The General, a US Civil war locomotive
- Thread starter tbryson2
- Start date
whecsailor
New member
couplers question
Hey there,
Are you using link and pin type couplers, or somethng else?
also at what elevation are you setting your couplers too?
thanks
whecsailor
Hey there,
Are you using link and pin type couplers, or somethng else?
also at what elevation are you setting your couplers too?
thanks
whecsailor
Well Howdy! :wave:
The center of my couplers are .8 up from zero. I only established this by trial and error with another car I downloaded when I started this project. Heaven only knows if "he" got it right! I'm waiting on a message back to establish just exactly where it should be.
I am using pin and link, (for the time being on the Generals tender). I had to move the mesh down on the coupler to match up with that car also. It is not "accurate" from the museum tender because it has been moved down. It does not match up properly with the "Dictator" shown earlier in this thread. In fact, his is more accurate to the museum placement of the coupler. Hmmm, may have to make some adjustments!
If anyone out there knows what it should be, drop a hint!
The CCG says that the a.limfront and back should be @ .89. This does NOT affect the mesh though so I'm not real sure why they established .89 as the "standard" for those pointers. Could it be that THAT is the proper height?
Terry
I put the attachment point for the couplers I use (Elvenor's) at about 2'6". I'm assuming that's the center, but not entirely sure.
I was just trying to match the coupler height of Ben's locomotives.
So, if there's a standard, it's whatever Ben used on his 4-4-0's, as I think those were the first pieces of standard gauge content with link and pin couplers.
I'd be happy to pick another height, just as long as we include Ben in the discussions
And, if things don't line up exactly, well, that's prototypical
There wasn't really a standard in real life; either - hooking cars from different railroads together could be a frustrating experience.
I was just trying to match the coupler height of Ben's locomotives.
So, if there's a standard, it's whatever Ben used on his 4-4-0's, as I think those were the first pieces of standard gauge content with link and pin couplers.
I'd be happy to pick another height, just as long as we include Ben in the discussions
And, if things don't line up exactly, well, that's prototypical
There wasn't really a standard in real life; either - hooking cars from different railroads together could be a frustrating experience.I re-created the General and her tender using a plastic model and a digital caliper. That way I could get each piece as accurate as possible. (Well, at least as accurate as the model maker made it.)
After it was all said and done, the center of the pin and link was .89m from 0 which according to my calculations is 2'10.8", exactly where the CCG said it should be. This was NOT by my design, it just happened that way.
When "testing" for fit, it was too high. I used a different car, (Can't remember which) to "align" the pin/link and physically moved the mesh down to match it. It just so happens that it also matches Ben's Jupiter tender perfectly after I moved it down. The "Huckleberry" passenger car connector is still even further down! The "Dictator's" coupler is about right and at this time my couplers are below them.
I realize we cannot perfectly match every car to every other car (at least without some standard)
I don't want to go against the CCG (for obvious reasons), but don't want to stir up a hornets nest with anyone else out there either! I'm not beyond moving the center's of my pin/link couplers to .89m as by the book.
Opinions?
Terry
After it was all said and done, the center of the pin and link was .89m from 0 which according to my calculations is 2'10.8", exactly where the CCG said it should be. This was NOT by my design, it just happened that way.
When "testing" for fit, it was too high. I used a different car, (Can't remember which) to "align" the pin/link and physically moved the mesh down to match it. It just so happens that it also matches Ben's Jupiter tender perfectly after I moved it down. The "Huckleberry" passenger car connector is still even further down! The "Dictator's" coupler is about right and at this time my couplers are below them.
I realize we cannot perfectly match every car to every other car (at least without some standard)
I don't want to go against the CCG (for obvious reasons), but don't want to stir up a hornets nest with anyone else out there either! I'm not beyond moving the center's of my pin/link couplers to .89m as by the book.
Opinions?
Terry
Coupler height at 2'-10 1/2" is a US standard set by Federal Regulations for standard gauge cars. 0.89m is 2' -11". I don't know when it was first enacted or what previous standards were used. The height is also specified for NG cars and varies depending on gauge. I suspect the height is also set by regulations in other countries. See this post: http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=9866
Bob Pearson
Bob Pearson
Last edited:
That makes sense. The "Auran" standard of .89m is correct. Knowing that, every car asset used for a particular gauge, (in this case "standard") should be .89m from 0.
Knowing that we can drive a NG loco on a standard track, and it does not look right, I would expect the couplers to look incorrect for different gauges used on a unique track. (i.e. "Standard" engine on a NG track...)
I think for accuracy, Nothing etched in concrete yet, but I think I'll move my couplers back to .89 where they were before. I had to add extra mesh when I moved them down in the first place. If the cars don't line up, that's what we are dealing with.
Nothing negative, I think we strive to make this as absolutely realistic as we can. Some of us have very limited knowledge of railroading. (I'm an airplane nut myself!)
Thanks for the input Mr. Pearson. Tis good conversation!
Terry
Knowing that we can drive a NG loco on a standard track, and it does not look right, I would expect the couplers to look incorrect for different gauges used on a unique track. (i.e. "Standard" engine on a NG track...)
I think for accuracy, Nothing etched in concrete yet, but I think I'll move my couplers back to .89 where they were before. I had to add extra mesh when I moved them down in the first place. If the cars don't line up, that's what we are dealing with.
Nothing negative, I think we strive to make this as absolutely realistic as we can. Some of us have very limited knowledge of railroading. (I'm an airplane nut myself!)
Thanks for the input Mr. Pearson. Tis good conversation!
Terry
Automatic couplers are mounted at one height (for standard gauge), but link and pins were all over the place. There were various types of bent links to meet two different heights. Also a lot of locomotives had sockets with multiple heights on them. For mainline service, 2 pockets seemed to be fairly common. However, logging engines had between 3 and 5 pockets on theirs. (I've seen a couple with 6)
As for how I arrived at that height for the coupler, that's just where the center of the frame on the V&T engines happened to be. I'll check the V&T drawings again to see what the height was. I can change my equipment to match a new standard as long as I know what it is.
By the way, my drawings of the Texas show the slots to be at 31.5 and 36 inches. The General was probably the same.
Cheers,
Ben
As for how I arrived at that height for the coupler, that's just where the center of the frame on the V&T engines happened to be. I'll check the V&T drawings again to see what the height was. I can change my equipment to match a new standard as long as I know what it is.
By the way, my drawings of the Texas show the slots to be at 31.5 and 36 inches. The General was probably the same.
Cheers,
Ben
Well link and pin was generally before there were industy wide standards and eventually was outlawed.
Most US 3' ng conforms to the current US standard of 26 inches. I know the EBT and D&RGW do and Todd used 26 in for all the 3' equipment he made for Trainz. His was the 1st so he kind of set the standard for 3' ng.
And fortunately it was the correct height.
To be honest in Trainz it really doesn't matter other than visual appearance. Not like real rail cars or even scale models that actually have to couple up. The US regs allow 3 inches between min and max coupler heights. So some variation occurs even with cars following the standards. I personally would probably match what the real car/loco had when making a model of it.
Bob Pearson
Most US 3' ng conforms to the current US standard of 26 inches. I know the EBT and D&RGW do and Todd used 26 in for all the 3' equipment he made for Trainz. His was the 1st so he kind of set the standard for 3' ng.
And fortunately it was the correct height.
To be honest in Trainz it really doesn't matter other than visual appearance. Not like real rail cars or even scale models that actually have to couple up. The US regs allow 3 inches between min and max coupler heights. So some variation occurs even with cars following the standards. I personally would probably match what the real car/loco had when making a model of it.
Bob Pearson
OK, here are some measurements taken from various plans:
V&T flat car (1898): 2'9.5"
B&O class P-9 flat car (1901): 2'10.5"
Burlington 34' box car (1886): 2'9"
Denver & Rio Grande 1891 box car: 2'11"
B&O class M-8 boxcar (1898): 2'10.5"
Philadelphia & Reading 4-wheel ore jimmy (1860s): 2'10.5"
Hartford, Providence & Fishkill boxcar (1864): 2'10"
Leigh Valley 12-wheel platform car (1889): 2'7 7/8"
B&O oil tank car (1886): 2' 11.5"
So, 2'10" looks like it would be a good compromise to me.
And, on the issue of standards (or lack thereof): from White's "The American Railroad Freight Car":
V&T flat car (1898): 2'9.5"
B&O class P-9 flat car (1901): 2'10.5"
Burlington 34' box car (1886): 2'9"
Denver & Rio Grande 1891 box car: 2'11"
B&O class M-8 boxcar (1898): 2'10.5"
Philadelphia & Reading 4-wheel ore jimmy (1860s): 2'10.5"
Hartford, Providence & Fishkill boxcar (1864): 2'10"
Leigh Valley 12-wheel platform car (1889): 2'7 7/8"
B&O oil tank car (1886): 2' 11.5"
So, 2'10" looks like it would be a good compromise to me.
And, on the issue of standards (or lack thereof): from White's "The American Railroad Freight Car":
Yard crews kept a good supply of bent and offset links to accommodate these differences in height.
Last edited:
whecsailor
New member
Civil war Loco
Found this larger pic of a USMRR loco with a Unknown name plate.
I just loved her cab,, Can you imagine how she was painted up,, must have really been a sight to see her.
Found this larger pic of a USMRR loco with a Unknown name plate.
I just loved her cab,, Can you imagine how she was painted up,, must have really been a sight to see her.
That locomotive was the Firefly, built by R. Norris & Son in 1862 for USMR. After the war the locomotive was sold to the B&O. Photo was taken on the Orange & Alexandria near Union Mills, Virginia. (Civil War Railroads by George B. Abdill has the same photo, and this info is from the caption in the book)
While I'm far from an expert in locomotive paintschemes from the era, my guess would be a dark green, a dark brown, or a deep crimson red for the majority of the locomotive. Frame, smokebox, firebox were probably black. It appears to have a russian iron boiler jacket, and plenty of brass. Lettering was probably gold.
Cheers,
Ben
What EXACTLY IS "Russian Iron"??? 
Tried to look it up, no luck. I know each monitor will show differently, (Oh to be in a perfect world!), but is it like gunmetal, or after a rifle has been "blued"?
I just finished, (Ha HA!!) the mesh for the interior of the General. After I get the levers and gauges to work, I'm going to re-release this version.
Then I'll start on the Civil War version. I'm not so sure about the MSTS "General" color scheme. (I'l put a picture of it upon request). I don't really want the majority of my Civil War work to be changing the textures!
Any good color chips, (R,G,B would be BETTER) for this era? I know I'm asking a lot.
Terry
Tried to look it up, no luck. I know each monitor will show differently, (Oh to be in a perfect world!), but is it like gunmetal, or after a rifle has been "blued"?
I just finished, (Ha HA!!) the mesh for the interior of the General. After I get the levers and gauges to work, I'm going to re-release this version.
Then I'll start on the Civil War version. I'm not so sure about the MSTS "General" color scheme. (I'l put a picture of it upon request). I don't really want the majority of my Civil War work to be changing the textures!
Any good color chips, (R,G,B would be BETTER) for this era? I know I'm asking a lot.
Terry
What EXACTLY IS "Russian Iron"???
Tried to look it up, no luck. I know each monitor will show differently, (Oh to be in a perfect world!), but is it like gunmetal, or after a rifle has been "blued"?
I just finished, (Ha HA!!) the mesh for the interior of the General. After I get the levers and gauges to work, I'm going to re-release this version.
Then I'll start on the Civil War version. I'm not so sure about the MSTS "General" color scheme. (I'l put a picture of it upon request). I don't really want the majority of my Civil War work to be changing the textures!
Any good color chips, (R,G,B would be BETTER) for this era? I know I'm asking a lot.
Terry
Yes, that is exactly what russian iron looks like, although the shade of bluing could differ depending on how the boiler jacket was produced, however, when engineers used to keep their loco's spit polished and shined up, it sure is purdy to look at, along with that wood cab and all the brass goodies...........
Here's a link to a good discussion about Russian Iron:
http://www.railwayeng.com/dspp/russiron.htm
http://www.railwayeng.com/dspp/russiron.htm