TheRailwire
General Discussion => Weathering, Detailing, and Scratchbuilding => Topic started by: wcfn100 on November 04, 2016, 12:23:59 AM
-
I got a Shapeways package today with my first try at a True-Scale coupler pocket. The design is pretty simple. I'm using the long shank coupler with the screw through the coupler hole and a floating wedge at the springs. There is no provision for centering, and I went as narrow as I could for a one piece design.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/FqxPYZvbl2BY-ih4lwc1s3iszw8BRZ2lUCjaYhyLuVPrieRhi4NGAH2EmFCtq-hoHggM473M6VDTiNvhtGLq27yVVSNZ6TZVDxICuR2U3ImDaKGWCF_PSGwZdYiehpO2X9Vp6Mqmj_3DCPO-xuoeBVYmlN7HyQMvAjpyWAPAwXcQkTm2l-hQXS2ZEugZTfRvaYj_5hBlk--5bmwbUTIr_i5MOTBcpmnMxEV5gp44IWR7n2sC1nOEM4R1kJaRnvkHCW68ZdM3bIAGpfvbWiGAk1IVnfVo2n10qmhgQ1YOI33Die-xsijr_iF4dxPt3XXnwxU5FFA288xQaX9bHNw3637uc7SZvwc4_VH7vK0oeDR6noLkh6l9nEZFLZf_II_0SU0hmWsqoiYeKGK_RF6TFHx8l7fIMRg-fEs9PZ-0Z-9sZklgwgt9MIg_6punLY5_C8AbeffgRqUBmabK1cb5mwIC-5wWLxoxHdTt5kzaUDCUpuQEuATRrVEZ2vALceyVCLRsxJvgM-gVQl4nYCnP6gvFGK_DZk76zAgwR7HpXGHuCNemCYDLTAjBeB5-OO01oQJ4K0E_eKOQzI306Jb2ha4B0MV3S_5POPbHCURMy3ufYa0f=w800-h600-no)
The design works as intended although it does need some clean up to do so. He it is on an Atlas PS-1.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/tJc_2uQi6_1RbhvWGB3I1ujcL1AEbwlZSV95ElSKX_4BeIXc4fGRZz1usJs7qe-ep_32YnF4zArpC5D-ou6LgcXkxdMMvaZOF8phZ8CmuEv9M-TZ2TUfHaksCQxIeJgecXerk8IZTKld0xCtmy04DVtB_9oiOrTh-rW13Oon4EAVkc4yRKTM4yu0cvty7QcNAAm0xqOaO6MTGNAH-wyftRAnTL5Omq0Mbp-gp9amZ_0Wy2YL0QmTx8sH6qiuIrpacMhrQEbwuO6WJfQSWTg8RPa2fKGNNxbtmBjX8Vnr12UeWDAAgrZmu6xqNuBQcbV4Px7mTZTG0GrUJt8kbH9zh-9naMdeez82d4kbqM_fi5YJ92DIgVKa1yxmq0b_m9d-8GFSE2jWwFhUmCQHe1xUXj1EwUrEHofyBwcyA7X2qQLSdMKr8Ez7fYKoUSngeEmvnM7bbtrxq1bywk_KPM6cxO65zjn73j3eP158DhPkINzqPyUEyx_080OMKL8H2GKijpHBoiVA7BGSt5m9-vNr7e2cwHd-qMPDPj7go0VfsA8WIx1iHS1lVnQaOQ3FK9YIqlvcUV3a83uPplzFrQwPdRcLtlfaHQphFYQDYuUWYU05Z7HN=w1200-h800-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/lXSY-H5hWzVB-0IT94cWa8i7S_QsPuR-AQ9pP-Wc2X9pvHn2QXCzhcqZB3rpMN_FC-hmojPXQRRY5HR1BxLeY0SkuZPbHWoWm9-ESYhBtW_3QPbaffTr1sdkL7tvc0cMuZK8R-JdAkOPSRQPlEoMPbBnZFGuHh5uCtlVwFvVzhSovszo1LuGhkgv_3PyHfCEcvkalaM9YZpETdtHKTDlM8YGTbXikxdu2R8NyyjrLdPMQKSLmNFzLr2f3nEhC47u-O2TYwywBiyfxaZ_V2IQGM3MRUAl7HCSIAaj6okWNLGnQ_iYPtGduoz3gLbmYT1ZHJeHTZVVCET9ApeoFhR6XmZKAA06pnPvHEirQhg9I8pBRBfKMwfwPYtRk65sqhYheatyaSbWREPyEiWCHZWTN0LBUV7Oq8yt1k8Ms7GcHDarGR9n5Mbc09h1w_Rj8m6XybFI7pq2wZZemucY_7cHAYMnTiH7vJsR9pn0Q50tCCwKmM1Wn4fNc5NIQIiEToA36FyY6ZXvQjidQw_cXgSblkMMHCmDQ3-NEgOfQqREWlpgvSrtVQGlxzkkcYKjFw7obAKpuo4adzwfNDU_0F7X1vqHJrRVFPablSY3RQGaliDajihq=w1200-h800-no)
There are a couple big downsides however. First, there's too much coupler swing, but that could be addressed. More importantly, using the coupler hole for the mounting screw has two big issues. First, it's a poor place to have to tighten down a screw without some sort of bushing. It just squeezes the coupler halves together effecting operation. Second, in order for the the long shank coupler to stick out form the body a prototypical distance, it needs to have a hole drilled about .0828" back from the sill. But many models already have some sort of hole designed into the floor in that area so it can be difficult to drill a clean hole. In the CNW example, the coupler and pocket should actually extend out farther than they do to be prototypical but the factory hole prevents doing this so I just used what was there.
Rev B is already in the works and should go to the printer in the next couple days after I make some adjustments based on these samples. THis will be a two piece design with a lid and hopefully a more universal way to mount it at the correct depth.
Jason
-
So I think I have my next incarnation.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_04_11_16_2_05_54.png)
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_04_11_16_2_06_09.png)
You may notice there isn't room for the springs. I think for my purposes, simply welding the back of the shanks is where I'd like to start. It's an easy procedure to do and saves a ton of room. The coupler hole is now a pin and the screw hole won't effect operation no matter how hard you tighten it plus it's out of the way for drilling a new hole on most cars.
Hopefully I can get these back in a week to test out.
Jason
-
The Rev B looks pretty good. Is that the FUD? Does that material seem strong enough?
simply welding the back of the shanks is where I'd like to start.
So just clip off the whiskers and 'weld' with the tip of a soldering iron?
Looking forward to seeing more.
Ed
-
The Rev B looks pretty good. Is that the FUD? Does that material seem strong enough?
So just clip off the whiskers and 'weld' with the tip of a soldering iron?
Yep. Hold the coupler closed with your fingers and put a 00-90 screw in the coupler hole and touch the back with the iron. The soldering iron can be clumsy and if you hold too long, the coupler can get stiff but will still function. I'm hoping to find a better process but this works for now.
I'm printing in FXD. I'm not sure of the strength of the pocket. I just ordered a bunch, when they get here and I get one installed, I can try and do some sort of test.
Jason
-
This looks awesome.
-
This looks awesome.
Thanks Mike. I'm really hoping to find a solution that will cover the majority of the the rolling stock out there but it's a mine field of surprises when you start turning over the different cars. I'm waiting for a while to tackle the Train-Worx cars that have the blind coupler pocket screw. :scared:
If this design works, it wil lend itself to extended coupler boxes too. I'd just leave the air line off so the buldge can be sanded flat. A future version may also try and include coupler slack.
Jason
-
Yeah, I like the overall size of the MTL brake line hose, but I'm having trouble with the upturned connection. I suppose the decision was made to make it look like they were connected when coupled, but then it looks funny uncoupled, when you get your best view of it. So leaving it off isn't a big deal for your coupler box.
-
Looks good. If it helps anyone, I took these pictures at the local rail museum last month in my own quest for a better coupler pocket.
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5586/30585308020_3b513e7d93_k.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5584/30585309280_84e458bc3f_k.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5792/30585310960_795f9bae8d_k.jpg)
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5726/30585313110_4d29bf30ff_k.jpg)
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5608/30585314690_d8b7ed5b6c_k.jpg)
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5697/30585316330_c18896da5f_k.jpg)
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5814/30585317820_0f10164d1d_k.jpg)
-
Thx for those. At this point a lot of what I'm dealing with are the minimum dimensions of FXD and the dimensions of the MTL coupler shank and how much swing they should have. I should have the next pockets tomorrow and we can see how they compare to those pics.
Jason
-
The parts are in and I'm going to try and get some shots later if I can setup my photo rig with my Marco lens.
In the meantime this is what it looks like.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_04_11_16_2_05_54.png)
So overall it works. I'm way too tight on all tolerances which I sort of knew would happen. Basically everything needs a .005" bump to make more space. The width of the pocket looks okay as far as coupler swing so that was good.
The biggest issue is the depth from the striker plate (the flange on the coupler end) to the post. It looks like I got overzealous with prototype numbers and the pocket ends up hitting the back of the coupler knuckle which is a little bit larger than proto. Another big issue is the bottom plate is too flimsy. That was a wait and see for me. I'm going to have to bulk it up somehow without loosing too much fidelity.
New revisions are mostly complete. Still working on a bottom plate solution.
Jason
-
Is the flimsiness of the lid due to the two holes? or thickness?.. or both?
you could put the coupler center post on the lid instead of the box to help firm it up.
PM me your address, and I'll send some more box detail photos I took at Boone Scenic Valley.. (including CGW specific pockets..)
~Ian
-
Is the flimsiness of the lid due to the two holes? or thickness?.. or both?
you could put the coupler center post on the lid instead of the box to help firm it up.
PM me your address, and I'll send some more box detail photos I took at Boone Scenic Valley.. (including CGW specific pockets..)
~Ian
Thickness, but that's a good point about the two holes, maybe no hole in the lid at the post would work. Putting the post on the lid is an interesting idea. Not sure I trust that design when thinking about the lateral force on it. If the pin popped out of the hole, the lid could easily just break. I'm going to fatten up the bottom and the lid a bit and put more lid where the screw goes through and see what I get from that. It may just be that these will require a touch of glue at the pin and at the flange.
Thx for the offer on the pics. I've been to the museum there a couple times and have a ton.
Jason
-
Thickness, but that's a good point about the two holes, maybe no hole in the lid at the post would work. Putting the post on the lid is an interesting idea. Not sure I trust that design when thinking about the lateral force on it. If the pin popped out of the hole, the lid could easily just break. I'm going to fatten up the bottom and the lid a bit and put more lid where the screw goes through and see what I get from that. It may just be that these will require a touch of glue at the pin and at the flange.
Thx for the offer on the pics. I've been to the museum there a couple times and have a ton.
Jason
Extrude the post from the lid to be flush to the top of the box so it never slips out.. (Assuming you have a post hole in the box instead of the lid)..
You could also put .012 worth of the screw post into the lid too and have those meet in the middle inside the box.
(I've been working on the same thing you are.. but for normal MT Couplers instead of True Scales.)
Another detail you seem to be omiting that may help strengthen the lid is the lower L bracket on each side of the pocket.. (I'm assuming your rib in the box is an air pipe)
Widen your lid out about 3" (scale) on each side from the box.
You can see the detail I'm discussing in this photo..
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5608/30585314690_d8b7ed5b6c_k.jpg)
BTW those aren't approved footwear for railroading :)
~Ian
-
Yup....wrong footwear.. Oh well I guess he does not his toes..lol
I noticed the welds on the pocket. Looks like might have been shop added. All of the ones I have seen have been cast.
Nice researching.
Cya Y-it
-
So I think the next revision is ready to print. I went and placed it into my NP flat car file to see what it looks like.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_11_16_3_10_19.png)
Hopefully this will be the final version and I can start making different conversions for various cars.
Jason
-
Aren't you supposed to wear black socks with sandals like that?
-
Aren't you supposed to wear black socks with sandals like that?
Dad sandals? Eww! :facepalm:
-
What's wrong with the German tourist look?
-
So I think the next revision is ready to print. I went and placed it into my NP flat car file to see what it looks like.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_11_16_3_10_19.png)
Hopefully this will be the final version and I can start making different conversions for various cars.
Jason
I am thinking of doing some similar designs and some I already have that experienced serious warpage. Would you mind sharing a before and after Bestine picture of this design?
-
I am thinking of doing some similar designs and some I already have that experienced serious warpage. Would you mind sharing a before and after Bestine picture of this design?
Interesting you should mention that. I've been wondering the last couple days if I should make a channel for a weight that could also be glued in to help with any potential warping. I'll have to look at the drawing and see if some sort of metal stock would fit.
Jason
-
Interesting you should mention that. I've been wondering the last couple days if I should make a channel for a weight that could also be glued in to help with any potential warping. I'll have to look at the drawing and see if some sort of metal stock would fit.
Jason
I have seen others using Shapeways to design a printed metal weight to be used in conjunction with the FUD/FXD.
In this case, the fish belly component could be designed in metal to be snapped into place?
-
I have seen others using Shapeways to design a printed metal weight to be used in conjunction with the FUD/FXD.
In this case, the fish belly component could be designed in metal to be snapped into place?
Or, in this case, loco chassis extenders: http://www.shapeways.com/product/W5G3GLDWD/alco-c-855-n-scale-chassis-extenders-x2?optionId=59290061
They worked pretty well. Expensive, tho'.
-
Interesting you should mention that. I've been wondering the last couple days if I should make a channel for a weight that could also be glued in to help with any potential warping. I'll have to look at the drawing and see if some sort of metal stock would fit.
Jason
Warp is easy, I had thought of solid square brass rod that would be shove into the length down the sides and down the middle. Twist on the other hand, without making a full rectangle, soldered or folded on the corners, well...
Or if it snapped into a metal deck.
I'm just nervous about a few things WRT to this phenomena. I once printed a fairly long U channel, with high flanges on the sides about 6X the thickness of the floor and it was warped to heck and bowed across the floor and twisted. Needless to say that idea was scrapped quickly. then @chicken45 's PRR F22 flats well, I have stayed away from those sorts of designs till I can solve the structural issues that plague the prints. Some folks are framing their parts with open wire boxes, but I don't know what benefits were observed.
Then there is the length calibration issue I have been dealing with.
I might take some pics of those designs tonight...
-
Aren't you supposed to wear black socks with sandals like that?
You know, years ago I did wear white socks and sandals once. It was for a Halloween party costume. I had on my sombrero, a tie-dyed T shirt and a kilt. I went as my inner self. :lol: :scared:
Jason, I think narrowing the bottom coupler support on the outside and having that lip become part of the top was a good idea.
-
So here's the picture from the weekend update again.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_03_12_16_9_09_28.jpeg)
I was hoping to have some more, but I've been at the work bench trying to get an idea of what I've got here, and i think I have a good sense of it now.
First, the good news - it works and looks great. I even have a new method for fusing the coupler that allows for much easier opening. I put together some Kato Unitrack curves alternating left and right and there's enough coupler swing so far - haven't gotten to 90' cars yet - that there are no issues. The couplers can be too far off center to not couple the first time without lining them up a bit, but to have enough swing, that's just going to be life for now.
The bad news - I don't think I can get around needed flat head screws. :( I didn't want to have to use them primarily for cost as it adds about .50 cents per install. I'm still in the testing phase, but it looks like the screw is always going to hover around the outer axle on most freight cars. Passenger cars and freight cars with longer couplers won't have this issue. I've been tightening the coupler down and grinding the head until it clears the axle, but that's not a good long term solution.
If anyone really wants to try these out, I'm comfortable making them public for purchase, just let me know.
Hopefully some more pictures tomorrow (I have some parts soaking now), and maybe even a video.
Rev. 3 looks like a slight change for a flat head screw, and I may possibly look at making the the hole for the screw into a slot which would give a lot more freedom when trying to install, especially when there's already holes from the factory in the same area.
Jason
-
That looks great. I would like to try but I'll wait for Rev. 3.
BTW - what track is that?
-
Looks good to me as well. Since you have the pocket down I might impose upon you for a version that adds a plate for a glue-in option for Atlas ore cars. I need like 120 pairs. :scared: (They'd sell like hotcakes, I suspect.)
... BTW - what track is that?
My edu-guess is M.E. weathered rail on Central Valley tie strips.
-
Looks good to me as well. Since you have the pocket down I might impose upon you for a version that adds a plate for a glue-in option for Atlas ore cars. I need like 120 pairs. :scared: (They'd sell like hotcakes, I suspect.)
Once I get a couple critical dimensions figured out (see below), I'm up for any conversion people want. Are you thinking of a full width shim, or just a spacer the width of the coupler pocket?
I'll get the screws on order today and I need to build coupler height jig not only for the coupler but to determine the right floor height. I have to wait on the redesign until I get the screws so I'll probably just experiment until then and hopefully have some more pictures.
Jason
-
An insert shim to fill the cutaway where the truck-mounted coupler box swings. Without measuring (calipers not handy), it appears the shim would be flush with the bottom of the end sill to get the correct height.
(http://www.everywherewest.com/ore1.jpg) (http://www.everywherewest.com/ore2.jpg)
Don't do anything yet (obviously), this is still in the idea stage. I may do something that simply fills the cutaway with a pin that is a snap fit for the stock short MTL box.
-
Don't do anything yet (obviously), this is still in the idea stage. I may do something that simply fills the cutaway with a pin that is a snap fit for the stock short MTL box.
Just let me know, an adaptor for the ore car would be a breeze to do. Here's a piece of .050" styrene (poorly) fitted in the gap.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_04_12_16_1_23_45.jpeg)
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_04_12_16_1_29_26.jpeg)
Please excuse 40 years of dust. :oops:
On a side note, if anyone is hoping these pockets will work with passenger cars on 12.5" radius, you can stop, they won't. :ashat:
Jason
-
My edu-guess is M.E. weathered rail on Central Valley tie strips.
Yes.
Jason
-
I'm printing in FXD. I'm not sure of the strength of the pocket. I just ordered a bunch, when they get here and I get one installed, I can try and do some sort of test.
You should be fine due to the small size of the part. I've FXD-printed MTL coupler pockets for the Fleischmann RC-2/RC-4 (future AEM-7) and the Kato GG1, as well as replicated the X58 pocket, and they've all held up extremely well.
-
Very nice work Jason. That looks really good.
Best wishes, Dave
-
New info on fitting to the ore car:
(http://www.everywherewest.com/ore_tsc.jpg)
:(
Knowing full-well that CA isn't going to bond to MTL's Delrin, I used it nonetheless to show where the mounting height would be if the stock pocket was adhered directly to the cutaway. Looks to be about 0.010" low. A conversion would have to be negative, relatively.
Let me fool around with this. My inclination is to do a thinner lid replacement for the stock short shank box, trimming the nubs on the box flush, and adding mounting "wings". The stock lid is 0.033" thick, so whatever we do will have to be 0.023" or so. FWIW, I'm not real concerned about coupler swing with these shorty cars that generally run as a unit train.
I will say the TSC looks great on these cars.
-
So after playing around with these, it looks like the plan is to come up with 3 standard pockets depending on the car. What I need is some real world testing I can set up with the little bit of Unitrack I have left since I don't have a layout. The alternative is to go invade Dave's basement. :)
For my personal use, I just need cars to negotiate a 15" radius without an easement and a #7 crossover (but that should work if the first thing works). I already know that cars over 50' have problems with 15" radius 'S' curves with no straight between and that my current pockets won't handle MTL heavyweights on a 15" radius at all especially those with the kingpin towards the center.
For me the biggest challenge will be to get 85'-89' flats around a 15" radius. I don't know if that's reasonable, but it's the goal I'm setting. I'm also very interested in what happens when backing long cuts of cars with pockets that give a lot of swing.
For anyone who's been interested in this project, what are your expectations or requirements?
Jason
-
I think where you're headed is a good start. I've started throwing them on various steam era equipment, using the MTL box, just to get some operating experience going. The process has reminded me how far away we are from a standardized solution. The NYC steel boxcars from BLI are a nightmare, as they have cast metal boxes attached to the underframe. Some of the equipment I've used the 1015 standard couplers on was easy to swap out, but it seems like the height isn't right. I need to pick a standard coupler height. And being a 1015 box, that coupler screw still ends up right over an axle on anything that has the bolsters in the right location.
We need a standard underframe that has bolster height and couple mounting pad heights fixed, and plastic underframe detail added.
Oh, and I'm cutting off the strange upturn on the end of the air hose part, and smushing on a new glad hand with a pair of pliers. They look better without the strange rise.
-
@C855B, here the coupler pocket I'm going to send that fits the Atlas ore car. Turns out the car I was using initially wasn't Atlas.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_11_12_16_12_09_30.png)
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_11_12_16_12_38_10.png)
The challenge is that there's not place to screw to the body. I think there's enough surface area to just use glue, but I also provided a couple holes that could be used to mount some .030" styrene posts into the shell and then maybe spot melted on the coupler. If this works I'll turn it into a pack that includes a drawbar option.
I was going to try for another pocket before printing, but it's been slow work on the Athearn 89' cars as they need to be lowered quite a bit first.
Jason
-
Ah, yes... the Roco ore car. Almost, but not quite.
Glad you could stay focused on this, Jason, as I'm in a million directions with the layout construction. Anyway, glue will likely be sufficient; my test using CA with the stock pocket alone (!!!) is holding very nicely for some reason.
-
After sleeping on this... I finally processed the thickness you're showing above the coupler pocket. Are you intending to fill the entire cutaway, like we discussed initially? Oops. We assumed incorrectly, by doing it that way the finished height will be way too low. That "slab" needs to be about 0.023" or so to vertically center the coupler. FWIW, I was designing the same backstop into my attempt, so we think alike there.
Anyway, take a look at the photo five posts up, and you'll see where it lands vs. the height gauge, using the stock pocket with no filler.
-
Anyway, take a look at the photo five posts up, and you'll see where it lands vs. the height gauge, using the stock pocket with no filler.
Looking at these 50X times their actual size causes all sorts of issues. That piece you're looking at is .045" thick. The MTL coupler box is .032" thick. I've set my coupler box into the shim so it's flush in the inside top of the box which is a .012" thickness. So my coupler sits .033" or .001" different than what you have.
It's all good. ;)
Jason
-
So on my way home from the Santa Express train in Cañon City, it popped in my head that my previous post, while convincing sounding, is way off as I missed a critical measurement. However, without getting into the nitty-gritty, the coupler for the ore car should be within 2" (lower) than mounting the MTL box without a shim which makes more sense to me because I'd expect the MTL box to be too high. Regardless, this will all come out in the wash as they get tested.
Jason
-
So I sent off the new counter sunk boxes along with a few of the Atlas Ore car adaptors. Hopefully without the sales going on, we're back to quicker turnaround.
Mike, I'll make sure the adapters work the way I envisioned and if you PM me a mailing address, I'll send a few to you to check out. Since these don't screw to the body, I've been trying to figure out a way to eliminate the screw to save money while still being something that can be opened and serviced but with the brittleness of the FXD, I haven't come up with anything I'm happy with yet.
Jason
-
With hopefully a finished design in hand soon, it was time to document the procedure I'm using with the MTL True Scale Coupler.
First the coupler I'm using is the long shank version as the short shank won't give the look and feel of the prototype.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_12_16_5_57_59.jpeg)
First, trim the coupler pieces off the sprue.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_12_16_5_58_21.jpeg)
Next, I trim the gathering arm (looked that up, don't know if that's the best term) below the parting line. This is more aesthetic but does create less friction.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_12_16_6_02_35.jpeg)
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_12_16_6_02_51.jpeg)
Next I trim down the injection pin(?) as it sits between the two parts and could cause issues.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_12_16_6_03_17.jpeg)
Then trim the fingers.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_12_16_6_04_40.jpeg)
Next is the biggest step, cutting a gap in the mounting ring opposite the gathering arm. This piece has no real forces on it and trimming it relieves some of the spring tension when trying to couple.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_12_16_6_05_22.jpeg)
After that put the two parts together on a 00-90 screw and weld them together with a soldering iron right nest to the gap you just cut.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_12_16_6_06_38.jpeg)
Then to finish it off, the coupler pocket and lid.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_12_16_6_06_58.jpeg)
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_15_12_16_6_07_12.jpeg)
Hopefully next time you see this will be the flat head screw version and brown couplers.
Jason
-
I see what you did there! Nice! Some filing on the side opposite the gap in the ring could be used to tune the opening forces on the gathering arm and allow for smaller coupling forces. I like that the two halves pivot together.
-
Interesting modification you've made, Jason - I think I'll end up following suit, I'm trying to push boundaries and use MTS couplers for a small switching layout. I'm using #7 switches to prevent abrupt angles, but I'm finding the lack of swing and coupling effort using the stock couplers to be a challenge. They're great out of the package for running, though.
-
Should have the new version tomorrow hopefully, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have the rest of the week to test them. At a minimum I need to see if the counter sunk holes will cause the FXD to crack under too much tightening. If not, then it's full steam ahead with other pockets with various amounts of swing or extended draft gear styles.
I also found out my test track that I thought was 15" (381mm) radius is actually 13.7" (348mm), so I'm even more encouraged that these couplers will work for whatever I need, especially if I have any sort of easements. I need to find my worst offender car. Right now it's between the Athearn 89' flat and the MTL heavyweight with the bolster holes set towards the middle of the car (lots of overhang).
Jason
-
Should have the new version tomorrow hopefully, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have the rest of the week to test them. At a minimum I need to see if the counter sunk holes will cause the FXD to crack under too much tightening. If not, then it's full steam ahead with other pockets with various amounts of swing or extended draft gear styles.
I also found out my test track that I thought was 15" (381mm) radius is actually 13.7" (348mm), so I'm even more encouraged that these couplers will work for whatever I need, especially if I have any sort of easements. I need to find my worst offender car. Right now it's between the Athearn 89' flat and the MTL heavyweight with the bolster holes set towards the middle of the car (lots of overhang).
Jason
Jason,
Kudos to you for your work. Just to let you know, I'm following this thread closely and when you get your final design(s) to where you like 'em, I'll be ordering a sh*t load of these to completely re-coupler all of my motive power and rolling stock...
Keep up the good work!
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
So after a 3 day delay and my regular postman going on vacation, I went down to the PO and got my Shapeways package.
Everything appears to have worked out exactly the way I had hoped. The Atlas adapter fits perfect and the coupler is spot on to my gauge. The only thing I don't like is tapping the FXD. I beefed everything up to avoid any breakage and it seems to have worked but the material still isn't the best for threading. Fortunately the screw is just for holding the lid.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_30_12_16_10_22_04.jpeg)
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_31_12_16_12_51_12.jpeg)
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_31_12_16_12_50_52.jpeg)
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_31_12_16_12_51_44.jpeg)
I also got the new standard coupler pocket for the Atlas box car with the flat head screw. So far, so good on the lids not cracking under the pressure of the screw.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_31_12_16_12_52_12.jpeg)
I think I'm all set with these two pockets. I'm going to send a few out for testing and open them for sale. Next up is a slightly larger (wider) coupler pocket for cars longer than 50' and also one for 89' cars and passenger cars. Hopefully that's it for generic pockets. Looking at my freight cars roster, these plenty of opportunity for custom pockets as well.
Jason
-
Okay...I'm ready to order standard coupler pockets. Just let me know how to do that ASAP
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Jason, maybe I missed it but why what was it necessary to do the milling on the frame?
-
Very impressive work!
You mentioned that the lids on early versions were prone to cracking. Is it because you’re using a screw with a counter sunk head or is the FXD is that brittle? I’m wondering if you can source a flathead screw that is not counter sunk (I’m assuming 00-90 threads).
Here is where I get my hardware: https://www.microfasteners.com/ (https://www.microfasteners.com/)
Maybe they have something you can use. How about a nylon pan head screw that you can easily flatten with a file or hobby knife?
Again, great work!
Thanks, Mark J.
-
I have also used these with awesome success:
https://www.microfasteners.com/nbb00908-00-90-x-1-2-binder-head-screws-nylon.html (https://www.microfasteners.com/nbb00908-00-90-x-1-2-binder-head-screws-nylon.html)
(https://www.microfasteners.com/images/P/p_18263.gif)
The head is only 0.57mm high.
-
It looks like these boxes are a bit shorter in overall height than the MTL version? A common theme on my first 10 converted cars is that the damn screw keeps ending up in line with an axle. And once you get the car to the right bolster height, the coupler box and screw are in the way. So I switch from the useless MTL button heads to countersunk heads like you're using, but its still not ideal clearance.
Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what height are we suppose to be setting these to? I've been seeing what works easiest on the conversions so far, and then dialing in cars to a mean height from there. But maybe I'm setting them too low and that's the issue with axle clearance.
-
You mentioned that the lids on early versions were prone to cracking. Is it because you’re using a screw with a counter sunk head or is the FXD is that brittle? I’m wondering if you can source a flathead screw that is not counter sunk (I’m assuming 00-90 threads).
Mark, I haven't had any cracking yet. I was concerned about the switch to the flathead screw and any spreading forces because the FXD is very brittle. I think the design is robust enough that it's not going to be an issue.
Mike, with the flat head screw these pocket have a lot of clearance. I've been setting my couplers to the same. 216" centerline like the normal MTL couplers.
Jason
-
What is the current status of this product? I can't find it on shapeways.
I am interested because I have been testing the TSCs on my HCD layout. The curves on each end of the oval have about a 13" radius. A TSC on an Atlas GP-9 will derail a 40' MT boxcar with Fox Valley wheelsets and weighted to NMRA specs. A Bachmann consolidation, which has less space between the rear truck and coupler, will not derail the same car. So I want to try these modified boxes on the geep to get more coupler swing in the curves.
Other than that, I like them a lot. Easy to assemble and install, no slinky effect, and no unwanted uncoupling.
-
Unfortunately I had to again leave town to attend to some family matters. I should be back home by the weekend can hopefully get back to this then.
Presently, I just need to separate the regular coupler box and the Atlas ore car box into to different files and I will put them up for sale. I have been looking through my collection of cars to identify any cars that will require special boxes. I will warn ahead of time that some cars will not be simple.
One other thing I've been waiting on is I contacted Joe at MTL and asked about the possibility of getting just the long shank couplers in brown without the rest of what they package it with now. Joe said he'd ask and I haven't heard back. While not a deal breaker, getting 50 packs of just the coupler would certainly be cost beneficial. I really hope that they don't view these coupler pockets as some sort of competition to what they sell but more of a promotion of the coupler itself.
I will try and get the regular pockets up for sale next week and give a preview of some other pockets that are in design.
On a side note, I have some concern about these couplers being available in the future. I have been to several hobby shops in the last few weeks and not a single one carries these and when I ask, they haven't even heard of them. I may need some assurance from Joe/MTL that they won't pull the plug on these in the next 5-10 years.
Jason
-
I may need some assurance from Joe/MTL that they won't pull the plug on these in the next 5-10 years.
Wouldn't this really depend on how well they sell? That is how most products life-cycles are.
I think that we should be realistic here - while visually appealing, I doubt they will ever sell well to the average N scale modelers, which means that they won't sell in large quantities. One thing going for them is that the molds are already made, so MTL will keep producing couplers to at least try to recoup the tooling costs. Then since the molds are available, squirting plastic into the mold and packaging them unassembled into clam-shell packages is fairly inexpensive, so I think they they will probably keep on producing them for as long as the modelers keep buying.
-
Ok, i am sure its obvous but are these ho scale or work with kadees?
-
This is about an n scale product.
-
k thanks
-
So I have a 20 pair offering of the standard MTL True Scale Coupler Pocket up at Shapeways.
https://www.shapeways.com/product/BCWNJBN4P/20-pair-standard-pockets-for-true-scale-coupler?key=6cb927743a592cd44cb5d3191dc9c14d (https://www.shapeways.com/product/BCWNJBN4P/20-pair-standard-pockets-for-true-scale-coupler?key=6cb927743a592cd44cb5d3191dc9c14d)
It's only in FXD for now because it's only a few dollars more and I think less resolution lines are a real good thing for this product. There's a $1 markup to go directly to printing other pockets as we go forward.
Don't go nuts yet. There's still a lot to figure out with all the types of cars out there. But if you do order any, please post your experiences good or bad. I'll post more installation information in a few days. Maybe Tom will let me have a sticky with the coupler modification and the measurements of where to drill the mounting hole and also the recommended height to the top of the coupler box.
Remember that you will need some 00-90 flat head screws for this particular pocket and you should have an 00-90 drill and tap. Also, it's in the notes at Shapeways, but I've only tested these for 40' (or so) cars on a 15" radius (no easements) and 13.7" radius with a small 19" easement. I'm very interested in any testing done by others. I should have a couple other sizes ready to go in a week or two.
If you've been interested in the Atlas ore car adapter, speak up, I'll put those up too.
Thanks,
Jason
-
Jason @wcfn100 , I just ordered 2 sets of 20 (40) of these! I've been twiddling my thumbs waiting for this, so thanks!
I don't have radius problems as my minimum radius is 24" and my mainline turnouts are #8's minimum. Branchline minimum radius is 18" with #6 turnouts being the minimum. Since I'm modeling what ran between Ogden and Wahsatch Utah a decade prior to 1957, my longest cars are in my passenger trains.
I am anticipating good things with the MTL True Scale couplers and your "standard" coupler pocket!
Once again, THANK YOU!
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Ordered mine! Really looking forward to trying these, thanks for making them available! ;)
I will be trying these out on autoracks and 73' centerbeams, but my minimum curve is 24".
Ed
-
Thanks guys. I really look forward to any input you may have and to see what you think of the coupler operation with the modified coupler.
Jason
-
I just ordered some, too.
-
I think we're to the point that a coupler height gauge for these would be useful... hint, hint.
-
Ken, a coupler gauge was on the list but I didn't follow through. Here's where I'm at with that -
I'm not trying to put myself in a situation where I'm dictating coupler height. I'm a guy that wishes freight cars didn't come with couplers, trucks or wheelsets. Those should be a separate item of the modelers choosing and to be set however he/she sees fit. However, I am designing these using the .216" that MTL claims their regular coupler centerline is. That measurement goes with the 2' 10-1/2" prototype measurement from every freight car drawing I have.
One other issue is accuracy of the print. I wouldn't make a gauge out of FUD/FXD because of how brittle it is and don't have a ton of experience with other materials. I know something like HDA can render well off the specified dimension. There's also the roughness of some of the material. This might all be trivial, but with the size of the couplers, I think the more accuracy the better.
The bottom line is I'm more comfortable if people made their own gauge. It's really easy if you have a caliper to fashion one from styrene. I can certainly provide the specs I'm using. But if you want to be a guinea pig, I can draw something up probably today and leave all the printing material options open for you to choose.
Jason
-
Jason, print accuracy is something I didn't consider. I'm willing to be a guinea pig, though! To be honest I'm unlikely to interchange with anyone, and while a height gauge is simple enough to make out of various thicknesses of sheet styrene the simplicity of a height gauge block ready to drop on a coupler is attractive.
The only downside might be material cost...
-
Jason, print accuracy is something I didn't consider. I'm willing to be a guinea pig, though! To be honest I'm unlikely to interchange with anyone, and while a height gauge is simple enough to make out of various thicknesses of sheet styrene the simplicity of a height gauge block ready to drop on a coupler is attractive.
The only downside might be material cost...
I'll do it tonight and we'll see what the cost is.
Jason
-
Alright, I made a gauge. It's available in Strong and Flexible and White Acrylic, the default being the latter due to better tolerances. One side is the coupler and the other the top of the couper box.
https://www.shapeways.com/product/2QEFFA5WJ/beta-micro-trains-true-scale-coupler-gauge?key=bba886464d6e2d34b10fdee13edc02d5
This is just a test piece so use at your own interest. I'll get one on order and check it against what I've been using and adjust accordingly.
Jason
-
Thanks, Jason - let me know how the test prints, and I'll add one to my next order.
Edit - good, SW allowed me to add it to my existing order without additional shipping so it will come with your new draft gear.
-
Jason secreted me a couple of samples of his TSC conversion for the venerable Atlas 70-ton ore car. This model has been around since 1969, originally manufactured in the US and the molds either transferred to China, or re-tooled. Here's a comparison of the TSC versus the original issue:
(http://www.everywherewest.com/ore3.jpg)
Yes, the converted car also has MTL trucks, FVM wheels, Hay Bros. load, and Gold Medal brake wheel. It's amazing how much the perception of this car changes with minor detail work.
Two converted cars:
(http://www.everywherewest.com/ore4.jpg)
If you notice a difference in the draft gear pockets, that is only because the one on the left is painted.
For fun, comparing coupling distance over four generations:
(http://www.everywherewest.com/ore5.jpg)
From the top, original Rapido/US, stock Atlas/China, MTL short shank, and Jason's TSC conversions.
The conversion plate fits into the pocket which normally clears the truck-mounted coupler. Yes, it's attached with CA, but there is a lip against the back of the end sill, and it's not going anywhere. Conversion is easy, and went very fast after the first one. Good thing, I have about 100 more to do. :scared: They fit all generations of the Atlas cars I have, and with a little trimming should also work on the Roco version.
Probably the most fiddly part of the process was the coupler modification. I used flush-cutters on the whiskers which left flat spots on the pivot rings, and had to file those down before it would fit in the pocket. The weld modification works great, and I am very pleased in the coupling action.
I made a couple of suggestions including maybe a mounting tab for the TSC air hose.
They run great, and look great. Thanks, Jason!
-
Thanks for the post Mike. I'm was really glad to hear that the adapters works are they're supposed to. I has occurred to me that you should check what the coupling distance should be for UP hoppers. I did everything based on DMIR cars where the strikers are flush with the ends.
I know the coupler mods are a bit if a pain, but I'm hoping that those who purchased the regular boxes will be getting them soon and I can get some more feedback about their operation. I think I could modify the coupler box a bit to be more forgiving with the clearances. I agree the amount of filing needed is a bit much. I just wouldn't want to include too much slop along the way.
I've already modified the lid to cover the gaps better. I'll get a bunch printed out on my next order and we'll see how it works. I'll also look into the mounting tabs to glue the air hose to. I should be getting some long shank brown couplers this week and also my Shapeways order (if they ever print my coupler gauge) so I'll be working on this later this week.
One thing I forgot to ask earlier, how was drilling and tapping the FXD? It's not ideal, but It looks like it won't be a problem. What was your experience?
Thanks again.
Jason
-
I wouldn't worry about the UP version too much. The DM&IR car is a close foob for UP's jennies, but still a foob. Pictures of the UP cars are near impossible to find and I have found no shots of them in trains. Here's a builder's shot I've had for a while, apparently scanned out of a book or magazine, in the as-built brown:
(http://www.everywherewest.com/UP_ore.jpg)
The major difference is the ladders placed outside of the hopper frame. What little I can tell due to photo angle, the couplers are placed similarly, with the flush strikers. Anyway, either way I would not change what you have, it's a huge improvement.
Tapping the FXD was interesting. The first couple of times I felt like all I was doing with the tap was reaming a bigger hole. It turned out to not be a problem. What I did with the second pair was apply a little more downward pressure (instead of letting the tap lead) and backing out a couple of times to clear the shavings. No noticeable difference in the end result, but I felt better. The screws torqued firmly in all four. One thought - some commercial models have an 0- or 00-sized screw that's basically a wood-type thread with a countersunk #000 Phillips head. I haven't the foggiest where to get those screws, but they exist. They would eliminate the need to tap.
-
IMHO, the biggest secret to tapping the FUD or FXD is running, by hand, the tap drill to ensure the hole is perfectly sized for the tap.
-
IMHO, the biggest secret to tapping the FUD or FXD is running, by hand, the tap drill to ensure the hole is perfectly sized for the tap.
Good advice. I thought about doing that after noticing how much material I was removing, but pressed on - so to speak - anyway. :facepalm:
-
I did a little more testing with coupling/uncoupling. A sharp dental pick worked pretty well for uncoupling. I tried a round toothpick like I normally use for regular MTLs, and it is too blunt for the tight knuckle fit. Coupling with the modded coupler? Strictly manual, even more so than stock. I couldn't slam into the 16-car cut hard enough for engagement. I like the decisive "CLICK!" when coupling, but I'm still tempted to experiment with possible hands-off coupling by milling weak spots in the drawbar near the pivot to reduce the spring force.
-
Coupling with the modded coupler? Strictly manual, even more so than stock. I couldn't slam into the 16-car cut hard enough for engagement. I like the decisive "CLICK!" when coupling, but I'm still tempted to experiment with possible hands-off coupling by milling weak spots in the drawbar near the pivot to reduce the spring force.
Mike, I'm able to coupler just two cars together without a lot of force. I'll try and get a video later. I wanted to check that you did everything in the coupler mod? And something I don't remember if I included was to polish off all the faces that could come into contact. I think alignment is a issue as well because of the small coupler head.
I think as you do more, you'll get a feel for it and you'll start getting better results. At least I hope so, because what you're describing isn't acceptable in my book.
Jason
-
:facepalm:
I didn't cut the gap in the ring, and I welded the rings solid, relying on only the drawbar halves to define the spring rate. Oops.
Since I'm committed on the welds, it's an opportunity to try something different - thinning the drawbars near the pivot. Let's see what that yields.
-
:facepalm:
I didn't cut the gap in the ring, and I welded the rings solid, relying on only the drawbar halves to define the spring rate. Oops.
Okay, that's more than oops. That's the main modification. :facepalm:
Here's a video of just coupling one car.
It didn't seem that fast when I was doing it. I may try again at a much lower speed.
If you get a chance, please try the mod as written :P and let me know how it goes.
Jason
-
OK... redid the couplers, per instructions. Yes, it makes a big difference relative to what I had (mistakenly) originally done.
One useful procedure tip - I leave the coupler halves on the sprue until the final steps. Makes handling much, much easier for the cut and trim operations. Next to last step is to cut the gathering arm from the sprue, still holding the assembly with the sprue attached to the knuckle half during staking with the iron. Then cut off the sprue, trim any flash, and install in the box. Disassembly and reassembly happened to result in height mismatches, so I have to see where that issue lies. One of the four still couples hard, and I suspect I bobbled with the iron and welded across the gap. To be totally frank, I think the staking operation is probably going to introduce more variability than desirable.
I ran for a few minutes testing coupling effort, and it turns out the area of the layout where I was testing was on a slight grade. :facepalm: So given the super-easy rollers these cars are, I was doing little more than pushing them down the hill. So... still testing, and will report on operating results possibly later tonight.
-
One of the four still couples hard, and I suspect I bobbled with the iron and welded across the gap. To be totally frank, I think the staking operation is probably going to introduce more variability than desirable.
I think it's just practice and getting a feel for how much of a weld you need. After 10-15 of these, now I barely touch it with a 25w iron. Ideally, the only force the weld has is the coupler opening which between the long shank and ring modification, is very little movement.
With that said, I'm certainly open to any other ideas.
Jason
-
Bugs debugged, retest done, and good news all around.
Height problems were burrs on the bolsters. There was also one bit of sprue on the back of the box lid I overlooked, it was impinging on a bolster. Everything seats nicely now. The remaining stiff coupler was a workbench mistake - I picked-up and reinstalled one of the original bad ones. Found the correctly mod'ed coupler, installed, and all is right with the world.
Now here's what you really want to hear. I ran multiple tests against single ore cars, quantizing the relative coupler forces with throttle setting:
- "Regular" MTL Magne-Matics - 5
- Stock MTL TSC Short Shank - 50 (!!!! - something like 60 SMPH)
- Your mod - 15
Impressive. Maybe not quite as "kiss touch" as the old reliables, but very, very good. Perfectly reasonable coupling speed with a single very free-rolling car. Even better, force was the same, at 15, for both pairs. Consistency is a good thing here.
The most significant issue I encountered was simple alignment. If the couplers aren't aimed well enough, it pushes away. Not unexpected.
-
Thanks for the follow up Mike. All of that is much closer to what I was hoping to hear. :) I agree that alignment is going to be something to watch going forward especially as the pockets get wider to accommodate longer cars on smaller radii.
Jason
-
While modifying BROWN TRUE-SCALE LONG SHANK COUPLERs for my Bestine-ized new Jason coupler pockets for my extensively kit-bashed UP CA-1 cabooses, I found I needed to drill new holes in the caboose platforms to get the coupler pockets to protrude at a prototype length from the ends of the caboose platforms.
All well and good, until I read the instructions provided with the couplers by Micro-Trains. Here's the quote "Use a #56 bit and 00-90 tap." WRONG!!! A 00-90 screw has an o.d. of .044" and a #56 drill is .0465" in diameter, meaning if you need to drill a hole to thread with a 00-90 tap and follow Micro-Trains' instructions to use a #56 bit, there won't be any material to cut threads into!!
The correct bit to use is a #65 with an o.d. of .035"
Looks like a transposition of numbers, but it will cause some big headaches if followed....
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
For taping 00-90 thread I use #60 or #61 drills. #65 is too small. #55 is drill size for clearance. At least that is what I do (I did see some online charts mentioning using #65 bit for taping)
Here is a site recommending using #61.
http://www.richardspens.com/ref/repair/drills.htm (http://www.richardspens.com/ref/repair/drills.htm)
-
While modifying BROWN TRUE-SCALE LONG SHANK COUPLERs for my Bestine-ized new Jason coupler pockets for my extensively kit-bashed UP CA-1 cabooses, I found I needed to drill new holes in the caboose platforms to get the coupler pockets to protrude at a prototype length from the ends of the caboose platforms.
Hi Bob, I meant to put this out before you and the others who ordered got your couplers boxes but forgot. The distance from the striker to the center of the mounting hole is .206".
Jason
-
For taping 00-90 thread I use #60 or #61 drills. #65 is too small. #55 is drill size for clearance. At least that is what I do (I did see some online charts mentioning using #65 bit for taping)
Here is a site recommending using #61.
http://www.richardspens.com/ref/repair/drills.htm (http://www.richardspens.com/ref/repair/drills.htm)
For tapping in plastic, a #65 bit is perfect. For tapping in metal, use a tapping lube and it'll be perfect too. :)
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
For tapping in plastic, a #65 bit is perfect. For tapping in metal, use a tapping lube and it'll be perfect too. :)
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
But with smaller hole you will put much more stress on the 3D-part being taped. There might be a chance that it will split. Using #61 would still produce useful threads with less stress.
-
But with smaller hole you will put much more stress on the 3D-part being taped. There might be a chance that it will split. Using #61 would still produce useful threads with less stress.
Fortunately the boxes Bob has don't require any drilling or tapping themselves just the body of the car. The ore car adapter needs it as there is nothing to mount to with the given screw location. I am surprised Mike was able to tap the part without drilling first. I just assumed that he would drill, I should have said something. Tapping FXD is more like breaking off little bits as you go. It doesn't seem to work well when you're doing it but the screw holds as a result so just go with it I guess. Ideally I could design the ore car adapter without the screw since it only holds the lid, but no good design came to mind for the test.
Jason
-
00-90 and I go back a long, long time. I cut my teeth 00-90 tapping on Con-Cor lead sillplates in the '60s and '70s. Drill the "correct" size, the tap invariably jams and breaks if you don't back it out on each half turn. Seriously. Drill big enough to not jam, not enough teeth left to hold the screw (CA wasn't generally available then). In our case, I simply figured as soft as the plastic was, the tap would simply ream its way through the guide hole and be more than sufficient. Didn't want to drill to size, over concern the teeth left would be relative mush given the granular nature of the material.
It worked fine for the first fastening, but after the third removal/replacement diagnosing the drawbar issue, it was clear I was losing threads. The screw was getting too easy to turn; you know how threaded fasteners feel as they're on the verge of stripping out. I'm going to continue my search for 00-90 x 1/4" flathead wood screws and see if there is a solution to be had there.
-
I'm going to continue my search for 00-90 x 1/4" flathead wood screws and see if there is a solution to be had there.
Is there such a thing as a 00-90 x 1/4" flathead wood screw? 00-90 implies a machine screw thread (not wood-type threads). You probably mean 00-90 x 1/4" flathead wood machine screw?
00-90 x 1/4" flathead machine screws are readily available.
-
My bad - #00 x 1/4" flathead wood screw. I found a source who even has #000 x 1/8" wood screws. I just don't need 3000 quantities. :scared:
This source had them in brass, slotted head. I'm waiting until I can find a source for Phillips head. I know they exist, just have to keep digging.
-
I was installing TSC long-shanks in the stock boxes on several cars this past week, and in the fooling around was surprised by how little pressure it took to couple. So I thought maybe I should quantify it for comparison, and setup the same test.
A quick recap of the test results from early last week:
- "Regular" MTL Magne-Matics - 5
- Stock MTL TSC Short Shank - 50 (!!!! - something like 60 SMPH)
- Your mod - 15
And now:
- Stock MTL TSC Long Shank - 5
Surprised the heck out of me. One important variable in the test - this was with a heavier but maybe more normal car (60' box) than the shorty ore jennies. But even if we doubled the "score" to 10, it would still be at near-prototype coupling speeds, and comparable to the kiss-coupling with the Magne-Matics. Food for thought.
-
Good info Mike. I wish I had a way to compare the couplers I've made.
Jason
-
I think the lesson learned here is the short shank versions are for drop-in replacements in Atlas and Kato locos, where the long shank won't fit. Long shanks on rolling stock whenever possible.
And of course, it makes perfect sense - more lever arm against the springs, all other dimensions (and spring strength) being the same. Duh. :facepalm:
-
@C855B, if you're interested I think there's enough space to redesign the ore car adapter to handle an unmodified coupler. You would lose the side-to-side and vertical play, but perhaps the ore car being so short, that wouldn't be an issue.
Jason
-
Good idea. I'm on board if you want to give it a go. But before you do, let me try a test by gluing a couple of long shank boxes to the existing car, even if they stick out.
-
OK... tested the stock long shank TSC CA'ed to the ore cars, which fit with no problems. Did not do the full test protocol after determining they took more force to couple by hand than did the boxcars modified last week. Same product on different cars, so what was the variable? The type of car it's on? Hardly.
Discovery after about an hour of trying various combinations determined coupling force is directly related to alignment. If perfectly aligned, you can almost blow on them* and they will couple. The slightest bit off, and it will take a small amount of force to slide the faces into alignment, and there will be an audible click. The alignment observation is reinforced because I fabricated a template when installing on the boxcars (six identical cars). Placement on the ore cars was eyeballing it.
Conclusion at this juncture is accurate placement on the car is paramount for low-impact coupling. So the ore car insert is definitely the way to go. However, allowing the stock whiskers to handle centering is a good thing. Also, long shank requires significantly less coupling force than the short shank, for reasons mentioned previously.
Yes, if you're game, let's try a version of the ore car adapter to fit the unmodified long-shank TSC. Like you mentioned, losing lateral swing shouldn't be an issue, which raises the question whether a free-swinging coupler solves operational issues. The stock coupler box absolutely needs more lateral ability, but is it possible to get that without losing centering?
* - I play the tuba. My idea of the force of "blowing" might not be everyone else's. :facepalm:
-
* - I play the tuba. My idea of the force of "blowing" might not be everyone else's. :facepalm:
Ahahaha. Stunning visual!
-
Is creating a "long neck" draft gear that would allow representation of non-cushioned couplers on a typical piece of rolling stock practical? It might start getting rather long.
-
Is creating a "long neck" draft gear that would allow representation of non-cushioned couplers on a typical piece of rolling stock practical? It might start getting rather long.
You may not have had a chance to work with the product. "Long shank" does not protrude from the box any more than "short shank". It simply has a longer box, with a longer shank inside the box. The cars I have converted you cannot tell the difference until turning the car over. The longer box may not fit in some conversions such as Kato and Atlas locos or other rolling stock where the 1015 is a drop-in. My edu-guess is that's why there is a "short shank" version.
-
Pictures of the UP cars are near impossible to find and I have found no shots of them in trains.
@C855B a few in service shots to add to your collection... (some better then others.)
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/486173/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/3921/
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1611421
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3379314
http://dailyranger.com/home_page_images/almanac060312web.jpg
http://dailyranger.com/home_page_images/061815_a_3_atlanticcity.jpg
and a nit to pick the Atlas ore car is a B&LE prototype not a Minnesota (DMIR/GN) Car... :D
-
Those last two in the list are killer, Ryan. Just what I was looking for. Thanks! Of course, they blow away the dozens of Hay Bros. taconite loads I installed with a single hump. [...sigh...]
-
Just wanted to update this thread since I've seen a few sales of the TSC coupler box. I made the mistake of pulling out all my junk that I want to sell which always takes over all my time. For some reason I forget what a pain in the butt it is and how much time it takes.
So I'm packing it all back up this weekend and getting back to what I enjoy, freight cars and coupler boxes.
This weekend is the Rocky Mountain Toy Train Show and MTL is supposed to be there. I'm going to press them on the future of the TSC and ask again for bulk packs of just the couplers.
Info about new coupler boxes should start here again next week. Thanks to those who have supported this.
Jason
-
I need to get some one of these days. Have you thought about making a scale locomotive pocket?
-
I need to get some one of these days. Have you thought about making a scale locomotive pocket?
Yes, locomotives pockets will be coming. I honestly haven't done much with them yet because the MTL boxes will drop in many locomotives so there's at least a solution without modification.
Modeling the CGW, my short list is:
Kato NW-2
Kato F units
Atlas GP-30
Kato RS2
Hopefully those with cover other locomotives as well. I will also try and support those who have bought the coupler pockets with whatever locomotive they'd like to see done.
Jason
-
I've been trying these TSCs & pockets on some Red Caboose 89' autoracks, which considering their length and overhang are about the most demanding scenario I can think of for body-mounted couplers on freight cars.
It turns out that even a 24" radius curve is not broad enough to keep these cars from pulling off the track. One thing that works, tho, is to simply file away 0.050" or so of the side walls from the open end of the pocket. (Work gently or the FUD may snap off.) This gives the coupler the swing room that it wants in order to work reliably. I haven't tried tighter curves, but in principle one could keep removing more material from the side walls for increasingly sharp curves, until other geometry limitations are reached (esp. for cars having different wheelbase and overhang dimensions).
Body-mount pockets on these autoracks will sit way too low, so you have to cut a notch in the floor of the car to accept the pocket. I attached the pocket to a strip of styrene glued to the inside floor of the car, which is not pretty but at least it is inside the car where you don't see it.
Ed
-
I've been experimenting with True-Scale couplers for the past few weeks and this thread is probably the best place to revive it. I first want to convert a whole train of random mixed freight to get a sense of how the couplers will operate between mixed freight lengths. After about 25 cars, I'm still undecided whether I want to go ahead with the rest of the fleet. Anything over 70 feet is of course a challenge, but I've gotten them to the point they are running ok. Unfortunately, having to do some of the modifications outlined earlier in this thread puts a limit on how they perform for switching and operations. What to do, what to do. :?
In any case, here's a minute video of my True-Scale test train.
-
Well that's a timely post Mark as I've been wanting to update this thread after taking the summer off of most train related things.
I did design a pocket for the Athearn 89' flats.
(http://www.cgwmodeler.com/picturepost/ATHTSCADAPT.png)
If you recall I was asking about gluing FXD a few weeks ago. The one piece glues into the Athearn pocket with the old coupler post removed. There's a lip at the car end that keeps pulling forces in check. The lid is a friction fit that can be glue or I've inculded holes for .020" styrene posts if someone thought it would help.
(http://www.cgwmodeler.com/picturepost/ath_TSC.jpg)
I can run this around 15" radius curve with short and long cars coupled to it.
I'm also hoping to update the Atlas ore car adapter. I'm making a couple modifications that will make everything cheaper and easier to convert a fleet.
Jason
-
Here's a couple better pictures.
(http://www.cgwmodeler.com/picturepost/DSC_0241.JPG)
(http://www.cgwmodeler.com/picturepost/DSC_0242.JPG)
I should also mention, this conversion allows you (or forces you to depending on who you are) to lower the Athearn car to a more prototypical height.
Jason
-
I've been experimenting with True-Scale couplers for the past few weeks and this thread is probably the best place to revive it. I first want to convert a whole train of random mixed freight to get a sense of how the couplers will operate between mixed freight lengths. After about 25 cars, I'm still undecided whether I want to go ahead with the rest of the fleet. Anything over 70 feet is of course a challenge, but I've gotten them to the point they are running ok. Unfortunately, having to do some of the modifications outlined earlier in this thread puts a limit on how they perform for switching and operations. What to do, what to do. :?
In any case, here's a minute video of my True-Scale test train.
Well....I'm impressed! :D
After I get my workshop set up again and my modular layout up...converting my stuff to these couplers will one of the first things on my "must do" list...for sure!
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
In any case, here's a minute video of my True-Scale test train.
Looks great! There are a few cases where the car-to-car distance seems a bit long, but overall these are still a great improvement over conventional couplers. They really help the rolling stock to look larger and give more to-scale proportions.
Geometry-wise, what are the tightest curves and shortest turnouts that you can run with this train? Did you have to make adjustments for swing?
I'd bet you could crawl that train <10 scale mph down a 2% grade thru S-curves without the slightest hint of a 'slinky' ;)
Ed
-
Looks great! There are a few cases where the car-to-car distance seems a bit long
Which ones? I didn't precisely measure any of these like Jason does. But if you can tell it's off by a shaky video, then it probably warrants correction.
Geometry-wise, what are the tightest curves and shortest turnouts that you can run with this train? Did you have to make adjustments for swing?
I'm finding that the curves depend on drag. I can roll any two cars through a curve just fine (mine are 22" minimum), but put the weight of 40 cars behind it, throw in a 1.5% curvy grade and things over 70' begin to freewheel, if not string-line all together. In a few cases, I had to use the screw to mount the coupler box, and leave it loose so the whole box swings. It's not ideal, but that extra 2.5mm makes a big difference. I now have a pair of each type car type/length converted, from cement hoppers to autoracks, and the entire train can now run unsupervised around the modules I set up for testing!
I'd bet you could crawl that train <10 scale mph down a 2% grade thru S-curves without the slightest hint of a 'slinky' ;)
Indeed! It's a strange feeling to be able to wiggle the caboose and see the engine 40 cars away mirror the motion! Also, it may bias, but I think reversing long trains is much more reliable with TSCs, though that could be attributed just to having everything body-mounted now.
-
Which ones? I didn't precisely measure any of these like Jason does. But if you can tell it's off by a shaky video, then it probably warrants correction.
Just 1 or 2 of the covered hoppers. Are these all the long shank couplers? I haven't used many of the short shanks myself, since they seem just a bit too short.
Also, it may bias, but I think reversing long trains is much more reliable with TSCs, though that could be attributed just to having everything body-mounted now.
The body mounting, as well as the reduction in 'slop' will both help. It should also work well with DPUs, as long as there isn't too much overhang mismatch on sharp curves.
Ed
-
... I think reversing long trains is much more reliable with TSCs, though that could be attributed just to having everything body-mounted now.
This is what I'm finding, as well. My layout test train is 40 cars long, is about 50% TSC, has a mix of old and new cars and a variety of wheel types. The ability to back it up cleanly over 120' and through several turnouts directly increases with the number of TSC in the consist.
... Are these all the long shank couplers? I haven't used many of the short shanks myself, since they seem just a bit too short. ...
My issue with the short shank version is coupling force. The long shank couplers can almost kiss-couple as well as Magne-Matics, as long as they are lined-up. So wherever possible I use the long shank, and so far the only required need for short shank is on locos.
I would like to have wider swing without the loose-screw fudge. Maybe our friends at MTL have a solution in the mill.
-
Seeing the thread revival reminded me to post my efforts. I got some of Jason's coupler pockets earlier this year and decided to try them out on one of the more egregious coupler pockets out there. Here's quick pic. I still need to do a soak and get the wax off. Up next is new scale steps.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4437/36887017890_2afef2e4f3_h.jpg)
-
Happy to see this thread active again...
Jason, any plans to redesign (sprue up) you're coupler pocket on shapeways?
Or is this on hold for the time being?
Curious if I should wait or bite the bullet :)
-
Happy to see this thread active again...
Jason, any plans to redesign (sprue up) you're coupler pocket on shapeways?
Or is this on hold for the time being?
Curious if I should wait or bite the bullet :)
Yes! With the kids back in school I've been going back over all my 3D files do to the changes needed with the new Shapeways printing rules. I should have the Atlas ore car adapter up in a couple days and the standard pocket is on the short list. I've also updated the Wheels of Time flat adapter which I have in order right now to check it.
I was hoping that MTL was going to make some noise this summer about any changes to the coupler they were going to do, but nothing happened so I'm going forward with what we have.
It's just so hard to not get distracted... (just got this today :D)
(http://www.cgwmodeler.com/picturepost/DSC_0243.JPG)
Jason
-
So here's the update on the Atlas ore car adapters.
First, let's look at where it was:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_31_12_16_12_51_12.jpeg)
This version is basically the standard coupler box with the adapter added to it. It requires the user to drill and tap for the screw and to weld the coupler shanks together.
Being that the ore cars are so short, I felt that they didn't need the swing of the modified coupler shank. And since I know that the biggest application for these will be unit type trains I wanted to get rid of the screw which adds $1 to each car conversion.
This is what I got.
(http://www.cgwmodeler.com/picturepost/newatlasore.jpg)
Sorry for the translucency, it wasn't that bad to the naked eye.
This pocket uses the stock long shank TSC (which I'm going to ask MTL again to sell separately) with no modification. I need to add a .010" shim to the top of the coupler box drawing because I didn't account for how sloppy the coupler is without welding it. I also modified the lid and box to be a press fit. I will need someone to test this out to see if it will hold up without any glue.
The plan is to offer four versions.
-Weld modified with screw lid
-Weld modified with press lid (haven't drawn this one yet)
-Stock coupler with press lid
-Press lid with draw bar
The idea would be that the ends of the unit train could have the modified shanks to give full swing when coupled to a locomotive and between the ore cars could just use this new version or a draw bar version which will keep the time and cost down considerably.
Jason
-
Jason, happy to try it out whenever you are.
-
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/532_31_12_16_12_52_12.jpeg)
Any chance that this pocket will be for sale? I've been following this thread for a while, and am ready to take the plunge for a nice long string of 33' hoppers!
-
Any chance that this pocket will be for sale? I've been following this thread for a while, and am ready to take the plunge for a nice long string of 33' hoppers!
Yeah, I just want to check the last batch I got for any issues. I'll try and do that tonight and get those back up for sale.
Jason
-
Awesome!
-
Okay, I looked at the Standard Coupler Boxes I received and everything looks good.
Here's the link:
https://www.shapeways.com/product/ZB89BKJWG/standard-true-scale-coupler-box (https://www.shapeways.com/product/ZB89BKJWG/standard-true-scale-coupler-box)
If you have any questions about the coupler modification, let me know. I'm hoping to put something together that's more formal than whatever is in this thread.
Jason
-
So an update on the ore car adapter.
I got out of my own way and decided to do a one-size-fits-all solution.
(http://www.cgwmodeler.com/picturepost/8print.png)
This pocket should allow for modified couplers, stock couplers and drawbars. Also the choice of using a screw or the press fit lid.
(http://www.cgwmodeler.com/picturepost/drawbar.png)
I just ordered these and if they work, that should complete all the testing I need to do before opening them up for sale. The only issue is that the drawbars are in a test material (HP fusion) because FXD would be too brittle. I assume the HP material will be live at some point soon.
Jason
-
Cool. Standing by.
I'm guessing that HP Fusion is Shapeways' HDA since that's still a maker-only material. Yes? No? Maybe?
-
Cool. Standing by.
I'm guessing that HP Fusion is Shapeways' HDA since that's still a maker-only material. Yes? No? Maybe?
It's not the HDA. Shapeways calls it HP Strong and Flexible. It's HP Multi Jet Fusion material. Basically the machine that HP announced when it threw it's hat into the 3D printing ring a few years ago.
I went through my models and ordered several that I've previously printed in FXD that passed the first inspection on the website for the HP material even though I know they don't meet some of the HP specs. I think a couple parts will be rejected. The drawbars should be okay though as I drew them with the HP material in mind.
Jason
-
Okay, I looked at the Standard Coupler Boxes I received and everything looks good.
Here's the link:
https://www.shapeways.com/product/ZB89BKJWG/standard-true-scale-coupler-box (https://www.shapeways.com/product/ZB89BKJWG/standard-true-scale-coupler-box)
If you have any questions about the coupler modification, let me know. I'm hoping to put something together that's more formal than whatever is in this thread.
Jason
Just to be clear, is there anything different about these boxes than the previous ones I ordered several months ago? I'm getting my new workshop set up and one of the first things I'll be doing after I get that done is using your coupler boxes I ordered several months ago to start converting my fleet to TrueScale couplers. Do I have a reason to NOT use the other boxes??
Just askin'
Just to let you know Jason, I think what you're doing for the hobby is TOP NOTCH!! My kudos to you and your efforts, and your desire to make your work available to the rest of us!
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Just to be clear, is there anything different about these boxes than the previous ones I ordered several months ago? I'm getting my new workshop set up and one of the first things I'll be doing after I get that done is using your coupler boxes I ordered several months ago to start converting my fleet to TrueScale couplers. Do I have a reason to NOT use the other boxes??
Just askin'
Bob, there have been a few changes over time. The most significant was going to the flat head screw lid. I think I had to beef of the depth of the lid where the screw was to prevent cracking. Mike suggested to better cover where the coupler post was with the lid so I did that and now I have a push on version of the lid. But the box has pretty much remained the same from what I can remember.
If you have the pre-flat head version, it will still function the exact same as long as you have the clearance for the screw head.
FWIW, I'm going to start a new box that's slight wider to allow for more swing. It wouldn't surprise me if at your radii that you could use the standard box for pretty much everything up until the 85'+ cars. I test with a 15" radius and once I get beyond the 53' flats, there starts to be swing issues.
Please let me know what your experience is. Always looking for a better way to design these.
Jason
-
Well as expected, all my models except for the drawbars failed the manual inspection for the trial HP material. :P
But the drawbars are what's important and they went to print. Hopefully will get a shipping notice on those and the FXD parts for the ore adapters this week.
Jason
-
The HP material - is it what they call "Premium" on the "Strong and Flexible" materials page? I don't see anything that IDs a material by "HP".
There were a lot of caveats about S&F material minimums being affected by the polishing process. Is that what rejected your tests?
-
The HP material - is it what they call "Premium" on the "Strong and Flexible" materials page? I don't see anything that IDs a material by "HP".
There were a lot of caveats about S&F material minimums being affected by the polishing process. Is that what rejected your tests?
I don't think the HP material shows up unless you have a shop.
I sort of went through this with the FUD/FXD. I'd send some files and see what happens and make adjustments etc... For all of my HP files it was the sprues or tabs that they rejected (all of which passed the first automated inspection). :) Easy targets for sure. I imagine they just stopped there and sent me a picture and cancelled the order. I'll beef those up and resend and see what happens. On the ore adapter for instance it was the tags that connects the coupler lids to the adapter for printing. :P I'll fix that, but I'm pretty sure the wall thickness of the coupler box will fail after that. But I'll keep testing. I'd really like to get the locomotive journals printed in black. I wish there was an easy way to get a part tested without ordering it. It really messes an order up when most of the items are canceled.
Jason
-
FYI these are great! I was able to get them on a pair of 50 ton 33' hoppers yesterday. I have no trouble getting them through the 9" radius turns on my City Terminal which is based on the Bronx Terminal. Very anxious to get these on a few boxcars to see if they will allow me to use these couplers on all of the equipment on the CT. Excellent work, I will be getting more!
-
I just got pockets for Atlas ore cars, they look pretty good to me. I'm waiting for couplers to arrive. I thought I had some...
Randy
-
So an update on the ore car adapter.
I got out of my own way and decided to do a one-size-fits-all solution.
I just ordered these and if they work, that should complete all the testing I need to do before opening them up for sale. The only issue is that the drawbars are in a test material (HP fusion) because FXD would be too brittle. I assume the HP material will be live at some point soon.
Jason
Jason, are these your work? And, are they available on shapeways or elsewhere.
I just found this post today. I did not know that anyone had made these available.
Thanks
Gary
-
Jason, are these your work? And, are they available on shapeways or elsewhere.
I just found this post today. I did not know that anyone had made these available.
Thanks
Gary
Yeah, they're up on my Shapeways site.
This should get you there.
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/greatwesterncarshops (https://www.shapeways.com/shops/greatwesterncarshops)
Jason
-
I just got pockets for Atlas ore cars, they look pretty good to me. I'm waiting for couplers to arrive. I thought I had some...
Randy
Long shank, yes? Are you going to use stock couplers or cut and weld?
Jason
-
Yes, I have long shank coming. I'll probably cut and weld them.
-
So I read through this thread. The effort looks fantastic, unfortunately the parts are no longer available on Shapeways. That would have saved me from designing my own. So I will be designing my own. I did learn a lot from the discussion though. Especially to use the long shank coupler.
I was thinking though that the box could be just a hair wide to allow for a little more swing. The rear of the draft gear box is unseen on most cars if not all, so that area could be the same as the MT box. Just the part that you see needs to be scale or near scale. That is what I am going to try. I have designed a ton of draft gear boxes for my HO cars. I think I can come up with something I can easily use for my N-Scale cars.
I have been experimenting with the short shank coupler and it is a little stiff. They do not freely open right away to couple. Even the coupler height gauge got pushed a little before the couplers engaged. Anyway, I really do like the look of a prototypish draft gear box and will get down to designing my own once the long shank coupler pack arrives. I currently have a design for a locomotive draft gear box that I only need the coupler so I can design the mount. Since my first locomotive is based on the Atlas/ Kato GP35 the draft gear box is being designed for that model.
I have my first N-Scale boxcar painted and ready for decals, but I just do not like the look of the MT draft gear box so that project will be on hold until I can deign a box for the cars I am finishing.
BTW, I wanted to get some opinions on something here. How many of you have actually broken a coupler? I mean the new ones. These TSC versions? I ask this because instead of screwing them to the whole assembly to the model, why not just glue the whole thing together and then glue it to the car? Believe me, I do understand the need for maintenance. Just curious here. I am of the sort that thinks, screw it. I am just going to glue it all together. I do not abuse my equipment in any way and I do not let others fondle it nor do I run with clubs.
Brian
-
So I read through this thread. The effort looks fantastic, unfortunately the parts are no longer available on Shapeways. That would have saved me from designing my own. So I will be designing my own. I did learn a lot from the discussion though. Especially to use the long shank coupler.
If you'd like to try my coupler pocket from Shapeways, I can put them up for sale again or just make the files available. I took them down because I didn't have time to answer questions or modify the .stl file to keep up with the changing price structures.
I was going to give the ore car files to Mike anyway since he was the biggest customer.
Jason
-
Jason, I do appreciate the offer to put your design up again for sale. It is very kind of you.
I am going to give it a go with my design. I am not going to offer it up for sale since it is purely to fit my applications. I also want to keep the original function of the coupler without having to modify it. I am not looking for exact scale, but rather just a better looking box than what MT offers.
Again, thanks.
Brian
-
Jason, I do appreciate the offer to put your design up again for sale. It is very kind of you.
I am going to give it a go with my design. I am not going to offer it up for sale since it is purely to fit my applications. I also want to keep the original function of the coupler without having to modify it. I am not looking for exact scale, but rather just a better looking box than what MT offers.
Again, thanks.
Brian
Part of the issue that Jason was solving was the inability to couple without a tremendous amount of force. So the modified long shanks are an operational improvement not an appearance thing. The box was an appearance thing, yes. But it's also functional in that it doesn't get in the way of the trucks like the 1015 style box from MTL always seems to do.
Something the size of the 905 Z scale box always seems to fit well.
-
I was going to give the ore car files to Mike anyway since he was the biggest customer.
Which would be appreciated, no doubt. ;)
(Thanks, Jason!)
-
Jason, I do appreciate the offer to put your design up again for sale. It is very kind of you.
I am going to give it a go with my design. I am not going to offer it up for sale since it is purely to fit my applications. I also want to keep the original function of the coupler without having to modify it. I am not looking for exact scale, but rather just a better looking box than what MT offers.
No problem. I'm excited to see what you come up with. Like Mike said, much of the modification was because of the operation of the coupler. The other consideration was to try for a narrower coupler box for extended draft gear applications.
Which would be appreciated, no doubt. ;)
Just as soon as I get my computer set up, I can get the original files. If you ever just want the Shapeways' files, I can download those and get them to you.
Jason
-
@wcfn100 might I impose on you for the .stl file(s) of the basic pocket? I'm interested in trying out a few things and that would save me some work. (I still have some of the Shapeways prints, but the material is tricky to trim.)
Thanks,
Ed
-
If you'd like to try my coupler pocket from Shapeways, I can put them up for sale again or just make the files available. I took them down because I didn't have time to answer questions or modify the .stl file to keep up with the changing price structures.
I was going to give the ore car files to Mike anyway since he was the biggest customer.
Jason
If you're willing to provide the .stl files that'd be great! I've just about run out of the pockets I ordered from you a few years ago, and have a new 8K printer on the way. I'd like to try some resins that I think would be better than the FUD material Shapeways uses.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Signing up for .stl (and or .step) file distribution!
-
If people just want to try and print these, I think the Shapeways file should be okay even if not ideal. As soon as I get my computer back up, I can get the original file for people to do as they wish.
Jason
-
That would be great if you're willing to share the files. I've tried reverse engineering it and it hasn't come out as well as the originals. Then I get distracted by other projects...
-
So here's the Shapeways' file with 8 pieces sprued together. It's never been printed with anything other than FUD so I don't if it will work. And you'll obviously have to add supports.
https://cgwmodeler.com/picturepost/couplerassm8.stl (https://cgwmodeler.com/picturepost/couplerassm8.stl)
If anyone is looking for things to print, I have several files I'd love to see tried in resin. :)
Jason
-
Super. Came right up in MeshLab, so these will print just fine. Thanks!
You wouldn't happen to still have the ore car STL, would you? The one with the adapter plate? I'd like to see how those behave in resin, too. I think the FUD was one of the issues limiting swing when I had the <24" curve derail issue when directly coupled to locos.
-
Super. Came right up in MeshLab, so these will print just fine. Thanks!
You wouldn't happen to still have the ore car STL, would you? The one with the adapter plate? I'd like to see how those behave in resin, too. I think the FUD was one of the issues limiting swing when I had the <24" curve derail issue when directly coupled to locos.
Yeah, I can grab that from SW too. I'm curious if the push in cover plates work with resin.
Jason
-
If anyone is looking for things to print, I have several files I'd love to see tried in resin. :)
Jason
You've got my email :)
-
Thanks Jason!
-
I'm having a scale problem. Is it me or you? Here we have one of my attempts next to your 8 coupler pockets. They're tiny! Never had any other problems like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/cYJgl8k.png)
-
Unit (metric?) conversion on file import?
-
Yeah, probably the units. I believe these are drawn in inches not sure how the .stl stores it.
Jason
-
Working on the assumption that this was an inch/metric problem I increased the scale by 254%. Since there are 25.4mm per inch. That was still too small, but 2540% looks right.
(https://i.imgur.com/0Uo0Lx7.png)
-
Without me revisiting the whole thread, what is done to the coupler shanks? The "spring" leafs at the back of the shanks are cut off and the coupler is allowed to swing freely to the sides?
-
Without me revisiting the whole thread, what is done to the coupler shanks? The "spring" leafs at the back of the shanks are cut off and the coupler is allowed to swing freely to the sides?
The collars are also sliced just next to the shank one on side to provide for more spring to open the coupler faces, Finally, the collars are heat welded together at the slice to keep the coupler closed.
Jason
-
The collars are also sliced just next to the shank one on side to provide for more spring to open the coupler faces, Finally, the collars are heat welded together at the slice to keep the coupler closed.
Isn't there also a pin or such that is cut off?
Edit:
Next I trim down the injection pin(?) as it sits between the two parts and could cause issues.
Ed
-
Thanks Jason!
-
I knew I had some shots of the mods. Here's the slice. It's in the same place for both pieces and then welded next to the opening
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
Jason
-
Even clearer - thanks Jason.