapped it. No one fessed up, but I know the kids who would've done that. 


I lost a couple into a roll-over as well, another testament to the rigidity of the H. I think one let go of its bottom plate because I didn't glue it in tightly enough, but the other is a victim of a trend I'm seeing in all the Type H couplers I owned. The Bottom plate is either not snapping. gluing in tightly enough, or the bottom plate is warping because the Ball bearing is getting out of its track and wedging itself between the beavertail of the knuckle and locking the coupler half-open. If it were a couple, I'd freely accept user error. But I built the Type Es alongside them, broke them in together, and have no issues with them. The only iddference was the Jig, other than that I built them identically. 


These are GORGEOUS couplers. I love the look of them on the backs of Private Varnish cars, even unpainted they just look amazing. (I run modern era, but its an excuse to run 50s cars.) but if they're gonna fall apart like that, I'm going back to my Es. And truth be told, the H coupler almost did its job TOO well in the first example. When I have my own layout, I won't be cranking on my cars like a moron, but if that had been an E coupler, or an H and an E, they would've come apart and I would've had three still-good Type Hs. And I'm not against buying assembled couplers, but I have a LOT of passenger cars to outfit and I like building them. The good news, I can salvage a few of the bodies, get new balls, (order's already in, Frank. ;) )re-use the 144bulk kit's knuckles and bottoms, so I'm not out of the H race yet. and I'll refit entirely with Es before I get rid of my Sergent couplers. I'm here for reliability more than fine-scale detailling, I've lost more of those stupid flippin' son of a buket springs out of the sides of Kadee couplers than any modeller will believe (try dozens, I'm cursed) and a couple that is entirely self-locking and self-contained is appealing to me. So what's everyone else's experience been with them?

  

Re: [SergentEng] So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Aaron Heaney
 

I put the tailor made type Hs on my 12 car Walthers Broadway Limited and ran them around my club and the work great. I even outfitted the engines with the standard type Hs to haul the train they also work great.

Aaron Heaney


On Monday, May 26, 2014 4:44 PM, "morganw.davis@... [SergentEng]" wrote:


 
Has anyone else used them yet? What were your thoughts? I ask, because I bought two packs of the kit-form couplers for my birthday. (Slow retrofitting) Also bought two sets of spare ball bearings bedause I launched most of mine with the 144pack of Type Es across the pasture before I got good at them. When they arrived, I counted the hours until I was home from work, slapped all the Hs together and as many Es as I had the balls for, let the glue dry s few days, and outfitted a Business Train for the INRD in Hs and some locos in Es. 

Now, of those couplers, all of the Es are in tact minus one I superglued shut (still useable as a dummy) and TWO of the H couplers are alive. What the Hell!?

Now, of the Hs, a few I only have myself to blame on. One was on a car left on the club, coupled up to another car. I didn't think anyone would bother them, because they obviously weren't club cars, or theirs, and they couldn't couple up. But I neglected to count in the ignorant stupidity of myself and the ten year old junior members of the club, who judging by the pile of cast metal under the car grabbed hold of something he wanted to run without asking ANYONE and tried to pull it free. Bless its little heart, that Type H held onto the other car just as long as it could but the perpetrator finally bent the coupler in half and snapped it. No one fessed up, but I know the kids who would've done that. 

I lost a couple into a roll-over as well, another testament to the rigidity of the H. I think one let go of its bottom plate because I didn't glue it in tightly enough, but the other is a victim of a trend I'm seeing in all the Type H couplers I owned. The Bottom plate is either not snapping. gluing in tightly enough, or the bottom plate is warping because the Ball bearing is getting out of its track and wedging itself between the beavertail of the knuckle and locking the coupler half-open. If it were a couple, I'd freely accept user error. But I built the Type Es alongside them, broke them in together, and have no issues with them. The only iddference was the Jig, other than that I built them identically. 

These are GORGEOUS couplers. I love the look of them on the backs of Private Varnish cars, even unpainted they just look amazing. (I run modern era, but its an excuse to run 50s cars.) but if they're gonna fall apart like that, I'm going back to my Es. And truth be told, the H coupler almost did its job TOO well in the first example. When I have my own layout, I won't be cranking on my cars like a moron, but if that had been an E coupler, or an H and an E, they would've come apart and I would've had three still-good Type Hs. And I'm not against buying assembled couplers, but I have a LOT of passenger cars to outfit and I like building them. The good news, I can salvage a few of the bodies, get new balls, (order's already in, Frank. ;) )re-use the 144bulk kit's knuckles and bottoms, so I'm not out of the H race yet. and I'll refit entirely with Es before I get rid of my Sergent couplers. I'm here for reliability more than fine-scale detailling, I've lost more of those stupid flippin' son of a buket springs out of the sides of Kadee couplers than any modeller will believe (try dozens, I'm cursed) and a couple that is entirely self-locking and self-contained is appealing to me. So what's everyone else's experience been with them?
  


S Couplers

Richard Barker
 

Just finished my first  pairs of S couplers.
They work great can’t waite to finish the rest of my cars and locos.
Great size for On30.

Sent from Windows Mail

Re: [SergentEng] So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Nathan Rich
 

I have put compatible shank H couplers onto a pair of P2K E units, a pair of P42's and a P32-8, and the fronts of two of my baggage cars so that they can be conversion cars before I get around to doing the conversions on the rest of that train. There are about 30 cars that will need doing before all is said and done.

I have had no problems with them, especially since I don't need to worry about junior club members. Other than it being a rant to let off steam, I fail to see your final point, Morgan. I think there is something about the bottom plates, but I am pretty sure that the bottoms of the H couplers are different from the E couplers. I take it as read that these are a bit more delicate and definitely undoubtedly higher precision than the Kadee couplers they are replacing. With that in mind I operate accordingly.

Nathan


On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Heaney wolfhunt1987@... [SergentEng] <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

I put the tailor made type Hs on my 12 car Walthers Broadway Limited and ran them around my club and the work great. I even outfitted the engines with the standard type Hs to haul the train they also work great.

Aaron Heaney


On Monday, May 26, 2014 4:44 PM, "morganw.davis@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:


 
Has anyone else used them yet? What were your thoughts? I ask, because I bought two packs of the kit-form couplers for my birthday. (Slow retrofitting) Also bought two sets of spare ball bearings bedause I launched most of mine with the 144pack of Type Es across the pasture before I got good at them. When they arrived, I counted the hours until I was home from work, slapped all the Hs together and as many Es as I had the balls for, let the glue dry s few days, and outfitted a Business Train for the INRD in Hs and some locos in Es. 

Now, of those couplers, all of the Es are in tact minus one I superglued shut (still useable as a dummy) and TWO of the H couplers are alive. What the Hell!?

Now, of the Hs, a few I only have myself to blame on. One was on a car left on the club, coupled up to another car. I didn't think anyone would bother them, because they obviously weren't club cars, or theirs, and they couldn't couple up. But I neglected to count in the ignorant stupidity of myself and the ten year old junior members of the club, who judging by the pile of cast metal under the car grabbed hold of something he wanted to run without asking ANYONE and tried to pull it free. Bless its little heart, that Type H held onto the other car just as long as it could but the perpetrator finally bent the coupler in half and snapped it. No one fessed up, but I know the kids who would've done that. 

I lost a couple into a roll-over as well, another testament to the rigidity of the H. I think one let go of its bottom plate because I didn't glue it in tightly enough, but the other is a victim of a trend I'm seeing in all the Type H couplers I owned. The Bottom plate is either not snapping. gluing in tightly enough, or the bottom plate is warping because the Ball bearing is getting out of its track and wedging itself between the beavertail of the knuckle and locking the coupler half-open. If it were a couple, I'd freely accept user error. But I built the Type Es alongside them, broke them in together, and have no issues with them. The only iddference was the Jig, other than that I built them identically. 

These are GORGEOUS couplers. I love the look of them on the backs of Private Varnish cars, even unpainted they just look amazing. (I run modern era, but its an excuse to run 50s cars.) but if they're gonna fall apart like that, I'm going back to my Es. And truth be told, the H coupler almost did its job TOO well in the first example. When I have my own layout, I won't be cranking on my cars like a moron, but if that had been an E coupler, or an H and an E, they would've come apart and I would've had three still-good Type Hs. And I'm not against buying assembled couplers, but I have a LOT of passenger cars to outfit and I like building them. The good news, I can salvage a few of the bodies, get new balls, (order's already in, Frank. ;) )re-use the 144bulk kit's knuckles and bottoms, so I'm not out of the H race yet. and I'll refit entirely with Es before I get rid of my Sergent couplers. I'm here for reliability more than fine-scale detailling, I've lost more of those stupid flippin' son of a buket springs out of the sides of Kadee couplers than any modeller will believe (try dozens, I'm cursed) and a couple that is entirely self-locking and self-contained is appealing to me. So what's everyone else's experience been with them?
  



Re: So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Ryan Harris
 

I have had an experience similar to Morgan's where the knuckle locks open, but mine has only been with SE couplers. The difference I see between the SE and the E couplers is the little trough (for lack of a better term) that extends from the ball cavity upward at a 45° angle toward the shank (when looking at the couplers as you assemble them). I'm guessing the ball gets trapped in this trough causing the knuckle to remain locked in the open position. I've only had a few of them get stuck like this, and when they do I work them against another coupler using the uncoupling wand until they finally dislodge.

This is the only problem I've encountered in the hundreds of compatible shank couplers I've assembled and installed. While it's a rare problem, the fact that it only occurs with the SE couplers indicates there's something different about those couplers causing this problem. The only difference I find is the little "trough" in the main coupler body casting.

Ryan H
Fort Worth 

Re: [SergentEng] So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Tim L
 

I haven't used them, and am unlikely to do so as tightlocks aren't
in use here (our passenger stock uses couplers to the same basic design
as the "Santa Fe" coupler; that will be a challenge for me to convert
and mount!) but it sounds like they did what they were designed to do
and keep things tightly coupled until the stress was so great it could
no longer cope; a roll over or an 87:1 child would certainly kill
a 1:1 tightlock.

Fortunately for me the worst I've experienced with junior members was
one that was getting quite visibly upset because he couldn't run his
train because some adult member has left the turnout from the siding
blocked with his train and gone off to do something else!

Back on track, I don't know how passenger train consists were made up
over there but here in the 80's fixed consists became the way of doing
things; if you run your passenger train in the same car-order every
time you could put E's between the cars and have H's on the ends. If
the cars have diaphragms the use of E's would be well hidden.

Tim
Land of OZ

On 27/05/2014 06:44, morganw.davis@... [SergentEng] wrote:
Has anyone else used them yet? What were your thoughts? I ask, because I
bought two packs of the kit-form couplers for my birthday. (Slow
retrofitting) Also bought two sets of spare ball bearings bedause I
launched most of mine with the 144pack of Type Es across the pasture
before I got good at them. When they arrived, I counted the hours until
I was home from work, slapped all the Hs together and as many Es as I
had the balls for, let the glue dry s few days, and outfitted a Business
Train for the INRD in Hs and some locos in Es.

Snip