A real mess with couplers!

After finishing my model and test it in MSTS I must admit: there are no standards about the coupler's size/position/shape! It seems that everyone who builds a wagon or engine just invents its own coordinates to place the coupler. This leads to a consist with couplers being embedded into each other or far away from each other, no matter if it is on the vertical or horizontal direction. Even standard wagons don't fit well. What wagon must I choose as the "good one" (or should I upload my model like it is now and forget this issue )?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: A real mess with couplers!, DRGWK36, Oct-01-03, 12:12 PM, (1) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-01-03, 12:36 PM, (2) RE: A real mess with couplers!, ctillier, Oct-01-03, 01:37 PM, (3) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-01-03, 04:10 PM, (4) RE: A real mess with couplers!, jlef, Oct-01-03, 04:18 PM, (5) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-01-03, 04:21 PM, (6) RE: A real mess with couplers!, jlef, Oct-01-03, 07:38 PM, (10) RE: A real mess with couplers!, Stooopid_person, Oct-03-03, 09:09 AM, (22) RE: A real mess with couplers!, wdcalvert, Oct-01-03, 06:25 PM, (7) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-01-03, 06:32 PM, (8) RE: A real mess with couplers!, jwtitus, Oct-01-03, 07:35 PM, (9) RE: A real mess with couplers!, pwillard, Oct-01-03, 10:37 PM, (11) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-02-03, 08:03 AM, (12) RE: A real mess with couplers!, pwillard, Oct-02-03, 08:44 AM, (13) RE: A real mess with couplers!, xlspecial261, Oct-02-03, 09:25 AM, (14) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-02-03, 03:49 PM, (15) RE: A real mess with couplers!, plainsman, Oct-02-03, 03:58 PM, (16) RE: A real mess with couplers!, pwillard, Oct-02-03, 04:07 PM, (17) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-02-03, 04:15 PM, (18) RE: A real mess with couplers!, WabashJae, Oct-02-03, 08:19 PM, (19) RE: A real mess with couplers!, callagst, Oct-02-03, 09:20 PM, (20) RE: A real mess with couplers!, VRfan, Oct-03-03, 08:55 AM, (21) RE: A real mess with couplers!, jseiler, Oct-03-03, 10:47 AM, (23) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-03-03, 03:06 PM, (24) RE: A real mess with couplers!, pwillard, Oct-03-03, 05:29 PM, (25) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-03-03, 06:15 PM, (26) RE: A real mess with couplers!, johnf, Oct-04-03, 12:18 PM, (27) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-04-03, 01:29 PM, (28) RE: A real mess with couplers!, 6330trainfan, Oct-05-03, 03:52 AM, (29) RE: A real mess with couplers!, carlosgomes, Oct-05-03, 05:27 AM, (30) RE: A real mess with couplers!, krswen, Oct-10-03, 06:23 PM, (31)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Carlos - since I've built only a single piece of rolling stock, you can't take my view as being anything close to informed, but that doesn't seem to stop me from tossing out my view. Just keep in mind it may not be worth much In any case, I'd suggest that you pick the most likely locomotive for use with your wagon and check the coupler alignment to that. If your wagon's coupler is embedded into the loco or the two don't appear to be in contact, you will need to change the bounding box dimensions in the .sd file. If they're not aligned vertically, I'd suggest editing the wagon to fit the loco, and once everything is aligned, declare victory and post what you've got.The alternative is to see how many people would agree to some standard for couplers. While you can probably get some folks to work with you on that, I would suspect that it's going to be a while (if ever) before there's a standard for coupler location.Andy

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Well, I think you're right if my model was a Acela or Genesis, but being a switcher it can work with many kinds of different wagons. Of course many people is afraid of standards; First, because it's difficult to impose one, then it gives more trouble (to get the standard model, compare the 2 models and calibrate it, etc. etc.) and there's even others who like the (how can I call it), "creative freedom". The problem is that "creative freedom" leads to anarchy when it comes to engineering (whether it's real or simulated). MSTS is really that, simulated engineeering, so I think it's very important to keep this in mind for the future. We can take some lessons from MSTS1 and apply them in MSTS2. However, how can one take a standard from original wagons if even these are different between themselves? I only wanted to know different opinions from others about this subject, that's why I posted about this.Carlos

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Don't go by any other model, go by the real thing.Look up the AAR specs for where couplers should be located. I don't have time to do it for you, but if I were you that would be my approach.cheers

--
Clem

http://www.tillier.net/speedworks/index.html

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

This model, since it's a switcher, can have many different kinds of couplers. The specifications I've got only mention the original (chain) and only later they started to change to other types. The automatic coupler (american type named "buckeye") is a very popular one and that's the reason why I wanted to use it.Carlos

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/3f7b349551dbcb2b.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I've thought about coupler standards as well. My trains (which I've never uploaded) all use the TSM Seico Boxcar coupler with a new texture. I've found they look good with the standards:Standard gauge:
Height to center: 3 ft
Horizontal offset: None
Full sizeNarrow gauge:
Height to center: 2 ft
Horizontal offset: None
75% or 3/4 sizeThe length of the car should be from the inside of knuckle to inside of knuckle. I recommend those dimensions because, from my experience, they generally look good. Sometimes the narrow gauge one does look a little low, though. You're right, there should be some sort of coupler standard (of course it shouldn't be too strictly enforced)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Is there any chance for me to get such model of coupler?Carlos

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-03 AT 07:39 PM (EDT)

The Seico Boxcar one? If you're not using TSM, no, I can't, I don't know how to convert to another format. If you're using TSM, open the Seico_Boxcar.dst file which should have been in the /projects folder when you installed TSM, navigate to either coupler and copy it into your model. I move and size it using commands under the transform menu- you probably should play with these commands with a simple box in a new project for a while to see how they work. Incidentally, it isn't nearly as good as the one on your loco. I'd stick with yours. This boxcar has also been a common source for trucks and wheels, although I suggest downloading other ones from the file library.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hey, isn't that train in the picture when you load up Conbuilder?

--You are reading my signature now, don't waste your time reading it!--
Eh, where did my signature go?
Oh, here it is, the one you are reading right now? Can't you see it? I know I know, it is probably too bright to see it.
Anyway, I told you not waste time reading my signature! You have just wasted 10 seconds!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

If you use scale drawings to model from, the coupler height shoud be ok. If not, I think somewhere on this forum, the height was around 34in from the rail. Hope this helps.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Thanks, I'll try the 34 inches to see what the result will be. I'm glad that there is at least a given distance for the coupler

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Carlos,I have long had the same complaint. I used "Google" to search for information on couplers (using a variety of key words) and eventually found the "US Patent Office" to be an excellent source of specs for all sorts of railroad equipment. However, although I was able to download detailed drawings w/dimensions, none indicated height off railhead, which leads me to think this may vary somewhat from era to era and region to region. I did find that some companies have mixed coupler heights among their rolling stock, to the extent they had to build special additions to the couplers to accomodate the differences. To satisfy my curiosity, I spent some time at an industrial siding where I measured everything I could think of relating to coupler size and position. Since then I have been retrofitting my engines/wagons to a standard I found would fit most of the original MSTS and other early models. As the couplers have become larger, more sophisticated and better oriented, this has become easier to do. The only thing I haven't been able to adjust is those which are backwards, as the lighting values do not convert readily. I'm still working on that. What I do is not reverse engineering of the models and I didn't plan to upload any of the modified units for others to use. Nor will I, unless, of course, those whose models are affected approve and ask that it be done. Need I say, the image created by these prototypical couplers, while not perfect, is a great improvement over the MS/Kuju version. Of course, any comments will be welcomed.

JW Titus - Busy fixing what's broke and breaking what's not.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

A while ago, Larry Goss kindly offered up his excellent coupler model for us to use. It closely matched the drawings I managed to pull up from googling... The fact that he offerd it up for us to use is not just so I could use it but so that many of us could use it and as a result dissimilar models would look "better" when coupled with the SAME coupler.BTW: I use 34.5" to coupler centerline on all my models.Pete Willard


http://www.trainsimstuff.com for beta releases, fonts, and project news.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I think this discussion is leading us to a pre-standard agreement. I agree with Pete, but how about the Big Makers of rolling stock (like NALW)? will they ever accept this idea?Carlos

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

We can do this one at a time as a grassroots thing...
NALW is a lot of people... I would not expect that the wishes of only a few of us would affect them at all... If it does... great... but I'm holding my breath.
My biggest fear is that MSTS 2 makes the same mistakes that KUJU did with the height of US couplers.... :-P
Pete Willard


http://www.trainsimstuff.com for beta releases, fonts, and project news.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

The easiest way to do it is just put them where they belong. 34.5 inches to the center of the pulling face from the railhead. There is a tolerance of a couple inches either way IIRC, allowing for loaded and unloaded variances.If NALW or anyone else puts them elsewhere, they are incorrect.Todd

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Yeah, but where can we find a basis for those 34.5 in? What I mean is this: every standard is ruled by a document of some sort; I believe in you when you say it's 34.5 inches. However, like Pete wrote well, only NALW is lots of people not to mention all the others. Only a technical drawing could constitute a solid base for our point of view.
Carlos

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Carlos,
Todd is a professional engineer for CP, he works with this stuff everyday. I think his data will be accepted as fact. He knows what he is talking about.
Bob

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LOL... I just went out an measured it for myself...
Pete Willard


http://www.trainsimstuff.com for beta releases, fonts, and project news.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hello Bob,
Well, against the word of a professional there's nothing to say, isn't that so? But I still say that some sort of diagram should be uploaded so people could really see with their own eyes (and to keep as a future reference as well). Who will ever remember this discussion about couplers 2 or 3 months from now? You can all think I'm crazy for standards, but we need some basic rules when we start a project. I hate to look at a consist and notice how badly matched some wagons are (perhaps only a few will notice this, but I do!) Together with that diagram could also come some information about wheel diameters and some other important measures that I believe Todd knows them all very well.Carlos

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

NALW is one of the worst offenders in this situation, take a look at any model of Jens Chris and you'll see what I mean.

Jae

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

The AAR standard is 34.5 inches from top of rail for standard gauge. All of the builder's drawings I have seen say 34.5 light. The 1974 Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia shows the locomotives at 34 inches with half-supplies loaded on level tangent track. The cars and locos I am building use 34 inches loaded and 34.5 empty. Having worked in the industry for so long, I don't even have to think about it. No criticism of anyone is intended here, as if you don't work with the stuff, it is easy to make a mistake in the most common 3D construction programs in use by most of us. I like the NALW stuff as much as the next guy, so I refuse to be critical. Since in the real world the truck springs can compress up to 2 inches under normal operating conditions, there is a lot of leeway, so nobody should sweat it unless coupler height is really way out there.

Steve C

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I simply position the couplings at the same height as on the real thing. If someone else's rolling stock doesn't match, then that's their problem, not yours. --Victorian Railfan Web Site:
http://www.railpage.org.au/vr/Australian Bulldogs for MSTS! B, S, GM & 42's now available!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I don't have the standards for rolling stock but I do have the standards for roadbed and trackwork. In the book Railroad Engineering Second Edition by William W.Hay on page 671 there is discussion on calculating lateral forces on couplers pertaining to the coupling of long cars to short cars. This formula is also used to calculate overturning forces on curves and superelevated curves in the case of starting or accelerating on such. The vertical vector or moment arm is given as a constant, not a variable. This constant is given as 34.5", from this we can deduce that the industry standard coupler height is just that, 34.5"Joerg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Don't forget that it's not only the height, but the shape and size as well. There are people creating Buckeyes shapes twice the size they should be. How can one adjust the right height for such a big lump of steel? I'm not going to start pointing my finger to some authors of rolling stock, no, that's not the purpose of this discussion. We already know the correct height (34.5in) and now we only need the approximate size. From my point of view, a coupler is what matches one wagon (or engine) to the other; Each wagon can be so different from the other, but the link to the next one is its coupler and that is what makes this small and sometimes unnoticed piece of equipment so important.Carlos

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I know we were talking about coupler height, but since Carlos mentioned it...Coupler size: See the following for some examples...Pete Willard


http://www.trainsimstuff.com for beta releases, fonts, and project news.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Exactly, Pete! Now everybody can know the height and shapes for the Buckeye's coupler. With this information available I hope future models from other makers will have the right coupler within the right height limits.Carlos

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Carlos,I have the both good and bad fortune of working at site that sits isolated on the south side of the eastern end of the BCR Vancouver yard. As a result I have spent many and hour watching very slow moving frieghts switch back and forth in front of my car while I either get later and later for work, or home. The one thing that I notice from this forced observation is that there is some diferences in the vertical heights of couplers of about 2 to 3 inches up or down. I would suspect that this is related to each cars load and the compression on the spings. In MSTS I find the vertical position of the coupler is dictated by the model but the coupling position of diferent cars and loco's is a function of the model, the lengths listed in the eng file, and the pivot point. I have found that if a model is centered on its pivot and the length in the eng or wag file is the distance to the back of the coupler (so that the couplers extend beyound the bounding box) that the cars merge correctly at the couplers. As long as your happy with your model. Upload it. It looks great!as for those comments about Nalw... I'll just say we all try to do our best, and like the rest of the world's population, we learn best from our own mistatkes.

john fowlis

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

John,I know your models are very, but very good indeed. I also know about the differences between heights; A piece of rolling stock has lots of factors can influence the height within a given tolerance. But you're right, this difference is only a matter of a few inches. When I was mentioning the difference between heights, it is a real one, the box of one coupler is above the other so far as at least 10 to 15 inches and that's why I felt I had to post about it.
As for the comments to NALW I can only say: there's no need to throw stones to anyone, this discussion is meant to be a source of knowledge for others who will read it, not only to get to an agreement about couplers and NALW's contribution to this knowledge is very big with so many improvements made to MSTS' locos.
Thanks for your compliment to my model, I hope it won't be the only one.Carlos

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I have read all the threads on this question and here is my two cents worth, on the few models I have built for MSTS the couplers ( automatic type ) have been postioned as to real heights of the particular loco/wagon, for the most part as mentioned in the threads the heights only vary a few inches. From the plans I have most of the coupler heights are in-between 750mm - 820mm above rail head. The couplers on my models are all set at 820mm above rail head. The correct coupling of the wagon/locos is just a matter of having the size of the model adjusted correctly in the eng/wgn file which is a little time consuming but easy to do providing the loco or wagon is centered correctly in what ever program is used to build it, I use TSM and the process is simple.Many months ago now I asked if any one would be interested in a standard for couplers, not much interest was shown at that time.
There seems to be a variety of automatic coupler shapes around at present, most being smaller than they should be, the coupler head I use has been built from the ground up and is to real life size in the Z and X axis with the Y axis being approx 100mm narrower than it should be and overall compared to some it looks massive and to others.......If you are still looking for that perfect wagon to help sort out the coupler on your switcher, dont bother, just use two of the switchers. As long as the switcher is perfectly centered in your modelling program and you know the overall length of the model and the measurement from the outside of the coupler to the inside back of the coupler then double that measurement, subtract it from the measurement in the loco/wgn file and the result will give you a starting point for correct positioning, then all that will be needed is a few small measurement changes to have the couplers join how they should.If you use TSM to build your models and would like to have a look at the coupler I use, I am only an email away.Stew aka 6330trainfan
Albany WA Australia

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi,

>From the plans I have most of the coupler heights are
>in-between 750mm - 820mm above rail head. The couplers on my
>models are all set at 820mm above rail head.According with Todd the right height (nominal height) should be 0.876m (34.5in).>The correct
>coupling of the wagon/locos is just a matter of having the
>size of the model adjusted correctly in the eng/wgn file
>which is a little time consuming but easy to do providing
>the loco or wagon is centered correctly in what ever program
>is used to build it, I use TSM and the process is simple. I'm using Gmax and the displacement we are discussing is the vertical one and not the horizontal one that can be adjusted by the bounding box.
>Many months ago now I asked if any one would be interested
>in a standard for couplers, not much interest was shown at
>that time.I think we shouldn't try to impose a shape to anyone, but to provide information instead. A person can disagree from a shape that somebody else created. What we need is information about the subject and then let each one to model the coupler following his/her own taste.>There seems to be a variety of automatic coupler shapes
>around at present, most being smaller than they should be,
>the coupler head I use has been built from the ground up and
>is to real life size in the Z and X axis with the Y axis
>being approx 100mm narrower than it should be and overall
>compared to some it looks massive and to others.......I'm experiencing that problem with my model, but it's only relative; A Dash9 seems to have a small coupler because it's a huge engine compared with, let's say, my model for example. This model is only 28ft compared with the 73ft of the Dash9. A perspective problem, I'd say.I made a test yesterday. I took those 34.5in and the diagrams from Pete. Then I started to model a coupler from scratch and after having it at the right position, I compiled my model and made a consist of my model together with a wagon from Pete. The result? Both units matched perfectly like if they had been made by the same person! Conclusion: if everyone who builds a model follows the rules "by the book", the couplers will fit well.Carlos

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I just looked at a design spec .... the AAR standard is 31.5 - 34.5 inches.The latter presumably empty and I suppose the former for fully loaded.
krswen

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2002 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.