Chad
I do a lot of Freight and Passenger car scratch building I try
to put as much detail as I can into each car.
How ever when it comes to Flat cars and Gondolas that have
fishbelly sides that completely hide any under body detail I
leave it out, except for the center sills and cross members.
So, my bottom line is if you can't see it I don't model it. This
leaves me more time to do the fine detail that you can see.

Ed Ursem

Richard said, "In my opinion, it is pointless to model underframe details which are invisible when the car is on the track. . . ," NOT "it is pointless to model ANY underframe details." Certainly his statement does not say, "leave it all off, including the center sill."

Walt Lankenau

Larry, I am with you on this. Keith Retterer produced castings of these a long time ago. He also made the 3 panel 10' IH Creco Doors that were used on C&O's 1937 10'IH Box Cars. We need another producer for both of these parts!
 
Rich Christie


________________________________
From: Larry Sexton <SSEXTON9@...>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2011 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] RE: Buckeye ends (was Erie 78000-78499)


 
Does anyone beside Sunshine Models make a separate Buckeye end applicable
for the ERIE 78-78499 series boxcars, and if so, is it currently avalible?

Larry Sexton

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:27 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: Buckeye ends (was Erie 78000-78499)

On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Brian J Carlson wrote:

Yes. The 1923 ARA cars in series 75500-75999 had Buckeye Ends that
had the
panel seam on a corrugation. see page 94 of RPC 18. The 1932 ARA
cars and
these cars had the panel seam between the corrugations.

I'll add to this that the corrugations on the later Buckeye ends were
shaped somewhat differently than those on the earlier ends, with a
pronounced taper at the ends, in contrast to the flat ends on the
earlier corrugations. This is is readily visible in photos of the
Erie's 1932 ARA cars vs. the 1923 ARA cars.

Richard Hendrickson

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

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




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

Tony

But that is EXACTLY how to interpret Richard's statement. Since
the underframe on house cars is invisible from most viewing angles,
it can be eliminated. That is what Model Die Casting did on their
FMC box cars (a half dozen different models), and I think those
models are 100% in conformance with Richard's statement. This is
not a straw man -- it is a fact that found it's way to hobby
shelves for almost 20 years. For Chad to do the same thing with
his flat cars would be a giant leap backwards, IMO.

Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor wrote:

What straw man would that be, exactly?

That would be your sweeping statement, and I quote, "Your argument
makes the case for the elimination of nearly all underframe details of
any kind, including the underframe itself!!!"
Richard, of course, said no such thing.

Tony Thompson

Hello folks,

After more years than I can remember I have finally worn out the gloves on my North Coast Proroype Models aluminun oxide blaster. Does anyone have a valid telephone number for John Polyak these days or know where a pair of replacement gloves can be purchased. The Tractor Supply Co. has some that are similar but not the same and I woud like to replace them in kind if possible. Both numbers I have for John seem no longer to be valid. Hard to clean old and grimy steam era freight cars without the blaster working. (-:

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Don Valentine

Tim O'Connor wrote:

What straw man would that be, exactly?

That would be your sweeping statement, and I quote, "Your argument
makes the case for the elimination of nearly all underframe details of
any kind, including the underframe itself!!!"
Richard, of course, said no such thing.

Tony Thompson

I got the MDT book today and think it's outstanding. I hope it inspires a manufacturer to bring out some MDT cars.


As an aside, I ordered the book a little while ago and was wondering why it hadn't arrived. Well, it had arrived, but my wife intercepted it and hid it from me. Then she wrapped it and gave it to me for my birthday today. Clever, sneaky woman!


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon


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

The B&O Parkersburg subdivision (Grafton - Parkersburg) had 21 tunnels, most of which were constructed in the 1850's. Mark Twain travelled this route once and dubbed it a subway in the mountains.

Most of these tunnels were deepened, heightened, daylighted, replaced or bypassed in three construction programs during 1953, 1957, and 1963. Completion of the 1957 program allowed the 50' boxcars. The 1963 program allowed full piggyback.

Prior to those programs, offending high clearance cars were segregated at upstream yards and forwarded on High-Car specials on a somewhat parallel Parkersburg - New Martinsville - Grafton routing. Extra time, extra cost. Not good for a railroad with an intrinsically inferior route in the first place.

Yard clerks were well versed in what cars cleared and which did not. Their jobs depended on it.

Nominally, one could squeeze a lot of the forbidden boxcars through, but not at track speed. There has to be an allowance for rocking motion, especially so in curved tunnels. High boxcars were vulnerable at the roof eaves, such as lateral running board hand holds.

With their curved roof profile, B&O wagontops cleared these tunnels while maintaining a full interior height. By design intent.

The circel T stencil meant that such boxcars could go anywhere on B&O, the Parkersburg Sub was a limiting factor to be addressed.

Not quite prototype, but still a problem with models of this vintage.

A few of my locomotives suffer from severe surging when running down grade. I just had two derailments on a 2% down grade and 48" radius curve (HO) when the train piled up against the locomotives and the first few cars in the train were shoved off the track.

These were Stewart units that are otherwise very good running units. I know the answer is to put bushings in the drive mechanism to take up the slack. Does anyone know of a web site or other information source that discusses the details of this surgery?

Earl Hackett
Modeling the C&O in 1952

After more years than I can remember I have finally worn out the gloves on my North Coast Proroype Models aluminun oxide blaster. Does anyone have a valid telephone number for John Polyak these days or know where a pair of replacement gloves can be purchased. The Tractor Supply Co. has some that are similar but not the same and I woud like to replace them in kind if possible. Both numbers I have for John seem no longer to be valid. Hard to clean old and grimy steam era freight cars without the blaster working. (-:

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Don Valentine

As happens from time to time, Tim creates a straw man and then
kicks the stuffing out of it. <g> Richard most assuredly did not say
he ignores underframes, and if Tim had had the pleasure of seeing a
bunch of Richard's freight cars, he would know that Richard DOES
include brake rigging on any car for which a side view makes it
visible, and also includes complete piping on cars where it can be seen.
I would not like to see freight car kits (or RTR) with detail-
less underframes, but on house cars I too often omit brake PIPING if
the only way it can be seen is by inverting the car. I do generally
add all brake levers and rods, because usually they can be seen. And
on fishbelly-side-sill cars, I may only install the reservoir and
cylinder. For me, it DOES depend on the individual car.

Tony Thompson