Date   

Re: State of the RPM hobby

Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...>
 

Greg,
 
You have not only described me, you've given away my age too !
I have to agree with what you stated as I too, enjoy the research
and the modeling efforts needed to build as close to proto as my
skill level allows.
 
Fred Freitas
Panhandle Divn 1953


________________________________
From: PennsyNut <pennsynut@...>
To: STMFC@...
Cc: tgregmrtn@...
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: State of the RPM hobby


 
On 24,03 2012 23:22 PM, tgregmrtn@... wrote:

In part glgpat@... <mailto:glgpat%40etchntech.com> writes:
"to be "NIT PICKING" RPM nuts"
Can someone 'splain that one to me as I might be one and don't even
know it.

You might be a Nit Picking Railroad Prototype Modeler if:

* If you recognize that Bower's PRR freight car color is wrong and make
honest attempts to correct it and Lee English gives you the cold
should after
your helpful emails.

*If you recognize that the Walthers X29 boxcar and the Red Caboose X29
are
different lengths.

*If you have already recognized that and underframe on a resin kit is
wrong and others remind you that the SHAKE N TAKE kit needs to have
the correct
underframe.

*If you realize that the Life Like 50-foot boxcar can be used for a PRR
X38 but the roof on the durn thing needs to be raised 2½ scale inches,
the
rivet patterns no problem.

*IF you know every durn fool AAR truck produced made from the twenties to
the late fifties even from the crappiest photo...

*If you have a huge collection of Mainline Modeler and Prototype modeler
and won't rip the articles and dump the adds.

*If you remember when Paul Lubeliner was carrying around rubber molds of
his F units.

*If you remember when Jim Six was an editor for Prototype Modeler and
Richard Hendrickson was a regular contributor.

*If you remember West Rail kits.

* If you have more equipment on your layout that will pass the foot or
less rule than there is equipment that would qualify in the three foot
rule
category.

*If you enjoy reading someone's research and interests in a particular
railroad or related company like SFRD, PFE, FGEX/WFEX/NX/BREX, MDT, etc.

If you think you resemble any of the above categories or characteristics
you just might be a serious modeler than enjoys the research as much a
the
modeling and view it as part of the hobby.

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean
Greg and Y'all
There is one other.

*If you are a PRR modelerthat changes all the drivers on his steam
engine to the correct quarter!

Morgan Bilbo Ferroequinologist SPF PRRTHS #1204

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




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


Re: What is Prototype Modeling?

dennyanspach <danspach@...>
 

By definition, all modelers live in a vicarious world of imagination. Although Andy Harman expresses my major thoughts and beliefs on Prototype modeling far better than I could do so by myself, I also extend my personal RPM franchise to include a good measure of modeling the illusive imaginary prototype, the truth of which may be known only to.....me. This is not a conscious choice, but is simply just one expression of the internal personal freedom that any hobby bestows, an honest freedom that no one else has a right to criticize.

Progenitors of the tide that raises all boats. It is my observation that the nominal 6% of the hobby that the RPM-ers inhabit influence the wider hobby way our of proportion to their numbers, and they are the single biggest reason why even mass market low-end models these days are seen to strive for prototypical accuracy to an extent not seen at all in the past.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: GSC flat

cwilson@...
 

Mark Vaughan has a decal set for Wabash flatcars in his line. Perhaps he could help you with artwork.

http://www.wabashcustomdecals.com/

Craig Wilson

--- In STMFC@..., Kevin Sprayberry <csxt5555@...> wrote:

Does anyone happen to have a GSC 53 6 flat in Wabash?  I am finishing mine up in 1/8th scale and need to make the decals.  All the pics I have are too small to make out the info.  I need to make these scale.
 
Thanks
Kevin


Re: What is Prototype Modeling?

Jim Betz
 

Hi all,

One of my favorite things to do is to ask a layout owner "what
kind of layout do you call yours?" and then use some hints to get
them to answer the question of "prototype", or "proto-freelance"
or "freelance". I then follow that up with the interesting part
which is when I ask them to explain why they chose to -label-
their layout with whatever term they selected. I learn more about
that person and their view of model railroading thru this simple
approach than any other single 'view' of their modeling ... *G*
- Jim


An RPM layout

Mikebrock
 

I can't help but echo the comments by Andy Harman..."I define prototype
modeling as a desire to model after the prototype", Ray Breyer..."One thing
to keep in mind is that being a "prototype modeler" does not mean being a
GOOD modeler", Jack Burgess... "I think we compromise when
we don't have the space needed to accurate model a prototype, whether a
building or length of a siding and need to reduce the size of it to allow it
to fit the space we have available. We also compromise when we don't have
all of the information needed to accurately model a particular prototype" and
others. It seems quite simple to me. If you choose to
model the real thing...a real RR and/or its surroundings...you are a
prototype modeler. No one says how good you have to be...just what your goal
is...modeling a real RR object or bunches of them. Of course, one gets more credit if one mnodels some important place like Sherman Hill rather than an obscure RR somewhere in northern New England [ wherever that is ] <G>.

Now, if you will permit [ actually since I'm the only one in the game that's armed, I don't really care if you permit or not <G> ], I'm going to use my own layout and the real UP it
attemts to model to demonstrate some views. First, I would note that no one
says...at least I don't...that you have to model the whole thing. Yes, that
gets a bit tricky. If I build a model of a UP HK-70-1 hopper car, model
every rivet on the sides but not do the ends, does that qualify? Of course.
Is it a great model? Maybe not. If you build a model of a roundhouse but
choose to view it from the structure's rear...leaving it open [ no roof ] so
the fully modeled interior shows...does it qualify? Certainly. Is it a great
model? If the fidelity of the details is high, probably so...given the
modeler's criteria...the objective to model only part of the structure. By
the same token, modeling real scenes often requires compression [ as Jack Burgess notes ]. My Dale Jct scene is compressed to about 1/4th actual size [ regretfully, the term "Big
Wyoming" means big scenes ]. However, the smaller parts of the scene [ in
particular, a rocky hillock adjacent to the turnouts ] and man made structures are built to the real size [ well...close since the ^&%#$ hillock is long gone and I didn't measure it. Fortunately I'm reasonably certain that no one else did either ]. Every structure in my model of the Laramie engine facility is built to
scale except the roundhouse which, while accurate in most dimensions has
been reduced from 28 stalls to 12. All the structures, however, are not
placed where they actually existed...since I prefer to not step on my
scratchbuilt water tank etc.

Compression can be found in many places. While an individual rolling stock
is a model of a real car, I compress trains to about 30% for frt
trains...perhaps 80% for passenger trains. But the frt cars are models of
real frt cars as are passenger cars and locomotives. Some...Armand Premo for example... model only those cars that actually ran on the prototype they model. I figure that by following the modified Gilbert Nelson frt car population theory [ modified to increase the number of large, important connecting RRs like SP, Milw and C&NW in my UP case ] I can produce a reasonable frt car match to the historical data.

Joel Holmes notes: "To be totally prototype, you need to pick a day and
model for that day."

Well...I tell others I do May 14, 1953. This actually was forced on me
because the photos we used for the photo backdrops were taken on May 14 [
man, this guy must really be a nut ]. Not really, It had been a wet spring
on Sherman Hill and the high country was quite green. Actually any day
within a 3 month period would probably work.

"Lets say traffic on the line included a lot of coal movements of 80 to 100
cars. How many model railroads can do that? Can you get even 50 cars that
are equal to the mix
that the real railroad ran. I doubt that also."

I once ran a test and found that one of my Big Boys could haul 55 frt cars
up my 1.5% max grade. However, I generally confine frt train lengths to 35
cars and then only for two that have access to sufficient staging for that.
Otherwise, I'm running from 20-25 car frt trains.

"However, a model train of
25 coal cars using similar to or models of the actual cars will look very
good."

If train lengths are long enough to exceed scene sizes, the compression of
prototype length trains works pretty well.

"Medium and large stations facilities cannot be modeled exactly as
the prototype."

For sure, I chose to model Laramie as opposed to, say,
Cheyenne, due to the smaller, doable Laramie yard and station [ and special
thanks to Armand Premo for building the station ]. Oddly, when you venture
inside you find that there is no rear side...and the roof only extends
halfway...sorta like those old buildings out west that had only a
front...the rest being a tent. No, Armand didn't forget to do the other
half...compression rules again.

Speaking of operating a prototype modeled RR...Noooo problem. Looking
through various UPHS mags I note that in Ernie Peyton's article about firing
UP steam back in '50 that it was not uncommon for a freight run from Laramie
to Cheyenne to take 4 hrs. Hmmm. That's about 60 miles...mile post 566 to
510. So...an average speed of about 15 mph. Why so slow? Because
freights...particularly drags...had to take sidings frequently to let
passenger trains by. And, UP used mainline frts to do set outs and pickups
on the Hill at Hermosa, Buford, Bruceford [ where IS that place? ], and Granite. Switching with a Big Boy? Yep. And in later yrs with turbines. Efficiency? Mark Armfahr has written an
excellent article on train movements on the Wyoming Div in '49 in which he
describes the effect of a hot box and subsequent axle failure on a coal drag
heading east from Rawlins to Laramie. This resulted in much delay because,
although the offending cars were left on a center siding of the double tracked mainline, the stopped train could not make it up grade from where it had stopped. During the 24 hrs of
his article, UP ran 22 passenger and 29 frt trains over the Wyoming Div. The number of frts might be a bit lower than usual due to a recession. As
it turns out, my op session covers the period from about 8 AM until noon,
During that time, there were about 7 passenger trains scheduled. I do 5. At
4 PM in 1949 there were 6 frt trains running between Rawlins and Laramie.
During my 4 hr period I have 8 frt trains "scheduled". It is interesting to
note that frt train reconstruction in Laramie took about 1.5 hrs. Some high
priority trains..."fast forwarders"...often containing foreign road
cars...rolled through Laramie bypassing the yard. It is also worth noting
that UP did not always expedite perishable trains. If such trains were
sufficiently ahead of scheduled connections at Kansas City or Council
Bluffs, they might have other cars added at Laramie. Laramie had a huge ice
house and icing capacity west of the yard. Eastbound perishable trains would
roll directly onto ice tracks prior to entering the laramie yard. A
perishable train might require 2 hrs of icing operation. Apparently UP would
use unoccupied ice house tracks to hold frt trains waiting for a track to
open in the yard...letting passenger traffic pass by. I am pleased to note that I do the same thing...and, yes, frequently there ain't an open track in Laramie.

So, I would say that ops does fit well with a layout designed to model a real RR. I'm just curious as to why some of my operators shout "short" when they actually mean "hot box".

Mike Brock


Re: State of the RPM hobby

PennsyNut <pennsynut@...>
 

On 24,03 2012 23:22 PM, tgregmrtn@... wrote:

In part glgpat@... <mailto:glgpat%40etchntech.com> writes:
"to be "NIT PICKING" RPM nuts"
Can someone 'splain that one to me as I might be one and don't even
know it.

You might be a Nit Picking Railroad Prototype Modeler if:

* If you recognize that Bower's PRR freight car color is wrong and make
honest attempts to correct it and Lee English gives you the cold
should after
your helpful emails.

*If you recognize that the Walthers X29 boxcar and the Red Caboose X29
are
different lengths.

*If you have already recognized that and underframe on a resin kit is
wrong and others remind you that the SHAKE N TAKE kit needs to have
the correct
underframe.

*If you realize that the Life Like 50-foot boxcar can be used for a PRR
X38 but the roof on the durn thing needs to be raised 2½ scale inches,
the
rivet patterns no problem.

*IF you know every durn fool AAR truck produced made from the twenties to
the late fifties even from the crappiest photo...

*If you have a huge collection of Mainline Modeler and Prototype modeler
and won't rip the articles and dump the adds.

*If you remember when Paul Lubeliner was carrying around rubber molds of
his F units.

*If you remember when Jim Six was an editor for Prototype Modeler and
Richard Hendrickson was a regular contributor.

*If you remember West Rail kits.

* If you have more equipment on your layout that will pass the foot or
less rule than there is equipment that would qualify in the three foot
rule
category.

*If you enjoy reading someone's research and interests in a particular
railroad or related company like SFRD, PFE, FGEX/WFEX/NX/BREX, MDT, etc.

If you think you resemble any of the above categories or characteristics
you just might be a serious modeler than enjoys the research as much a
the
modeling and view it as part of the hobby.

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean
Greg and Y'all
There is one other.

*If you are a PRR modelerthat changes all the drivers on his steam
engine to the correct quarter!

Morgan Bilbo Ferroequinologist SPF PRRTHS #1204


Re: DIFCO Dump car

Peter Ness
 

Magor built dump cars that are appropriate to this group. Unfortunately they were only made in HO scale by Authenticast about 60 years ago, but show up from time to time on internet auction sites.

Happy modeling,
Peter Ness

----- Original Message -----
From: mark_mathu
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:22 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: DIFCO Dump car



What is the cubic yard capacity of the Walthers HO scale Difco Dump Car?
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-8606
__________
Mark Mathu
Whitefish Bay, Wis.
The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/

--- In STMFC@..., "John C. La Rue, Jr." <MOFWCABOOSE@...> wrote:
>
>
> It is always dangerous to try to reason with inadequate data, but I cannot find any evidence that DIFCO cars of the design represented by the Walthers models were built any earlier then about 1964. DIFCO was the last builder of dump cars in this country.
>
> John C. La Rue, Jr.
> Bonita Springs, FL
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian <GCRDS@...>
> To: STMFC <STMFC@...>
> Sent: Tue, Oct 4, 2011 5:05 am
> Subject: [STMFC] DIFCO Dump car
>
>
>
>
>
>
> After spending (wasting?) time searching on the internet, and in the group archives (not a waste), I cannot seem to find any information on when Difco (Differential Steel Car Company) were built. From what I did see in the archives, they would be around in the early 1950's, but wanted to be sure. Model wise, I'm looking at the Walthers cars...not a lot of options in N Scale ya know! <G>
>
> TIA for any info or pointers!
>
> Take Care,
>
> Brian R. Termunde
> Midvale, UT


Re: DIFCO Dump car

John C. La Rue, Jr. <MOFWCABOOSE@...>
 

Not sure. Difco made cars in cubic yards from 40 to 60, but the 60-yard cars were exceptional. Most likely, based on appearance of the Walthers cars, is 50 cubic yards.

The cars were also rated by tonnage capacity. The 40 cubic yard car had a 77 ton capacity. It had only four reinforcing uprights per side. The 50 cubic yard cars could have either 77 ton or 100 ton capacity. The 77-ton car had an overall length (over the coupler faces) of 45'6". The 100-ton car was 47'6". Not much difference and it would not surprise me if Walthers marked the cars for either 77 tons or 100 tons depending on which railroad they were lettered for.

John C. La Rue, Jr.
Bonita Springs, FL

-----Original Message-----
From: mark_mathu <mark@...>
To: STMFC <STMFC@...>
Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:22 pm
Subject: [STMFC] Re: DIFCO Dump car





What is the cubic yard capacity of the Walthers HO scale Difco Dump Car?
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-8606
__________
Mark Mathu
Whitefish Bay, Wis.
The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/

--- In STMFC@..., "John C. La Rue, Jr." <MOFWCABOOSE@...> wrote:


It is always dangerous to try to reason with inadequate data, but I cannot find any evidence that DIFCO cars of the design represented by the Walthers models were built any earlier then about 1964. DIFCO was the last builder of dump cars in this country.

John C. La Rue, Jr.
Bonita Springs, FL





-----Original Message-----
From: Brian <GCRDS@...>
To: STMFC <STMFC@...>
Sent: Tue, Oct 4, 2011 5:05 am
Subject: [STMFC] DIFCO Dump car






After spending (wasting?) time searching on the internet, and in the group archives (not a waste), I cannot seem to find any information on when Difco (Differential Steel Car Company) were built. From what I did see in the archives, they would be around in the early 1950's, but wanted to be sure. Model wise, I'm looking at the Walthers cars...not a lot of options in N Scale ya know! <G>

TIA for any info or pointers!

Take Care,

Brian R. Termunde
Midvale, UT








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


More on B&O M-15f Tatum XLT End, not an Indestructable End

Jim Mischke
 

Indestructable End patent
---------------------------------------

Repeated patent searches have uncovered a relevant patent at last.  I had
earlier stated the Indestructable End may not have been patented.

Patent 1293206

link: 
http://www.google.com/patents/US1293206?printsec=abstract&dq=1293206&ei=u4BvT7mRFciEsAKHmODfBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false


The patent office database comes up with blank pages on this one.  Google
Patents may be the only way to view it.
Mr. T. N. Russell appears to have been a creative engineering design force at
Chicago-Cleveland Car Roofing Co.   Or the boss, taking credit for everything,
which often happens in technical endevours and railroading is no exception. 
There are upwards of two dozen freight car patents in his name, ranging about
1914-1931, dealing mainly with boxcar roofs, ends, and components.

This patent would seem to be the basis for the Indestructable End.  There are
(1) two vertical z-braces ... facing outward here .... (2) two diagonal braces
... leaning outward here.  Features of the Indestructable End such as a pressed
steel carline end, bottom cast bracket between the vertical z-braces and the end
sill, and tie rods to the interior carlines (roof supports) are not shown in
this patent. 

 


Tatum XLT end on B&O M-15 double sheathed boxcars and others
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This still holds.  The B&O XLT end drawings are nearly identical to the
photographs.




Patent search kinks
------------------------------------

Key to this search was using "car" instead of "boxcar", and "roof" instead of
"end".   The term "Roofing" in the assignee name is nearly always garbled in the
google character recognition algorithm.  "Car" is often garbled into "Cab" but
is repeated often enough in the claims to attract hits anyway.  "End" is not a
univeral term for the blunt side of a boxcar.

As always, patentspeak calls our favorite subject "railways", not "railroads".

 



________________________________
From: James Mischke <jmischke@...>
To: STMFC@...; Baltimore_and_Ohio@...
Sent: Wed, March 21, 2012 5:06:47 PM
Subject: [Baltimore_and_Ohio] B&O M-15f Tatum XLT End, not an Indestructable End



In the book "Focus on Freight Cars, Volume Two: Double Sheathed Box & Automobile

Cars", by Richard Hendrickson, published by Speedwitch in 2004, page 27 presents

the B&O class M-15F double sheath boxcar #176392 and states
it possesses Chicago-Cleveland Indestructible Ends.  This literary association
between later B&O M-15 subclass double sheath boxcars and Indestructible Ends
dates from the 1995-vintage Westerfield M-15h/j model boxcar resin kit flyers,
based on available research at the time, often repeated in print.

Further research reveals this M-15f boxcar end is a Tatum XLT reinforced end
design, not a vendor-supplied Indestructible End.


Indestructible End
-----------------------------

The Indestructible End is best shown as a cutaway sketch in the 1919 Car
Builders Dictionary, page 453, figue 502.  It consists largely of two vertical
z-braces, with special upper and lower brackets.

Per this CBC drawing, Indestructible Ends (1) lack diagonal supports, (2) lack
full width horizontal tie rods, (3) possess vertical Z-sections facing inward
towards the center sill, (4) the lower bracket is a custom mallable iron casting

that attaches to the interior of the end sill, (5) the upper bracket, called an
end plate, is a pressed steel fabrication, peaked to match the roof contour and
hidden behind a triangular end piece, and (6) have four tie rods extending back
along the car axis to the first support, called a carline.



Tatum XLT Reinforced End
---------------------------------------

The shown M-15F end features (1) two large 4x4 diagonal wood braces, (2) two
(sometimes XLT ends had three) full width tie rods across the car end, (3)
outward facing Z-braces which accept the diagonal braces, (4) two internal tie
rods connecting the upper end assmbly to the interior of the car roof (not
visible in photos), and (5) simple fabricated gussetts and brackets connecting
to the roof and end sill.   All these characteristics are accurately shown on
B&O blueprints for the Tatum XLT reinforced end.

The B&O M-15F boxcars were produced in three batches during 1923-24, by Illinois

Car, Standard Steel Car, and ACF.  ACF-built M-15f 176392 was constructed new
with the Tatum XLT reinforced end in 1924, the M-15f was the only new
construction application.  In subsequent years, B&O applied this XLT boxcar end
in its own shops as an aftermarket assembly to about 10,600 boxcars.  These
included many wood boxcars with steel underframes between class M-8 and M-25,
replacing weak or worn plain wood ends. (Before people raise questions, many
truss rod M-8's were upgraded with steel underframes).  Although both plain wood

ends were seemingly nearly always replaced on such boxcars, this was not an
absolute requirement per memo, an interesting variation to model.  This Tatum
XLT reinforced end has been mainly known for its wide application to various
M-15 wood boxcar subclasses, especially the common M-15h and M-15j.  


John J. Tatum was the B&O car superintendent for a generation, with 66 patents
to his name, including wagontop equipment.   Most of his "XLT" brand innovations

were unpatented, making cost sense only in a fully integrated shop using
salvaged feedstock.   As with other XLT trade name hardware, the moment Mr.
Tatum retired in 1942, so did continued use of his designs.  Dubious former
subordinates, me thinks.


Patents
------------

Patent searches turn up many hundreds of boxcar end designs, with a vast array
of ruffles and ridges.  Tatum did not patent his XLT end, per search and his own

patent listing in a small unpublished autobiography.  The Chicago-Cleveland
Indestructible End does not appear to have been patented, although patent
searches can be flawed and miss relevant patents.


Other boxcar ends
---------------------------

The 1922 Car Builders Cyclopedia shows a Burnett boxcar end, offered by Hutchins

with the rest of their boxcar hardware.  Similar features and relevent
differences.


Conclusion
------------------

Similarity between the Tatum XLT and Indestructible Ends is only the vertical
Z-braces, single sheathing, and an indented general look.   The nuts, bolts, and

designer are quite different.  I cannot speak for other railroad boxcar ends,
just B&O.  Perhaps other railroads' boxcars' ends attributed
as Chicago-Cleveland Indestructible Ends might need some reexamination in light
of source material instead of visual association.  (examples: L&N, Ann Arbor).

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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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


State of the RPM hobby

Ashley Pollard <ashley@...>
 

Interestingly my blog has been described as RPM, but I tend to think of my American "thang" (as my CLAG colleagues call it) a very much a middle of the road, mostly RTR layout.

I suppose for me I just do my own thing and it makes me happy, and let others pontificate on everything else.

--
Ashley Pollard
Ashley@...

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

http://no-two-alike.blogspot.com/


Compromise vs Freelancing (was: RE: What is Prototype Modeling?)

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

I think there are a few other factors to consider, too, with regards to
compromise vs freelancing.

Here's a hypothetical to consider.

I have a layout representing Port Huron, MI - the GTW yard with the St
Clair Tunnel leading to hidden staging, the interchange with the C&O and
the C&O boat yard.

I've studied the trackage, and based on my available space, have decided
on X number of tracks in the GTW yard and Y number of tracks in the C&O
yard, both of which are shorter and have fewer tracks than the prototype.
Is this freelancing, or a compromise - but still prototype modelling?

I've studied the structures in the area, decided which to model and which
to omit based on available space. Time also being a factor, I've
subdivided the structures to model into two categories: those that are
distinctive to the location, that define the layout as representing Port
Huron at a specific time, and those that are more generic. So, I decide
that I will scratchbuild as accurately as possible the distinctive
buildings, but use available kits (perhaps modified) to represent the more
generic structures. Am I freelancing because I use some available kits, or
is it prototype modelling because I've scratchbuilt those structures that
make someone familiar with the location say, "Yes, that's Port Huron."?

I model in TT scale, which makes my next point perhaps more of a factor
than those modelling in HO or N, but it may still be applicable: there is
a limited array of locomotives and freight cars available, and limited
time and/or skills which militate against scratchbuilding everything. So,
since I can easily model an SW900 or SW1200 or GP9 in my scale, I decide
to accurately model a GTW GP9 and a C&O SW. The models are as accurate as
possible - but what if the C&O never operated SWs in Port Huron, only BL2,
which is a type unavailable in TT scale and is fairly difficult to
scratchbuild? My C&O SW is an accurate model of a unit that actually
existed - is it freelancing, because Port Huron never saw a C&O SW, or is
it a compromise, but still "prototype modelling", because it is an
accurate model of something that existed in reality?

In my mind, what I've described above, I would call "prototype modelling"
with compromises - I wouldn't call any bit of that freelanced, really.

But, if I build my layout representing the Romulus, Remus & Vulcan
Railroad that exist(s/ed) only in my imagination, even if every piece of
foreign-road rolling stock on the layout is an accurate model, overall I'd
still call that "freelancing". With, perhaps, some elements of prototype
modelling involved.

I would suggest that the deciding factor is intent. In one of the
examples, my intent is to recreate as best as possible the look and feel
of a real place at a given time in history - prototype modelling. In the
other, my intent is to build "a railway", and not an
as-accurate-as-possible representation of a real place at a specific point
in history.

It's akin to the Society for Creative Anachronism, wherein a certain
segment just wants to drink mead and fight with plastic swords, and
another segment wants to make period-specific clothing/armour/whathaveyou
with period-specific methods and materials (you can probably guess which
faction I favour :P ). The intent is what matters.

Prototype modelling requires compromise (unless you have near-unlimited
funds, time and space), in freelancing there is nothing to compromise. So
there's a huge difference between "compromise" and "freelancing".

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC


Re: Pre-orders, pro or con.

Tim O'Connor
 

How does Kadee do it here in the US?
> Stuart A. Forsyth


Kadee can manufacture in the USA for a simple reason:

BRILLIANT engineering!

Kadee makes the only HO scale cars I've ever known that require
no adhesives to put together. They literally snap together in
about 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes tops. You can snap them apart
equally easily, and put them back together again. No other vendor
can touch this. So even if they pay assemblers $10-$12/hour they
probably keep their labor costs down to $3-$4 per car and that's
reasonably competitive with Chinese imports at the retail level.

As for output, Kadee has made 2 covered hoppers, 1 open hopper,
and 8 physically different 40' PS-1 box cars, and 7 physically
different 50' PS-1 box cars (8 if you count cushion underframes).
I've lost count of how many different box car doors they've made.

Unfortunately for many STMFC modelers, almost all of these models
represent 1950 or later freight cars.

Tim O'Connor


Re: State of the RPM hobby

Tim O'Connor
 

Bruce

So you subscribe to the Accidental Tourist definition of a Proto Modeler?
That is, if one of their randomly chosen models happens to be accurate for
some prototype at some point in time, then they're a Prototype Modeler?

I dunno... I'm not buying it. I'm pretty generous about such things, but
I ain't going that far. There has to be some intention and understanding
of the prototype that goes beyond the road name or the brand name on the
box.

Tim O'Connor

Really, being a prototype modeler is best left to self definition. If you think you are one, then you are! And in reality, almost ALL modelers, even freelances, model prototypes for at least some of their equipment (unless they have no interchange), thus making them prototype modelers as well.
Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: What is Prototype Modeling?

Jack Burgess
 

Randy stated:
"Each prototype modeler will have their own ideas of how much compromise
(freelancing) is acceptable to them, and in what areas (scenery, track
layout, rolling stock, rolling stock mix, operations, etc.)."

I don't equate "compromise" with "freelancing". I think we compromise when
we don't have the space needed to accurate model a prototype, whether a
building or length of a siding and need to reduce the size of it to allow it
to fit the space we have available. We also compromise when we don't have
all of the information needed to accurately model a particular prototype.
This is especially true of structures...we might have photos of 3 sides of a
building and need to make an educated guess about the other side (which is
not a concern if it can't be seen). On the other hand, to me, freelancing is
simply building something that is not based on a particular prototype. For
example, if someone were to ask me to build a gas station, I'd first ask for
photos of the prototype they want. But, I'm guessing that a freelancer would
simply get started based on their vision of what a gas station should look
like without relying on prototype information.

Have I compromised on my own layout? Of course! Without the space of huge
empty warehouse for my layout, the length of yards have been reduced,
sidings are shorter, towns closer together, and a few (not many though)
buildings have been reduced in size from the prototype. While the scenery in
some areas is modeled directly from photos from land contours to the
placement and types of trees and bushes, other areas are "representational"
and reflects the scenery typical to the particular area being modeled.

What I don't agree with is the position that we all freelance to a degree
since our locomotives have electric motors, our couplers have springs, our
trucks are held in place with screws, etc. Those are inherent compromises
due to the size of our models and the desire to have them operate. They do
not represent freelancing...

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Re: mystery brass stock car

charles slater
 

That is an Sk-S class stock car from Pecos River Brass.
Charlie Slater




To: STMFC@...
From: pullmanboss@...
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 00:52:59 +0000
Subject: [STMFC] Re: mystery brass stock car






Pecos River Brass? Santa Fe Sk-?

Tom Madden

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


I don't recognize this model -- it has chain mechanism
similar to the (AHM) NYC stock cars... but is different.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/260987370054

Tim O'


Re: Hutchins steel roofs for 40 ft steel boxcars

O Fenton Wells
 

Thanks Randy, I'll check this out. I don't believe this roof ahs the
stiffening part but I'll go back and take another look.
Fenton Wells
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:25 PM, rhammill <nhrr@...> wrote:

**


Hi, Fenton -

Sylvan models makes both a Hutchins and Murphy roof. I have not seen them,
and I've heard they are getting out of the freight car/freight car detail
parts business so I don't know if they are available.

A number of F&C kits have parts that will work, but their roof is designed
to fit inside the ends, making it somewhat difficult to use since you'll
need to extend it. But you can get their bagged kits inexpensively at
shows, and may find uses for the rest of the models too.

The most common option for kitbashing is from several Accurail cars. This
requires cutting it off the model, of course. The price on these is
reasonable too.

Depending on the variation you need (does the prototype have a stiffening
rib between the major carlines?) it might be easier to stratchbuild.

I hope that helps -

Randy Hammill
http://newbritainstation.com
Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1954

--- In STMFC@..., "srrfan1401" <srrfan1401@...> wrote:

I need some help from the group. I have several 40 ft boxcar 'bashes' on
the schedule that require a Hutchins Steel Roof. Does anyone make such a
roof as a seperate peice or will I have to surgically remove a roof (a
roofendectomy)from another kit ? Sunshine makes the part but I don't
believe they sell the parts by themselves.
Any help is appreciated
Fenton Wells



--
Fenton Wells
3047 Creek Run
Sanford NC 27332
919-499-5545
srrfan1401@...


Re: State of the RPM hobby

Bruce Smith
 

Pat,

Careful there <G>... there are lots of examples of the converse. In fact, many PRR modelers have a few AT&SF 2-10-4s, especially if they model Lines West in 1956. I, as rivet counting SPF will also have one, but this one will be dead in tow, as it is being delivered from Baldwin in June 1944. Likewise an NP VO1000 will make an appearance. Finally, an ACL E3 and E6 lashup will also appear from time to time, on an official detour route supported by documetnation of ACL and RF&P diesels on the PRR in Philadelphia.

Really, being a prototype modeler is best left to self definition. If you think you are one, then you are! And in reality, almost ALL modelers, even freelances, model prototypes for at least some of their equipment (unless they have no interchange), thus making them prototype modelers as well.

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
Pat said,

None of them profess to be "NIT PICKING" RPM nuts but for the most part you
won't find an out of era car or an NYC/PRR loco running down the Santa Fe
for instance.


2012 Malvern PA RPM

Bill Lane
 

The 2012 Malvern PA RPM has just concluded. I went yesterday for most of the
day. As usual it was a very enjoyable experience but this year was many more
presentations. Most ran only once so you had to make the tough choice as to
what you wanted to see or miss. Here is a quick overview of most of the
models on display. It was not my intention to shoot every model from every
angle this year. They are all scales, all eras and all roads. It's a chunky
ZIP file so let it do its thing. http://www.lanestrains.com/RPM_2012.zip



I am already looking forward to the 2014 RPM as it alternates bi-yearly in
my area.







Thank You,
Bill Lane

Modeling the Mighty Pennsy & PRSL in 1957 in S Scale since 1988

See my finished models at:
<http://www.lanestrains.com/> http://www.lanestrains.com
Look at what has been made in PRR in S Scale!

Custom Train Parts Design
<http://www.lanestrains.com/SolidWorks_Modeling.htm>
http://www.lanestrains.com/SolidWorks_Modeling.htm

PRR Builders Photos Bought, Sold & Traded
(Trading is MUCH preferred)
<http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRphotos.xls>
http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRphotos.xls

***Join the PRR T&HS***
The other members are not ALL like me!
<http://www.prrths.com/> http://www.prrths.com
<http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRTHS_Application.pdf>
http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRTHS_Application.pdf

Join the Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines Historical Society
It's FREE to join! <http://www.prslhs.com/> http://www.prslhs.com
Preserving The Memory Of The PRSL


Re: State of the RPM hobby (was Pre-orders, pro or con)

Jared Harper
 

The biggest reason I decided to build a layout depicting Santa Fe's Alma branch in May 1943 is that I realized after Santa Fe's Raton Pass was published that I would never have enough time, space or money to do Raton Pass. When the book was behind me I started looking for a Santa Fe branchline to model and thanks to Bill Childers found the Alma branch. Last weekend I had three guys over to run the Alma branch mixed from one end of the layout and back. It took them a little over two hours. (The first group of operators took nearly three hours. I worked on my 22 1/2'x30' Alma branch layout for YEARS when I had an epiphany at one of Jim Six's Great Lakes Model Railroad Symposia realizing I was 63 years old and not getting any younger. I realized that if I was going to finish my layout I had to quit la ti da ing around so in the subsequent years I have become a much more focused and devoted modeler. (Agreeing to give clinics certainly helps.) The layout runs, most of the buildings for Eskridge are nearly complete, and a number of other structures are in various stages of completion. All the bridges are finished except one. I definitely need to start focusing on freight cars at some point. I have started SCENERY and have purchased a large quantity of scenic materials from Scenic Express. As I have said to my wife, "I am going to be pissed if I die before finishing this layout." So, I am trying my best.

Jared Harper
Athens, GA

--- In STMFC@..., Andy Harman <gsgondola@...> wrote:

At 03:30 PM 3/24/2012 -0400, you wrote:

But for the most part those of us who want a large operating layout where
8, 10, 12 or more operators can be kept busy doing real-world jobs, don't
have time to build the kind of models you see at RPM meets, or at least not
enough of them to fully occupy that large layout. And guys like me who sit
around building models when we're not on the computer are ... well... at
age 54 looking at a basement that still isn't ready for benchwork to go up,
8.5 years after buying this house. I get closer every day and I'm making
progress now


Re: Hutchins steel roofs for 40 ft steel boxcars

Larry Sexton
 

Fenton,



I believe the members of this group identified that Sylvan Models does make
a model of the Hutchins Steel Roof. On that bases, I ordered several so I
wouldn't have to cut up anymore Accurail SS boxcars.



Larry Sexton



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
srrfan1401
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:41 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Hutchins steel roofs for 40 ft steel boxcars





I need some help from the group. I have several 40 ft boxcar 'bashes' on the
schedule that require a Hutchins Steel Roof. Does anyone make such a roof as
a seperate peice or will I have to surgically remove a roof (a
roofendectomy)from another kit ? Sunshine makes the part but I don't believe
they sell the parts by themselves.
Any help is appreciated
Fenton Wells

85481 - 85500 of 193414