Brian Carlson wrote:

Tim O'Connor mention the SPH&TS have a F-70-10 flat car kit. The website show only the piggyback version. Can anyone tell me if these were released as general service versions also?

No, the Society has not yet done so. Hopefully they will at some point. I believe the pig flat version was thought to be an attractive seller, and the trailer hardware is very nicely rendered. Of course you could put on a new, plain deck (with exposed bolster and draft gear cover plates) for general service, and use the piggyback deck on a model of the F-70-7, many of which were in trailer service. Body and deck dimensions are the same for F-70-7 and -10.

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

Thanks Rich. I ordered one of the F-70-6 cars and 1956 bulkhead also. Good to know I didn’t miss the F-70-10.



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY



From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rich C
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 8:40 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] SP F-70-10





Brian, The F-70-10 regular flat car is going to be done in a future release. I have the piggyback version and have not looked at all the details yet.

Hopefully they will release the F-70-6,-7 and -10 in undecorated kits.

Rich Christie

---

On Feb 9, 2013, at 4:07 PM, sshaffer <sshaffer@zianet.com> wrote:

Walther HO model 53' 6" GSC flatcar, in PRR paint is a 70 ton car, in ATSF
paint only a 50 ton car. Is that determined by the trucks it sits on?

Santa Fe's 53'6" GSC flat cars, classes Ft-W, Ft-3, and Ft-5, had nominal capacities of 50 tons. Santa Fe's one class of 60' GSC flats, class
Ft-7, were of 70 tons nominal capacity. Trucks are certainly an issue in assigning nominal capacities, but it's also conceivable that GSC had castings for both 50 and 70 ton cars.

Richard Hendrickson

Brian, The F-70-10 regular flat car is going to be done in a future release. I have the piggyback version and have not looked at all the details yet.
 
Hopefully they will release the F-70-6,-7 and -10 in undecorated kits.
 
Rich Christie

Tim O'Connor mention the SPH&TS have a F-70-10 flat car kit. The website
show only the piggyback version. Can anyone tell me if these were released
as general service versions also?



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY




The SPH&TS also now offers an F-70-10 flat car kit, which is a
welded car built in 1953-1954. (Injection molded from custom
tooling.)

Tim O'Connor

The car in the slide is also missing the rivets for the internal baffles and has fewer handrail stanchions than a Tk-M. It is also riding on Buckeye C-R trucks that appear to be 50-ton capacity. But to be honest, I don't have an image of the 70-ton version to compare.

It is good to have a great book on Santa Fe tank cars handy!

Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
Carson City, NV

Dave, from what I have read, after the war the PRR began to replace
its mainline rail with standardized 136 lb rail (as did many railroads)
This is the standard size for heavy rail in the US to this day.

Tim

Trucks would be one factor. There may have been other reasons as well.

Walther HO model 53' 6" GSC flatcar, in PRR paint is a 70 ton car, in ATSF paint only a 50 ton car. Is that determined by the trucks it sits on?

Thank you

Steve Shaffer

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce F. Smith" wrote:

Jack,

156# was a slip on my part in the intial thread that I later corrected to 155#

regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [STMFC@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of moonmuln [jack.f.mullen@...]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:58 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar

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.


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, SUVCWORR@ wrote:

I don't know about 156# rail but I have track charts of the Connemaugh
Div (1940), Pittsburgh Div (1951 and 1958) and Cresson Branch (1951 and
1956) all with 152# rail for the mainline and the primary track of the
Cresson Branch.

Rich Orr

Getting off the STMFC topic a little, but I did locate at 1943 report titled "The Life of Rail" at the PA state archives last May. It was to inform various wartime regulators of the need to support higher rail replacement rates than was being allocated based on war-time material restrictions.

It includes the following for PRR mainline track:

Total miles of mainline: 15,787
Miles of 152 lb rail: 628
Miles of 131 lb rail: 2,155
Miles of 130 lb rail: 6,336
Miles of 112 lb and lighter: 6,668

So it appears that most of the heavy rail must have been laid post-war, since the PRR was expecting to get only about 50% of the new rail they felt was necessary in 1944 to maintain overall rail conditions.

Dave Evans

On Feb 9, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net> wrote:

Richard, are you sure about the TRSX (not TRNX)? Although the
car has 4-courses like the Tk-M, the builder photos make it look
much longer. I would have guessed the car in the photo is a 10k
or at most a 12k tank car.

The angle from which it's viewed is deceptive, Tim. It's certainly a larger car than 10K or 12K. Some details don't match the Tk-M class as built (e.g. single tank bands), but given the extreme age of the car when photographed, that's hardly conclusive. GATC built similar large (for that era) tank cars as diesel fuel cars for a number of RRs in the '40s, and it could be one of those,

Richard Hendrickson

Richard, are you sure about the TRSX (not TRNX)? Although the
car has 4-courses like the Tk-M, the builder photos make it look
much longer. I would have guessed the car in the photo is a 10k
or at most a 12k tank car.

Tim O'Connor



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

http://www.ebay.com/itm/121060850109

That lettering can be found in several forms in various decal sets.

Speaking of cataloging stuff :-) I have long wanted to actually sit
down with my decal collection and catalog all the wonderful little bits
of lettering that can be found on decal sets that are useful in many
other situations. For example I recall the decal sets for RF&P PS-1
40' box cars (from whom?) had 'watch your step' lettering that was
placed under the ladders. A nice detail, and not uncommon.

I estimate if I did this by myself I would never actually build another
model because it would take me several thousand hours to do a good job
of it.

Tim O'Connor

Thanks Richard! That's what I wanted to know.

Tim

Tony

Yes, you can ALWAYS see completed listings for 15 days after it closes.
Just open the original listing, and click on the image to enlarge it to
full size. These are large, hi resolution images.

Tim O'

Jack,

156# was a slip on my part in the intial thread that I later corrected to 155#

regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [STMFC@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of moonmuln [jack.f.mullen@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:58 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar

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. ;>)


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, SUVCWORR@... wrote:

I don't know about 156# rail but I have track charts of the Connemaugh
Div (1940), Pittsburgh Div (1951 and 1958) and Cresson Branch (1951 and
1956) all with 152# rail for the mainline and the primary track of the
Cresson Branch.

Rich Orr


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Daniels
To: STMFC
Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re:
Revell Flatcar


David, I would humbly disagree with you regarding both of your
comments. First
of all, the PRR used their 156 lb. rail on their mainlines throughout
Pennsylvania, on both the Middle Division and on both sides of the
climb over
the Allegheny Mountains. The reason for this heavy rail was NOT due to
traffic
weight, but to absorb the heavy pounding of the locomotives that were
used on
these lines (primairly class I1sa with an main rod thickness of 11.75"
at the
end of the rod). Once the diesel had banished the I1s, the PRR relaid
the line
with 132 lb. rail.
Â
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: David
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:11 AM
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re:
Revell
Flatcar


Â
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, timboconnor@ wrote:

Bruce, I know that's true, but how common was 156lb rail on the PRR,

really? I
grew up in PRR territory and none

of the rail I ever saw was 156lb. Of course I didn't go out on the

Middle
Division, maybe that's where they used it...

IIRC the 156# stuff was only used on the line from Pittsburgh up to the
Lake
Erie ore docks, and maybe a handful of other small locations. The rest
of the
main system was the usual 120-130# rail that everyone else used for
heavy
traffic. Code 100 rail really should be banished from HO on general
principle.

David Thompson




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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Mark Rickert wrote:

Can you site the source of the ruling on "billboards" , particularly the text of the verdict?

It's all in the book, Billboard Reefers, by Hendrickson and Kaminski. The ICC ruling itself is quite long, but there was a good summary of it in Railway Age; the latter is reprinted in full in the book.

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

Can you site the source of the ruling on "billboards" , particularly the
text of the verdict?

thanks,
Mark Rickert
(going back to lurking)

A follow up - having done some testing, the desktop version of 123D is more advanced than the browser app, and Inventor Fusion is more advanced than 123D. The wrinkle with Fusion is that it will expire in April, although an update that will continue its availability has been promised.

http://www.123dapp.com
There's a browser app and a desktop version.

There's also Inventor Fusion, which apparently is more targeted to mechanical work:
http://labs.autodesk.com/technologies/fusion

It seems like there's a lot of crossover between them, though!