Date   

Re: Multi Unit tank cars to transport "Liquid Chlorine, Sulphur, etc."

Charles Hladik
 

Bill,
It's been done in brass in HO and O. Can't remember by whom. Not sure
about the 1.5 ton statement though, these appear smaller than that.
My understanding is that the smaller tanks were used mainly by
municipalities for water treatment back in the 40's. I remember trains of them
leaving Fairport Harbor, Ohio going past the Diamond Alkali plant, heading out
on the FP&E, Fairport, Painesville and Eastern, most likely to connect to
NYC. Morton Salt had/has a large under the lake, Erie, mine at , I think,
Grand River.
Chuck Hladik

In a message dated 2/15/2013 3:58:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com writes:




Comrades

In the process of thumbing through the Train Shed CYC #12 "Tank Cars
1922-1943" that came in the mail today there were several images of
the tank cars built by AC&F and General American Type TMU. Most are
listed for the handling of Liquid Chlorine but one entry says,
"Liquid Chlorine, Sulphur, etc." These cars were equipped to carry up
to fifteen 1.5 ton dismountable tanks. I had noticed these cars in
the other THC volume and thought them interesting. Today I Googled
Liquid Chlorine to try to understand why these specialized cars were
used for its transport. It is a powerful "oxidizing agent." Owners
shown were Columbia Alkali Corp., (CACX), Penn. Salt Mfg. (SMX), and
Electro Bleaching Gas Co. (EBG).

Curious if someone can explain why they used the small tanks to
handle Liquid Chlorine? This seems like a good project for Funaro &
Camerlengo or brass. Thoughts?

Bill Welch
2225 Nursery Road; #20-104
Clearwater, FL 33764-7622
727-470-9930
_fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com_ (mailto:fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com)

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






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


News from Model Shapeways & UPS

Bill Welch
 

I received word this PM from UPS that a parcel from "Model Shapeways"
was heading my way, which means my UTLX underframe has been
"printed." (How strange that is to say?!) Excellent turn around on
the order. Could not help but note that The President mentioned a new
3-D printing facility was coming on-line in Youngstown, OH and the
potential importance of this new technology to our industrial
economy. Looks like it will arrive in time to qualify as a birthday
present to myself.

Bill Welch
2225 Nursery Road; #20-104
Clearwater, FL 33764-7622
727-470-9930
fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com


Re: Multi Unit tank cars to transport "Liquid Chlorine, Sulphur, etc." (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Bill;

Those are the 106's, right?

I bought a brass version (MTS?) in HO, after I talked to a local water treatment guy who told me industries/water treatment plants could not store that much liquefied gas, so the small tanks were handy to unload with a small crane onto a dolly and roll into the facility after unloading, and hook up where they needed to treat the water (I don't know if that was secondary or tertiary). Seems like they could be useful to a range of industries requiring small tanks liquefied gas, whatever it was, as long as it was naaaasty. The silver paint on the tanks was presumably for keeping then cooler, like some of the insulated tanks were?

Manufacturers of liquefied chlorine were indeed Diamond, Penn Salt, and others that also used the big 105's.

Now I wish I had a decal set...

Jerry?

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Welch
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 3:57 PM
To: Steam Era Freight cars
Subject: [STMFC] Multi Unit tank cars to transport "Liquid Chlorine, Sulphur, etc."



Comrades

In the process of thumbing through the Train Shed CYC #12 "Tank Cars
1922-1943" that came in the mail today there were several images of
the tank cars built by AC&F and General American Type TMU. Most are
listed for the handling of Liquid Chlorine but one entry says,
"Liquid Chlorine, Sulphur, etc." These cars were equipped to carry up
to fifteen 1.5 ton dismountable tanks. I had noticed these cars in
the other THC volume and thought them interesting. Today I Googled
Liquid Chlorine to try to understand why these specialized cars were
used for its transport. It is a powerful "oxidizing agent." Owners
shown were Columbia Alkali Corp., (CACX), Penn. Salt Mfg. (SMX), and
Electro Bleaching Gas Co. (EBG).

Curious if someone can explain why they used the small tanks to
handle Liquid Chlorine? This seems like a good project for Funaro &
Camerlengo or brass. Thoughts?

Bill Welch
2225 Nursery Road; #20-104
Clearwater, FL 33764-7622
727-470-9930
fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com <mailto:fgexbill%40tampabay.rr.com>







Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Multi Unit tank cars to transport "Liquid Chlorine, Sulphur, etc."

proto48er
 

Bill -

Chlorine is and was used to disinfect water. In our small suburb, small tanks of chlorine are still trucked in to be sparged into drinking water from wells. This was done even in large cities if the drinking water came from a river or surface lake. Lots of small towns used the small tanks - after WWII, there was a push to ensure clean drinking water for small towns around the country.

Also do a search of the archive here for the reason so many anthracite road hoppers were seen around the country!

A.T. Kott

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Bill Welch <fgexbill@...> wrote:

Comrades

In the process of thumbing through the Train Shed CYC #12 "Tank Cars
1922-1943" that came in the mail today there were several images of
the tank cars built by AC&F and General American Type TMU. Most are
listed for the handling of Liquid Chlorine but one entry says,
"Liquid Chlorine, Sulphur, etc." These cars were equipped to carry up
to fifteen 1.5 ton dismountable tanks. I had noticed these cars in
the other THC volume and thought them interesting. Today I Googled
Liquid Chlorine to try to understand why these specialized cars were
used for its transport. It is a powerful "oxidizing agent." Owners
shown were Columbia Alkali Corp., (CACX), Penn. Salt Mfg. (SMX), and
Electro Bleaching Gas Co. (EBG).

Curious if someone can explain why they used the small tanks to
handle Liquid Chlorine? This seems like a good project for Funaro &
Camerlengo or brass. Thoughts?

Bill Welch
2225 Nursery Road; #20-104
Clearwater, FL 33764-7622
727-470-9930
fgexbill@...



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


Multi Unit tank cars to transport "Liquid Chlorine, Sulphur, etc."

Bill Welch
 

Comrades

In the process of thumbing through the Train Shed CYC #12 "Tank Cars
1922-1943" that came in the mail today there were several images of
the tank cars built by AC&F and General American Type TMU. Most are
listed for the handling of Liquid Chlorine but one entry says,
"Liquid Chlorine, Sulphur, etc." These cars were equipped to carry up
to fifteen 1.5 ton dismountable tanks. I had noticed these cars in
the other THC volume and thought them interesting. Today I Googled
Liquid Chlorine to try to understand why these specialized cars were
used for its transport. It is a powerful "oxidizing agent." Owners
shown were Columbia Alkali Corp., (CACX), Penn. Salt Mfg. (SMX), and
Electro Bleaching Gas Co. (EBG).

Curious if someone can explain why they used the small tanks to
handle Liquid Chlorine? This seems like a good project for Funaro &
Camerlengo or brass. Thoughts?

Bill Welch
2225 Nursery Road; #20-104
Clearwater, FL 33764-7622
727-470-9930
fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com


Commercial: Freight car books plus others

dphobbies
 

In the past several months we have purchased a significant number of books, both hard and soft cover, many now out of print.

There are too many to create a list, but I will respond to offlist inquiries. Recent offering of say Four WAys and Morning sun we are offering at 25% off list, with out of print recent books selling for list. Very few books have real collectors prices on them. I think the most expensive books are the Barger books selling for $100.00 ea. There are a plethora of esoteric books as well.

I will only respond to offlist inquiries. You may phone as well. If I am out, ask for Harley.

Ron Sebastian
Des Plaines Hobbies
1-847-297-2118


Re: NYC freight car photos

ed_mines
 

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

Although the photo dates are post-1960, many of the photos in this
seller's auctions show cars built or rebuilt before 1960.

Looking at the other slides in this collection I think Henry Maywald may have been the photographer.

Henry spent a lot of time in Cobleskill which is in the heart of D&H country. He photographed freight cars which was a little uncommon at the time the slides were taken.

I recognize some sort of a wheel on a depressed center flat car. It's not exactly the Maywald slide I have but maybe 2 similar wheels came from the same shipper (GE in the Albany area)

Ed Mines


Re: Atlas 40' USRA rebuild / C&WC version/ A Shame File

Tim O'Connor
 

Clearly Terry was no ordinary toolmaker. He was one of the greats. But Richard's caution probably
applies to most vendors.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Carlson" <midcentury@sbcglobal.net>

I believe the nicest freight car done in TT scale is the Gold Coast injected molded styrene 1937 AAR boxcar. It was not copied from an HO car, it was copied from an O scale Intermountain '37 AAR round corner box car. Terry Wegmann was commissioned to make the tooling, and he broke down the O scale car into a flat-kit. The resulting pieces were used to make molds to cast parts. He filled the molds with tooling epoxy and the resulting parts were put into a Deckel 3-D pantograph and the tracing gave the TT hard tooled molds from which Styrene parts were cast. Because the door was cast in place, Terry took efforts to have the door fit prototypically close. A good looking car was the result, albeit with molded on ladders and power brakes. I think a good argument can be made that free standing details may be less practical for cars this small.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

--- On Thu, 2/14/13, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@opendoor.com> wrote:
Producing TT scale models by copying existing HO scale models is fraughtwithperil.


Re: Canadian National photos

Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Larry
You could try Helmut Osterman, 519-884-7058
Al Paterson seems to be out of the biz and I've no idea what the status is of his collection
Also try Ian Cranstone, http://www.nakina.net/

Pierre Oliver

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

Larry, IIRC there were two Canadian photo dealers present at the NMRA National I went to in Toronto a few years ago. The photos I purchased oddly have no info about them. None were Keith Sirman, I know that. Hopefully one of our Canadian list members will know who they were. Surely between Keith and the two I saw in Toronto, they might be able to help you.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Sexton" <SSEXTON9@> wrote:

Does anyone have experience in obtaining Canadian National railroad photos?
And if so, can you provide me with that how-to info? I'd like to contain a
copy of a 1943-44 photo of CN 142027 and several other Canadian National
gons loaded with crated Chevie military trucks headed to a port to be
shipped overseas. Thanks in advance.>

Larry Sexton


Re: Red Caboose 42' Flat Car Kit Profile - Tennessee Central information

Steven D Johnson
 

Charles,



Thanks for telling us about this. Enjoyed reading the profile.



For the 2.5 others who are interested in Tennessee Central besides myself,
here is some additional information and a few corrections to Richard
Hendrickson's RMJ article.



According to TC documents, in 1940-41, the railroad's Nashville shops built
two 50-ton flats, which apparently matched the specs of the 2701-2725 series
flat cars, but for some reason those "home-built" cars were numbered 2794
and 2795. TC's annual reports indicate that two other 50-ton flats were
constructed in 1943-44, but there are later company documents that lists
these cars, nos. 2792 and 2793, as being acquired second-hand in November
1943. It is possible that some of these cars were built from foreign road
cars wrecked on-line, as I seem to recall some reference made to that, but
need to did some more in my TC files to confirm that. Despite the weird
numbering, there were never 95 cars as shown in the article's roster.



As to some of the original TC 2701-series flats being converted to gondolas
with sides and ends, I have seen a few photos of these cars in m-of-w
service with makeshift sides and ends consisting of railroad ties and large
boards, etc., but as far as I know, none were used as "gondolas" in revenue
service.



In 1954-55, TC's Nashville shops converted eight of these cars into pulpwood
rack cars. The number series in the ORERs shows 3000-3016, but only
3000-3007 were ever finished. It is interesting that TC Superintendent, Car
Services wrote to at least two larger southern railroads, GM&O and SAL, to
inquire about how they handled pulpwood, whether it was more economical to
haul pulpwood on specially-converted cars or in boxcars or stock cars (which
is what TC had been doing). etc. SAL's General Supt. Transportation replied
with a very thorough letter listing all the pulpwood rack cars they owned,
giving the series and capacity, and he included a copy of their diagram,
which the TC copied and adopted as their own! TC retired those eight cars
in July 1959 and sold them to the Georgia RR.



In 1956-57, TC's shops converted five of the flats (nos. 2702, 2707, 2721,
2722 and 2723) into container cars of AAR mechanical designation "LG." The
conversion involved the addition of side and end extensions and receptacles
for 12 containers for hauling ferro manganese ore from the Tennessee
Products & Chemical Company in Rockwood, TN. I have a waybill showing No.
2722 consigned to Granite City (IL) Steel, with routing over the TC from
Rockwood, TN, to Hopkinsville, KY, to IC there, to TRRA.



As a side note, back in 1998, I contracted with Red Caboose to produce the
HO flat car kit decorated for the TC as a fund-raising project for our
Cumberland Division/SER-NMRA here in Nashville. Red Caboose did a
spectacular job on the kits and we sold out of the 300 kits so quickly that
we had to order another partial run to cover all the orders.



Hope all this TC minutiae is of interest to someone.



Steve Johnson





From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Charles Hostetler
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:18 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Red Caboose 42' Flat Car Kit Profile





Good Evening All,

I've completed a third kit profile; this one is for the Red Caboose RC-220
42' Flat Car. Those interested can find the post at:

http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2013/02/kit-profile-red-caboose-2200.html

As with the Tichy flat car, Richard Hendrickson wrote the definitive article
on these cars which is referenced in this post and available on line. I've
tried not to duplicate his discussion but to supplement it with some photos
of the sprues, dimensional scans of the major castings, and some information
from the Jan. 1958 ORER.

I thought it was mildly amusing (particularly in light of the recent
comments on advances in prototype research) that Red Caboose said in their
instruction sheet that "... researching what roads had this car would be
nearly impossible." I've been an admirer of Richard's RMJ articles which
retain their clarity, relevance, and helpfulness over a decade later and now
that I know they were "nearly impossible" I am even more impressed :)

Relative newcomers to this list may not have seen these articles that relate
models to prototypes when they were originally published or realize how easy
it is to use the MR index to find them on line. I'd like to suggest that
they are well worth seeking out, and I hope this post furthers that purpose.

Regards,

Charles Hostetler
Goshen, IN


Re: Canadian National photos

Bill Welch
 

Larry, IIRC there were two Canadian photo dealers present at the NMRA National I went to in Toronto a few years ago. The photos I purchased oddly have no info about them. None were Keith Sirman, I know that. Hopefully one of our Canadian list members will know who they were. Surely between Keith and the two I saw in Toronto, they might be able to help you.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Sexton" <SSEXTON9@...> wrote:

Does anyone have experience in obtaining Canadian National railroad photos?
And if so, can you provide me with that how-to info? I'd like to contain a
copy of a 1943-44 photo of CN 142027 and several other Canadian National
gons loaded with crated Chevie military trucks headed to a port to be
shipped overseas. Thanks in advance.>

Larry Sexton


NYC freight car photos

Tim O'Connor
 

Although the photo dates are post-1960, many of the photos in this
seller's auctions show cars built or rebuilt before 1960.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111011892094

Tim O'Connor


Re: UTL type V vs. VV

Bruce Smith
 

Steve,

Thanks. So it sounds like both my tanks should be lettered as type V (and the "X" as an X), regardless of the type of K brake used.

Interestingly, in p[laying around with the parts to the PSC type V, the KC brake cylinder gets pushed too far towards the center of the car by the supplied brake levers to fit correctly on the platform provided. In addition, the newer of my two kits has some warpage in the tank sections making assembly, well, challenging!


Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/


"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."

__

/ &#92;

__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________

|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |

| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||

|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|

| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

On Feb 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Steve and Barb Hile wrote:

Bruce,



I have pondered this situation for a long time and although I have not found
anything definitive, I have formed some opinions.



I have reviewed a lot of photos in my research and find that the earliest V
and X cars had nothing designating a type on their ends prior to about 1906
or so. I have two photos of similar cars with 1909 build dates (but
different build locations) one of which has a V and the other has VV. (At
that time, UTLX was still part of Standard Oil and cars were often built by
the company at one if its refineries.) Commercial builder's photos of both
V and X cars show VV and XX on cars built up to the introduction of the X-3
design in 1917.



I believe that the two letters were used to designate (separately) the
underframe type and the tank type. The V car tanks had the heavier bottom
sheet, so they were different than those of the X type cars. I had tended
to discount how many times UTLX may have moved tanks and underframes around.



In the first few years of the 20th century, UTLX purchased something like
2500 steel underframes from Bettendorf (prior to or at the same time period
as the V and X cars were being developed.) These underframes replaced older
wood underframes as was required by the new tank car standards of the
period. I have also seen photos that show cars designated as BX and BV as
well as a picture of a car with just a W (for an older tank still sitting on
a wood underframe.)



This is all somewhat of a moot point for anyone modeling these tank cars
past the 1920's as it appears that from then on the simpler single letter V
and X were retained along with X-3, X-4 and X-5 as the designations.



Hope this makes sense.



Regards,

Steve Hile





_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Bruce F. Smith
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:04 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] UTL type V vs. VV





Folks,

Getting down to the nuts and bolts on the Van Dyke tank cars. What is the
difference between a Type V and Type VV? I've seen photos showing either VV
or V on the end of the car. In looking at the brakes in photos last night,
it appears to have been built with KD brakes (as noted in Richard's article)
while some were built with KC. One web page claimed that those with KC were
Type VV and had their KC cylinders relocated when rebuilt to narrow gauge as
the trucks impinged. This page also implied that the KD cars were Type V and
that some of these went to narrow gauge without conversion and in fact some
of these cars swapped narrow and std gauge trucks repeatedly. I'm
considering building one of each (KD, KC) in std gauge (in addition to the
type X with the Shapeways or Madden frame) but wondered a bit about the
specifics.

Indeed, it seems like there might be a type XX as well... comments?

Regards

Bruce

Bruce Smith

Auburn, AL











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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Atlas 40' USRA rebuild / C&WC version/ A Shame File

Andy Carlson
 

I believe the nicest freight car done in TT scale is the Gold Coast injected molded styrene 1937 AAR boxcar. It was not copied from an HO car, it was copied from an O scale Intermountain '37 AAR round corner box car. Terry Wegmann was commissioned to make the tooling, and he broke down the O scale car into a flat-kit. The resulting pieces were used to make molds to cast parts. He filled the molds with tooling epoxy and the resulting parts were put into a Deckel 3-D pantograph and the tracing gave the TT hard tooled molds from which Styrene parts were cast. Because the door was cast in place, Terry took efforts to have the door fit prototypically close. A good looking car was the result, albeit with molded on ladders and power brakes. I think a good argument can be made that free standing details may be less practical for cars this small.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

--- On Thu, 2/14/13, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@opendoor.com> wrote:
  Producing TT scale models by copying existing HO scale models is fraughtwithperil. 

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


Re: UTL type V vs. VV

Steve and Barb Hile
 

Bruce,



I have pondered this situation for a long time and although I have not found
anything definitive, I have formed some opinions.



I have reviewed a lot of photos in my research and find that the earliest V
and X cars had nothing designating a type on their ends prior to about 1906
or so. I have two photos of similar cars with 1909 build dates (but
different build locations) one of which has a V and the other has VV. (At
that time, UTLX was still part of Standard Oil and cars were often built by
the company at one if its refineries.) Commercial builder's photos of both
V and X cars show VV and XX on cars built up to the introduction of the X-3
design in 1917.



I believe that the two letters were used to designate (separately) the
underframe type and the tank type. The V car tanks had the heavier bottom
sheet, so they were different than those of the X type cars. I had tended
to discount how many times UTLX may have moved tanks and underframes around.



In the first few years of the 20th century, UTLX purchased something like
2500 steel underframes from Bettendorf (prior to or at the same time period
as the V and X cars were being developed.) These underframes replaced older
wood underframes as was required by the new tank car standards of the
period. I have also seen photos that show cars designated as BX and BV as
well as a picture of a car with just a W (for an older tank still sitting on
a wood underframe.)



This is all somewhat of a moot point for anyone modeling these tank cars
past the 1920's as it appears that from then on the simpler single letter V
and X were retained along with X-3, X-4 and X-5 as the designations.



Hope this makes sense.



Regards,

Steve Hile





_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Bruce F. Smith
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:04 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] UTL type V vs. VV





Folks,

Getting down to the nuts and bolts on the Van Dyke tank cars. What is the
difference between a Type V and Type VV? I've seen photos showing either VV
or V on the end of the car. In looking at the brakes in photos last night,
it appears to have been built with KD brakes (as noted in Richard's article)
while some were built with KC. One web page claimed that those with KC were
Type VV and had their KC cylinders relocated when rebuilt to narrow gauge as
the trucks impinged. This page also implied that the KD cars were Type V and
that some of these went to narrow gauge without conversion and in fact some
of these cars swapped narrow and std gauge trucks repeatedly. I'm
considering building one of each (KD, KC) in std gauge (in addition to the
type X with the Shapeways or Madden frame) but wondered a bit about the
specifics.

Indeed, it seems like there might be a type XX as well... comments?

Regards

Bruce

Bruce Smith

Auburn, AL


Red Caboose 42' Flat Car Kit Profile

Charles Hostetler <cesicjh@...>
 

Good Evening All,

I've completed a third kit profile; this one is for the Red Caboose RC-220 42' Flat Car. Those interested can find the post at:

http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2013/02/kit-profile-red-caboose-2200.html

As with the Tichy flat car, Richard Hendrickson wrote the definitive article on these cars which is referenced in this post and available on line. I've tried not to duplicate his discussion but to supplement it with some photos of the sprues, dimensional scans of the major castings, and some information from the Jan. 1958 ORER.

I thought it was mildly amusing (particularly in light of the recent comments on advances in prototype research) that Red Caboose said in their instruction sheet that "... researching what roads had this car would be nearly impossible." I've been an admirer of Richard's RMJ articles which retain their clarity, relevance, and helpfulness over a decade later and now that I know they were "nearly impossible" I am even more impressed :)

Relative newcomers to this list may not have seen these articles that relate models to prototypes when they were originally published or realize how easy it is to use the MR index to find them on line. I'd like to suggest that they are well worth seeking out, and I hope this post furthers that purpose.

Regards,

Charles Hostetler
Goshen, IN


Re: February RMC

Don <riverman_vt@...>
 

Why wait, folks. It was in stores yesterday with another great article from Ted Culotta.

Cheers, Don Valentine

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Eric H." wrote:

The RMC website notes the February issue is in production.
http://www.rrmodelcraftsman.com/

We'll just have to wait!

Eric


Eric Hansmann
El Paso. TX

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Gjermundson" wrote:

I heard that there is an Essential Freight Car article in the new RMC, #46. Has anyone seen the magazine yet?

Aaron


Re: Atlas 40' USRA rebuild / C&WC version/ A Shame File

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 14, 2013, at 9:58 AM, soolinehistory <destorzek@mchsi.com> wrote:

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin Scanlon" wrote:

What might be useful for us in TT is a list of HO cars that are the worst offenders in this area. In TT there is mold making done by German and Russian cottage manufacturers who have no way of checking cars first hand ... some buy an HO car as a guide and run the risk of replicating the HO mold maker's errors in their TT masters.
Why? Can't manufacturers of TT scale equipment do their own original research? A lot of the "foobies" from the early days of HO came about because good drawings of the prototype were relatively hard to come by. The cheapest source (free) was those drawings published in various editions of the Car Builder's Cyclopedia, and the feeling that since there was NOTHING available, ANYTHING was an improvement. The other source of "foobies" is the manufacturer's desire to obtain adequate sales to pay for the tooling; that hasn't changed today.

What has changed is thirty years of published research into freightcar design history, with the attendant identification of designs that were common to more than one railroad. Actual railroad or carbuilder general arrangement and detail drawings are available from multiple sources.

I would suggest that the first step in any project would be a review of the pertinent literature, not a discussion of other manufacturer's miscues.

As usual, Dennis hits the nail precisely on the head. There are two reasons we have so many accurate models today in HO scale. The first is that a sizable number of us who model in HO have refused to settle for anything less. The second is that a cadre of modeler/historians, including numerous members of this list, have acted as consultants, researching prototypes and providing drawings, photos, and data to manufacturers and importers who understood the commercial benefit of getting their products right. For the most part, those consultants have been unpaid, apart from getting some of the resulting models gratis or at reduced prices. Their payoff is the knowledge, when they see a certain model on their own or someone else's layout, that it's prototypically correct because they did their best to help make it right.

At the risk of seeming callous, I think modelers in TT scale deserve what they get. Ben is at least making an effort to learn what he can to improve his own modeling, and if he and a few other TT scalers can exert some influence on model makers which is sometimes easier to do if they are what Ben calls "cottage manufacturers" rather than large companies with a fixation on the bottom line then they'll begin to get more prototypically accurate models. Producing TT scale models by copying existing HO scale models is fraught with peril. HO scalers with long memories can recall when the market was flooded with cheap plastic models from overseas that were bad copies of Athearn blue box models which were bogus to start with.

Richard Hendrickson



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


Re: Atlas 40' USRA rebuild / C&WC version/ A Shame File

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin Scanlon" wrote:

What might be useful for us in TT is a list of HO cars that are the worst offenders in this area. In TT there is mold making done by German and Russian cottage manufacturers who have no way of checking cars first hand ... some buy an HO car as a guide and run the risk of replicating the HO mold maker's errors in their TT masters.
Why? Can't manufacturers of TT scale equipment do their own original research? A lot of the "foobies" from the early days of HO came about because good drawings of the prototype were relatively hard to come by. The cheapest source (free) was those drawings published in various editions of the Car Builder's Cyclopedia, and the feeling that since there was NOTHING available, ANYTHING was an improvement. The other source of "foobies" is the manufacturer's desire to obtain adequate sales to pay for the tooling; that hasn't changed today.

What has changed is thirty years of published research into freightcar design history, with the attendant identification of designs that were common to more than one railroad. Actual railroad or carbuilder general arrangement and detail drawings are available from multiple sources.

I would suggest that the first step in any project would be a review of the pertinent literature, not a discussion of other manufacturer's miscues.

Dennis


Re: Atlas 40' USRA rebuild / C&WC version/ A Shame File

Benjamin Scanlon
 

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



Ben Scanlon wrote:
"From checking the archive, th[e C&WC USRA DS rebuilt boxcar] appears
to have been a controversial car when Atlas tried to do it."
(snip)


There's NOTHING controversial about the prototype - it's just that
the Atlas model (and the S Helper Service model that spawned it)
sucks.

Umm, that was what I meant when I wrote it was controversial "when Atlas tried to do it." Note the rider; subtle difference, but the controversy attaches not to the car itself, but Atlas's attempt.



The issue with these cars isn't that Atlas did a poor job on the level
of detail - the issue is the combination of the various details on
any of the offered variations DON'T MATCH ANY PROTOTYPE CAR.
Sorry to take points out of order, but this raises a bit of an issue and one I'd ike to ask for a few nominations on.

I noted here that the combination of detail on the Atlas USRA rebuild didn't match anything. This list specialises in pinpointing issues like this. Indeed, there must be a fairly bulging 'shame file' by now.

What might be useful for us in TT is a list of HO cars that are the worst offenders in this area. In TT there is mold making done by German and Russian cottage manufacturers who have no way of checking cars first hand ... some buy an HO car as a guide and run the risk of replicating the HO mold maker's errors in their TT masters.

Are there any HO cars members here would care to nominate as being particularly bad?

Cars that are not accurate for anything at all would be the prime offenders. Cars that either follow an incredibly obscure prototype -or which just end up depicting that prototype by accident - would be good candidates too. Cars that have the right things in the right places, but which make a pig's dinner of rendering the detail correctly, would also be eligible.

I am not talking about cases where it is pretty clear that the car is frivolous, eg, Bachmann's rocket flatcar, but where the car is supposed to be a serious depiction of something real.

I want to ensure TT mold makers know these pitfalls.



I repeat again for possible comprehension - the ACL/C&WC and SL-SF rebuilds are the closest prototypes to the Atlas 5/5/5 end, 8 panel, fishbelly underframe models in O, N, and HO scale. The modeler needs to correct the side sill as Jerry pointed out.

For these cars, based on photos in RMJ and the Sept/Oct 1989 RMC article I have located, I suspect a new roof with a slight overhang is needed - for both SLSF and ACL/C&WC cars.

This is only going on available photos, but the Atlas roof edge, with the double-riveted horizontal band, as shown in the album on this group, looks wrong to me.

You can check this in the pictures of SLSF 129529 and the ACL and C&WC cars in part one of the RMC aticle.




As for doing it in TT scale, you're not clear in your posts again, Ben. I'm assuming you're scratchbuilding a C&WC car around TT scale 5/5/5 Murphy ends?

As I wrote in my initial posting "I found I had some old corrugated styrene exactly right for 5-5-5 ends in TT." I hope that is clear.

I am making my own ends as the corrugated styrene is of the right width /spacing.

You probably can find cast 5-5-5 ends in TT ... but they would be very ancient, and with the compromises involved in using them, I do not think it worthwhile.

For the first, they would be crudely cast out of white metal, and for the second, I doubt they would have 'L' shaped indented corners as on the C&WC car.



Ben Hom

Benjamin Scanlon

74541 - 74560 of 188631