Re: Those Pesky Offset Twin hoppers


water.kresse@...
 

Ed,



Are talking about extended-ends and end-extensions when we mention "heap-shields"?



Don't what is slang and what is "correct" terminology for these.



Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Hawkins" <hawk0621@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 10:15:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Those Pesky Offset Twin hoppers


On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Bill Welch wrote:

<SNIP>
 So okay they are only doing one basic car body, especially as related
 to the bottom of the side of the car. But they have failed to do the
 cars with the heap shields. Several railroads had cars with this
 configuration in small and large numbers. The L&N had only 7,200 cars
 with angled heap shields and only 8,800 cars with the notched angular
 heap shields. I have not calculated how many L&N cars matched the
 Kadee car side but I know many did.

 What really bugs me is that model companies do not see the
 possibilities if they would adopt a modular approach to what they are
 doing. By doing 3 sides and ends w/both straight tops and the
 various heap shield designs, most of those 127,000 cars could be
 modeled and almost all of the railroads in Ed's 2 and 3/4 page table
 covering over 55 railroads could be done. I did not include the IC's
 cars and their cousins. And many people do not want just 1-3 offset
 twins.

 While Kadee does beautiful models, and have added to the technology
 and engineering of modeling in the way they have approached their
 subjects, I would also argue that they have outsmarted themselves
 with their approach to this particular car type and I think the shear
 number of cars their model does not represent backs me up.

 I hope that one of the manufacturers will wake up and see the
 possibilities.
Bill,
The L&N had 3 series representing 5,000 prototype cars having side
arrangements essentially matching the Kadee model (not considering any
variations in the orientation of the side-stake angles). These were
series 32000-33999 (P-S 3-49), 76150-77649 (BSC 12-47), and 77750-79149
(P-S 3-48). As you pointed out, the difference is the end arrangement
having angular notched heap shields. If Kadee tooled a new pair of ends
having these heap shields, then additional models would include A&WP,
GA, Montour, SL-SF, TC, and WofA representing an additional 925
prototype cars.

If Kadee would tool the flat end arrangement used by B&O on their N-41
and N-44 cars (having regular AAR underframes) with Z-section vertical
supports, 8,000 prototype cars for B&O, LNE, and P&S would be
accurately represented (and possibly 500 more cars for CRP/CNJ).

Kadee has not yet produced models for two roads (ATSF and SL-SF) that
otherwise would match their model because the prototype cars had
Enterprise Type D door locks. Kadee offers models having Enterprise
latch and Wine door locks, which were the two most common types. The
NYC cars have been announced, and perhaps soon the C&EI cars will be
produced.

Regarding your comments about adopting a modular approach, Kadee's
model was designed essentially as a module in which each side and each
end are separate inserts. The core compromises the slope sheets and
hopper bottoms. Everything else is a detail part. Theoretically a new
pair of end inserts having the notched angular heap shields could be
tooled. The ends would be identical to the flat-top ends currently
available except they would have the correct heap shields for your L&N
cars and other roads identified above.

In my conversations with Kadee, it's my understanding that the company
has considered tooling ends having the heap shields as well as the ends
correct for the B&O N-41 and N-44 cars. Why hasn't Kadee produced these
variations? It comes down to the tooling cost versus the profit
potential. It's apparent to me that Kadee hasn't been able to justify
the cost versus the projected profit to be made for either of these
variations. If an entrepreneur or the L&N/B&O Historical Society could
guarantee sufficient sales to Kadee (i.e., a proprietary project), then
I believe Kadee would be open to tool the new ends.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.