Re: Suitable kits for SP B-50-38 or B-50-41?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>

Kurt Laughlin wrote:
. . . I determined which roads had the most boxcars and proportioned my XM/XML/XME fleet accordingly. (As it turns out I need one SP 40-footer and one SP 50-footer.) I then looked at
the ORER recapitulation tables and saw which inside lengths were most common (50-6 in this case), then found which basic dimensions with that length were most common (50-6 x 9-4 x 10-6), and decided to get a car of that inside size. Sure, it ain't all about the inside, but it's _reasonable_ for my purposes.
That's fine, Kurt, but not my point: I was talking about interchangeability of MODELS.

. . . if I want to represent a 50-foot SP car in Beaver Falls, PA, a de-racked A-50-17 is as good as a B-50-36 is as good as a B-50-41.
No argument, just keep in mind that these three cars are NOT modeled the same way. If your only intention is to choose ONE of those classes, and model it, fine.

The B-50-35, 210556-211305, cars were listed as 50-6 x 9-4 x 10-5 in my book, so they didn't make the cut. I realize that from the outside these might not be distinguishable from others I chose . . .
Okay, I understand your criterion--weird as it seems; why care about that missing inch in height when externals are changing all over the map--and you are of course free to act on that idea if you really want to.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Join to automatically receive all group messages.