Sounds like you're on the wrong list if you don't give a "big fat hairy" whatever. I think the purpose of this list is pointing out the finer points and modeling accordingly. You can take shortcuts or make compromises and we will not criticize you but don't take us to task for caring.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
--- In STMFC@..., "jim_mischke" <jmischke@...> wrote:
Pardon me for a basic question.
In modeling, why do we rivet counters care so much about the number of stake pockets on a flat car? They are not a structural car part. Easily changed on models by modelers, although never changed by the prototype roads.
The greater modeling challenge is getting the side sill profile correct. Overall length, heights, and taper. Proportions. With a believeable complement of rivet lines.
This question comes from trying to get a B&O flat car produced by manufacturers, or adapted from an existing product. I have been howled out of the room by modeling peers for even suggesting an otherwise decent model as a potential B&O prototype, only because the number of stake pockets was one off. I am still smarting. Ten or eleven stake pockets? Big fat hairy deal.
--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@> wrote:
If those are the SAL cars I'm thinking of, they only had 11 stake pockets,
and all of them were rebuilt as pulpwood flats before 1950.
What a find! Look at that--it even has K brakes on it. Wow! I would bet the deck is original too. Seaboard had some very similar cars from TC&I and I'll take a look and see how close they were. SAL's cars were F-4 class.