I have an AB set of the Bachmann FT diesels that came to me in used condition. I have them running and looking great. I installed some Kadee #5 couplers I had on hand, and the two units are WAY too far apart. Can anyone suggest a coupler they have used to get closer to prototype spacing? Looking for close but not unreasonable...
I haven't tried it but a Kadee # 23 or E-Z Mate® Mark II Center Shank - Short might work. Joe
http://shop.bachmanntrains.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=258_273&products_id=4458
http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/page23.htm
Also what radius curves are you running these on? This will affect how close you can them to each other.
Another option would be to use a drawbar between the units, as the prototype did initially. Prototype spacing between the A and B units would be 8ft from the center of the 'A' rear axle to the center of the 'B' front axle, as shown here:
(http://research.nprha.org/Diesel%20Diagrams/EMD%20FT%205400A-5410D.jpg)
You'll probably want to loosen that up a bit if your running n 18 or 22 inch radius curves.
Len
Thanks for the responses, guys. I do have one curve that is 18" radius, but I don't have to use that all the time.
I'm hesitant to put a draw bar between the units because I'd like to be able to couple just the A unit to a train. However, I may look into short couplers and possibly some sort of doohickey on the B unit that the A coupler would latch onto. I'll have to experiment to see how close they can run without having problems. I understand the manufacturers providing couplers that will function on all curves, but it reminds me of most guitars you find in music shops. Unless they are really high end models, just about every guitar manufacturer ships their guitars with string set very high off of the fretboard. This makes them harder to play but eliminates any possibility of strings buzzing against the frets. You always have to lower the strings to optimized the playing action. Lowest common denominator.
Quote from: Len on December 14, 2015, 03:39:44 PM
Another option would be to use a drawbar between the units, as the prototype did initially. Prototype spacing between the A and B units would be 8ft from the center of the 'A' rear axle to the center of the 'B' front axle, as shown here:
(http://research.nprha.org/Diesel%20Diagrams/EMD%20FT%205400A-5410D.jpg)
You'll probably want to loosen that up a bit if your running n 18 or 22 inch radius curves.
Len
It may not be obvious, but take note that the "B" unit actually is coupled "backwards" compared to the "A" unit. This is in contrast to what you would normally see later on, and is but a glimpse at how different the FT was to newer types, including things like mechanically driven radiator fans instead of electric motor driven ones.
Len is correct in that most FT A-B sets came from the factory semi-permanently coupled with drawbars, and in fact the B unit could not be operated independently at all (the batteries for both units were in the A if I recall correctly). Some roads even had four unit sets coupled with drawbars throughout (Northern Pacific), and some roads (Great Northern and others) had three unit sets that were also drawbar connected, but the B unit was a special short version. This says much about the thinking of what made up a "locomotive" when these machines were being designed in the late 1930s.
Some roads, though, recognized the value of couplers throughout from the beginning, one of those being the Santa Fe. However, the design of the drawbar ends of the units required, as you may need, a special short coupler to work in the small space available--so, you are following the prototype there!
J3a-614,
Thanks for pointing out that detail about the AB orientation. I've been impressing my wife with my "knowledge" by pointing out (incorrectly) the B unit should face! My units are Erie locos, and almost all of the photos of Erie F units shows them in ABBA configuration, although its not always clear whether or not they are FTs.
I will probably put short-shank couplers on both A and B, but I have wondered whether a normal length coupler on the A unit might couple to a vertical post of appropriate size on the B unit reliably.
It may not be obvious, but take note that the "B" unit actually is coupled "backwards" compared to the "A" unit. Just curious what makes you say this? Joe
Quote from: bapguy on December 15, 2015, 09:33:14 AM
It may not be obvious, but take note that the "B" unit actually is coupled "backwards" compared to the "A" unit. Just curious what makes you say this? Joe
If you look at the builder's drawing above, you'll see that the two units look like mirror images. For example, my models have some ridges or vent on the rook that look like dynamic braking units. The A unit clearly has these toward the rear of the unit away from the cab. To me, when both units are "facing" the same direction, the B unit would have them also toward the rear of the train.
In actual fact, I guess it really doesn't matter since the units could run in both directions and an ABBA lash up would probably have two units reversed. However, the drawing suggests that AB pairs came from the factory oriented as shown with a draw bar rather than couplers.
They were sold in A/B set draw bared together to generate reasonable power to pull .Alone they would not have enough pop to win over the railroads and prove the diesel could run the main lines over Steam with there power and efficiency for less cost and maintenance.The story of how they evolved with all the experimental locos since is quite remarkable ,just as steam from its infancy .
Johnny Adam
The initial offering of the F-T's had them as a drawbar connected A-B set. The rear truck of the B unit was inset a couple of feet from the end of the body compared to the truck placement at the drawbar end, which matched the placement of the rear truck of the A unit. You can also see this on the folio drawing with the projected third B unit which also has the inset truck. The locos were sold as a two-unit set of 2,700 h.p., about equivalent to a medium to heavy 2-8-2.
The final arbiter of facts, Wikipedia, states: "The EMD FT was a 1,350-horsepower (1,010 kW) diesel-electric locomotive produced between November 1939 and November 1945, by General Motors' Electro-Motive Division (the "F" stood for 1400 horsepower (rounded from 1350) and the "T" for twin, as it came standard in a two-unit set). All told 555 cab-equipped A units were built, along with 541 cabless booster B units, for a grand total of 1,096 units."
Always assumed the "F" stood for "Freight" as in the Alco diesels. There were later EMD F-units equipped for passenger use, though.
More Wiki: " B units with couplers on both ends had a fifth window on one side for the hostler position, if equipped with hostler controls"
all makes and models of f units were used in passenger service, including the ft's. in a b unit it was relatively easy to add a boiler for steam heating the passenger cars, and EMD offered a variety of gear ratios that allowed for different top speeds. changing gear ratios was as simple as replacing the existing wheelsets and traction motors with others of the gear ratio you wanted. EMD parts were standardized, so these conversions used off the shelf parts.
in later f unit production, EMD introduced two new models specifically designed for passenger service, the fp7 and fp9. they were several feet longer than a standard f unit, and the added length allowed more room for a boiler in the a units, as well as a partitioned fuel/water tank that allowed these units to carry the same fuel as the standard f units as well as water for the boiler. both models were extensively used in passenger service, particularly in Canada.
Then there's the FL-9 used by New Haven: "The EMD FL9 (New Haven Class EDER-5) was a dual-power electro-diesel locomotive, capable of diesel-electric operation and as an electric locomotive powered from a third rail. Sixty units were built between October 1956 and November 1960 by General Motors Electro-Motive Division for the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad (the "New Haven"); The FL9 model was in direct competition with the less popular Fairbanks-Morse dual-power P-12-42 model."
to Eddystone : i was putting away some tools i had ordered from Micro-Mark and came across some coupling parts from Kadee that might allow you to modify your coupling assembly to allow for greater amount of swing . Checkout Kadee # 454 assemblies . These are supposed to allow longer cars to be able to run on 18 inch and 22 inch radius tracks while maintaining closer spacing . John2.
I need somthing like that for my p2k e9's.They still sit too far apart at the diaphragms even with the shortest kadee coupler.Where and who makes them?
Johnny
To brokenrail : They are made by Kadee . They are used in conjunction with their # 30 series of coupler components . Look on kadee's webpage for #454 assemblies .