An N-Possible journal

[Ike the BN Freak]

Umm….  isn’t that exactly what this thread is?   

It is, but I can see where wmcbride is coming from as this isn't exactly easily searchable.

[wmcbride]

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=59868.msg825079#msg825079

Closer then you think 

Thank you! I missed that. I must have been seeing like Mr Magoo...

[jpwisc]

Converted a PWRS boxcar and an Athearn gon. The PWRS was an easy short URS swap. The back of the box removal worked perfectly.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Jimbo]

It is, but I can see where wmcbride is coming from as this isn't exactly easily searchable.

Fortunately, one doesn’t need to search!  @GaryHinshaw has been kind enough to include an index on the very first post; one that he keeps updating as new conversions are posted.

@wmcbride - does this help meet the need that you communicated?  Or is something else required?

Jim

[Ike the BN Freak]

Fortunately, one doesn’t need to search!  @GaryHinshaw has been kind enough to include an index on the very first post; one that he keeps updating as new conversions are posted.

@wmcbride - does this help meet the need that you communicated?  Or is something else required?

Jim

Thanks, guess that is what happens when I always skip to the last page...haven't kept up with the original post

[GaryHinshaw]

Index updated.  I have also re-ordered each section alphabetically by manufacturer.  Please advise of any errors, and please keep the updates coming.

[BCR 570]

Converted a PWRS boxcar . . . The PWRS was an easy short URS swap.

Can you elaborate?  I have 48 of these cars to do and they will be early candidates due to their faulty MTL couplers.


Thank you,

Tim

[GaryHinshaw]

Scale Trains Trinity 42' coil steel car.  This car marks my 300th N-Possible conversion now:



As a mark of my confidence in these couplers: I've converted 5 times more cars to N-Possibles in 1 year than I did to LEZ couplers in 10 years.  This car is a very straightforward URS conversion with a medium shank coupler:





I had to rase the ride height with 0.5 mm washers to get the coupler height correct:



A few comments about the car itself: the only weight in the car is in the metal coils.  This means you can't run it empty and it's a bit top heavy when its loaded.  Hopefully that will not cause operational problems on my grades/curves.  Also, I changed the wheels to FVM 3602 and now it doesn't roll very well, even though the trucks roll fine on their own (with the FVM wheels).  I'll have to investigate that more later.

[Scottl]

Congratulations on your milestone @GaryHinshaw ! 

I'm curious about the selection here of a medium shank coupler.  It looks to my eye like a short would work.  And is that raised ride height prototypical? 

[turbowhiz]

Scale Trains Trinity 42' coil steel car.  This car marks my 300th N-Possible conversion now:

Fantastic Gary!! Glad to hear that large scale fleet conversions are working out for people. Grant has crossed 150 now, so you're going to have competition for the largest fleet before long with the pace he's going!

I'm curious about the selection here of a medium shank coupler.  It looks to my eye like a short would work.  And is that raised ride height prototypical?

All sorts of modeling opportunities for correctly modeling couplers open up when using actual scale models of couplers.. The medium length here is spot on for the prototype, at least when the train is under draft. Unlike traditional couplers where you're dealing with such grossly overscale coupled distances you're always keeping things as short as possible, with scale couplers that isn't always the case. The edge holding and buff alignment of the NP coupler also means your not giving up operational reliablity with the a longer shank length either, another problem with conventional couplers.

Those ST coil cars do have factory coupler heights a hint low... Shimming them up for reliable operation probably is not required if your trackwork is solid, given how well the NP couplers hold on edge. Note here the prototype joint isn't exactly spot on level between the cars either. That said, perfect coupler heights are never a bad thing, and you can judge for yourself if the ride height is objectionable shimmed vs the prototype photo attached.

[ednadolski]

I can't imagine getting one of these anywhere near my gums, but they're great for uncoupling.

Just be careful not to drop it into your foot (don't ask me how I know). 

Ed

[C855B]

Just be careful not to drop it into your foot (don't ask me how I know). 

Like Gary, these don't go anywhere near my face, much less in my mouth.

These are survivalist weapons; I just searched and see them all over the place for that purpose. They're billed as "eco-friendly toothpicks", but I think they're gentrified ice picks, and "toothpick" is a socially acceptable euphemism.

I'll continue to use discarded dental explorers.

[GaryHinshaw]

I'm curious about the selection here of a medium shank coupler.

Just personal preference, as Andrew notes.  Short shanks would work fine.  I tend to go by what seems more prototypical when skimming through 1:1 photos of a given car.

Those ST coil cars do have factory coupler heights a hint low... Shimming them up for reliable operation probably is not required if your trackwork is solid, given how well the NP couplers hold on edge. Note here the prototype joint isn't exactly spot on level between the cars either. That said, perfect coupler heights are never a bad thing, and you can judge for yourself if the ride height is objectionable shimmed vs the prototype photo attached.

I'm not worried about reliability with the mis-matched coupler height, just the looks!  In the post N-P era, if I must choose between coupler height and ride height, I now skew towards proper coupler height, unless the ride height looks ridiculous.    That said, I have yet to encounter a Scale Trains URS conversion that didn't require some degree of ride height / coupler height compromise.   

Maybe with the sale of MTL and the release of the N-Ps, it's a good time to revisit NMRA coupler standards, such as they are.  It has become the wild west out there.

Fantastic Gary!! Glad to hear that large scale fleet conversions are working out for people. Grant has crossed 150 now, so you're going to have competition for the largest fleet before long with the pace he's going!

No way I'm going to keep up with Grant!  But maybe I can run out of conversions to do before he does.    To that end I went through my jmri database and came up with the following stats:*

Car type	# done	# to do
Auto rack	5	20
Box car	93	36
Centerbeam	19	24
Coil car	9	2
Flat car	1	6
Gondola	18	15
Hopper/coal	8	8
Hopper/cement	31	7
Hopper/grain	53	31
Hopper/covered	23	12
Reefer	13	10
Spine cars	0	3
Tank	25	47
Well car(s)	2	38

* Approximate.  Some of the 'to-do' cars will be retired and some other cars have yet to be added to the database.

So I'm well over half way through the process for most car types except auto racks, flat cars, tank cars and intermodal.   Many of the latter will require some special treatment, especially the truck-mount tank cars and well cars.

But the main message is that bulk conversions are feasible.

[Jimbo]

Note here the prototype joint isn't exactly spot on level between the cars either. That said, perfect coupler heights are never a bad thing, and you can judge for yourself if the ride height is objectionable shimmed vs the prototype photo attached.

There’s a prototype for anything - if both of these cars had new wheels or both had wheels at their condemning limits, the height difference would hardly be noticeable.  New wheels on one with worn wheels on the other, and there’s a noticeable difference.  Just say your modeler equipment isn’t all fresh out of wheel change, if anyone notices a difference.

Jim

[signalmaintainer]

Maybe with the sale of MTL and the release of the N-Ps, it's a good time to revisit NMRA coupler standards, such as they are.  It has become the wild west out there.

An excellent thought.