---
Gary M. Collins gmcrailgNOSPAM@gmail.com
===================================
"Common Sense, Ain't!" -- G. M. Collins
http://fhn.site90.net
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
hobo9941 wrote:I've seen a couple posts about permanently connecting F-units with drawbars. Are drawbars available for close coupling F units, or do they have to be made by the modeler? I've used the Kadee #43 short shank couplers on some F units, but they stil aren't coupled close enough.
I raised the same question last year and got a great piece of advice. You can easily make your own by cutting up an old credit card to the right length and width and drilling a hole in each end. You just need to determine how close you want your units to be coupled and go from there. These homemade drawbars can then be painted a basic black. This was one of the best pieces of advice I've got from this forum. They were easy to build and work great.
riogrande5761 wrote:The question is, why draw bar F units. Pretty much only FT's came drawbarred and that had to do partly with some silly engineer law. Rio Grande received some with and some without drawbars and all the remaining F's (F3s F7s and F9s) all had couplers. Athearn blue box F's are the only ones that I'm aware of that are a pain in the tush to get close coupled so those would be the only ones that would Wii motely qualify.
because there wasn't a way to see out the back of one A, sets of Fs were treated as one engine on some roads, and didn't need a coupler because they'd never be comikng apart. EX: an ABBA would be numbered 4449. the lead would be 4449A, followed by 4449B, 4449C, and 4449D. Those that served as smaller sets and on smaller roads, where the ABBA long haul might become an AA or ABA or AB to handle the local run before merging again to go home, the couplers were needed to pull apart.
Least, I think I have that right. I've threatrened to drawbar lots of engines and cars due to less than steller couplers.
-Morgan
That 'Law' or 'Rule' dates back to a 1937 union agreement. The basic rule was that each 'cab' unit needed an engineer/fireman, or the tonnage was reduced to the maximum for the most powerful engine in the consist(steam engines as well). There was a Western Railroad agreement as well that protected conductors/brakemen as well. With double headed engines, only one set of conductor/brakemen were used rather than 2 sets. Most of the times a 'AA' set of passenger locomotives for a specific train was allowed by the unions, and a single crew could be used. The C&NW & Milw E3/E6's fell into this realm. The problem started when the C&NW split up 'AA' sets and single E6's were assigned to smaller '400' trains. The unions then stated getting interested in this as they knew diesel freight engines were around the corner.
Most early diesel sets were considered a single locomotive as they were assigned to specific passenger trains and were not broken up. With freight engines, there could be an issue. The EMD FT was usually delivered as an 'AB' set, and EMD even offered to 'drawbar' the 2 'AB' sets together an no charge if needed. The Santa Fe had their FT's delivered with couplers on all units, and when the unions started raising their concerns, Santa Fe instructed EMD to deliver the FT's as ABBB sets. By 1943 the issue was resolved(the Fed's used their heavy hand on the unions). I suspect impeding the 'war effort' was something the unions did not want to be accused of.
Anyway, the Santa Fe 'FS' kit for couplers on both ends of the FT's was a popular upgrade done by many railroads(as well as seperate starter batteries and a hostler control in the booster).
Jim Bernier
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Flashwave wrote: because there wasn't a way to see out the back of one A, sets of Fs were treated as one engine on some roads, and didn't need a coupler because they'd never be comikng apart.
because there wasn't a way to see out the back of one A, sets of Fs were treated as one engine on some roads, and didn't need a coupler because they'd never be comikng apart.
There was never any mention of that in Strapac's book regarding Rio Grande's draw barred FT's. However, F units were generally ran as AB or ABBA sets and mixing/matching power units didn't really get popular until the 1960's on the D&RGW. However, some of Rio Grande's FT's were delivered with drawbars between the A and B unit, but after a few years, any such units were converted to automatic couplers. I couldn't find any discussion of the union rules in that book so it must have been a magazine article relating it to the breaking up of power units and the draw bars. No F3's, F7's or F9's were delivered to the Rio Grande with draw bars according to Strapac's book.
Standard reply to coupler issues = KD's ;)
An interesting side-bar to this is, we always talk about A-B-A and A-B-B-A sets in the lash-up. But the Western Pacific for their frieght trains prefered to run A-A-A units and ran them all face forward. I never have run across a reason for this. I only assume that they had fewer "B" units and they were tied up with the CZ. then in later years they were probably able to sell off the "B" units and kept the head-end "A"s and ran them together. This still does not explain why they ran them all facing forward. If anyone has the answer, would sure be glad to know.
Johnboy out.......................
from Saskatchewan, in the Great White North..
We have met the enemy, and he is us............ (Pogo)
Iposted this photo in another thread several days ago. It illustrates how the protoype did use drawbars instead of couplers on F units. For modeling, hoever, it's more convenient to have couplers. (The photo is published in the CB&Q in Color series by M. Spoor.)
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
user="last mountain & eastern hogger" An interesting side-bar to this is, we always talk about A-B-A and A-B-B-A sets in the lash-up. But the Western Pacific for their frieght trains prefered to run A-A-A units and ran them all face forward. I never have run across a reason for this. I only assume that they had fewer "B" units and they were tied up with the CZ. then in later years they were probably able to sell off the "B" units and kept the head-end "A"s and ran them together. This still does not explain why they ran them all facing forward. If anyone has the answer, would sure be glad to know. Johnboy out.......................
I honestly can't remember ever seeing a photo of an AAA lashup all facing forward - so I didn't get the impression that was the rule with WP. I have casually followed the WP because it was the freight connection to the Rio Grande in the 70's and I had a college room mate in Sacramento who worked for the WP and his father and grandfather also worked for the WP. WP had B units like any other RR and from what I can tell used ABA or ABBA lashups early on like the Rio Grande did and in the 1960's they mixed them up in all different configurations. Its true at the end, there were only 4 A units left. The fab 4 at the end ran typically with 3 units one direcction and the 4th facing the opposite way. I don't have any WP books but have some magazine articles which include F unit photo's, like an article on the inside gateway etc.
Hi,
To the best of my knowledge, only FTs had drawbars, and as indicated in earlier postings it was to allow reduced manpower (i.e. an FT A/B would be one loco and not two - requiring an additional crew). Santa Fe used drawbars a lot in the earlier years but they were dropped later on (when the union agreements were made).
Stewart FTs come with two sizes of drawbars, and you can order replacements from them. I have also made a couple from a strip of styrene, basically about 2 inches by 1/4 inch with a hole in each end.
Instead of drawbars, I would take advantage of the close coupling kits offered by KD, and to add to it, I would apply American Limited diagphrams to the locos. By the way, you may have to experiment with the drawbar length, as a "too short" one may not allow the locos to make the sharper curves on your layout.
ENJOY,
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
riogrande5761 wrote: Flashwave wrote: because there wasn't a way to see out the back of one A, sets of Fs were treated as one engine on some roads, and didn't need a coupler because they'd never be comikng apart.There was never any mention of that in Strapac's book regarding Rio Grande's draw barred FT's. However, F units were generally ran as AB or ABBA sets and mixing/matching power units didn't really get popular until the 1960's on the D&RGW. However, some of Rio Grande's FT's were delivered with drawbars between the A and B unit, but after a few years, any such units were converted to automatic couplers. I couldn't find any discussion of the union rules in that book so it must have been a magazine article relating it to the breaking up of power units and the draw bars. No F3's, F7's or F9's were delivered to the Rio Grande with draw bars according to Strapac's book. Least, I think I have that right. I've threatrened to drawbar lots of engines and cars due to less than steller couplers. Standard reply to coupler issues = KD's ;)
Standard reply to KD #5s failing = Drawbars. (Ask me how I know.
May not be true for Rio. But in almost any F, when backing you had an as bad or worse veiw than you did in a steam loco
Sure, F units aren't friendly for backing up. But I've never heard of that as a reason for using draw bars or read it in any publication, or book.
explain please - what you typed makes no sense. Full sentences and explanations help.
riogrande5761 wrote: May not be true for Rio. But in almost any F, when backing you had an as bad or worse veiw than you did in a steam loco Sure, F units aren't friendly for backing up. But I've never heard of that as a reason for using draw bars or read it in any publication, or book.Standard reply to KD #5s failing = Drawbars. (Ask me how I know.explain please - what you typed makes no sense. Full sentences and explanations help.
1) I was more refferring to the keeping as 1 loco
2)for that I was oplaying off our last few terms. I've been rolling fine up hills with a string o cars on the club layout, and then 5 or 6 cars with Kadee #5s on them decide they want to break away and hide in that tunnel at the base of the hill where it's almost impossible to fish them out and pushing with the remaining train to get them results in derailments. And after a few words more colorful than some schemes, I've threatened to reconnect those cars permantly with drawbars.
I'm one of the few oddites that has had as good or better luck with horn-hooks than Kadees.
The early FTcame draw-barr'd A + Bs. 1. Two diesels designed to sub for 1 steam freight . 2.to get around Union rules for both a fireman and engineer for each engine (then modified to each engine with Cab).
Santa Fe, with water problems west of the Continental Divide (and one of the first to use) odered all of theirs with individual coupling.
MODEL ENGINES, when Draw-barr'd, run tighter (no slack) together but lose flexibilty, - especially when transporting same (I had ABBB and ABBA FT lashups).
Flshwave: When draw-barr'd in tunnels when one engine tips over, they ALL tip over.
riogrande5761: I nver have had a problem 'backing up' any F units except for 'Talgo' types. Where did I go wrong?
Don Gibson wrote: The early FTcame draw-barr'd A + Bs. 1. Two diesels designed to sub for 1 steam freight . 2.to get around Union rules for both a fireman and engineer for each engine (then modified to each engine with Cab).Santa Fe, with water problems west of the Continental Divide (and one of the first to use) odered all of theirs with individual coupling.MODEL ENGINES, when Draw-barr'd, run tighter (no slack) together but lose flexibilty, - especially when transporting same (I had ABBB and ABBA FT lashups). Flshwave: When draw-barr'd in tunnels when one engine tips over, they ALL tip over.riogrande5761: I nver have had a problem 'backing up' any F units except for 'Talgo' types. Where did I go wrong?
Which is about my luck anyway. sometimes I could swear I've ticked off the MR gods.
davidmbedard wrote: Drawbars on F3 and later models is just silly. There are plenty of ways to get scale coupling between these units.David B
Drawbars on F3 and later models is just silly. There are plenty of ways to get scale coupling between these units.
David B
Not silly at all. I have a number of F-unit AB sets, both F3s and F7s. I run with DCC and assigned the A&B units the same address, so I have no plans to run them as seperate units. The F7s are BLIs and Athearn Genesis, which came with diaphrams and properly spaced couplers. Not so with the P1K F3s. They had no diaphrams and the spacing was wrong. I added some inexpensive diaphrams and could have spent some additional bucks to get short shanked couplers that would allow them to close couple. But why when I can easily make a drawbar and get exactly the spacing I want. With the diaphrams, you can't tell if there is a coupler or a drawbar unless you look at it from below which I don't do. Using the home made drawbars was a practical solution. It saved me money and doesn't detract from their appearance at all.
jecorbett wrote: davidmbedard wrote: Drawbars on F3 and later models is just silly. There are plenty of ways to get scale coupling between these units.David BNot silly at all. I have a number of F-unit AB sets, both F3s and F7s. I run with DCC and assigned the A&B units the same address, so I have no plans to run them as seperate units. The F7s are BLIs and Athearn Genesis, which came with diaphrams and properly spaced couplers. Not so with the P1K F3s. They had no diaphrams and the spacing was wrong. I added some inexpensive diaphrams and could have spent some additional bucks to get short shanked couplers that would allow them to close couple. But why when I can easily make a drawbar and get exactly the spacing I want. With the diaphrams, you can't tell if there is a coupler or a drawbar unless you look at it from below which I don't do. Using the home made drawbars was a practical solution. It saved me money and doesn't detract from their appearance at all.
That's great info and well writtten Jecorbett. I would, however, suggest that modelers check the prototypes. The photo I posted earlier shows my prototype, CB&Q, operated F3's without diaphragms.
This is a very old thread but I would like to offer a correction to this comment. Four of the Rio Grande's FT ABBA sets had drawbars between the A and B units. They were 5481-5484, 5491-5494, 5501-5504, and 5511-5514. As far as I can tell they retained these drawbars until the end.
riogrande5761There was never any mention of that in Strapac's book regarding Rio Grande's draw barred FT's. However, F units were generally ran as AB or ABBA sets and mixing/matching power units didn't really get popular until the 1960's on the D&RGW. However, some of Rio Grande's FT's were delivered with drawbars between the A and B unit, but after a few years, any such units were converted to automatic couplers.
I recall that after a lot of experimenting with hooking several Stewart Santa Fe Ft A units to B units, I ended up making my own drawbars. Using pieces of scape styrene, I cut them into something comparable to a "figure 8", and after a couple of tries I found the right size that looked good and allowed the locos to go thru a #4 turnout.
Connecting Bs to Bs (to get an ABBA consist), I used the specialty KD coupler assemblies made for that purpose.
The solution worked, and lasted from the early 2000s until I sold them all in 2020.
STEVEN SEGUINE This is a very old thread but I would like to offer a correction to this comment.
This is a very old thread but I would like to offer a correction to this comment.
Hopefully, riogrande5761 will spot this revival and defend his viewpoint.
Rich
Alton Junction
Major necro there Steven. BTW, you sent me a bunch of copies of slides. I don't know if we ever finished that project. Sixteen years ago were different times and I'll have to revisit my copy of Rio Grande Diesels Vol 1. I haven't read the FT section probably in that long!
I moved into a house with a basement 6 years ago, a fixer upper, but do have a Rio Grande layout in progress. Been recently putting down sanded grout for textured desert floor since I'm trying to capture the look of west of grand junction.
Well, as long as we're revising this old thread....
Generally the drawbar was only between an A and a B unit; although with FTs some railroads used the FTSB (FT Short Booster) to make an A-B-A set. In the 1940s most railroads still did repairs and maintenance in roundhouses. An A-B set of F's would fit on a typical steam era turntable, three units wouldn't.
For models, I have used a dummy B unit connected by drawbar to a powered A unit to hold a large speaker for the A unit's sound decoder a couple of times. Some manufacturers make E-unit decoders that simulate the sound of two EMD motors running together that can help conceal that only one unit has sound.
You may be surprised what people do or do not see. Years ago I removed a pilot truck from a steam engine that was giving me fits and had some rivet counters over. Not one person mentioned it among their nit picking comments. People see what they want to see and drawbars are generally assumed to be couplers. When I use them I try to make them wider where the couplers would be.