Date   

Model Railroad Hobbyist online magazine

Bill Welch
 

The November and December issues of the online Model Railroad
Hobbyist magazine has prototype modeling articles by Jack Burgess and
Tony Thompson respectively.
Bill Welch


Re: Flat car underbody question

Tim O'Connor
 

Ed

When the basic structure is there (floor, center sill, bolsters,
cross members, draft gear), the super-details can be (1) left off
or (2) postponed. In other words, if you ever change eras or
whatever, someone who buys your model has the choice to add those
details if that is something they like to do.

So in spite of your statement, you actually DO model details that
can't be seen. You just don't model ALL of them.

Tim O'Connor

-------------------------------------------

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


Abacus models/ MDT steam era reefers/Doc Denny

ed_mines
 

Abacus announced several models already on the market.

Considering the excellent HO scale plans provided in Roger's articles in "Mainline Modeler" I wonder why more men aren't considering building models the old fashioned way like Mainline or Ambroid. $40 is a little steep for something so easy to build.

Lastly, I have seen amy posts from the other lover of old wood kits - Doc Denny. I haven't seen any posts from him lately. Is he OK or aren't I spending enough time reading the messages?

Ed Mines


Flat car underbody question

Ed <nprybiged@...>
 

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


Re: Flat car underbody question

Tim O'Connor
 

Walt

Can you see the center sill of a box car when it is on your track?
I've seen a lot of layouts, and I'm safe saying that on 95% of the
layouts, it cannot be seen by an adult standing at trackside.

There is such a thing as the logical implication of a statement.

If for example, I say that I am flying to Cocoa Beach, you probably
would conclude that I am traveling on an airplane and have not grown
a pair of wings. You draw such an inference without a second thought.
Why do you suddenly develop an inability to make an inference about
the phrase "invisible when the car is on the track"?

Tim O'Connor

At 12/5/2011 01:00 PM Monday, you wrote:
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


Re: Buckeye ends (was Erie 78000-78499)

ed_mines
 

I'm not sure if these Buckeye ends were made for that series or taller auto box cars but Red Ball had both cast metal & plastic ends and Roller Bearing had very nice resin ends.

Ed Mines

--- In STMFC@..., Rich C <rhcdmc@...> wrote:

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@...
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@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:27 PM
To: STMFC@...
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]


Re: Flat car underbody question

mcindoefalls
 

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

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

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


Tight clearances on B&O, was, Re: B&O Circle T stencil

rwitt_2000
 

Tim,

It is the designation as suitable for LCL service that is the key. The
reply was fixated on the Parkersburg Branch, but there were other
portions on the B&O that also had restricted clearances. Thus a box car
suitable for LCL service that was stenciled with a circle "T" had to be
able to travel anywhere on the B&O system without restrictions. A very
good example of the clearance problems still faced by the B&O even in
the late 1950s was their "custom" order for 40-ft, PS-1 box cars in 1957
with an interior height of 10-ft where the standard PS-1 nearly always
had an interior height of 10-ft 6-inches. And of course, some of these
brand new PS-1 carried a circle "T" stencil. Before 1960 essentially all
single door box cars on the B&O with an interior length of 40'-6" had a
interior height of 10-ft or less.

Regards,

Bob Witt



> Jim Mischke wrote: "The circle T stencil meant that such boxcars
could go anywhere on B&O,
> the Parkersburg Sub was a limiting factor to be addressed."

Tim O'Connor wrote:

WHAT??? I have more than a dozen saved emails from Jim Mischke, Dave
Sieber,
Pat Wider, Ken Braden, others, including direct quotations from B&O
company
memos, going back 8 years, saying

circle T - fit for Timesaver LCL service (clean, mechanically
sound)

By the same token, a car stenciled this way was also able to travel
over the
Parkersburg Sub. But that was not the "meaning" of the stencil
according to
all of those other posts.

Tim O'Connor


Re: North Coast Prototype Models

jerryglow2
 

I had a different make and wore mine out also and now use kitchen gloves (the kind for dishwahing). Not as sturdy but a lot more flexible and readily available.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@..., "Don" <riverman_vt@...> wrote:

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


Re: Tight clearances on B&O, was, Re: B&O Circle T stencil

Tim O'Connor
 

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


WHAT??? I have more than a dozen saved emails from Jim Mischke, Dave Sieber,
Pat Wider, Ken Braden, others, including direct quotations from B&O company
memos, going back 8 years, saying

circle T - fit for Timesaver LCL service (clean, mechanically sound)

By the same token, a car stenciled this way was also able to travel over the
Parkersburg Sub. But that was not the "meaning" of the stencil according to
all of those other posts.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Surging control

Tim O'Connor
 

Schuyler wrote

The usual fix is to place washers on either end of the worm gear in the
trucks so as to reduce to a minimum the forward and backward motion of the
worm gear. Not so much as to introduce any bind in the worm gear's
rotation, but so that it will only slide back and forth a few thousandths.
The surging comes about from the wheels trying to push the gears faster than
the motor is running them, so they push the worm gear to one extreme end,
and they momentarily bind up, the locomotive bucks, this reduces the
binding, and the cycle repeats.

I agree but a more basic question is, are these Kato Stewarts or the more
recent home-made drives? I have a lot of Stewart F units, and I've never
seen them bind up on a downgrade. But maybe my freight cars are not as
free rolling as Earl's must be...

Tim O'


Re: Flat car underbody question

Tim O'Connor
 

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


Re: MDT book

Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
 

All I'm permitted to say, is that I know 2 manufacturers who between them are working on at least 4 models in HO.
Patience.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@..., richtownsend@... wrote:

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]


Tight clearances on B&O, was, Re: B&O Circle T stencil

Scott Pitzer
 

Seems like they almost could have left of the bottom of the circle and let the T stand for Tunnel...
Scott Pitzer


Tight clearances on B&O, was, Re: B&O Circle T stencil

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Jim--

Thank you for such a very informative post.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., "jim_mischke" <jmischke@...> wrote:



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.


Re: Surging control

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Obviously, those "first few cars in the train" were ALL steam-era freight
cars . . .



The usual fix is to place washers on either end of the worm gear in the
trucks so as to reduce to a minimum the forward and backward motion of the
worm gear. Not so much as to introduce any bind in the worm gear's
rotation, but so that it will only slide back and forth a few thousandths.
The surging comes about from the wheels trying to push the gears faster than
the motor is running them, so they push the worm gear to one extreme end,
and they momentarily bind up, the locomotive bucks, this reduces the
binding, and the cycle repeats.



I second Tim's endorsement of the Repower and Regear list, but I don't think
you need to go there for as straightforward a problem as this.



Schuyler



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
hacketet
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 9:18 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Surging control





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








=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.18820)
http://www.pctools.com <http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
=======





=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.18820)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======


Re: Flat car underbody question

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

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


Re: Surging control

Tim O'Connor
 

Earl

I suggest this wonderful Yahoo group: repowerandregear

Tim O'Connor

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


Re: North Coast Prototype Models

Tim O'Connor
 

Don

John is at <jrpolyak@...>

I bought a replacement pair last year... also a new bucket of grit :-)

Tim O'

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


Re: Flat car underbody question

Tim O'Connor
 

Tony

What straw man would that be, exactly?

Richard wrote: "... it is pointless to model underframe details
which are invisible when the car is on the track"

I responded to that. In my English language, Richard's statement
is crystal clear. When house cars are on the track, in MOST cases
you cannot see the crossbearers, bolsters, center sill, draft gear
(except for the ends of the draft gear). They are invisible.

This is true even when you are looking at the car from the side,
unless you are actually looking UP at the car's underbody, which is
quite rare on most layouts, although it may be true on Richard's
layout.

As for your CHOICE not to install the rods etc, truthfully I do
not always install those details. But I already said that. I have
done the lead weights in the center sill of flat cars (Sunshine),
and other such cases. And some models preclude proper underframe
details (e.g. Tangent and Proto 2000 gondolas), because the vendor
has already made the choice to omit a proper underframe for you!

I know Richard adds these details to most of his models -- hence
my consternation that he would make such a broad statement! He's
a very influential guy, and if Athearn or another manufacturer read
what he wrote they could EASILY interpret it as literally as I do.

Cars that do conform to Richard's statement include all of the old
Model Die Casting 50 foot FMC box cars for example. The underbody
on those models is basically a slab of plastic, sans detail. Please
let's not go back to those bad old days!

Tim O'Connor

---------------------------------------------

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

88621 - 88640 of 193499