Topics

Frank

Todd Fisher
 

I was hoping to see if you by chance had one extra long shank lower shelf laying around if not no worries but I've broken one off a centerbeam car. Also just curious since the lower shelfs are being produced is there a reason the long shanks can't be produced like those are? 

Frank Sergent
 

Hi Todd,
 
Unfortunately I have zero of those left. The lower shelf castings are diecast. That’s why I can continue to offer the SBEC87 couplers.
 
Thanks,
Frank
 

Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 2:37 PM
Subject: [Sergent Engineering] Frank
 
I was hoping to see if you by chance had one extra long shank lower shelf laying around if not no worries but I've broken one off a centerbeam car. Also just curious since the lower shelfs are being produced is there a reason the long shanks can't be produced like those are?

Todd Fisher
 

I understand frank. I am curious however if the lower shelfs are diecast is there a reason the long shank ones cant be done thru diecast? I'm not familiar with all the casting so I'm just wondering what determines the two different castings. 


On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 3:37 PM Frank Sergent <fsergent@...> wrote:
Hi Todd,
 
Unfortunately I have zero of those left. The lower shelf castings are diecast. That’s why I can continue to offer the SBEC87 couplers.
 
Thanks,
Frank
 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 2:37 PM
Subject: [Sergent Engineering] Frank
 
I was hoping to see if you by chance had one extra long shank lower shelf laying around if not no worries but I've broken one off a centerbeam car. Also just curious since the lower shelfs are being produced is there a reason the long shanks can't be produced like those are?

Frank Sergent
 

Die casting requires a dedicated steel mold for each variant of part. Those molds are very expensive. That’s why I always used investment casting for the specialized stuff that I didn’t expect to sell tons of. I could justify paying for the mold for the lower shelf casting because I could use it with a lot of different top castings. For top castings with non-standard lengths, I couldn’t justify the cost of the steel mold.
 
There are also things that can’t be done practically with die casting (like the type F coupler), so investment casting is capability I needed anyway. Unfortunately, its not a capability I have now.
 
Thanks,
Frank
 

Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Sergent Engineering] Frank
 
I understand frank. I am curious however if the lower shelfs are diecast is there a reason the long shank ones cant be done thru diecast? I'm not familiar with all the casting so I'm just wondering what determines the two different castings.
 
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 3:37 PM Frank Sergent <fsergent@...> wrote:
Hi Todd,
 
Unfortunately I have zero of those left. The lower shelf castings are diecast. That’s why I can continue to offer the SBEC87 couplers.
 
Thanks,
Frank
 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 2:37 PM
Subject: [Sergent Engineering] Frank
 
I was hoping to see if you by chance had one extra long shank lower shelf laying around if not no worries but I've broken one off a centerbeam car. Also just curious since the lower shelfs are being produced is there a reason the long shanks can't be produced like those are?

Todd Fisher
 

Ok that helps put it in perspective, it would be nice to see those longer shanks be able to be made that way but also in general it'd be nice to eventually see everything come back in stock. I know you're working on attempting to and for those of us still dedicated to using your line I do appreciate it. 


On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 9:59 PM Frank Sergent <fsergent@...> wrote:
Die casting requires a dedicated steel mold for each variant of part. Those molds are very expensive. That’s why I always used investment casting for the specialized stuff that I didn’t expect to sell tons of. I could justify paying for the mold for the lower shelf casting because I could use it with a lot of different top castings. For top castings with non-standard lengths, I couldn’t justify the cost of the steel mold.
 
There are also things that can’t be done practically with die casting (like the type F coupler), so investment casting is capability I needed anyway. Unfortunately, its not a capability I have now.
 
Thanks,
Frank
 
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Sergent Engineering] Frank
 
I understand frank. I am curious however if the lower shelfs are diecast is there a reason the long shank ones cant be done thru diecast? I'm not familiar with all the casting so I'm just wondering what determines the two different castings.
 
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 3:37 PM Frank Sergent <fsergent@...> wrote:
Hi Todd,
 
Unfortunately I have zero of those left. The lower shelf castings are diecast. That’s why I can continue to offer the SBEC87 couplers.
 
Thanks,
Frank
 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 2:37 PM
Subject: [Sergent Engineering] Frank
 
I was hoping to see if you by chance had one extra long shank lower shelf laying around if not no worries but I've broken one off a centerbeam car. Also just curious since the lower shelfs are being produced is there a reason the long shanks can't be produced like those are?

Nathan Rich
 

If we knew the cost of a set of steel molds, what if we did a GoFundMe to pay for the other molds for the different shank lengths? I'd kick in a few bucks toward the cost if it meant they would stay available.

Just an idea...

Nathan Rich

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 7:35 PM Todd Fisher <tftrainman1@...> wrote:
Ok that helps put it in perspective, it would be nice to see those longer shanks be able to be made that way but also in general it'd be nice to eventually see everything come back in stock. I know you're working on attempting to and for those of us still dedicated to using your line I do appreciate it. 

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 9:59 PM Frank Sergent <fsergent@...> wrote:
Die casting requires a dedicated steel mold for each variant of part. Those molds are very expensive. That’s why I always used investment casting for the specialized stuff that I didn’t expect to sell tons of. I could justify paying for the mold for the lower shelf casting because I could use it with a lot of different top castings. For top castings with non-standard lengths, I couldn’t justify the cost of the steel mold.
 
There are also things that can’t be done practically with die casting (like the type F coupler), so investment casting is capability I needed anyway. Unfortunately, its not a capability I have now.
 
Thanks,
Frank
 
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Sergent Engineering] Frank
 
I understand frank. I am curious however if the lower shelfs are diecast is there a reason the long shank ones cant be done thru diecast? I'm not familiar with all the casting so I'm just wondering what determines the two different castings.
 
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 3:37 PM Frank Sergent <fsergent@...> wrote:
Hi Todd,
 
Unfortunately I have zero of those left. The lower shelf castings are diecast. That’s why I can continue to offer the SBEC87 couplers.
 
Thanks,
Frank
 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 2:37 PM
Subject: [Sergent Engineering] Frank
 
I was hoping to see if you by chance had one extra long shank lower shelf laying around if not no worries but I've broken one off a centerbeam car. Also just curious since the lower shelfs are being produced is there a reason the long shanks can't be produced like those are?

Tim L
 

Probably around $20,000. I think it'd take more than a few dollars from each of us to fund what Frank has already determined isn't viable cost wise to have a mold made for (The sales numbers probably don't add up to recover the cost to the mold). We'd likely be better off funding Frank a better 3D printer, one that actually works so he doesn't have to tinker to try and make the current one work.

The only thing is Frank doesn't particularly want to keep doing this in the future and I believe the specialty (non diecast) couplers have become a bit of a chore over other things for him these days (hence why he's not giving a whole lot of time to getting the 3D printer working). Frank has given us the designs for the couplers so we can make/get made our own. I'm still looking into this. I know for many the casting process would be beyond their ability or beyond what they can locate at home but any place that does investment casting should be able to cast the couplers, and should have a 3D printer of sufficient quality to make the investment parts as well if one doesn't have one one's self.

- Tim

On 28/04/2019 14:47, Nathan Rich wrote:
If we knew the cost of a set of steel molds, what if we did a GoFundMe to pay for the other molds for the different shank lengths? I'd kick in a few bucks toward the cost if it meant they would stay available.
Just an idea...
Nathan Rich

Mark
 

Tim I believe you make great points, but I do think Nathan is onto at least part of the solution.

i think I have already purchased enough of Frank’s wonderful couplers for My personal needs but that doesn’t mean I would not be prepared to participate in a crowd funding venture to help Frank get what he needs to get on track.

I believe it would be in our best interests to support Frank to do what is required.   

Mark Stafford
Macedon Australia

John Larkin
 

Just as a suggestion, how about we let Frank decide if he would like to have a better 3D printer for him to make coupler parts or would he prefer (because of time for smaller lots, for example) to let another party use his drawings to make parts for the low run specialty parts?  It might then be easier to set up a small corporation (of whatever type, C, S, etc.) and those who'd like to pitch in could own stock in the company.  The individual who is willing to make parts with it could be granted additional shares for the time, and then even get some added funds if the printer was used to make additional model railroad items that required time.  I'm trying to avoid saddling somebody with the burden of learning how to do 3D printing, then making and shipping parts, etc., without at least offering them something in return.

This is just an idea and I'm not trying to say this is a final solution, only one idea that might work.  I'm sure you guys would have better ideas so consider this a start.  Those who put money in could receive some compensation, or it might be in parts, of just good hearted helping, whatever is fair and works for everybody.

John Larkin



On Sunday, April 28, 2019, 12:46:15 AM CDT, Mark <markstafford15@...> wrote:


Tim I believe you make great points, but I do think Nathan is onto at least part of the solution.

i think I have already purchased enough of Frank’s wonderful couplers for My personal needs but that doesn’t mean I would not be prepared to participate in a crowd funding venture to help Frank get what he needs to get on track.

I believe it would be in our best interests to support Frank to do what is required.   

Mark Stafford
Macedon Australia

Tim L
 

John,

I wasn't advocating that we should crowd fund Frank a 3D printer, I was trying to lightheartedly point out that *if* crowdfunding for Frank was something that happened then a 3D printer that "worked" (as opposed to a 3D printer that doesn't work like he has now) would be a more viable proposition than a set of steel molds for diecasting a single coupler. Frank fully intends for us to use his drawings to make couplers, that's why he's given the drawings to us - he wants us (us = hobby in general) to continue the couplers into the future long after he's done with it all. How well we (as a hobby) succeed in that is another matter.

Mark,

I wasn't trying to slap down Nathan's idea, just pointing out the likely realities of the outcome of a set of steel molds considering Frank would have already done the homework on the cost recovery front. Don't get me wrong, I don't want Frank to stop, at least not until I've worked out how to do it all (probably years!) as I need some speciality couplers still.

Noting your location, good to see another person from down here using Sergents; your only the third or fourth person in this country that I know of using them.

- Tim

On 28/04/2019 15:56, John Larkin via Groups.Io wrote:
Just as a suggestion, how about we let Frank decide if he would like to have a better 3D printer for him to make coupler parts or would he prefer (because of time for smaller lots, for example) to let another party use his drawings to make parts for the low run specialty parts? It might then be easier to set up a small corporation (of whatever type, C, S, etc.) and those who'd like to pitch in could own stock in the company.  The individual who is willing to make parts with it could be granted additional shares for the time, and then even get some added funds if the printer was used to make additional model railroad items that required time.  I'm trying to avoid saddling somebody with the burden of learning how to do 3D printing, then making and shipping parts, etc., without at least offering them something in return.
This is just an idea and I'm not trying to say this is a final solution, only one idea that might work.  I'm sure you guys would have better ideas so consider this a start.  Those who put money in could receive some compensation, or it might be in parts, of just good hearted helping, whatever is fair and works for everybody.
John Larkin

Todd Fisher
 

Nathan I would definitely be on board with helping to pay for new molds if it meant getting to at least keep the long shanks going. I understand the others have to be done investment cast due to the higher detail on them and would love to see them back as well but Id be satisfied with some long shanks as a very large majority of what I still need to convert are cushioning cars and long cars. 


On Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:30 AM Tim L <tim@...> wrote:
John,

I wasn't advocating that we should crowd fund Frank a 3D printer, I was
trying to lightheartedly point out that *if* crowdfunding for Frank was
something that happened then a 3D printer that "worked" (as opposed to a
3D printer that doesn't work like he has now) would be a more viable
proposition than a set of steel molds for diecasting a single coupler.
Frank fully intends for us to use his drawings to make couplers, that's
why he's given the drawings to us - he wants us (us = hobby in general)
to continue the couplers into the future long after he's done with it
all. How well we (as a hobby) succeed in that is another matter.

Mark,

I wasn't trying to slap down Nathan's idea, just pointing out the likely
realities of the outcome of a set of steel molds considering Frank would
have already done the homework on the cost recovery front. Don't get me
wrong, I don't want Frank to stop, at least not until I've worked out
how to do it all (probably years!) as I need some speciality couplers still.

Noting your location, good to see another person from down here using
Sergents; your only the third or fourth person in this country that I
know of using them.

- Tim


On 28/04/2019 15:56, John Larkin via Groups.Io wrote:
> Just as a suggestion, how about we let Frank decide if he would like to
> have a better 3D printer for him to make coupler parts or would he
> prefer (because of time for smaller lots, for example) to let another
> party use his drawings to make parts for the low run specialty parts? 
> It might then be easier to set up a small corporation (of whatever type,
> C, S, etc.) and those who'd like to pitch in could own stock in the
> company.  The individual who is willing to make parts with it could be
> granted additional shares for the time, and then even get some added
> funds if the printer was used to make additional model railroad items
> that required time.  I'm trying to avoid saddling somebody with the
> burden of learning how to do 3D printing, then making and shipping
> parts, etc., without at least offering them something in return.
>
> This is just an idea and I'm not trying to say this is a final solution,
> only one idea that might work.  I'm sure you guys would have better
> ideas so consider this a start.  Those who put money in could receive
> some compensation, or it might be in parts, of just good hearted
> helping, whatever is fair and works for everybody.
>
> John Larkin



John Larkin
 

Tim,

I'm completely open to anything that helps keep the supply of these great couplers available, and as I noted, it's just an idea.  Frank has done a great service to all of us who want a more prototype coupler, both in operation and in appearance and if we can make it easier for him (or somebody he designates) to supply these then we all gain.

John

On Sunday, April 28, 2019, 3:30:36 AM CDT, Tim L <tim@...> wrote:


John,

I wasn't advocating that we should crowd fund Frank a 3D printer, I was
trying to lightheartedly point out that *if* crowdfunding for Frank was
something that happened then a 3D printer that "worked" (as opposed to a
3D printer that doesn't work like he has now) would be a more viable
proposition than a set of steel molds for diecasting a single coupler.
Frank fully intends for us to use his drawings to make couplers, that's
why he's given the drawings to us - he wants us (us = hobby in general)
to continue the couplers into the future long after he's done with it
all. How well we (as a hobby) succeed in that is another matter.

Mark,

I wasn't trying to slap down Nathan's idea, just pointing out the likely
realities of the outcome of a set of steel molds considering Frank would
have already done the homework on the cost recovery front. Don't get me
wrong, I don't want Frank to stop, at least not until I've worked out
how to do it all (probably years!) as I need some speciality couplers still.

Noting your location, good to see another person from down here using
Sergents; your only the third or fourth person in this country that I
know of using them.

- Tim


On 28/04/2019 15:56, John Larkin via Groups.Io wrote:
> Just as a suggestion, how about we let Frank decide if he would like to
> have a better 3D printer for him to make coupler parts or would he
> prefer (because of time for smaller lots, for example) to let another
> party use his drawings to make parts for the low run specialty parts? 
> It might then be easier to set up a small corporation (of whatever type,
> C, S, etc.) and those who'd like to pitch in could own stock in the
> company.  The individual who is willing to make parts with it could be
> granted additional shares for the time, and then even get some added
> funds if the printer was used to make additional model railroad items
> that required time.  I'm trying to avoid saddling somebody with the
> burden of learning how to do 3D printing, then making and shipping
> parts, etc., without at least offering them something in return.
>
> This is just an idea and I'm not trying to say this is a final solution,
> only one idea that might work.  I'm sure you guys would have better
> ideas so consider this a start.  Those who put money in could receive
> some compensation, or it might be in parts, of just good hearted
> helping, whatever is fair and works for everybody.
>
> John Larkin