Good memory, Bill
I have these 2 sets on my bench as we 'speak?' . the Watch your step decals, in both white and black are printed vertically, near the bottom right corner.


Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent

Going from memory this warning is on Micro scale set #1 or #2, maybe both, in HO. Perfect for L&N cabooses.

Bill Welch

Actually, this would be something you could do with an inkjet. The artwork could be done in a variety of programs. With lettering this small, a 'close enough' computer font could be found. The trick would be matching the paint of the steps close enough with you printer. Most drawing programs have a 64 color standard pallet. One of these colors should be a reasonably close match.
Paint a swatch of your step color, or fill a box, depending on your program. Type your text over this in black and check your font point size for scale, etc. Once you're satisfied, turn the font color to white. In the properties box, click on "always on top" and print on white decal paper. Of course, seal the decal before using!


Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent

Charles,



Final got to read your blog post on the Tichy 4021. Very nicely done I hope
you will continue to pull more kits off the shelf.



Mark



From: Charles Hostetler [mailto:cesicjh@pocketinet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:49 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] (was)Tichy rebuilt USRA boxcar DIVERSION (is) useful
template?





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

Easy for you to say if you're not the one doing the work. Why don't you

take a

crack at it yourself?


Ben Hom

Ben and others,

I was stimulated by the idea and did take a little tiny initial crack at a
variant of it. This isn't implemented as a spreadsheet, because I wanted a
more pictorial format, but it is my first attempt at composing a kit profile
(not a review!) that provides a description of what's inside the box and
what it might become. I'd be interested in reactions to the utility of this
initial post which I hope can develop into a series. It deals with the Tichy
40' 50 ton flat car.

http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2013/01/kit-profile-tichy-4021.html

Regards,

Charles Hostetler

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gsc3" wrote:

Anyone know of any HO or N scale decals that contain a Watch Your Step warning in white? I had a set of old Walthers with this for a caboose but naturally ruined one of the decals. Many of the decal providers don't have photos.

I think some of the Microscale decal sets have this. This was common wording above the pilot steps on many locomotives.

Sure would be nice to have an ALPS printer, or something like it (that can print white), to whip up something like this when you need it.

Arved Grass
Fleming Island, Florida

Once Gerry Glow gets back up to speed he my be interested. I would give
him a few months as he will need some time dealing with the recent loss of
his brother.
fenton wells

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:11 PM, gsc3 <gsc3@yahoo.com> wrote:

**


Anyone know of any HO or N scale decals that contain a Watch Your Step
warning in white? I had a set of old Walthers with this for a caboose but
naturally ruined one of the decals. Many of the decal providers don't have
photos.

Thanks,
George Courtney

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

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson wrote:

ECMX 502 8k Gal. AC&F Type 11

ECMXX, actually. The photographer misidentified the reporting marks as ECNXX.

Is the 5-letter reporting mark a Mexican thing? First time I've noticed it.

Thanks for the IDs, and to Tim for finding these. FWIW, to see the image full size, go to one of the links Tim provided, click on "See Original Listing" just below he title of auction, then scroll down a bit to reveal the original listing. Double-click on that image and, presto!

Arved Grass
Fleming Island, Florida

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Gene" wrote:

It has always been his intention to make it available for free one way or another. It was through Al Westerfield that I became acquainted with this gentleman. The gentleman's late wife spotted an M&StL box car that had been turned into a billboard. The gentleman contacted Mr. Westerfield who in turn referred him to me as I now recall events.

There are a couple of good stories about the box car mentioned above that should be told sometime.

Say what, Gene????? An M&StL box car turned into a billboard??
But I thought those were outlawed bak in the 1930's!!!! VBG
Ah well, some would call the New Haven and Bangor & Aroostock red, white and blue cars "billboards" as well.

Cordially, Don Valentine

FWIW 8" is around 0.092" in HO, so code 100 is about 9% oversize in height.. In O, code 172 is about 3% over (for 48:1) or under (for 45:1), so perhaps you should consider a different scale. ;>)"

Jack,
So you are asking me to consider changing scales because my PRR Mainline will likely be laid with track that is not quite but close to 7/8" of a scale inch too tall? Nope, won't do it, "I'd rather fight than switch..." 3^)

Greg Martin

Or you could get our a mill file and......



Scott Haycock
,___

Jack Mullen writes (but didn't sign his post):

"I'm puzzled by the references to 156# rail. PRR's 152# and 155# sections are documented in (prototype) engineering literature and vendor's catalogs, but I'm unaware of 156#. Is this just a typo that's been perpetuated in this thread, or was there a third heavy rail section on the Pennsy? My recollection is that the 152# rail was designed in the late '20s, and the 155# was an improved design dating from sometime in the '40s. Overall dimensions remained the same: 8" h., 6 3/4" base, 3" head width. The 155# section had a deeper, redesigned head and improved fillet between head and web.

Both sections were introduced many years after the the I1s type and other heavy power was placed in service. Obviously I1s could and did operate safely on lighter rail. The purpose of moving to heavier rail sections was to attain an improvement in service life that would more than offset the cost of the added metal. Locomotive characteristics, axle loads, gross tonnage, operating speeds, grades and curvature are factors that come into play.

FWIW 8" is around 0.092" in HO, so code 100 is about 9% oversize in height.. In O, code 172 is about 3% over (for 48:1) or under (for 45:1), so perhaps you should consider a different scale. ;>)"



Jack,
So you are asking me to consider changing scales because my PRR Mainline will likely be laid with track that is not quite but close to 7/8" of a scale inch too tall? Nope, won't do it, "I'd rather fight than switch..." 3^)

Perhaps, the Pennsy in the forties didn't have the extensive amount of 155 lbs rail as is being expressed here, but no doubt as we moved toward the mid-fifties it was likely more extensive than is expressed here. I would tend to believe that coal hauling eastern railways were all making their moves in that directions for all the reason you mention. So I'll use the code 100 rail that I have collected over the years as well as the turnouts and crossings on my mainlines, weather them to my liking and add secondaries and sidings out of lighter rail when visible.

Greg Martin



.

I'm puzzled by the references to 156# rail. PRR's 152# and 155# sections are documented in (prototype) engineering literature and vendor's catalogs, but I'm unaware of 156#. Is this just a typo that's been perpetuated in this thread, or was there a third heavy rail section on the Pennsy? My recollection is that the 152# rail was designed in the late '20s, and the 155# was an improved design dating from sometime in the '40s. Overall dimensions remained the same: 8" h., 6 3/4" base, 3" head width. The 155# section had a deeper, redesigned head and improved fillet between head and web.

Both sections were introduced many years after the the I1s type and other heavy power was placed in service. Obviously I1s could and did operate safely on lighter rail. The purpose of moving to heavier rail sections was to attain an improvement in service life that would more than offset the cost of the added metal. Locomotive characteristics, axle loads, gross tonnage, operating speeds, grades and curvature are factors that come into play.

FWIW 8" is around 0.092" in HO, so code 100 is about 9% oversize in height.. In O, code 172 is about 3% over (for 48:1) or under (for 45:1), so perhaps you should consider a different scale. ;>)

well, I can't disagree with you Dennis.

To answer the "other software" question, I use two programs - both free - to convert and scale a Sketchup file. So first I export a sketchup file as a 3d model. Then I import the 3d model file into Meshlab, open it and export it as an STL file. Then in Accutrans I open the STL file and scale it. I know there are less clunky ways but I learned this in the early days of Shapeways services, when Rene Gourley was the only one I knew who had tried it. He put me onto these softwares - they were specifically recommended by Shapeways. They work, so I haven't learned a better way - which I know others on this list have done.

Rob

--------------------------------------------------
From: "soolinehistory" <destorzek@mchsi.com>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 7:46 PM
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: 3D printing challenges etc.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Kirkham" wrote:

yes - but if using Sketchup to scale the drawing to HO, you can also run
into the 6 decimal place rounding problem if you are not careful. Dividing
most large numbers by 87.1 seldom produces neat 6 (or fewer) digit
quotients. Using other software to scale a full size drawing allows one to
get around that problem. But drawing with the rounding problem in mind
from the get-go is also worth some effort.

Rob Kirkham

I think Rob's problem lies elsewhere.

Let me preface this comment with the confession that I am by no means an expert on Sketchup... In fact, I've never used the software, and all I know I've learned from poking around in their help files and discussion lists, looking for answers to Rob's questions.

That said, the problem lies not in what scale the object is drawn in, or how many decimal places entered points are calculated to. If one were to draw the gusseted end of a hat section brace as a portion of an ellipse, or a NURBS curve, extrude that profile to give it some thickness, lay it over modeled sheathing with V groove edges, and preform the Boolean union operation to attempt to make them one solid, the software is going to preform all kinds of calculations to the limit of its precision, no matter if the original data was entered to three place precision, two place precision, or limited to whole numbers.

The problem is that while software operating with solids as the native environment will either do the operation, or choke right then and there. Sketchup, on the other hand, will happily trim all the surfaces and display them, without any indication that the different surfaces that define what you assume to be a solid do not have concurrent boundaries, and you won't learn that until thousands of operations later, when you try to convert the file to STL format. You end up with something that Sketchup calls "leaky solids", which is basically the software development team's admission that their product can't reliably calculate boundaries with all points within the internal margin of error for concurrent points. It is basically the difference between freeware, and software that will set you back multiple thousands of dollars.



Dennis



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

On Feb 8, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Anthony Thompson <thompson@signaturepress.com> wrote:

Tim O'Connor wrote:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111007867594
http://www.ebay.com/itm/121060850109
http://www.ebay.com/itm/111007867635
http://www.ebay.com/itm/111007866997
http://www.ebay.com/itm/111007867546

Since bidding has ended, or the item sold, in all five cases, you can no longer click to enlarge. Not many of us can identify much in the little thumbnails provided for buyers to look at.

Well, for some reason I had no trouble enlarging the images, and the tank cars were as follows:

DNCXX 5509 8K gal. AC&F Type 11

TRNX 12001 16K gal. Santa Fe Tk-M built by GATC in 1942

DNCXX 2719 10K gal. Pennsylvania Tank Car Co. built in 1923

MTSX 107 8K gal. Standard Tank Car Co.mid-1920s

ECMX 502 8k Gal. AC&F Type 11


Richard Hendrickson

Thanks for the explanation. It would indeed be frustrating to find out at the end that there is an error(or many) somewhere, and not know where to find it!


Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Kirkham" wrote:

yes - but if using Sketchup to scale the drawing to HO, you can also run
into the 6 decimal place rounding problem if you are not careful. Dividing
most large numbers by 87.1 seldom produces neat 6 (or fewer) digit
quotients. Using other software to scale a full size drawing allows one to
get around that problem. But drawing with the rounding problem in mind
from the get-go is also worth some effort.

Rob Kirkham

I think Rob's problem lies elsewhere.

Let me preface this comment with the confession that I am by no means an expert on Sketchup... In fact, I've never used the software, and all I know I've learned from poking around in their help files and discussion lists, looking for answers to Rob's questions.

That said, the problem lies not in what scale the object is drawn in, or how many decimal places entered points are calculated to. If one were to draw the gusseted end of a hat section brace as a portion of an ellipse, or a NURBS curve, extrude that profile to give it some thickness, lay it over modeled sheathing with V groove edges, and preform the Boolean union operation to attempt to make them one solid, the software is going to preform all kinds of calculations to the limit of its precision, no matter if the original data was entered to three place precision, two place precision, or limited to whole numbers.

The problem is that while software operating with solids as the native environment will either do the operation, or choke right then and there. Sketchup, on the other hand, will happily trim all the surfaces and display them, without any indication that the different surfaces that define what you assume to be a solid do not have concurrent boundaries, and you won't learn that until thousands of operations later, when you try to convert the file to STL format. You end up with something that Sketchup calls "leaky solids", which is basically the software development team's admission that their product can't reliably calculate boundaries with all points within the internal margin of error for concurrent points. It is basically the difference between freeware, and software that will set you back multiple thousands of dollars.



Dennis

Hello folks-
I'm currently scratchbuilding a Pacific Electric boxcar based on these examples:

http://www.oerm.org/collection/red-cars-pacific-electric/pe-2731-0
http://www.oerm.org/collection/red-cars-pacific-electric/pe-2721
http://www.oerm.org/collection/red-cars-pacific-electric/pe-2737

Only piece of information I'm missing concerns the brakes. Anyone have a picture showing the arrangement of rods and levers? I did a search here, and someone did post pictures but the links have expired. Also, were the cars equipped with regular KC brakes or split K? Finally, when were they converted to AB brakes as it appears in the pictures? I'm modeling 1941 and I want to know which type is appropriate.

Thanks!
C.I.H.

There are a couple of good stories about the [M&StL] box car mentioned above
that should be told sometime.

Gene Green




No time like the present, Gene.



Schuyler

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie D" wrote:

I have quite a few of the box cars kits from the gray material days that I was able to successfully build without a lot of angst. Much more enjoyable to build than some of the early Sunshine or F&C Urethane kits. The only Westerfield kit that I threw in the towel on was the NYC 70 ton hopper car. Everytime I touched it something else broke. I finally decided that if I ever wanted to model a derailment scene with wrecked cars in it, that car would be the first to go in it.

Mark

I still have several of the dark gray kits running on the layout. His B&A steel boxcar and a couple of the MP 40' automobile cars. I remember using wood floor stock on the interior of the sides to get them straight and it gave me more surface to attach the ends to. The gray resin seemed to eat my drill bits though. I recently finished the GN truss rod boxcar and the NC&StL 36' boxcar in the gray resin. They are a enjoyable build next up is the new RI stock car.

Charlie Duckworth

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Doug Pillow wrote:

Had two of them from e-bay  a USRA single sheathed and a three bay hopper. Box
car had crackin side I managed to fix. Hopper car I couldn't get together was
warped. Most frustrating kit I ever tried to assemble ended up pitching it in
trash. That material was tough to work with.

                                                                                                          
Doug Pillow

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

I wrote:

I design in 1:1 because I work from prototype drawings. When I'm satisfied with the part or assembly I ** an STL file. Also 1:1. I bring that into Netfabb and scale it, and export *that* as another STL file. (I have to use the export function with Netfabb - for some reason I can't get it to ** in that program.)

I find I get a higher quality output if I scale the STL file rather than scaling the design and then creating the STL file. (I tend to lose my curiosity when I find a system that works and will just stick with that.)

Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense! Yahoo dropped two instances of "Save as" enclosed in greater than/less than brackets. They belong where I put the double asterisks above.

Tom M.

Good thing that Rail Alphabet hasn't entered the discussion yet...(grin).

Steve Lucas.