Date   

Re: Potential Mini-Kit or Kit variation suggestion for Westerfield Line

Bill Welch
 

Elden:

This is a good list and I hope you will add more as it is hard to know what might appeal to someone and they will give it a try. I hope others will will make their own submissions also!

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Gatwood, Elden SAW" <elden.j.gatwood@...> wrote:

Bill, that's an excellent suggestion! Somewhat ignored is an
understatement...

While we're doing dream lists:

I would like to add:

a P&LE drop end, and side "patch" panels and decals, for the P&LE version
Westy kitbash USRA 46' gon;

Pullman-Standard drop end and etched tie-downs, for the P-S version kitbash
of the Tangent gon, as PRR class G31A;

Forty-foot overhanging diagonal panel roof, and underframe/side sill add-ons,
for PRR X29F and G rebuilds.

Man, I could go on and on....

Elden Gatwood


Re: Potential Mini-Kit or Kit variation suggestion for Westerfield Line

Larry Sexton
 

Bill,



Could you specify which series of Reading steel boxcars you are referencing?
I will assume you are referring to the Reading 100000-100499 series which
were 8'07" IH and the 7/8 Murphy steel ends. I agree it would be great to be
able to accurately model these cars but so far no one has developed the
required parts.



What about the DL&W 47000-47699 series which were also 8'07" IH, but with
the Hutchins dry lading roof and the 4/4 dreadnaught steel ends?



What would fill a larger niche for Northeastern steel cars for the CNJ, the
Reading and the NYC would be models of the USRA design steel boxcars with
9'03" IH. And yes, I understand that it is really up to more of us to learn
how to create the required patterns so the cars can be built and I'm working
on that, one necessary bit at a time. I have a set of NYC drawings so don't
be surprised to have me ask you if you want to work through the developing
the sides for the 9'03" IH design cars.



Larry Sexton



From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Welch
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 3:19 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Potential Mini-Kit or Kit variation suggestion for
Westerfield Line





For whatever reason, I find the early NYC steel cars a challenge to
get my head around so I was rereading Pat Wider's RP CYC #21 article
again. Heretofore I had not noticed that the Reading owned a 1000
cars that would apparently only require a pair of Car Builder doors,
a quartet of door stop castings, decals and Andrews trucks to provide
a nice variation plus provide a northeastern RR boxcar model, a
region somewhat ignored IMO.
Bill Welch


Re: Small scale manufacturing

Scott Pitzer
 

Now that you guys (apparently) have sponsorship, from a glue company, you may do okay.
Scott Pitzer

On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:51 PM, "lnbill" <fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

Indeed Tony, I was having difficulty figuring out the spelling, a common problem I have. I should have gone with the easier to spell underground" which was the other term people seemed to like IIRC.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Bill Welch wrote:
I highlighted the Door project you did as an example of what I
characterized as a "Gorilla kit and parts movement."
Just so no one thinks this is a "strong-arm" movement <g>, I
would suggest that Bill meant to type "Guerilla kit . . ."

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

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


Re: Small scale manufacturing

Bill Welch
 

Indeed Tony, I was having difficulty figuring out the spelling, a common problem I have. I should have gone with the easier to spell underground" which was the other term people seemed to like IIRC.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Bill Welch wrote:
I highlighted the Door project you did as an example of what I
characterized as a "Gorilla kit and parts movement."
Just so no one thinks this is a "strong-arm" movement <g>, I
would suggest that Bill meant to type "Guerilla kit . . ."

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: Cocoa Beach Prototype Rails - Low volume "manufacturing"

Bill Welch
 

Dear Dave:

Please DO NOT RETIRE as you clearly have the ability to take the ramblings of several of us and find the common threads in them and then restate them in a way that helps all of us make sense of what were are trying to get to. I for one really appreciate what you are doing.

Bill Welch



Dave Evans
Now retiring from what may have been a feeble attempt as a recording secretary for the panel....


Re: Small scale manufacturing

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Bill Welch wrote:
I highlighted the Door project you did as an example of what I characterized as a "Gorilla kit and parts movement."
Just so no one thinks this is a "strong-arm" movement <g>, I would suggest that Bill meant to type "Guerilla kit . . ."

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Small scale manufacturing

Bill Welch
 

Clark

I highlighted the Door project you did as an example of what I characterized as a "Gorilla kit and parts movement." One thing we did not spend enough time talking about was Chad's flat car project that resulted in a series of kits for several railroads. I apologize to everyone for not giving that more airtime because it it a great example of the way these little project can blossom.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, <cepropst@...> wrote:

I wasn’t able to attend the CCB meet. I assume a “Panel Discussion� Would be a panel discussing a subject. The audience would keep their yaps shut unless the panel asked for questions or comments.

Here’s what I do know from ‘marketing’ two small runs of resin. You have to want to for the following reasons.
1- You want the piece yourself.
2- There is demand for the piece.
3- It ain’t about the money.

1- Chad Boas and I talked about a flat car model I would like. Turned out to be a good idea and Chad sold a lot of them. (he’s working on more)
2- I had Chad make some doors because I was tied of looking at models with the wrong doors. There was enough demand to sell about 30 sets so far.
3- While Chad did quite well with the flat cars. I made enough off the doors to buy a resin kit.
Oh. The car the doors are made for is too new for me.

Major consideration is the availability for the customer to get the supporting pieces. Core model and decals. Why make a part for a P2K box car kit when none are to be had?

My two cents...
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa

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


Re: Potential Mini-Kit or Kit variation suggestion for Westerfield Line

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Bill, that's an excellent suggestion! Somewhat ignored is an
understatement...



While we're doing dream lists:



I would like to add:



a P&LE drop end, and side "patch" panels and decals, for the P&LE version
Westy kitbash USRA 46' gon;



Pullman-Standard drop end and etched tie-downs, for the P-S version kitbash
of the Tangent gon, as PRR class G31A;



Forty-foot overhanging diagonal panel roof, and underframe/side sill add-ons,
for PRR X29F and G rebuilds.



Man, I could go on and on....





Elden Gatwood





From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Welch
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 3:19 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Potential Mini-Kit or Kit variation suggestion for
Westerfield Line





For whatever reason, I find the early NYC steel cars a challenge to
get my head around so I was rereading Pat Wider's RP CYC #21 article
again. Heretofore I had not noticed that the Reading owned a 1000
cars that would apparently only require a pair of Car Builder doors,
a quartet of door stop castings, decals and Andrews trucks to provide
a nice variation plus provide a northeastern RR boxcar model, a
region somewhat ignored IMO.
Bill Welch


Potential Mini-Kit or Kit variation suggestion for Westerfield Line

Bill Welch
 

For whatever reason, I find the early NYC steel cars a challenge to
get my head around so I was rereading Pat Wider's RP CYC #21 article
again. Heretofore I had not noticed that the Reading owned a 1000
cars that would apparently only require a pair of Car Builder doors,
a quartet of door stop castings, decals and Andrews trucks to provide
a nice variation plus provide a northeastern RR boxcar model, a
region somewhat ignored IMO.
Bill Welch


Re: Cocoa Beach Prototype Rails - Low volume "manufacturing"

Joel Holmes <lehighvalley@...>
 

Hi All,

I am not shortening this post because I think it is important to my comment.

What happens when all the 'skilled modelers' pass on and we have not
helped younger modelers acquire the skills needed with technical help?
Our hobby will resort to nothing more than toy trains of very limited
quantity, variety and quality. I have been modeling now for almost 50
years and I still find I need to learn quite a few thing of a technical
nature. If we do not help new modelers become skilled modelers, we will
not have any new 'skilled modelers' who will get the manufactures to do
quality work.

Now that I have said my 2 bits worth, have at me.

Joel Holmes

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "pullmanboss" <pullmanboss@...> wrote:

Thank you, Alan Monk. You have described EXACTLY what I had hoped the
Cocoa Beach panel discussion would cover. (If you haven't done so, read
Alan's post, included below.) But the audience took us into marketing
co-ops and middlemen, and then into intellectual property issues, and
this panelist, at least, sat there becoming more and more frustrated. (I
don't need someone else to market my stuff - I'm perfectly capable of
doing that. What I want is to limit the customer base to those who don't
need to be guided through the modeling process, either by detailed
step-by-step instructions or guidance FROM ME on where to find this or
that part or kit.)
Tom,

As someone in the room, I confess that while I heard your comment about
not wanting to hand-hold other modelers using your parts, to my
recollection, it was not a major topic of discussion.

Above you write "What I want is to limit the customer base to those who
don't need to be guided through the modeling process". In some ways, that
seems counter to the desires of many in the room to expand the number of
modelers who want to build "fine scale" models in an attempt to expand the
hobby, or at least the population of modelers that are active in groups
such as STMFC. I have heard a number of modelers lament the inability of
model railroaders to duplicate the explosion of third party detail parts
now produced for military modelers. And many also lament the dwindling
number of modelers willing to build kits.

I think the common consensus of the scope of the meeting was:

1) We were discussing the production of individual components that could
be used in kit-bashes best illustrated by the Cocoa Beach Shake and take
concept.

2) The panel discussion was NOT about how to make the parts (e.g. rapid
prototyping)

3) All were talking about very low rate productions - generally cast resin
parts, metal etchings, and decals seem to be the three most popular items
being made in small quantities.

4) This was about how modelers who create such parts can share their
efforts, but not with the intent to create a significant source of income.

Based on the posts here, I would say there were three different
themes/concepts expressed in the meeting:

1) Making it easier to distribute parts to skilled modelers without
creating customers who would need technical advice on how to complete the
full model. (As Tom just expressed)

2) How to make it easier for modelers to spread the word, but then the
modeler who makes the part would do all phases of order fulfillment. (As
Bill Welch just posted)

3) How to make it easier for modelers to distribute their products, while
minimizing their time investment in the distribution phase so they can do
more modeling. (As expressed by Mr. Cagle, the third panelist)

This is a pretty broad range of objectives, and they may not be 100%
compatible.

For concept 1 - for a literal interpretation of Tom's quote I am not sure
how to improve his situation beyond the current usage pattern of groups
like STMFC and private e-mails.

But I suspect Tom would like to support more modelers as long as he didn't
have to spend time on "tech support".

For Concept 2 - Perhaps we need a dedicated Yahoo group, much as
HOINTERCHANGE operates, where a moderator validates message postings
announcing the availability of parts, and then sold-out notices. Then
there would need to be a second, supporting Yahoo group to collect
input/advice/photos/information/prototype data from consumers of the parts
to make it easier for others to apply the parts (Thereby satisfying Tom's
concern, since he could politely direct people to the Yahoo support group
for tech support) This would also effectively provide almost no-cost
marketing for modelers like Bill Welch.

This has obvious benefits to all modelers because the few modelers who
currently produce these parts have more time to produce new
patterns/parts, rather than provide tech support.

I suspect an operation like Model Railroad Hobbyist might take on the
group ownership and moderator role since it might provide some benefit to
them. Otherwise I do not expect a modeler will step forward to manage this
process since the individual benefit would be small compared to the level
of effort required (The moderator of HOINTERCHANGE often posts models to
sell, so I suspect he is liquidating part of his collection or other
collections without incurring the cost and workload of e-bay)

For Concept 3 - establish a CO-OP where a person assumes responsibility
for managing the yahoo groups and also takes on order fulfillment. They
would also stock the parts and manage the financial transactions. The
objective of this concept would be to make it super easy for modelers
willing to make custom parts, and possibly only custom patterns, to share
their work, with minimal time intrusions on their primary modeling
objectives.

Some hobbyists (may not even be model railroaders) with existing low
volume production capabilities might provide production at a reasonable
cost so the pattern makers have time to make more patterns.

In this business model, it is hoped that more modelers will build custom
parts and share them, with the objective to improve the quantity and
variety of fine scale models that are possible, and also increase the size
and variety of the "fine scale" modeler population.

Note that I am just trying to capture the range of topics discussed, and
have no personal interest in making concept 3 work - just wanted to get it
captured for future discussions.

In my post to STMFC just after the panel concluded, I did suggest new
styles of clinics for various prototype meets and NMRA conventions that
might expand the "fine scale" modeler population, and the variety of parts
produced, but that was not discussed during the panel discussion.

I also included in that post some additional thoughts on the concept 3
COOP business model, but the following was not discussed during the
meeting:

The person managing the COOP is not going to do it for the love of the
hobby - it would have to generate some level of income that would make
their efforts worthwhile. I would think the COOP model would need to
generate at least $10k per year in net income (after all taxes, postage,
and part costs) to someone working this in the evenings or at a 10 hr/week
level of effort. Obviously this would need to be someone dedicated and
reliable, and the tax implications (income and sales tax) may make it too
difficult for only $10k per year of income. Clearly a long shot, but the
consensus of the group in the room seemed to be that the MRR market was
not big enough to support the sort of distribution business models being
used in the military modeling custom part market??


Dave Evans
Now retiring from what may have been a feeble attempt as a recording
secretary for the panel....



Re: Cocoa Beach Prototype Rails - Low volume "manufacturing"

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Dave, Alan, and all;



This has been an excellent series of messages, and very informative.



The statement I do not understand is that the MR population would not support
what the MM population does. I thought the MM population was much smaller in
the U.S., than the MR, but you know better.



One of the things various folks in the PRRT&HS talked about, then tried to
develop and support (partially, but never fully), addressed this market.
There was some success in supporting some small decal marketers (Providing
drawings, etc.), several resin manufacturers (plans, histories, photos), and
demonstrate how one can use them in actual applications (sometimes through
The Keystone Modeler), but the one area we have not been able to exploit is
the parts market for use in kit-bash opportunities.



There are numerous classes on any given railroad, which could be modeled but
for one or a few parts (ends, roofs, underframe), but for which there are
currently few options. Military modelers are very well supported in that
area, with a wealth of resin substitutions, etched parts add-ons, decals for
very specific applications, and the like. I do not understand why there are
not more folks going after that market (i.e., the "MiniKit" market).



One additional example I think a lot of people would support would be
brakewheels no one makes (Klasing, anyone?).



Elden Gatwood



From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Evans
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 2:33 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Cocoa Beach Prototype Rails - Low volume "manufacturing"





--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "pullmanboss"
<pullmanboss@...> wrote:

Thank you, Alan Monk. You have described EXACTLY what I had hoped the Cocoa
Beach panel discussion would cover. (If you haven't done so, read Alan's
post, included below.) But the audience took us into marketing co-ops and
middlemen, and then into intellectual property issues, and this panelist, at
least, sat there becoming more and more frustrated. (I don't need someone
else to market my stuff - I'm perfectly capable of doing that. What I want is
to limit the customer base to those who don't need to be guided through the
modeling process, either by detailed step-by-step instructions or guidance
FROM ME on where to find this or that part or kit.)
Tom,

As someone in the room, I confess that while I heard your comment about not
wanting to hand-hold other modelers using your parts, to my recollection, it
was not a major topic of discussion.

Above you write "What I want is to limit the customer base to those who don't
need to be guided through the modeling process". In some ways, that seems
counter to the desires of many in the room to expand the number of modelers
who want to build "fine scale" models in an attempt to expand the hobby, or
at least the population of modelers that are active in groups such as STMFC.
I have heard a number of modelers lament the inability of model railroaders
to duplicate the explosion of third party detail parts now produced for
military modelers. And many also lament the dwindling number of modelers
willing to build kits.

I think the common consensus of the scope of the meeting was:

1) We were discussing the production of individual components that could be
used in kit-bashes best illustrated by the Cocoa Beach Shake and take
concept.

2) The panel discussion was NOT about how to make the parts (e.g. rapid
prototyping)

3) All were talking about very low rate productions - generally cast resin
parts, metal etchings, and decals seem to be the three most popular items
being made in small quantities.

4) This was about how modelers who create such parts can share their efforts,
but not with the intent to create a significant source of income.

Based on the posts here, I would say there were three different
themes/concepts expressed in the meeting:

1) Making it easier to distribute parts to skilled modelers without creating
customers who would need technical advice on how to complete the full model.
(As Tom just expressed)

2) How to make it easier for modelers to spread the word, but then the
modeler who makes the part would do all phases of order fulfillment. (As Bill
Welch just posted)

3) How to make it easier for modelers to distribute their products, while
minimizing their time investment in the distribution phase so they can do
more modeling. (As expressed by Mr. Cagle, the third panelist)

This is a pretty broad range of objectives, and they may not be 100%
compatible.

For concept 1 - for a literal interpretation of Tom's quote I am not sure how
to improve his situation beyond the current usage pattern of groups like
STMFC and private e-mails.

But I suspect Tom would like to support more modelers as long as he didn't
have to spend time on "tech support".

For Concept 2 - Perhaps we need a dedicated Yahoo group, much as
HOINTERCHANGE operates, where a moderator validates message postings
announcing the availability of parts, and then sold-out notices. Then there
would need to be a second, supporting Yahoo group to collect
input/advice/photos/information/prototype data from consumers of the parts to
make it easier for others to apply the parts (Thereby satisfying Tom's
concern, since he could politely direct people to the Yahoo support group for
tech support) This would also effectively provide almost no-cost marketing
for modelers like Bill Welch.

This has obvious benefits to all modelers because the few modelers who
currently produce these parts have more time to produce new patterns/parts,
rather than provide tech support.

I suspect an operation like Model Railroad Hobbyist might take on the group
ownership and moderator role since it might provide some benefit to them.
Otherwise I do not expect a modeler will step forward to manage this process
since the individual benefit would be small compared to the level of effort
required (The moderator of HOINTERCHANGE often posts models to sell, so I
suspect he is liquidating part of his collection or other collections without
incurring the cost and workload of e-bay)

For Concept 3 - establish a CO-OP where a person assumes responsibility for
managing the yahoo groups and also takes on order fulfillment. They would
also stock the parts and manage the financial transactions. The objective of
this concept would be to make it super easy for modelers willing to make
custom parts, and possibly only custom patterns, to share their work, with
minimal time intrusions on their primary modeling objectives.

Some hobbyists (may not even be model railroaders) with existing low volume
production capabilities might provide production at a reasonable cost so the
pattern makers have time to make more patterns.

In this business model, it is hoped that more modelers will build custom
parts and share them, with the objective to improve the quantity and variety
of fine scale models that are possible, and also increase the size and
variety of the "fine scale" modeler population.

Note that I am just trying to capture the range of topics discussed, and have
no personal interest in making concept 3 work - just wanted to get it
captured for future discussions.

In my post to STMFC just after the panel concluded, I did suggest new styles
of clinics for various prototype meets and NMRA conventions that might expand
the "fine scale" modeler population, and the variety of parts produced, but
that was not discussed during the panel discussion.

I also included in that post some additional thoughts on the concept 3 COOP
business model, but the following was not discussed during the meeting:

The person managing the COOP is not going to do it for the love of the hobby
- it would have to generate some level of income that would make their
efforts worthwhile. I would think the COOP model would need to generate at
least $10k per year in net income (after all taxes, postage, and part costs)
to someone working this in the evenings or at a 10 hr/week level of effort.
Obviously this would need to be someone dedicated and reliable, and the tax
implications (income and sales tax) may make it too difficult for only $10k
per year of income. Clearly a long shot, but the consensus of the group in
the room seemed to be that the MRR market was not big enough to support the
sort of distribution business models being used in the military modeling
custom part market??

Dave Evans
Now retiring from what may have been a feeble attempt as a recording
secretary for the panel....


ADMIN RE: catherine.mejia

Aley, Jeff A
 

All,

This matter has been addressed by the moderators. There is nothing more to see here. Move along.

Regards,

-Jeff Aley
Deputy Moderator, STMFC


From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of S hed
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:49 AM
To: shedlund01@sprynet.com; cuervo928@aol.com; texaszephyr@sw.rr.com; stmfc@yahoogroups.com; ttgrove@aol.com; westerfield@charter.net
Subject: [STMFC] catherine.mejia



Put your affairs in order!
[Link Deleted]

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:48:42
_____________________
"Caleb sat a few minutes more at the door, and then he went into the house, and got his little rocking chair, and brought it out under the elm, and sat down there, looking towards the boys, who were at work near the water." (c) Janithza vst4a55


Re: Sunshine Models Decals

john.allyn@...
 

The recent message from "S hed" with the subject line Catherine Mejia looks like a hijack.  Don't open the link.


John B. Allyn

----- Original Message -----
From: jerryglow@comcast.net
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 12:42:59 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Sunshine Models Decals

 




I didn't have a conversation but got a refund check for decals ordered with my recent kit order. A note was attached that they do not sell deccals other than chalk marks. If details and pictures are available, I'd consider doing the set(s) as I have a few already. I WILL/CAN NOT just copy them but will start from scratch.

Jerry Glow
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/decals/

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com , Jim Hayes <jimhayes97225@...> wrote:

I had a conversation with Martin & Tricia at Lisle where I was told that
they don't want to sell individual decals or parts. However, as Clark said,
they do bring boxes of obsolete decals to shows they attend.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon
www.sunshinekits.com


On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM, <chapbob@...> wrote:

**


Does anyone know whether Martin offers the decals included with his
freight
car kits as separate items?

Thanks,
Bob Chapman

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



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


Re: Cocoa Beach Prototype Rails - Low volume "manufacturing"

devansprr
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "pullmanboss" <pullmanboss@...> wrote:

Thank you, Alan Monk. You have described EXACTLY what I had hoped the Cocoa Beach panel discussion would cover. (If you haven't done so, read Alan's post, included below.) But the audience took us into marketing co-ops and middlemen, and then into intellectual property issues, and this panelist, at least, sat there becoming more and more frustrated. (I don't need someone else to market my stuff - I'm perfectly capable of doing that. What I want is to limit the customer base to those who don't need to be guided through the modeling process, either by detailed step-by-step instructions or guidance FROM ME on where to find this or that part or kit.)
Tom,

As someone in the room, I confess that while I heard your comment about not wanting to hand-hold other modelers using your parts, to my recollection, it was not a major topic of discussion.

Above you write "What I want is to limit the customer base to those who don't need to be guided through the modeling process". In some ways, that seems counter to the desires of many in the room to expand the number of modelers who want to build "fine scale" models in an attempt to expand the hobby, or at least the population of modelers that are active in groups such as STMFC. I have heard a number of modelers lament the inability of model railroaders to duplicate the explosion of third party detail parts now produced for military modelers. And many also lament the dwindling number of modelers willing to build kits.

I think the common consensus of the scope of the meeting was:

1) We were discussing the production of individual components that could be used in kit-bashes best illustrated by the Cocoa Beach Shake and take concept.

2) The panel discussion was NOT about how to make the parts (e.g. rapid prototyping)

3) All were talking about very low rate productions - generally cast resin parts, metal etchings, and decals seem to be the three most popular items being made in small quantities.

4) This was about how modelers who create such parts can share their efforts, but not with the intent to create a significant source of income.

Based on the posts here, I would say there were three different themes/concepts expressed in the meeting:

1) Making it easier to distribute parts to skilled modelers without creating customers who would need technical advice on how to complete the full model. (As Tom just expressed)

2) How to make it easier for modelers to spread the word, but then the modeler who makes the part would do all phases of order fulfillment. (As Bill Welch just posted)

3) How to make it easier for modelers to distribute their products, while minimizing their time investment in the distribution phase so they can do more modeling. (As expressed by Mr. Cagle, the third panelist)

This is a pretty broad range of objectives, and they may not be 100% compatible.

For concept 1 - for a literal interpretation of Tom's quote I am not sure how to improve his situation beyond the current usage pattern of groups like STMFC and private e-mails.

But I suspect Tom would like to support more modelers as long as he didn't have to spend time on "tech support".

For Concept 2 - Perhaps we need a dedicated Yahoo group, much as HOINTERCHANGE operates, where a moderator validates message postings announcing the availability of parts, and then sold-out notices. Then there would need to be a second, supporting Yahoo group to collect input/advice/photos/information/prototype data from consumers of the parts to make it easier for others to apply the parts (Thereby satisfying Tom's concern, since he could politely direct people to the Yahoo support group for tech support) This would also effectively provide almost no-cost marketing for modelers like Bill Welch.

This has obvious benefits to all modelers because the few modelers who currently produce these parts have more time to produce new patterns/parts, rather than provide tech support.

I suspect an operation like Model Railroad Hobbyist might take on the group ownership and moderator role since it might provide some benefit to them. Otherwise I do not expect a modeler will step forward to manage this process since the individual benefit would be small compared to the level of effort required (The moderator of HOINTERCHANGE often posts models to sell, so I suspect he is liquidating part of his collection or other collections without incurring the cost and workload of e-bay)

For Concept 3 - establish a CO-OP where a person assumes responsibility for managing the yahoo groups and also takes on order fulfillment. They would also stock the parts and manage the financial transactions. The objective of this concept would be to make it super easy for modelers willing to make custom parts, and possibly only custom patterns, to share their work, with minimal time intrusions on their primary modeling objectives.

Some hobbyists (may not even be model railroaders) with existing low volume production capabilities might provide production at a reasonable cost so the pattern makers have time to make more patterns.

In this business model, it is hoped that more modelers will build custom parts and share them, with the objective to improve the quantity and variety of fine scale models that are possible, and also increase the size and variety of the "fine scale" modeler population.

Note that I am just trying to capture the range of topics discussed, and have no personal interest in making concept 3 work - just wanted to get it captured for future discussions.

In my post to STMFC just after the panel concluded, I did suggest new styles of clinics for various prototype meets and NMRA conventions that might expand the "fine scale" modeler population, and the variety of parts produced, but that was not discussed during the panel discussion.

I also included in that post some additional thoughts on the concept 3 COOP business model, but the following was not discussed during the meeting:

The person managing the COOP is not going to do it for the love of the hobby - it would have to generate some level of income that would make their efforts worthwhile. I would think the COOP model would need to generate at least $10k per year in net income (after all taxes, postage, and part costs) to someone working this in the evenings or at a 10 hr/week level of effort. Obviously this would need to be someone dedicated and reliable, and the tax implications (income and sales tax) may make it too difficult for only $10k per year of income. Clearly a long shot, but the consensus of the group in the room seemed to be that the MRR market was not big enough to support the sort of distribution business models being used in the military modeling custom part market??


Dave Evans
Now retiring from what may have been a feeble attempt as a recording secretary for the panel....


Re: Youngstown Door help

Dennis Storzek
 

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

Andy, The only problem I noticed are the latching mechanisms at the bottom of the door. Was hoping the Detail Associates #6213 tack board and latches would work, but they won't.
 
Rich
It's not a latch, it's the entire bottom of the door, which is essentially a box that contains the rollers and the cams to lift the door so it will roll. You need to cut the entire bottom section from an "improved" Youngstown door, and graft it to the older style door. Here's two possible donors:

http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/page2200-2201.htm
http://accurail.com/accurail/art/Details/116.jpg

The Accurail parts are from the old McKean tooling, and can be found on the parts page as No.116.

Dennis


Re: Youngstown Door help

Rich C
 

Andy, The only problem I noticed are the latching mechanisms at the bottom of the door. Was hoping the Detail Associates #6213 tack board and latches would work, but they won't.
 
Rich


________________________________
From: Andy Carlson <midcentury@sbcglobal.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Youngstown Door help


 
Rich,

Looks like the classic pre-war 5/6/5m Youngstown door, as offered by both
Intermountain and Red Caboose on their 10'-0"IH 1937 AAR boxcars. The splice
areas are there. These doors have variations on how tall the splice area is,
and this one has the "medium" (m=medium) height splice. The splice area is
visibly taller than the individual panels, but barely so. Another common door
has the same 5-6-5 panel count, but the splices are very noticeably taller, such
doors are usually found on nominal inside height cars of 10'-6" and I and others
call them 5'6'5T pre-wars Youngstown doors.

-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

________________________________
From: Rich C <rhcdmc@yahoo.com>
To: "ACL-SAL-SCLmodeler@yahoogroups.com" <ACL-SAL-SCLmodeler@yahoogroups.com>;
"STMFC@yahoogroups.com" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>; "bbfcl@yahoogroups.com"
<bbfcl@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, January 12, 2012 6:10:01 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Youngstown Door help

Gentlemen, I have one of these cars under construction, the SAL 1937 box car
converted to clay service. My question, Does anyone offer this style of
Youngstown door? I checked many resources (including Southwest Scale
Productions) to no avail. It does not have the splice plates, but has the
reinforced bottom panel and centered door latches.

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/sal/sal13088ajs.jpg

Thanks,

Rich Christie

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


Re: Reading USRA Gondola Load

Larry Sexton
 

Earlier today I asked for help with the appropriate stenciling and paint
scheme for the Walthers 46' USRA gondola models. Since then I have further
checked some of my photo sources and various magazine articles and there are
still some questions.



Reading 46' USRA gondolas - Based on the photos on Rich Yoder's web page, it
appears there are two sets of lettering stencils over the years.



. Reading 25020 dated 5/27 and Reading 21772 dated 2/25 have Reading
spelled out starting on the 4th panel of a 13 panel gon. Reading is
underlined, but there are no RDG reporting marks. No match to the kit. On
page 241 of The Train Shed Cyclopedia for 1943 (#70), there is a 70 ton
Reading gon with a date of 11/29 that has similar reporting marks to 25020
and 21772.



. The RDG 23035 reporting marks are underlined above and below the
reporting marks, but the spelled out Reading is not underlined in a photo
dated 1/12/55. In the photos of Reading 21445 and 20519 on the same site, it
appears these cars have the same stenciling, but the reweigh dates on the
cars is indeterminate. However, these match the kits issued by Walther's as
932-27461.



. I could not locate any photos of gondolas for the early 1940s
where the reporting marks were legible. However, on page 262 of The Train
Shed Cyclopedia for 1943 (#70) there is a Reading 2-bay hopper (RDG 80326)
with a reweigh date of RDG 5-41 that has similar, if not identical,
reporting marks to RDG 23035, 21445 and 20519.



My question is whether I am safe in believing this would be the standard for
lettering Reading gondolas in the early 1940s (WWII)?



Lehigh Valley - I also asked whether the Walthers 46' USRA gon models, kits
932-27458, for the Lehigh Valley was lettered as appropriate for the early
1940s (WWII) and in a red primer paint scheme.



. Based on Chuck Davis's article in RMC November 2010, and on
published photos in Jim Hertzog's article on the Lehigh cement gons in the
January 1995 Model Railroader, I tend to believe the red primer, in various
shades, was the standard from 1939 through the 1950s at least. This belief
appears to be supported by a photo of LV 25000, a 2-bay hopper with a weigh
date of 5-39, in what appears to be in a shade of red primer.



. However, the photo of LV 32402, a 52'06" 70 ton gon with a New
built date of 1-42, on page 222 of The Train Shed Cyclopedia for 1943 (#70)
appears to show a car that was painted black.



. The photo of LV 34174, a 63'06" 70 ton gon with a New built date
of 10-41, on page 227 of The Train Shed Cyclopedia for 1943 (#70) appears to
show a car that was painted black.



So, did the Lehigh Valley have a standard paint scheme that used shades of
red primer for their cars during the late 1930s-early 1940s? or as the
photographic evidence appears to show used both red and black?



All help towards clarification will be appreciated.



Larry Sexton





From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Larry Sexton
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 9:48 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Reading USRA Gondola Load





Rich,

I visited your webpage and studied the photos that were attached. Can you,
or anyone else on the list, tell me approximately when the Reading gondola
lettering or stenciling changed from the earlier version shown on Reading
21772 and 25020 to the version shown on RDG 23035 and 24198?

I have two of the Walthers 46' USRA gon models stenciled as in the latter
version and with a re-weigh data for 1-55. My question is whether the
stenciling would have been correct for 1943, assuming the reweigh data is
corrected to that period.

I also have two of the Walthers 46' USRA gon models, kits 932-27458, for the
Lehigh Valley with a new date of 5-29 and in a red primer paint scheme. Does
anyone know whether that lettering or stenciling scheme was correct for the
1943-44 period.

Any help would be appreciated.

Larry Sexton

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
Of
Richard Yoder
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 11:18 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Reading USRA Gondola Load

To all interested,
I also produced this model in "O" Scale a few years ago.
There are several good photos on my web site of Reading cars.
http://www.richyodermodels.com/rym_fc_rdg_cont_gon.htm

Rich Yoder

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
Of Tom
Houle
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 10:29 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Reading USRA Gondola Load

To all interested in the USRA 70-ton 46' mill gons operated by the Reading,
Pennsy, NYC, B & O, and a few other eastern roads, I recommend the RMC
multi-page article "USRA Steel Mill Gondolas" by Eric Neubauer in the
June, 2000 issue. It includes photos, Reading HO drawings, and history of
this car. Westerfield and Walthers offered this car.
Tom Houle

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
Of Eric
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 8:15 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Reading USRA Gondola Load

In addition to the load, I wonder when these USRA mill gons were equipped
with AB brake systems. A recent comment here noting AB brake systems on less
than 25% of the 1940 freight car fleet had me wondering about how quickly
the mill gons would be upgraded. Hoppers tended to be rebuilt more
frequently and many owners of the composite USRA gons rebuilt with steel
sides through the 1930s.

Wouldn't these USRA mill gondolas be candidates for retaining K brake
systems through WWII?

Eric

Eric Hansmann
New Paltz, NY

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> ,
richtownsend@... wrote:

I have a Walthers USRA gondola painted and lettered for the Reading RR.
I'm trying to come up with a suitable and interesting load for it. My
research on Reading, PA disclosed that the city is or was known for
anthracite coal and for pretzels. I don't like the idea of a coal load, and
while I am confident I could fashion HO scale pretzels from thin wire, I
don't think a load of pretzels would be very realistic. So I am asking the
collective brain of this list for suggestions on what to load in this car.
Anyone?


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon
------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Sunshine Models Decals

jerryglow2
 

I didn't have a conversation but got a refund check for decals ordered with my recent kit order. A note was attached that they do not sell deccals other than chalk marks. If details and pictures are available, I'd consider doing the set(s) as I have a few already. I WILL/CAN NOT just copy them but will start from scratch.

Jerry Glow
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/decals/

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Jim Hayes <jimhayes97225@...> wrote:

I had a conversation with Martin & Tricia at Lisle where I was told that
they don't want to sell individual decals or parts. However, as Clark said,
they do bring boxes of obsolete decals to shows they attend.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon
www.sunshinekits.com


On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM, <chapbob@...> wrote:

**


Does anyone know whether Martin offers the decals included with his
freight
car kits as separate items?

Thanks,
Bob Chapman

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



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


Re: Sunshine Models Decals

Jim Hayes
 

I had a conversation with Martin & Tricia at Lisle where I was told that
they don't want to sell individual decals or parts. However, as Clark said,
they do bring boxes of obsolete decals to shows they attend.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon
www.sunshinekits.com

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM, <chapbob@aol.com> wrote:

**


Does anyone know whether Martin offers the decals included with his
freight
car kits as separate items?

Thanks,
Bob Chapman





Re: Small scale manufacturing

Clark Propst
 

I wasn’t able to attend the CCB meet. I assume a “Panel Discussion” Would be a panel discussing a subject. The audience would keep their yaps shut unless the panel asked for questions or comments.

Here’s what I do know from ‘marketing’ two small runs of resin. You have to want to for the following reasons.
1- You want the piece yourself.
2- There is demand for the piece.
3- It ain’t about the money.

1- Chad Boas and I talked about a flat car model I would like. Turned out to be a good idea and Chad sold a lot of them. (he’s working on more)
2- I had Chad make some doors because I was tied of looking at models with the wrong doors. There was enough demand to sell about 30 sets so far.
3- While Chad did quite well with the flat cars. I made enough off the doors to buy a resin kit.
Oh. The car the doors are made for is too new for me.

Major consideration is the availability for the customer to get the supporting pieces. Core model and decals. Why make a part for a P2K box car kit when none are to be had?

My two cents...
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa

83561 - 83580 of 189612