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

Andrew
 

The footprint of this module is 43' X 20'.

Jacob,
Wow thats quite a module.  Do you have pictures online?

Andrew
 

On Sep 28, 2016, at 3:37 PM, "jacob.damron@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:

 

Nathan:


You said:

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

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

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

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

Jacob Damron
Ft Worth 

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

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

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

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

Cheers
Nathan Rich

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

Fellow Sergent enthusiasts:


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


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


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


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


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


Jacob Damron

Ft Worth, TX




 

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

Jacob Damron
 

I wonder if another piece of metal rod would have better magnetic flux capabilities?

Jacob

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

Jacob Damron
 

Al:

The problem isn't the rail height at the module end. All of the modules have adjustable legs and are very accurately matched. The problem is poor construction techniques that provide for rail either falling or rising at the end plate creating a 'ski ramp' effect. This is the undulation that causes the issues. The rail is supposed to be perpendicular to the end plate for the first six inches but routinely isn't. 

Jacob

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

Jacob Damron
 


Andrew:

I plan to start a Facebook page documenting the design and construction of this module. I hope to have it up soon.

Jacob

---In SergentEng@..., <ihtsbih_2014@...> wrote :

The footprint of this module is 43' X 20'.

Jacob,
Wow thats quite a module.  Do you have pictures online?

Andrew
 

On Sep 28, 2016, at 3:37 PM, "jacob.damron@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:

 

Nathan:


You said:

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

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

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

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

Jacob Damron
Ft Worth 

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

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

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

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

Cheers
Nathan Rich

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

Fellow Sergent enthusiasts:


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


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


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


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


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


Jacob Damron

Ft Worth, TX




 

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

David Olsen
 

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Jacob Damron <jacob.damron@...> wrote:

My last idea would be to use an under track uncoupler such as the Kadee to push the ball up and out of the socket to uncouple. But that still would require a centering spring to be designed to allow for remote coupling.

A few years back (maybe a decade, actually), someone came up with a very simply centering spring design for Sergents.  It's been awhile, so I can't seem to find any photos of it (I'm sure I saved them somewhere), so I'll describe it as best as I can.

The design uses a short piece of wire that extends from the rear end of the Sergent shank and fits in the middle of a coil spring that is oriented perpendicular to the centerline of the car, at the rear of the coupler box.  You drill a hole in the center of the back end of the coupler shank and insert a short piece of stiff wire (I would recommend maybe .010" or .012" steel wire) so it extends along the centerline of the coupler box.  Next, find (or make) a coil spring that will lay horizontally at the rear end of the coupler box, perpendicular to the wire in the coupler.  This obviously may require a coupler box that has extra room at the back end, but you already mentioned that you designed your own coupler boxes, so I'm sure that won't be a big deal to modify. Finally, insert the coupler so the wire fits in the center of the coil spring.  When the coupler swings side to side, the coil spring will center the wire automatically.

I haven't gotten around to installing Sergents on any passenger cars, but I plan to use Type H couplers on my Amtrak equipment.  Since I don't like Kadee trip pins, I figure Sergents will actually be easier to use, especially with Superliners that have high diaphrams with more clearance under them for an uncoupling wand.  My layout plan calls for the Capitol Limited to just pass through without needing any switching, so that helps as well.

Hope that helps!

Dave

Draft gear boxes

David
 

In light of the discussion about the Accurail boxes not being available, has anyone tried using Sergent couplers in the Moloco draft gear boxes?  Would these work best with the compatible or the narrow shank couplers? Or both perhaps?


Re: [SergentEng] Draft gear boxes

Ryan Harris
 

I've used the compatible shank couplers in Moloco boxes without any issues. 



Ryan Harris


-------- Original message --------
From: "scott.d100@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...>
Date: 10/1/16 21:39 (GMT-06:00)
To: SergentEng@...
Subject: [SergentEng] Draft gear boxes

 

In light of the discussion about the Accurail boxes not being available, has anyone tried using Sergent couplers in the Moloco draft gear boxes?  Would these work best with the compatible or the narrow shank couplers? Or both perhaps?


Re: [SergentEng] Draft gear boxes

Nathan Rich
 

I just use Kadee boxes for compatible shanks, #262

Nathan Rich

On Oct 1, 2016 19:44, "Ryan Harris ryan.harris@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

I've used the compatible shank couplers in Moloco boxes without any issues. 



Ryan Harris


-------- Original message --------
From: "scott.d100@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...>
Date: 10/1/16 21:39 (GMT-06:00)
To: SergentEng@...
Subject: [SergentEng] Draft gear boxes

 

In light of the discussion about the Accurail boxes not being available, has anyone tried using Sergent couplers in the Moloco draft gear boxes?  Would these work best with the compatible or the narrow shank couplers? Or both perhaps?


Re: Draft gear boxes

David Olsen
 

The compatible shank couplers work fine in Moloco boxes, but I personally think they stick out just a tad too far when compared to prototype photos.  I think it's because the Sergent pulling face is the same distance as a Kadee from the pivot point of the shank, but the scale Sergent head is smaller overall, making the exposed part of the coupler shank a little longer. I've noticed the same thing using compatible shank couplers in some other brands of coupler box, such as Tangent. I bought a few sets of the short shank couplers to see if they look better. Keep in mind that I'm pretty picky about the appearance of things like this, so you may not even notice. It has no effect on operations at all.

Dave Olsen
El Paso, TX

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

David Olsen
 

I'm very interested to hear how this turns out. I have a couple undecorated SW1s, one of which will serve a key role switching an industry on my planned layout. I want to make sure that switcher functions smoothly, and obviously the couplers will be an important part of that. I'll have to take a look at one of my models when I have a chance.

Dave Olsen
El Paso, TX

Re: Draft gear boxes

gtws00
 

I called over to Accurail today and spoke to an individual that said the Scale Draft Gear show be available by year end. They are busy right now making kits for Train Fest and should have them back in stock soon.
George Toman

Re: Draft gear boxes

Alan Hummel
 

I have Intermountain tankers with Accurail Coupler boxes that would've been a "drop in" for Sergent narrow shank SE couplers.
With the narrow shank couplers retired,what course of action is available to me?

Is Intermountain still making these corn syrup tankers with the Accurail boxes or have they upgraded? I've been out of the railroad hobby for several years,as being busy with work has slowed my rail time to almost a halt. Now it's slowly coming back.

Thank you all for your help in advance.

Al Hummel

Re: Draft gear boxes

David Ditmer
 

For what its worth ..... I had emailed Accurail about a month ago on #1031 draft gear box availability.  Eric Cote emailed me yesterday saying that tooling was complete and that "I believe by early to mid next week we can get the #1081 coupler boxes back up on the website and available for ordering again"

Dave Ditmer

Re: Draft gear boxes

David Ditmer
 

Saw yesterday that these draft gear boxes are now available on Accurail website

Dave Ditmer

Best methods for installing Sergents

Andrew
 

Over the past 6months or so I have been converting my rolling stock from Kadee. I have moved quickly through my Accurail and other manufacturers that use screwed on coupler boxes. What are the best ways to get the coupler box lids off of factory or user glued coupler boxes?

Thanks
Andrew

Re: [SergentEng] Best methods for installing Sergents

Nathan Rich
 

I use a knife edge to gently pry things apart, super glue is not permanent. Just follow the lines and be gentle.

Nathan Rich

On Oct 16, 2016 13:03, "Andrew Porter ihtsbih_2014@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

Over the past 6months or so I have been converting my rolling stock from Kadee. I have moved quickly through my Accurail and other manufacturers that use screwed on coupler boxes. What are the best ways to get the coupler box lids off of factory or user glued coupler boxes?

Thanks
Andrew

Re: [SergentEng] Draft gear boxes

Maxime Grenu
 

Hello,

I tried it works fine.

Best regards 
Maxime Grenu 


On Sunday, 2 October 2016, scott.d100@... [SergentEng] <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

In light of the discussion about the Accurail boxes not being available, has anyone tried using Sergent couplers in the Moloco draft gear boxes?  Would these work best with the compatible or the narrow shank couplers? Or both perhaps?


Re: [SergentEng] Draft gear boxes

Alan Hummel
 

I need narrow shank couplers I'm told, as the Intermountain corn syrup tankers I have,use Accurail draft boxes that Sergent used for their Narrow Shank couplers when available. I tried to see if these could be converted to standard Kadee #5 boxes years back when I was still active in HO,but at that time,Intermountain said the conversion wasn't possible on those particular tankers.

Al Hummel


On Sunday, October 30, 2016 9:28 AM, "Maxime Grenu cluster2600@... [SergentEng]" wrote:


 
Hello,

I tried it works fine.

Best regards 
Maxime Grenu 

On Sunday, 2 October 2016, scott.d100@... [SergentEng] <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 
In light of the discussion about the Accurail boxes not being available, has anyone tried using Sergent couplers in the Moloco draft gear boxes?  Would these work best with the compatible or the narrow shank couplers? Or both perhaps?



Cleasning Castings Before Assembly

John Degnan
 

During cleaning up the castings before assembly, has anyone ever actually broken off the little piece on the knuckle that the ball locks against when the couplers are locked closed?  This piece is the area in red in the attached photo.  I have recently acquired a few micro-sized wire brushes that I'm considering using to clean up the parts prior to assembly, and I'm wondering how careful I should be with these brushes in this extension of the knuckle... or if I should use the brushes at all?

(I ask this about both the HO and S scale couplers, assuming the S coupler to be more durable due to the larger size)


John Degnan

Scaler164@...


Re: [SergentEng] Cleasning Castings Before Assembly

Nathan Rich
 

You shouldn't have any issues. There is, however, sometimes a little piece of flash that you need to nip off on that horn.

As long as you watch four pieces of Walnut husk as you assemble you shouldn't need to really even do any major cleanup.

Nathan Rich

On Nov 3, 2016 19:42, "John Degnan Scaler164@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

During cleaning up the castings before assembly, has anyone ever actually broken off the little piece on the knuckle that the ball locks against when the couplers are locked closed?  This piece is the area in red in the attached photo.  I have recently acquired a few micro-sized wire brushes that I'm considering using to clean up the parts prior to assembly, and I'm wondering how careful I should be with these brushes in this extension of the knuckle... or if I should use the brushes at all?

(I ask this about both the HO and S scale couplers, assuming the S coupler to be more durable due to the larger size)


John Degnan

Scaler164@...