Date   
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.

Re: [SergentEng] Sergents & Diesel plows

James Koretsky
 

Frank,

I've been asking for a longer shank Type F coupler now for a while. This would be in the compatible shank range and the equivalent of the Kadee #156, which is ~.100" long shank.

This is for a new Commercial Freight Car kit in HO scale, where the prototype had Type F's, but the Draft Gear box is designed for a #156 for operational purposes.

I'd be looking to make a bulk purchase of 500 Pairs to offer for sale with the kits, for those that want to use Sergents over Kadee's.

James

----- Original Message -----
From: "'Frank Sergent' fsergent@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...>
To: SergentEng@...
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:07:08 AM
Subject: Re: [SergentEng] Sergents & Diesel plows

Hey Tim,

How much longer would the shank need to be for your application?

Frank

From: mailto:SergentEng@...
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:14 AM
To: SergentEng@...
Subject: [SergentEng] Sergents & Diesel plows


Just wondering what folks usually do in the situation of installing
Sergents (type F) on diesels with plows on them. Everything I've ever
installed onto before hasn't had plows and has only had type E's, so
I've had choice on coupler shank length to solve how far the coupler
sticks out.

Frank only offers the type F in one shank length and as far as I have
"dry fitted" to models I have so far the length is inadequate to get the
couplers far enough in front of the plows to be able to couple two
loco's together without problems, on curves at least.

I'm not beyond drilling and tapping new mounting holes etc but would
like to avoid that sort of surgery if I can. I would use the RailFlyer
versions as these would be the best on loco's but Frank still doesn't
sell kits of them yet.

Tim

Re: Sergents & Diesel plows

James Wall
 

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.




James Wall
Rural Hall, NC














Re: [SergentEng] Sergents & Diesel plows

Tim L
 

I don't really want to speak for Frank but no it would not be difficult,
it's basically a drawing adjustment, not something serious like a
tooling adjustment or a whole new tool.

What it would really boil down to is 1. Finding a need (not too hard) and 2. Having enough demand; that's the difficult part. I don't know how
many couplers Frank casts per investment mold, but I don't think the
wants of just one or two modellers would really cover the justification.

As an example, I'd love for Frank to be able to develop some new
couplers for me (they are only used here as far as I know, it's
basically as bigger beefed up version of the lower shelf E), but I
seriously doubt I could afford the even the production cost, let alone
what Frank would have to charge to make it worth his while.

Tim

On 25/08/2016 17:27, Nathan Rich thaddeusthudpucker@... [SergentEng] wrote:


For that matter having F couplers in a few different lengths would be
really cool. Is it hard to do couplers that are custom in terms of
different shank lengths?

This is my favorite part of my hobby time is to get the coupler into the
spot where it is the optimum between getting it as far recessed as
possible but operable. Then at that point I find that things mousy
closely match photographed engines... we have a set of FA's that have
the couplers recessed really far but it looks good because couplers
really don't sit out very far on the prototype it seems.

Nathan

On Aug 24, 2016 23:18, "TS egroupstuff@...
<mailto:egroupstuff@...> [SergentEng]"
<SergentEng@... <mailto:SergentEng@...>> wrote:

__


Hi Frank,

Hard to say exactly as I don't have the proper plows that they'll need
yet but with the stock standard plows the models come with I think
+0.100" would be about right.

There is enough meat on the loco frame (which is plastic) to move the
mounting hole forward by that amount, but requires filling a deep void
to do so. Not hard but probably a pain.

I'll send you some photo's of one of the dry fitted models.

These are all Bowser 6 axle Centuries which I must imagine no one has
fitted Type F's to before.

Tim

On 25/08/2016 14:07, 'Frank Sergent' fsergent@...
<mailto:fsergent@...>
[SergentEng] wrote:
>
>
> Hey Tim,
>
> How much longer would the shank need to be for your application?
>
> Frank
>

Re: [SergentEng] Sergents & Diesel plows

Nathan Rich
 

For that matter having F couplers in a few different lengths would be really cool. Is it hard to do couplers that are custom in terms of different shank lengths?

This is my favorite part of my hobby time is to get the coupler into the spot where it is the optimum between getting it as far recessed as possible but operable. Then at that point I find that things mousy closely match photographed engines... we have a set of FA's that have the couplers recessed really far but it looks good because couplers really don't sit out very far on the prototype it seems.

Nathan

On Aug 24, 2016 23:18, "TS egroupstuff@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

Hi Frank,

Hard to say exactly as I don't have the proper plows that they'll need
yet but with the stock standard plows the models come with I think
+0.100" would be about right.

There is enough meat on the loco frame (which is plastic) to move the
mounting hole forward by that amount, but requires filling a deep void
to do so. Not hard but probably a pain.

I'll send you some photo's of one of the dry fitted models.

These are all Bowser 6 axle Centuries which I must imagine no one has
fitted Type F's to before.

Tim

On 25/08/2016 14:07, 'Frank Sergent' fsergent@sergentengineering.com
[SergentEng] wrote:
>
>
> Hey Tim,
>
> How much longer would the shank need to be for your application?
>
> Frank
>

Re: [SergentEng] Sergents & Diesel plows

Tim L
 

Hi Frank,

Hard to say exactly as I don't have the proper plows that they'll need
yet but with the stock standard plows the models come with I think
+0.100" would be about right.

There is enough meat on the loco frame (which is plastic) to move the
mounting hole forward by that amount, but requires filling a deep void
to do so. Not hard but probably a pain.

I'll send you some photo's of one of the dry fitted models.

These are all Bowser 6 axle Centuries which I must imagine no one has
fitted Type F's to before.

Tim

On 25/08/2016 14:07, 'Frank Sergent' fsergent@... [SergentEng] wrote:


Hey Tim,

How much longer would the shank need to be for your application?

Frank

Re: [SergentEng] Sergents & Diesel plows

Frank Sergent
 

Hey Tim,
 
How much longer would the shank need to be for your application?
 
Frank
 

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:14 AM
Subject: [SergentEng] Sergents & Diesel plows
 
 

Just wondering what folks usually do in the situation of installing
Sergents (type F) on diesels with plows on them. Everything I've ever
installed onto before hasn't had plows and has only had type E's, so
I've had choice on coupler shank length to solve how far the coupler
sticks out.

Frank only offers the type F in one shank length and as far as I have
"dry fitted" to models I have so far the length is inadequate to get the
couplers far enough in front of the plows to be able to couple two
loco's together without problems, on curves at least.

I'm not beyond drilling and tapping new mounting holes etc but would
like to avoid that sort of surgery if I can. I would use the RailFlyer
versions as these would be the best on loco's but Frank still doesn't
sell kits of them yet.

Tim

Sergents & Diesel plows

Tim L
 

Just wondering what folks usually do in the situation of installing Sergents (type F) on diesels with plows on them. Everything I've ever
installed onto before hasn't had plows and has only had type E's, so
I've had choice on coupler shank length to solve how far the coupler
sticks out.

Frank only offers the type F in one shank length and as far as I have "dry fitted" to models I have so far the length is inadequate to get the couplers far enough in front of the plows to be able to couple two loco's together without problems, on curves at least.

I'm not beyond drilling and tapping new mounting holes etc but would
like to avoid that sort of surgery if I can. I would use the RailFlyer
versions as these would be the best on loco's but Frank still doesn't
sell kits of them yet.

Tim

Re: [SergentEng] Corroded couplers

Tim L
 

That's really good news to hear Mike.

I would never have thought of the fumes from wood to cause problems
like that.

Tim

On 24/08/2016 05:38, Mike Van Hove mvanhove@... [SergentEng] wrote:


Hello, all,

Some of you (Frank in particular) will remember last year when I had all
the trouble with the Sergent Couplers becoming corroded.

Frank helped me out, considerably, and I rebuild all 200 couplers.

At the time, I was still doing woodwork in the same building as the
train layout.

The production job I was doing called for using Red or White Oak “Not
Kiln Dried”.

So the wood was brought into the shop, stacked until I was ready to work
it up. There was a lot of moisture in that wood, and apparently, it has
quite a bit of acid that occurs naturally.

A friend of Franks thought it might be the cause of the trouble.

The acid may have been the cause of all my trouble, as now that I have
finally retired, and stopped doing that job, I’m not having the problem.

Frank had me label a few of the reworked couplers and set them aside, as
a control. They have been there for at least a year. In working on the
layout today, I came across those labeled couplers. They work as slick
as anything. No sign of corrosion.

So, I think we can say the Oak was the cause of my problem.

So, thanks to all who weighed in my problem and especially Frank, who
went way beyond the call of duty, in working with me. I’m so glad I was
the cause of the problem, and not Frank’s wonderful products.

Long live the Sergent Coupler!

Mike Van Hove

Corroded couplers

Mike Van Hove
 

Hello, all,

Some of you (Frank in particular) will remember last year when I had all the trouble with the Sergent Couplers becoming corroded.

Frank helped me out, considerably, and I rebuild all 200 couplers.

At the time, I was still doing woodwork in the same building as the train layout.

The production job I was doing called for using Red or White Oak “Not Kiln Dried”.

So the wood was brought into the shop, stacked until I was ready to work it up. There was a lot of moisture in that wood, and apparently, it has quite a bit of acid that occurs naturally.

A friend of Franks thought it might be the cause of the trouble.

The acid may have been the cause of all my trouble, as now that I have finally retired, and stopped doing that job, I’m not having the problem.

Frank had me label a few of the reworked couplers and set them aside, as a control. They have been there for at least a year. In working on the layout today, I came across those labeled couplers. They work as slick as anything. No sign of corrosion.

So, I think we can say the Oak was the cause of my problem.

So, thanks to all who weighed in my problem and especially Frank, who went way beyond the call of duty, in working with me. I’m so glad I was the cause of the problem, and not Frank’s wonderful products.

Long live the Sergent Coupler!


Mike Van Hove

Re: [SergentEng] Intermountain 19,600 gal. tankcars/ SEC87K

Nathan Rich
 

Cool! That works, we should file that to the collective deep memort.

Nathan Rich


On Saturday, August 6, 2016, 'Wayne Reid' jjjwar@... [SergentEng] <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

     Well it seems I have come up with a solution to my problem with the Sergent coupler height on the Intermountain 19,600 gallon corn syrup tank cars. Seeing as the coupler was sitting to high and the knuckle was hitting the top edge of the resin height gauge I had to find a way to lower the coupler. I shoot for the knuckle to be about centered in the grove on the coupler height gauge. Problem was the way the draft gear box was designed on the tank car. On most freight cars when you remove the screw on draft gear box you get a flat or mostly flat lid you remove and the draft gear box is part of the frame of the car.
 
     On the Intermountain 19,600 gallon tank car once you remove the two screws you are not removing a flat lid but the draft gear box with the open top facing up if the car was upright when you removed it. The lid is actually a flat area on the car frame. This meant that I had to find a way to shim the draft gear box down about .015” to .020”. Yes it is a lot and not every car was off the same amount. One car only needed a .010” shim at each end. I have only done 5 cars and three were off .020”, one was off .015” and the last one .010”. I am almost sure the difference in ride height is caused but the frame bolster plates the are separate parts glued to some raised parts on the bottom of the tank. Seems like on some cars the parts were pressed down properly when glued and on other they were not. On one car the frame bolster plates fell of when I removed the trucks.That was the one that only needed a .010” lid/shim as I made sure the frame bolsters fit properly before gluing them.
 
     I ended up using some styrene to make a new lid that fits on top of the flat area on the cars frame that the draft gearbox screws to. To solve the tight swing of the coupler when the draft gear box was screwed back in place I glued a .010” bronze washer to the post in the draft gear box. This kept me from filing the coupler shank. This then meant the back end of the new lid needed a .010” styrene shim to keep things level. The good new to all this is the coupler height is fine as the knuckle is just about center in the resin height gauge. Some cars have the knuckle more toward the bottom of the slot and some more towards the top. The other good news is now that the draft gear box has a lid that is not part of the car frame it is easier to put it back on the car. Before the new lid/shim you had a draft gear box you had to turn upside down to put back on the car if you were using a jig like I have that hold the car upside down so I can work on it which meant the coupler may fall out and the little spring would fly away and vanish forever.
 
   Yes I know my description of the new lid/shim is not very good. I have 12 more cars to do so I will take some pictures and post them to a folder in the group photo section. It is actually a very simple piece to make and is removable if one ever want to convert the tank car back to Kadee or similar couplers. There is also no filing of the truck bolster as well.
 
   One observation I would like to mention is while the Intermountain 19,600 gallon tank car are very nice and the coupler height problem is a minor set back I was not impressed with the factory assembly job on some of the cars I have. A number of them have excess glue and parts glued on crooked as well as parts that with the slightest touch fall off. Not bashing Intermountain but I was a little disappointed as that was just the five cars I have added Sergent coupler to. Hopefully my remaining 12 cars are better as like I said they are very nice tank cars.
 
 
 
Wayne Reid
Ontario,Canada
 
 

Re: Intermountain 19,600 gal. tankcars/ SEC87K

Josh Baakko
 

I've found that cleaning the shank, top and bottom, with a mill file usually does the trick, until you get to to Walthers cars, then you need to file the inside of the coupler box lids.

Another choice is to loosen the screw a tiny bit, and tack it in place *FROM THE OUTSIDE* with some thick CA.  The CA keeps a loose screw from unscrewing, and the screw it's self will keep the slightly looser lid on.

As for the height issue, there's a few solutions, you can shim the coupler box interior so the coupler rides lower, which will also require a shim to "lower" the lid.  Or you can spend time filing the bolster, viable in some cases, hard if you try to keep the bolster center pin, you can completely remove it in most cases, and have a flat bolster.
Josh Baakko

Re: [SergentEng] Intermountain 19,600 gal. tankcars/ SEC87K

jjjwar@outlook.com
 

     Well it seems I have come up with a solution to my problem with the Sergent coupler height on the Intermountain 19,600 gallon corn syrup tank cars. Seeing as the coupler was sitting to high and the knuckle was hitting the top edge of the resin height gauge I had to find a way to lower the coupler. I shoot for the knuckle to be about centered in the grove on the coupler height gauge. Problem was the way the draft gear box was designed on the tank car. On most freight cars when you remove the screw on draft gear box you get a flat or mostly flat lid you remove and the draft gear box is part of the frame of the car.
 
     On the Intermountain 19,600 gallon tank car once you remove the two screws you are not removing a flat lid but the draft gear box with the open top facing up if the car was upright when you removed it. The lid is actually a flat area on the car frame. This meant that I had to find a way to shim the draft gear box down about .015” to .020”. Yes it is a lot and not every car was off the same amount. One car only needed a .010” shim at each end. I have only done 5 cars and three were off .020”, one was off .015” and the last one .010”. I am almost sure the difference in ride height is caused but the frame bolster plates the are separate parts glued to some raised parts on the bottom of the tank. Seems like on some cars the parts were pressed down properly when glued and on other they were not. On one car the frame bolster plates fell of when I removed the trucks.That was the one that only needed a .010” lid/shim as I made sure the frame bolsters fit properly before gluing them.
 
     I ended up using some styrene to make a new lid that fits on top of the flat area on the cars frame that the draft gearbox screws to. To solve the tight swing of the coupler when the draft gear box was screwed back in place I glued a .010” bronze washer to the post in the draft gear box. This kept me from filing the coupler shank. This then meant the back end of the new lid needed a .010” styrene shim to keep things level. The good new to all this is the coupler height is fine as the knuckle is just about center in the resin height gauge. Some cars have the knuckle more toward the bottom of the slot and some more towards the top. The other good news is now that the draft gear box has a lid that is not part of the car frame it is easier to put it back on the car. Before the new lid/shim you had a draft gear box you had to turn upside down to put back on the car if you were using a jig like I have that hold the car upside down so I can work on it which meant the coupler may fall out and the little spring would fly away and vanish forever.
 
   Yes I know my description of the new lid/shim is not very good. I have 12 more cars to do so I will take some pictures and post them to a folder in the group photo section. It is actually a very simple piece to make and is removable if one ever want to convert the tank car back to Kadee or similar couplers. There is also no filing of the truck bolster as well.
 
   One observation I would like to mention is while the Intermountain 19,600 gallon tank car are very nice and the coupler height problem is a minor set back I was not impressed with the factory assembly job on some of the cars I have. A number of them have excess glue and parts glued on crooked as well as parts that with the slightest touch fall off. Not bashing Intermountain but I was a little disappointed as that was just the five cars I have added Sergent coupler to. Hopefully my remaining 12 cars are better as like I said they are very nice tank cars.
 
 
 
Wayne Reid
Ontario,Canada
 
 

Re: [SergentEng] Intermountain 19,600 gal. tankcars/ SEC87K

Nathan Rich
 

I don't think the Athearn model is badly tooled, they just don't expect any of us to expect such tight tolerances as is nee ded when we use Sergent couplers.

Nathan Rich

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Alan Hummel ahummel72@... [SergentEng] <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

I used the SE coupler, not a kit, when Frank was still selling assembled couplers & the coupler swing was fine.
My worst problem so far in height is with the 5161 cvd hoppers. I had to file the coupler lid as well as the where the truck rides,to get the coupler to a decent height & I think this was a BAD oversight by Athearn in tooling that car. Sounds like they did the same with the tanker.

Al Hummel


Re: [SergentEng] Intermountain 19,600 gal. tankcars/ SEC87K

Alan Hummel
 

I used the SE coupler, not a kit, when Frank was still selling assembled couplers & the coupler swing was fine.
My worst problem so far in height is with the 5161 cvd hoppers. I had to file the coupler lid as well as the where the truck rides,to get the coupler to a decent height & I think this was a BAD oversight by Athearn in tooling that car. Sounds like they did the same with the tanker.

Al Hummel

Re: [SergentEng] Intermountain 19,600 gal. tankcars/ SEC87K

Nathan Rich
 

Try smoothing the upper and lower parts of the shank with a bastard file. That should free it up a bit

Take the same file to the top of the bolster on the truck one pass at a time to lower the car.

Nathan Rich

On Aug 4, 2016 6:10 PM, "jjjwar@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

Has anyone tried installing the SEC87K compatible shank double shelf coupler on the Intermountain 19,600 gallon corn syrup tank cars? On the cars I have the long coupler box is held on by two screws. The stock coupler is a Kadee whisker coupler with the standard shank with the big hole. A Sergent SEC87K fits just fine but is a little tight in the side to side swing.


The problem I ran into is the coupler height is a little too high. About .015" to .020". I cannot lower the coupler box as the end frame of the car acts as the lid for the coupler box. Was wondering if anyone else had this problem and if so how did you correct it. I am kind of stumped on what to do.


 I did find that the SEC87K fits fine on the Atlas 17,600 gal. tank cars just fine. Drop in fit. The SEC87K also fits very nice on the new Sale Trains 31K crude oil tank cars. One again a drop in fit.



Wayne R

Ontario, Canada

Intermountain 19,600 gal. tankcars/ SEC87K

jjjwar@outlook.com
 

Has anyone tried installing the SEC87K compatible shank double shelf coupler on the Intermountain 19,600 gallon corn syrup tank cars? On the cars I have the long coupler box is held on by two screws. The stock coupler is a Kadee whisker coupler with the standard shank with the big hole. A Sergent SEC87K fits just fine but is a little tight in the side to side swing.


The problem I ran into is the coupler height is a little too high. About .015" to .020". I cannot lower the coupler box as the end frame of the car acts as the lid for the coupler box. Was wondering if anyone else had this problem and if so how did you correct it. I am kind of stumped on what to do.


 I did find that the SEC87K fits fine on the Atlas 17,600 gal. tank cars just fine. Drop in fit. The SEC87K also fits very nice on the new Sale Trains 31K crude oil tank cars. One again a drop in fit.



Wayne R

Ontario, Canada

Re: [SergentEng] EC87A - DISCONTINUED?

Mike Conder
 

Good deal!

Remember, there are a bunch of assembly tips in the message archives.  One of my favorites is using poster putty (aka blue tack) on the end of a stick to place the ball into the coupler.

Mike Conder