Paul and Tony,
I am another who likes to go back and see the hobby when I started(for me
at least). I was going thru the 1948 through 1956 MR's the other night,
with a nice glass of wine, and it is very interesting just what a hot
button issue it was; the plastic vs. metal or wood for rolling stock and
the problem of not enough craftsmanship in building locomotive kits that
didn't need a lathe or other machine tools. When I first read these I was
young and didn't know how to use a lathe....and now I'm old and still don't
know how to use a lathe. And I'm probably the better for it.
Color me a modeler who will never make a mold and cast a resin part from it
but who really enjoys building "stuff"
Fenton Wells
PS there were several articles in the old MR's about casting cerro parts in
cardboard molds, that didn't excite me then as casting resin now doesn't
move me, thank goodness for the people who do however. Thanks

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Tom VanWormer <robsmom@pcisys.net> wrote:

**


Paul,
Your age and wisdom are showing. But I'm a "me too" in this.
Tom VanWormer
Monument CO

Paul Koehler wrote:

Tony:

I got a chuckle out of your E-Mail, but I think that there are only a
few of
us that are old enough to remember what you are describing.

Paul C. Koehler

_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>] On
Behalf Of Tony
Thompson
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:01 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: end of kits

This discussion reminds me of the 1950s, when the emergence of
injection-molded plastic threatened the then-dominance of metal, wood and
cardstock. "There won't be any more craftsmen," was one of the cries

often

heard. And the emergence of kits that didn't require creating or

finishing

some parts yourself? Sacrilege! "Soon there won't be anyone capable of
building anything by themselves." 'Nuff said.

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, tony@signaturepress.com
<mailto:tony%40signaturepress.com>
<mailto:tony%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history

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

--
Fenton Wells
5 Newberry Lane
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-1144
srrfan1401@gmail.com

Paul,
Your age and wisdom are showing. But I'm a "me too" in this.
Tom VanWormer
Monument CO

Paul Koehler wrote:

Tony:



I got a chuckle out of your E-Mail, but I think that there are only a few of
us that are old enough to remember what you are describing.



Paul C. Koehler



_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
Thompson
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:01 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: end of kits





This discussion reminds me of the 1950s, when the emergence of
injection-molded plastic threatened the then-dominance of metal, wood and
cardstock. "There won't be any more craftsmen," was one of the cries often
heard. And the emergence of kits that didn't require creating or finishing
some parts yourself? Sacrilege! "Soon there won't be anyone capable of
building anything by themselves." 'Nuff said.

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, tony@signaturepress.com
<mailto:tony%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history

Which Andrews trucks would be appropriate for the above referenced car,Tichy, Accurail, or Tahoe Model Works?

As always thanks for all the information.

Dave Yingst
Corning,CA

This may be off topic, but if so, can somebody steer me to the right group?  In this day of computers and electronic transfers per diem should be easy.  Is there still per diem on freight cars?
 
In the steam era it would seem a logistical nightmare.  How did they keep track of cars and transfer money?  How often?
 
Francis A. Pehowic, Jr.
Sunbury, Pa.

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

This discussion reminds me of the 1950s, when the emergence of injection-molded plastic threatened the then-dominance of metal, wood and cardstock. "There won't be any more craftsmen," was one of the cries often heard. And the emergence of kits that didn't require creating or finishing some parts yourself? Sacrilege! "Soon there won't be anyone capable of building anything by themselves." 'Nuff said.

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, tony@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "StephenK" <thekays100@...> wrote:

If you are concerned about new modelers not building kits,>

Much of the problem is that the number of new modelers is declining and the percentage interesting in the steam era is declining too.

I don't think Accurail kits are a big secret to new modelers. They cost half as much as other, similar freight cars. If anything holds them (new modelers) back it's that many of the Accurail cars are steam era.

Ed Mines

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

I don't blog but have uploaded a PDF file explaining this project. View it at at least 100% to get the full benefit of the images.
http://www.pullmanproject.com/Adventures.pdf

Tom Madden

Really nice work, Tom. I read the text in your PDF file, and have a question:

"Then a breakthrough. We activated the "high fidelity slicing" mode on our Viper hi-resolution stereolithography 3D printers. Why we hadn't done so earlier is a long story, but the change gave parts
with incredibly smooth side walls. I jumped at the chance to demo (demonstrate, not demolish) my tank shell parts. We ran them standing on end, and the results were spectacular.Here is a photo of the actual
upper tank shell. The part was lightly sandblasted to break the gloss, then primed to seal the surfaces. Archer rivets were added, then the part was primed again to seal the Archers. NO OTHER FINISHING
WAS NEEDED! No hand sanding, nothing. Everything except the rivets was built as part of the shell. Everything."

So, why use Archer rivets? It would seem that the advantage of 3D printing is being able to add the fiddly bits at the computer, rather than having to tease them in place after paying big bucks to create the basic shell. I realize using Archer rivets is pretty easy, my question is really aimed at including surface detail other than rivets; sheathing bolts on side framing, fillet gussets on castings and the like.

Also, what is the layer thickness and pixel resolution in the "high fidelity slicing mode", and what did it o to build time?

Care to give us a realistic cost number for someone who walks in off the street with usable STL files?

Dennis Storzek

Hi Folks,

I hope this is of interest to some. The Missouri Pacific Historical
Society's 33rd annual meeting will be in Pueblo this October 10-13. If anyone
is interested in details, drop me an e-mail off list and I will send you
information. We will have 12 speakers this year giving hour-long
presentations on the Missouri Pacific, its subsidiaries and a lot on the Missouri
Pacific and ART in the Pueblo area. We'll also have our first RPM-type event
we're calling MoPac Mania. You do not have to be an MPHS member to attend.

It is not available right now, but our website, _www.mopac.org_
(http://www.mopac.org) , will have the same information eventually.

Thanks,

Jerry Michels
_asychis@aol.com_ (mailto:asychis@aol.com)

See the recent (a few months back) comments on the Yahoo P48 group site about Lionel tank cars.  Tom Dempsey, Spokane, WA




________________________________
From: Thomas Baker <bakert@andrews.edu>
To: "STMFC@yahoogroups.com" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 4:36 PM
Subject: [STMFC] RE: Accurately scaled tank cars?



 
Group,

I try to coax a relative into moving from hi-rail to scale. I have modified some of his hi-rail cars that are scale or very close to it with more realistic graphics using proper decals. Since I do not model in O, nor do I have access to items in that scale, I am wondering whether Lionel tank cars are even close to scale. Perhaps, if they are, a member has transformed such a car into something looking more realistic. than what comes from the factory.

Tom Baker
________________________________________



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

This is just a guess, but the ACL and SAL both had open hoppers for carrying wet rock phosphate (and sand). They were rebuilt from regular hoppers with shortened interior and a platform near the top of each end for personnel to stand on. I wonder whether the G&F hoppers might have been of a similar design and use...

i am not certain but from the 'rails through the wiregrass' book and multiple photos that i have seen, i do not think the G&F had such traffic.

most of these hopper designs were for traffic in the bone valley of florida. the G&F didn't have any trackage there; had they done so, the SOU would not have procrastinated so much about buying it!

Thanks for the compliment and the explanation, Tom.

I was really vague with my question, I was about to pack up the laptop before driving home from the NP show in Billings.

Was referring to the parts that were used in the type X cars that a number of you were building. Has anyone finished one yet?

Aaron

Pretty sure those G&H hopper cars were DL&W quqads. Lackawanna sold off all their fleet starting around in about 40 since industrial shipping of anthracite went down and retail coal dealers didn't want coal in large cars. In many places their coal trestles couldn't take the weight.
 
It could be that the railraod changed the angle of the slope shhets from the 30 degrees cound in coal cars to the 60 degrees found in cement cars since most comodities other than coal won't flow down a 30 degree slope. When EL converted cement cars to ballat cars thye increased the slope sheets even more and some of them had paltes added to cover the wider space between the top of the car end and the upper edge of the slope sheet. So  in essence, when coal hoppers were coverted to other uses the cubic fottage gnerally went down.
 
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder Colorado.

________________________________
From: Chris Dills <cddx@msn.com>
To: "stmfc@yahoogroups.com" <stmfc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:42 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: G&F Hoppers

 
Charles,

Thanks for the info!

Question though, why would they be classified as 34' cars if the overall was 41'? I'm guessing that is over end sills? or would that be over coupler faces? That kind of cubic foot would seem to be correct for a 40'-41' foot car. Could you hazard a guess as to why they would reclassify them with 568 less cubic foot? You would have to remove about five and a half feet from the length of the car to decrease the cubic footage by that amount. Which I'm guessing they didn't really do. Any ideas?

THANKS!

-Chris Dills


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




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

Group,

I try to coax a relative into moving from hi-rail to scale. I have modified some of his hi-rail cars that are scale or very close to it with more realistic graphics using proper decals. Since I do not model in O, nor do I have access to items in that scale, I am wondering whether Lionel tank cars are even close to scale. Perhaps, if they are, a member has transformed such a car into something looking more realistic. than what comes from the factory.

Tom Baker
________________________________________

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Chris Dills <cddx@...> wrote:

Let me rephrase that, Why would a car with 41' length overall only be classified as a 34' car. If memory serves me correctly, a car is classified by the inside length of the load carrying area. Most if not all hoppers have sloped end sheets that taper up to the ends of the cars. So why would 7' of the car not be listed? Is that normal?

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

Hi Chris,

The other 34' IL hoppers in that list I posted this morning had an OL of 35', a difference of 1' which appears to be typical for hoppers in general. So the G&F cars with a difference of 7' between IL and OL are not like the others in that respect.

This is just a guess, but the ACL and SAL both had open hoppers for carrying wet rock phosphate (and sand). They were rebuilt from regular hoppers with shortened interior and a platform near the top of each end for personnel to stand on. I wonder whether the G&F hoppers might have been of a similar design and use...

I'll send you scans of the G&F ORER pages as soon as I can get back home to my scanner.

Regards,

Charles Hostetler

Here's a photo from my Fotki site of G&F #12082 which is one of the cars reported to be built in the Douglas, GA shops. I've heard a rumor that they may have been built or rebuilt from open hoppers. Does anyone know more about this?

Let me rephrase that, Why would a car with 41' length overall only be classified as a 34' car. If memory serves me correctly, a car is classified by the inside length of the load carrying area. Most if not all hoppers have sloped end sheets that taper up to the ends of the cars. So why would 7' of the car not be listed? Is that normal?

Charles,

Thanks for the info!

Question though, why would they be classified as 34' cars if the overall was 41'? I'm guessing that is over end sills? or would that be over coupler faces? That kind of cubic foot would seem to be correct for a 40'-41' foot car. Could you hazard a guess as to why they would reclassify them with 568 less cubic foot? You would have to remove about five and a half feet from the length of the car to decrease the cubic footage by that amount. Which I'm guessing they didn't really do. Any ideas?

THANKS!

-Chris Dills

Sorry, I missed the point that Aaron wasn't asking about the ATSF tank car frame.

Tom Madden

Guys,

I am continuing to thin out the fleet of items that will never make it of
the "to do" list and here are a couple items.
1. Red Caboose #RC-7044-6 Central of New Jersey 40-foot (X29) steel
sheathed boxcar $20.00
2. Red Caboose #RC-8024-4 M&StL "Peoria Gateway" ARR 1937 40-foot
boxcar $20.00
3. Red Caboose #RC-8602-5 Colorado Southern ACF 4/3/1 end 8-foot door
boxcar $20.00
The above are all kits in the original boxes and still paper wrapped. Add
$2.75 for freight .

Please contact me OFF LINE ~ OFF LIST

_tgregmrtn@aol.com_ (mailto:tgregmrtn@aol.com)

Thanks,
Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean