Date   
John Allen Christmas Card with Music

John Niemeyer <jniemeyer@...>
 

A fantastic layout, and the presentation done so professionally.
 

Enjoyable, Relaxing with Memories.

http://gdlines.com/GD_Christmas/G&D_card.html

John

Extended shank couplers

iljm86@...
 

Hi all,

 

First I'd like to say thank you to the moderator for letting me join this group, much appreciated.  Also thanks to Sergent Engineering for providing such awesome couplers.

 

My question is about the new extended shank couplers that are available.  I see that they come in two lengths, 0.100" and 0.130.  Which one of these lengths is appropriate for flat cars (the 89' flavor) and which is appropriate for Exactrail/BLMA 64' TRINcool reefers?

 

Tony V 

Re: [SergentEng] Extended shank couplers

Frank Sergent
 

Hi Tony,
 
The "Plus 0.130" coupler was developed with a customer's help to properly model some bulkhead flats and I presume his field work would be applicable to similar applications. Thanks to Todd Templeton for this work. Here's a picture he took of what he was trying to model. He also provided some measurements that he was able to make safely.
 
 
The "Plus 0.100" coupler is intended to be a replacement for the KD #26 style couplers. It wasn't created to match any particular prototype.
 
My guess is that the "Pluss 0.130" would be a better match for what you are after.
 
Thanks,
Frank 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SergentEng] Extended shank couplers
From: <iljm86@...>
Date: Fri, December 20, 2013 12:29 am
To: <SergentEng@...>

 
Hi all,
 
First I'd like to say thank you to the moderator for letting me join this group, much appreciated.  Also thanks to Sergent Engineering for providing such awesome couplers.
 
My question is about the new extended shank couplers that are available.  I see that they come in two lengths, 0.100" and 0.130.  Which one of these lengths is appropriate for flat cars (the 89' flavor) and which is appropriate for Exactrail/BLMA 64' TRINcool reefers?
 
Tony V 

Sharons and Kadees in HOn3

Duncan Harvey
 

I have a problem with the new Sharon couplers.  I was really looking forward to them as they would easy my transition from Kadees to Sergents since they will work with the Kadees, in HOn3.  Well they don't!

 

 I bought and assembled several.  Mounted them on various makes of cars.  Tried to couple them to Kadee #714 and they will not couple!  I have to work at it with some effort to get them to finally link up.  Same with uncoupling.

 
And since they do not have a centering spring and you have to align them by eye, and since we are getting older and our depth perception is not what it used to be, it appears it will be very hard to get them in proper alignment when they are a couple of feet away from us.   Like at the back of a scene.  This is not what we want on an operations based layout, like my club has.

 

Have any others found this to be true?  Is there some modification, or technique I am missing that will solve these problems?  Do the couplers need some development modification to get them to truly work with Kadees in HOn3?  Advice?

                                                                                              Duncan

Re: [SergentEng] Sharons and Kadees in HOn3

John Niemeyer <jniemeyer@...>
 

Duncan
 
Welcome to the group. We’ve been friends for what, ten years or more?
 
About 2 – 3 years ago, on the HOn3 Yahoo group, Jim Vail commented on this. His solution was to modify the Kadee 714’s face and inside of the knuckle. There is a parting line from the molding process that needs to be filed flat. This would give more room for the Sergent to mate. Jim was using Sergent EN87 couplers.
 
Has anyone else tried this?
 
John
 
I have a problem with the new Sharon couplers.  I was really looking forward to them as they would easy my transition from Kadees to Sergents since they will work with the Kadees, in HOn3.  Well they don't!
 
I bought and assembled several.  Mounted them on various makes of cars.  Tried to couple them to Kadee #714 and they will not couple!  I have to work at it with some effort to get them to finally link up.  Same with uncoupling.
 
And since they do not have a centering spring and you have to align them by eye, and since we are getting older and our depth perception is not what it used to be, it appears it will be very hard to get them in proper alignment when they are a couple of feet away from us.   Like at the back of a scene.  This is not what we want on an operations based layout, like my club has.
 
Have any others found this to be true?  Is there some modification, or technique I am missing that will solve these problems?  Do the couplers need some development modification to get them to truly work with Kadees in HOn3?  Advice?
 
Duncan

Re: Sharons and Kadees in HOn3

Brandan Brauch
 

Duncan,

I'll chime in on this one. The coupling to a 714 is not always going to work automatically and is only a stopgap measure until you can convert completely to Sergents. As far as alignment goes on our modules once we get to switching the couplers stay aligned very well allowing you to couple/ uncouple on curves very well. I've run my Sergent equipped cars and locos on the modules quite a bit and have set up some goofy situations and I love them!

Brandan Brauch
bullbrauch@...
(970) 397-7918

Re: [SergentEng] Sharons and Kadees in HOn3

John Degnan
 

Duncan, (and all)
 
I can't speak to the Sergent-Kadee coupling issue as I have very few, if any Kadee couplers left on any of my models, and I have never tried it.  BUT... I can speak to the lack-of-centering issue. :
 
I model in both HO and S, and have developed a centering method for the old. and the soon-to-be released new S coupler.  I am incorporating this method into a new line of draft gear boxes I plan to produce in S for the Sergent couplers soon after Frank gets the couplers on the market.  I have drawings online of these new gear boxes that show the application of the centering spring.  There is also one small video showing the original prototype that I built working perfectly.  Yes, these are S scale... but I see no reason why this same approach would not work in HO... at least with the "Compatable" shank version.  I cannot see it working with the "Narrow" shank due to the shape and length of the rear of the shank, but I do have some design ideas for a centering method for the Narrow shank couplers... just have not 'put them on paper', yet.  Have a look at my drawings via the following URL :
 
 
 
So as you see... Sergent couplers CAN be made to automatically center.  It will just take some effort on the part of the modeler to make them do so.  My original prototype was built in a S scakle Kadee gear box, so adapting this to an HO Kadee gear box should be a snap!
 
Thoughts and comments welcome.
 
 
John Degnan
 

Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 10:49:43 PM
Subject: Re: [SergentEng] Sharons and Kadees in HOn3

... (snip)
 
And since they do not have a centering spring and you have to align them by eye, and since we are getting older and our depth perception is not what it used to be, it appears it will be very hard to get them in proper alignment when they are a couple of feet away from us.   Like at the back of a scene.  This is not what we want on an operations based layout, like my club has.
 
Duncan

.


Re: [SergentEng] Sharons and Kadees in HOn3

Frank Sergent
 

Hi Duncan,
 
It appears that my "Compatible with..." claim has set expectations higher than I intended. My basis for the claim was compared to the current situation in HO where Kadee and Sergent Engineering couplers won't even come close to mating together without some major modifications to one or both couplers.
 
In contrast, you can at least run the different HOn3 couplers reliably in the same train. The coupling operation isn't great, but if you use the Sergent Engineering method to open the knuckle and align the coupler first, then you'll likely have success. I haven't had any trouble using the Sergent uncoupling wand to uncouple a Sergent coupler from a Kadee coupler. 
 
All the "rules" for using Sergent couplers alone still apply for a Sergent coupler mated to a KD coupler. You still have to line things up prior to coupling and one of the knuckles has to be opened (In the case of a Sergent and Kadee, of course its the Sergent knuckle that has to be opened.) In the case of Sergent to Sergent, its best to have only one of the knuckles open.
 
I have long understood and never made it a secret that Sergent couplers aren't for everyone. These "rules" can be a real pain on a layout that wasn't designed with the rules in mind. I still contend that they can be an absolute pleasure to operate on some layouts.
 
If you or anyone else on this list that might share in this disapointment in the Sharon couplers wish, I have no problem issuing a refund. Just send an email offlist via the link on our home page at www.sergentengineering.com.
 
Thanks,
Frank
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SergentEng] Sharons and Kadees in HOn3
From: <train3guy@...>
Date: Sat, December 21, 2013 9:36 pm
To: <SergentEng@...>

 


I have a problem with the new Sharon couplers.  I was really looking forward to them as they would easy my transition from Kadees to Sergents since they will work with the Kadees, in HOn3.  Well they don't!

 I bought and assembled several.  Mounted them on various makes of cars.  Tried to couple them to Kadee #714 and they will not couple!  I have to work at it with some effort to get them to finally link up.  Same with uncoupling.
 
And since they do not have a centering spring and you have to align them by eye, and since we are getting older and our depth perception is not what it used to be, it appears it will be very hard to get them in proper alignment when they are a couple of feet away from us.   Like at the back of a scene.  This is not what we want on an operations based layout, like my club has.

Have any others found this to be true?  Is there some modification, or technique I am missing that will solve these problems?  Do the couplers need some development modification to get them to truly work with Kadees in HOn3?  Advice?
                                                                                              Duncan

Re: [SergentEng] Sharons and Kadees in HOn3

jzook@...
 

Hi Frank,


I'd like to let you know that I've been very pleased with the Sharon couplers I purchased for my Blackstone fleet.  I'll be putting in another order around the new year, and I'd like to eventually convert most of my fleet to these couplers.  I've tested coupling them to cars with Kadee 714's, and although it does take some work, they can be coupled.  I've found they'll work together well enough as a temporary solution until the entire fleet is converted to Sharons. 


I am also a member of the same club as Duncan, and we have built and operate on HOn3 Free-Mo concept modules.  The club has written a standards document that outlines the requirements for building modules and operating on them.  One of the important concepts to what we do with HOn3 Free-Mo is operate, so ease of switching cars at various industries is paramount.  In the standards document, we have adopted using Kadee 713/714 couplers for universal compatibility.  We agonized over this decision for some time as some of our members (myself included) had purchased and installed Sergent EN87K for their rolling stock.  Since the Sharon coupler has only recently been brought to market, there will be significant testing in our club to determine if the Sharon couplers will be useful in our set ups and operations.  If the club determines the Sharon coupler can be used efficiently and effectively in our operations, we may choose to change the requirements document and allow them.  I'm looking forward to seeing that happen!


Thanks for producing outstanding, prototypical couplers for us.


Jon


---In SergentEng@{{emailDomain}}, <fsergent@...> wrote:

Hi Duncan,
 
It appears that my "Compatible with..." claim has set expectations higher than I intended. My basis for the claim was compared to the current situation in HO where Kadee and Sergent Engineering couplers won't even come close to mating together without some major modifications to one or both couplers.
 
In contrast, you can at least run the different HOn3 couplers reliably in the same train. The coupling operation isn't great, but if you use the Sergent Engineering method to open the knuckle and align the coupler first, then you'll likely have success. I haven't had any trouble using the Sergent uncoupling wand to uncouple a Sergent coupler from a Kadee coupler. 
 
All the "rules" for using Sergent couplers alone still apply for a Sergent coupler mated to a KD coupler. You still have to line things up prior to coupling and one of the knuckles has to be opened (In the case of a Sergent and Kadee, of course its the Sergent knuckle that has to be opened.) In the case of Sergent to Sergent, its best to have only one of the knuckles open.
 
I have long understood and never made it a secret that Sergent couplers aren't for everyone. These "rules" can be a real pain on a layout that wasn't designed with the rules in mind. I still contend that they can be an absolute pleasure to operate on some layouts.
 
If you or anyone else on this list that might share in this disapointment in the Sharon couplers wish, I have no problem issuing a refund. Just send an email offlist via the link on our home page at www.sergentengineering.com.
 
Thanks,
Frank

Re: [SergentEng] Sharons and Kadees in HOn3

Mike Conder <vulturenest1@...>
 

Very cool idea!  Thanks for the info.
 
Mike Conder


On Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:16 PM, "jzook@..." wrote:
 
Hi Frank,

I'd like to let you know that I've been very pleased with the Sharon couplers I purchased for my Blackstone fleet.  I'll be putting in another order around the new year, and I'd like to eventually convert most of my fleet to these couplers.  I've tested coupling them to cars with Kadee 714's, and although it does take some work, they can be coupled.  I've found they'll work together well enough as a temporary solution until the entire fleet is converted to Sharons. 

I am also a member of the same club as Duncan, and we have built and operate on HOn3 Free-Mo concept modules.  The club has written a standards document that outlines the requirements for building modules and operating on them.  One of the important concepts to what we do with HOn3 Free-Mo is operate, so ease of switching cars at various industries is paramount.  In the standards document, we have adopted using Kadee 713/714 couplers for universal compatibility.  We agonized over this decision for some time as some of our members (myself included) had purchased and installed Sergent EN87K for their rolling stock.  Since the Sharon coupler has only recently been brought to market, there will be significant testing in our club to determine if the Sharon couplers will be useful in our set ups and operations.  If the club determines the Sharon coupler can be used efficiently and effectively in our operations, we may choose to change the requirements document and allow them.  I'm looking forward to seeing that happen!

Thanks for producing outstanding, prototypical couplers for us.

Jon

---In SergentEng@{{emailDomain}}, wrote:

Hi Duncan,
 
It appears that my "Compatible with..." claim has set expectations higher than I intended. My basis for the claim was compared to the current situation in HO where Kadee and Sergent Engineering couplers won't even come close to mating together without some major modifications to one or both couplers.
 
In contrast, you can at least run the different HOn3 couplers reliably in the same train. The coupling operation isn't great, but if you use the Sergent Engineering method to open the knuckle and align the coupler first, then you'll likely have success. I haven't had any trouble using the Sergent uncoupling wand to uncouple a Sergent coupler from a Kadee coupler. 
 
All the "rules" for using Sergent couplers alone still apply for a Sergent coupler mated to a KD coupler. You still have to line things up prior to coupling and one of the knuckles has to be opened (In the case of a Sergent and Kadee, of course its the Sergent knuckle that has to be opened.) In the case of Sergent to Sergent, its best to have only one of the knuckles open.
 
I have long understood and never made it a secret that Sergent couplers aren't for everyone. These "rules" can be a real pain on a layout that wasn't designed with the rules in mind. I still contend that they can be an absolute pleasure to operate on some layouts.
 
If you or anyone else on this list that might share in this disapointment in the Sharon couplers wish, I have no problem issuing a refund. Just send an email offlist via the link on our home page at www.sergentengineering.com.
 
Thanks,
Frank


S scale is BIG

Frank Sergent
 

Hi Folks,


I just posted a pic of the forthcoming S scale coupler that John Degnan spoke of. I thought you guys might want to see the comparison between the HO coupler and the S scale coupler. The S scale couplers are HUGE.

Frank

Re: [SergentEng] Sharons and Kadees in HOn3

Duncan Harvey
 

Frank,

Thanks for the response and the information! Yes, the Sharon couplers will hold together with the Kadees, or with themselves, very reliably. They are good looking couplers and I love the way they operate.

However, I can only get the Sharons to occasionally couple with the Kadees. One Sharon will not couple at all without major jiggling and wiggling. Others will occasionally couple, but still need the wiggling. All of them take some manipulation of the uncoupling wand to get them to uncouple. None of them couple right up, or uncouple expeditiously, which is what we need on an operations based layout. I don't want to just pull trains around in a circle. I want to be able to couple and uncouple them reliably and with little, or no, hesitation.

I wonder if the problems I am having and seeing, have to do especially with the HOn3 situation? Kadee HO and HOn3 couplers are quite different, in both size and design. So, what works in HO may not work in HOn3.

I want to be able to use the Sergent couplers. But, I need something that will work with Kadees, so I can use them on the modules, where Kadees are the specific couplers to be used and what most of the operators have on their equipment. I do not want to have two sets of equipment. One for the home layout and one for the modules. My favorite engines are going to be the ones I run at home as well as on the modules. So, they need to have couplers that will work in both places. failing that I will have to go with the one that is the most useable. Unfortunately, right now, that is the Kadee - with all its recognized and agreed on faults.

Is there any chance of some sort of modification to the Sharons that would make them more compatible with the Kadees? If so that would be a great development! This is something you are doing that Kadee has failed to do for years. That is listen to the modelers. We have wanted and asked for, from Kadee, a coupler design that eliminated the jerking, a coupler that would easily mount on the pilot, couplers with off set heads to help with alignment issues and so on. Kadee has not responded to any of these requests. The closest they came was making the #713 coupler in the reddish color, to better replicate the rust, or box car color of a lot of cars. You have managed to cover several of these requests. But, there are so many Kadees out there that we need something that will work with them, for those of us who don't operate in isolation.

Sharons, by themselves, are a real pleasure to operate! They are a new experience as well. Just wish they were more universal, or at least compatible with Kadees.

Since I work in the world's largest model train store I was hoping this new design would be universal and I could really push them and the design to modelers of all sorts and levels of experience.

Please consider the idea of modifying the design to accommodate Kadees. I think all it might need is some small addition to the moving part of the knuckle, so the Kadee head will be able to hit it and nudge the coupler to close.

Again, thanks for your information and thoughts. I will not be asking for a refund as I can dispose of them to others, if that turns out to be what I decide to do.
Duncan

Re: [SergentEng] Re: Switching to Sharons, have over 100 EN87K for sale or swap

Ross Dando
 

Contact me off list if you are still interested in selling the EN87K's

Thanks,

Ross

New to the list

Ross Dando
 

Hi all, my name is Ross I am in Nampa, Idaho. Been modeling for years. Watching the Sergent couplers and sitting on the fence until a fool posted theirs on eBay at $.10/$1! I picked them up thinking it was going to be an inexpensive experiment. Wrong. It has helped me to define my focus on more proto87 directions and wanting to finally build it the right way. In two evenings I completed the 145 pieces and was ready for my first conversion. So far I have converted several cars and am very happy with how easy it is. I will create a folder and post some pictures.
Awesome couplers..........now I need to find a place to sell my 30+ year collection of Kadee's! 

Re: [SergentEng] S scale is BIG

John Degnan
 

Thanks for posting this photo, Frank.  Got me biting my nails and chomping at the bit, here!
 
One question though... I noticed that the BACK end of the shank, when viewed from a side-profile, is not completely vertical.  Is this intentional?  And is this how the final production couplers will all turn out?  If so, this is going to cause a "huge" problem with the design of my draft gear boxes since the centering method I've developed is dependent on the back of the shank being vertical (or darn near vertical)... not sloped as it now appears to be ib this photo.
 
Sure, this can be corrected with a file... but it sure would be nice to not have to file the back end of every single coupler's shank.  After spending the last year and a half developing my design based entirely on the test sample you sent me a while back, this apparent issue has me sweating and dreading and hoping you're gonna make them the same way you did the test sample. PLEASE look into it before you go into full-fledged production... this could really mess up the works for my product.
 
This new S coupler is your product and you surely have the freedom to do as you see fit with it... I'm just hoping the get a bone thrown at me in the end.   :)
 
Here's to hope!
 
 
John Degnan


From: fsergent@...
To: SergentEng@...
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 8:08:26 PM
Subject: [SergentEng] S scale is BIG

 

Hi Folks,

I just posted a pic of the forthcoming S scale coupler that John Degnan spoke of. I thought you guys might want to see the comparison between the HO coupler and the S scale coupler. The S scale couplers are HUGE.

Frank

Re: [SergentEng] Extended shank couplers

iljm86@...
 

Hi Frank,

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question about the extended shank couplers.  I'll probably place an order for some of the extended shank couplers soon.

 

Tony

Re: S scale is BIG

Trevor at The Model Railway Show
 

Thanks for posting the photo, Frank.

You mentioned a while back that the S scale design wasn't working - can you elaborate on what it's not doing?

Also, I'm playing catch-up on these - can you give us a bit more info? Will they be die-cast like your EN87 couplers, or will they be white metal like the old S scale couplers, or something else? Will you offer them pre-assembled, like the EN87A?

I always had trouble building your old S scale couplers - it was not a fault of the coupler, but rather my skills were insufficient for work where finishes and tolerances were critical. So after trying the S scale kits I switch to your EN87A couplers on my Maine two-foot (On2) layout and loved them.

I'm now working in S scale standard gauge, and would love to give the new couplers a try - once they're ready for market, of course.

Cheers!

- Trevor


Trevor Marshall


Port Rowan in S

I model a steam-era Canadian National branch line terminal in S scale, and blog about it here:

http://themodelrailwayshow.com/cn1950s

Re: [SergentEng] RE: S scale is BIG

Mike Conder <vulturenest1@...>
 

Do how many people on this list are waiting for the S scale couplers?

Mike Conder



From: trevor@... ;
To: ;
Subject: [SergentEng] RE: S scale is BIG
Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2013 5:07:58 PM

 

Thanks for posting the photo, Frank.

You mentioned a while back that the S scale design wasn't working - can you elaborate on what it's not doing?

Also, I'm playing catch-up on these - can you give us a bit more info? Will they be die-cast like your EN87 couplers, or will they be white metal like the old S scale couplers, or something else? Will you offer them pre-assembled, like the EN87A?

I always had trouble building your old S scale couplers - it was not a fault of the coupler, but rather my skills were insufficient for work where finishes and tolerances were critical. So after trying the S scale kits I switch to your EN87A couplers on my Maine two-foot (On2) layout and loved them.

I'm now working in S scale standard gauge, and would love to give the new couplers a try - once they're ready for market, of course.

Cheers!

- Trevor


Trevor Marshall


Port Rowan in S

I model a steam-era Canadian National branch line terminal in S scale, and blog about it here:

http://themodelrailwayshow.com/cn1950s

Re: [SergentEng] RE: S scale is BIG

Carey Probst
 

Me, no layout yet so not a big deal.  Still building cars.

Carey

 

Carey Probst

Member, M.I.T. Educational Council

S Scale, Sn3 and S High Rail/AF

 

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, 

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

On 12/23/2013 1:03 PM, Mike Conder wrote:
 

Do how many people on this list are waiting for the S scale couplers?

Mike Conder



From: trevor@... ;
To: ;
Subject: [SergentEng] RE: S scale is BIG
Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2013 5:07:58 PM

 

Thanks for posting the photo, Frank.

You mentioned a while back that the S scale design wasn't working - can you elaborate on what it's not doing?

Also, I'm playing catch-up on these - can you give us a bit more info? Will they be die-cast like your EN87 couplers, or will they be white metal like the old S scale couplers, or something else? Will you offer them pre-assembled, like the EN87A?

I always had trouble building your old S scale couplers - it was not a fault of the coupler, but rather my skills were insufficient for work where finishes and tolerances were critical. So after trying the S scale kits I switch to your EN87A couplers on my Maine two-foot (On2) layout and loved them.

I'm now working in S scale standard gauge, and would love to give the new couplers a try - once they're ready for market, of course.

Cheers!

- Trevor


Trevor Marshall


Port Rowan in S

I model a steam-era Canadian National branch line terminal in S scale, and blog about it here:

http://themodelrailwayshow.com/cn1950s





This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


Re: S scale is BIG

Trevor at The Model Railway Show
 

Hi again Frank. The S scale couplers are not huge. The HO couplers are TINY... ;-) Cheers! -Trevor Trevor Marshall Port Rowan in 1:64 http://themodelrailwayshow.com/cn1950s