Date   

L&NE PS-1 fate

mopacfirst
 

I ran across an L&NE PS-1 in my yard.  Actually, it rolled into town on a freight train....

Went to research these cars.  Kadee made two of them, listed as 1956 build.  A 1959 ORER says the cars were the 8751-9050 series.  A 1965 ORER listing for LNE says "See CNJ...." and there is a listing under CNJ for some groups of cars that were obviously worn out and not worth selling.

I know where the LNE's PS-2 covered hoppers went, since some came to the MoPac and I have a photo or two of them.

Where did the PS-1 40' boxcars go?  When?  No doubt they were sold.  Better yet, can anyone point me to a photo?


Ron Merrick


Re: Running Board Overhang Length

Dennis Storzek
 




---In STMFC@..., <eaneubauer@...> wrote :


"Add to this that the overall length most often used in the ORERs of the period covered by this list is over the strikers. Coupled length which is usually measured in draft is about 30" (15" each end) more that the length over strikers when standard draft gear is used. Starting in about the mid 1970s, the over all length in the ORER is usually the coupled length."
 
One word of warning... When I initially looked to confirm what I thought I knew, that the outside length in the ORER was the length over the strikers, I grabbed a 1929 deition, as it was on the top of the stack. AT THAT TIME the key carries the disclaimer:

DIMENSIONS - OUTSIDE - LENGTH
"There appears to exist a difference of opinion as to the precise points between which this measurement should be taken.Some cars are now described by measurements taken over the end sill at corner of car. Some aredescribed by measurements between the coupler striking castings. Therefore, this recommendation (for the time being) will be withdrawn to give oppertunity for the proper authorities to determine exactly which of the several measurements should be published in this column."

When using older ORERs, always check the key in the back of the book to ensure you understand what dimension they are reporting.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Boxcars In Grain Service

Dennis Storzek
 




---In STMFC@..., <b.hom@...> wrote :

"Joel" via Bob Chaparro asked:
"When did transport of grain change from boxcars to grain cars? (Before 1954 or after?)"


Definitely after 1954.  Some US granger roads, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific kept 40 ft boxcars on the roster to handle the grain rush into the 1980s.

Ben Hom

And conversely, covered hoppers with sufficient cubic capacity to be useful for grain didn't appear until 1957 or so, the 70 ton three bay PS-2 cars with about 3000 cu. ft. cubic capacity. Earlier covered hoppers almost all had capacities around 2000 cu.ft.; good for cement, but not large enough for grain.

Dennis


Re: Boxcars In Grain Service

npin53
 

Growing up in Halliday, ND, I remember my Dad loading grain into box cars at the local elevator, in 1975 .

Aaron Gjermundson


Re: Boxcars In Grain Service

Benjamin Hom
 

"Joel" via Bob Chaparro asked:
"When did transport of grain change from boxcars to grain cars? (Before 1954 or after?)"


Definitely after 1954.  Some US granger roads, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific kept 40 ft boxcars on the roster to handle the grain rush into the 1980s.



Ben Hom


Boxcars In Grain Service

thecitrusbelt@...
 

These questions were asked on my Model Railroads of Southern California group:

 

“I'm trying to finalize my car fleet for the mid-1950s (1954 to be exact, east coast area) and need to know the following:

 

When did transport of grain change from boxcars to grain cars? (Before 1954 or after?)

 

*What kind of cars transported grain when the change over came? (Covered hoppers, sure, but which type?)

 

Thanks! Joel”

 

Any definitive answers on this group?

 

Thank you.

 

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Duryea lengths (was "Running boards")

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Friends,

My 1958 ORER shows D&RGW Duryea-equipped boxcars in the 67500 and 68000 series as having a length of 42' 11". Compare this with WP non-Duryea boxcars in series 20201 with a length of 41' 9". The WP cars are typical AAR 10' 6" IH postwar boxcars of the 1945 design. The difference is 1' 2", meaning the Duryea underframe adds 7" to each end. No wonder the running boards appear longer! They are, and they have to be to meet the mandated specifications. I would expect other Duryea-equipped cars to have a similar 6-7" of additional length, though I'm not generally familiar with such cars on other roads.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff


solvoset with microscale decals

ed_mines
 

 Used that combination several times in the past with good results.

 

Thanks for your comments Ben. I've seen several microscale decals break apart.

 

 I'd let microscale decals pretty much dry before applying solvoset to the edge.

 

Ed Mines


Re: Running Board Overhang Length

Eric Neubauer <eaneubauer@...>
 


Add to this that the overall length most often used in the ORERs of the period covered by this list is over the strikers. Coupled length which is usually measured in draft is about 30" (15" each end) more that the length over strikers when standard draft gear is used. Starting in about the mid 1970s, the over all length in the ORER is usually the coupled length.
 
All this goes out the window with Duryea underframes because the couplers do not move with respect to the center sill. The entire coupler and center sill assembly moves as a single unit of fixed length.
 
Eric N.
 

"Hi: no. The only datum I could find was from the 1943 CBC safety appliances as follows ( a paraphrase ) the ends of the running board shall be no less than 6 or more than 10 inches from a Vertical plane parallel to the end of the car passing thru the inside edge of the closed knuckle with coupler horn against the buffer block or end sill. How you can translate this to model overhang I don't know. Marty cooper"

Easy. The knuckle to coupler horn dimension has been a consistent 12" since the Type D coupler was adopted around WWI; older coupler designs were smaller, more like 9", but few on this list model equipment from that earlier era. This means the running board should project between 2" to 6" beyond the striker, which is the end of the center sill, or "coupler box" in model parlance. Length over the strikers is one of the basic dimensions given on prototype car drawings, if not directly, then found by adding the truck centers plus 2X the kingpin to striker distance. Also the "outside Length" dimension given in the ORER is the length over the strikers in most cases.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Running Board Overhang Length

Dennis Storzek
 




---In STMFC@..., <burgerbits20@...> wrote :

"Hi: no. The only datum I could find was from the 1943 CBC safety appliances as follows ( a paraphrase ) the ends of the running board shall be no less than 6 or more than 10 inches from a Vertical plane parallel to the end of the car passing thru the inside edge of the closed knuckle with coupler horn against the buffer block or end sill. How you can translate this to model overhang I don't know. Marty cooper"

Easy. The knuckle to coupler horn dimension has been a consistent 12" since the Type D coupler was adopted around WWI; older coupler designs were smaller, more like 9", but few on this list model equipment from that earlier era. This means the running board should project between 2" to 6" beyond the striker, which is the end of the center sill, or "coupler box" in model parlance. Length over the strikers is one of the basic dimensions given on prototype car drawings, if not directly, then found by adding the truck centers plus 2X the kingpin to striker distance. Also the "outside Length" dimension given in the ORER is the length over the strikers in most cases.

Dennis Storzek


Re: alcohol, dullcote & decals

Douglas Harding
 

Dave I have found no need to thin Future to spray it. But then I am accustomed to painting with acrylics. Those who have no experience with acrylics will find there is a learning curve. Plus acrylics work best when used with an airbrushed designed for or set up for acrylics. And they do not tolerate humid conditions.

 

Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 


Re: PRR K8 stock car L&N kitbash possibilities? ACL & C&O too?

Brad Andonian
 

Bill,

I would be very keen to see an image or two of the L&N prototype to do an o scale model. If you can email me directly, I would be grateful.
Brad Andonian
Hanging in Paris

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


From: 'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC] ;
To: STMFC@... ;
Subject: RE: [STMFC] PRR K8 stock car L&N kitbash possibilities? ACL & C&O too?
Sent: Mon, May 26, 2014 7:52:47 PM

 

Bill,

I believe Steve will be making some of these available as flat kits in the near future, IIRC.

regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


From: STMFC@... [STMFC@...]
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 2:18 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] PRR K8 stock car L&N kitbash possibilities? ACL & C&O too?



Recently someone noted that F&C had introduced a one-piece body model of the Penny's K8 stockcar. This car featured a Pratt Truss frame with Hat Section vertical and diagonal steel braces. There are no details about this kit on F&C's website as yet. Does anyone know if they are also going to be available as flat kits?


I am interested as the L&N had a group of stockcars that with the exception of the width of a couple of boards and slightly different flat strap braces on the end panels are very close. Even the doors are identical. From my one photo it appears that the L&N cars had an outside metal roof that would be very easy. Not sure about the ends but if it different the the K8 it would be easier w/flat kit.


For ACL (blt. 1941) and C&O  (blt. 1937) fans, each had Dreadnaught ends, 4/4 for C&O and I think the same for ACL. C&am! p;O had what looks like an outside metal roof while ACL had a Murphy paneled steel roof. Door appear identical. End panels had two short flat diagonal braces so those would require some work.


Again much easier if a flat kit version is available. Did anyone see the kits?


Bill Welch

 




Re: alcohol, dullcote & decals

davesnyder59
 

Doug, I would like to try your suggestion. If you need to thin it for spraying, are there any suggestions? TIA.

Dave Snyder
Louisville, Ky.


Re: Running Board Overhang Length

Richard Hendrickson
 

On May 29, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Garth Groff sarahsan@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

Friends,

How much would a Duryea Cushion Underframe add to the length of a car? I know the Santa Fe had some boxcars with these. I'm looking photos of some Duryea-equipped D&RGW 68000 and 67500 boxcars in Jim Eager's Color Guide, and the running board certainly does extend a bit further than most other boxcars

The Santa Fe’s Bx-34 and Bx-37 class box cars provide a good example, since their bodies were essentially identical; only the underframes were different.

Bx-34 with Duryea cushion underframe:  length over striking castings, 42’11-1/8”, running board length 42’10-1/8”.

Bx-37 with AAR underframe:  length over striking castings 41’10-1/8”, running board length 42’ 4-5/8”.

Richard Hendrickson



Re: Code 88 wheels

Paul LaCiura <paullaciura@...>
 

 
Mr. Barger,
 
I have a couple sets of older trucks that were manufactured by Central Valley sometime in the early 90's.  I think that they were produced a few years before the introduction of the Code 88 wheels.  I believe that they were Jack Parker's experiment at a more prototype wheelset.
 
I thought that they were the greatest thing since sliced bread but; if I remember correctly, they were lambasted by the press, particulary by MR.  I believe that Jack decided to suspend that product because of the uproar.
 
I would like to know the true politics and facts behind that early effort at a more scale appearing wheelset. 
 
Thanks,
 
Paul LaCiura
Glendale, CA



 

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, 'JP Barger' bargerjp@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:
 

Dear Mr. Hayden,     Thanks for your email of the 28th of May, in which you correctly pointed out that there are differences in dimensions between our semi-scale wheelsets with .088 treads and the Code 88 wheelsets spec. It's a subject that could use some enlightenment among us model RR types. I am glad to give you a little background on this matter.

 

Many years ago in the mid-eighties, on one of my business trips to the Melbourne, FL area, I arranged to meet with A.B. Bradley, who was influential in the inner circles of the NMRA in those days. It turns out that Brad, as he was called, had made up the NMRA wheel standards which incorporated the RP-25 idea used first in the fine trucks manufactured by George Hook of Central Valley. One thing still sticking in my mind is how Brad rationalized the dimensions of the .110 version of HO wheels and the absolute scale version, first figuring out the .110 dimensions from the various manufacturers' versions, cutting to  'arbitrarily chosen'  values for the middle of those. [The most key dimension of the RP-25 version was the flange to wheel radius.] He then calculated a single set of values for the HO version of the scale full size wheels. To satisfy his own desires, or those of others involved (think committee or compromises), he then created dimensions for a compromise wheelset with an average of .110 & .067 as a tread width. Thus, the "Code 88" was born. There is nothing from heaven, nothing magic, nothing even seriously institutional about this .088" wheelset. Moreover, until you reminded me about NWSL making some of these, I had forgotten that any were actually produced. The problem, of course, is that all of the dimensions are different from the .110. The Code 88 doesn't go through anyone's switches successfully unless the switches are specially dimensioned and made to fit its tread width and flanges. Thus, it has never became a commercial product.

 

Our .088's began from a different azimuth. Back in the days when I was closer in association with Intermountain, I saw that IM had as part of its wheelset line a .088 wheelset with one fixed length axle, namely 1.012 +/-. I asked, " How does it work in use?" The answer was "Fine" What did "fine" mean?  I pressed on with questions until the answer seemed to be that no more complaints in proportion to the number of .088 and .110 wheelsets in use were received for .088. So, I developed a rational for why the .088's were working so well.

 

It turns out that the outer .022 of the wheelset doesn't actually touch anything in correctly spaced frogs; it just spins away in the air as it rolls. I wondered: if it doesn't touch anything, why have it? The .110 looks fat and ugly. Why not give it a trim and make it look more realistic? Why not save material in the manufacturing process? One anticipated problem was what if the wheel couldn't be consistently assembled on the axle perpendicularly? (It does have less distance along the axle to keep it straight). On trial, we found that carefully assembled wheelsets, even on insulating bushings, ran without measurable runout. At this point, we had a new resource. The next idea was key to the success of the Reboxx wheelset; that was to make wheelsets with all the necessary axle lengths to fill wheelset sockets in all the main trucks in use, thereby getting rid of a myriad of problems in operation caused by wheelsets of improper length.. HO trucks in use today vary substantially in socket length; the actual variation runs from below .0940" to above 1.070", a range of over .130", or just above an eighth of an inch, causing all kinds of tipping and yawing problems and even in rare cases, sticking axles where the axle is too long for the socket. A too long, stuck axle is a recipe for an early derailment, just as short axles are.

So you can see that we came to the .088 wheelset from a different direction, namely, if it isn't being used, don't have it. And geometrically, start with a .110 wheelset, cut off the non useful outer .022" part and come out with a .088 tread. We at Reboxx have never used the Code 88 label, because we start and end with a .110 flange. We made our own version of an .088, not the Code 88 version. Our wheelsets have been selling well after 15 years in the marketplace and are running on most of the best model RRers' layouts.

 

 If you check the NMRA switch dimensions, you will see that theoretically the .088 works. There's no wheel dropping in the middle of a frog. However, in the case where a switch's dimensions don't follow the standard dimensions, all bets are off. Once in a great while, we hear of the .088 wheelset operating as a gauge to find defectively made switches.

 

Now, you may think that what I'm about to say is a unnecessary detail. It turns out that all wheelsets drop in moving through all frogs, wheelsets with tapered treads, that is. In a view from above, the contact point on the wheel, as the wheel moves through the frog, is first on the radius between the flange and the tread. At the spot where the wheel leaves the center rail, at the exact point of the frog, the contact point switches to the outer edge of the tread. Now, switch to the horizontal view: the diameter of the wheel at the outer edge of the tread being less than up next to the flange, all tapered wheels drop the radial difference in dimension. And, then as the new rail moves in to become a straight extension of the rail from the point, which the wheel just left, the contact point on the wheel moves back in to the same area on the flange-tread radius from which it departed. Another way of describing this action is to say that the wheelset CLIMBS during the interval between first contact on the second rail and resuming its journey through the second half of the frog.

 

We were battered in the beginning fifteen years ago by naysayers who maintained that our .088's couldn't possibly work. Among the objections was: it'll drop in the frog. This turns out to be correct. It will drop exactly the radial difference between the inner and outer parts of the tread, in our case about .002, in the case of the .110, about .003. If it drops dramatically more, the switch isn't made correctly. The next objection we heard a few times was: it will wear out my frog points. That's also exactly correct, and in an observable time only on public layouts that run on public display continuously for a full day shift six to seven days a week. All intermittently run layouts, private and club, have points that will outlast the members. Suggests we ought to give more priority to members' life spans, rather than frog points'.

 

Brad Bradley did excellent, excellent work. We just need to be careful not to apply the primatur of God to it.

 


From: info@... [mailto:info@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:52 AM
To: J P Barger
Subject: FW: Code 88 wheels
Importance: High

 

 

 


From: Hayden, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.Hayden@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:09 AM
To: info@...
Subject: Code 88 wheels

 

Hello Reboxx.

 

You may be aware that there is currently an extensive thread on the STMFC groups @yahoo about wheel sets and couplers . One part of the discussion is about the fact that many HO scale wheel sets are described by the manufacturer as “code 88” when in fact they are a hybrid, with total wheel width of 0.088” but with equivalent to code 100 flanges, resulting in narrower tread (0.058” vs 0.063” spec) than  a true Code 88 wheel.  There seems to be some agreement that these “near Code 88” wheels perform OK, and several have posted that Reboxx wheels, among others, work fine on standard HO track.

 

Nothing on your website states the dimensions of your wheel sets, except that they are described as Code 88. Can you confirm whether or not your Code 88 wheel sets are true to the NMRA description of Code 88, or are they what seems more common, to be Code 88 width but Code 100 flanges.

 

I will gladly post your response, or you may wish to post it. Here’s a link to the thread:

 

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/STMFC/conversations/topics/124785

 

Thank you.

 

Tom Hayden

Lakewood, OH

 

 



Re: Running Board Overhang Length

Eric Neubauer <eaneubauer@...>
 

Looking at RDG class XMw and XMy 40' box cars, XMw (with Duryea) running board is 42-7.75 and XMy (with conventional draft gear) running board is also 42-7.75. I suspect no one redesigned the running board. Class XMc built a decade later with conventional draft gear is same length over strikers as XMy (41-10) and running board is 42-6.
 
XMw was 42-10.75 over the center sill assembly. Apparently the longer travel nearly cancels out the differnece when figuring running board length. Note that Duryea cushion cars do not have a length over strikers (there are none) but rather over coupler carrier.
 
Eric N.
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Running Board Overhang Length

 

Friends,

How much would a Duryea Cushion Underframe add to the length of a car? I know the Santa Fe had some boxcars with these. I'm looking photos of some Duryea-equipped D&RGW 68000 and 67500 boxcars in Jim Eager's Color Guide, and the running board certainly does extend a bit further than most other boxcars. Hmmm. I didn't notice this before, and so my model of a 67500 series car is wrong.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff


On 5/29/14 4:29 PM, Tim O'Connor timboconnor@... [STMFC] wrote:
 

Elden

Yes that's a good point, these were all Shock Control cars.

Tim O'Connor

>Did that car have extended draft gear/cushioning? I have been looking at PRR box cars, and they all seem to be around 6" for "standard" draft gear, but longer on cars with extended draft gear or cushioning, and of course, on cars with end doors. There seems to have been some intent to make the gap between r/b's on coupled cars as small as possible, recognizing when the coupler got pushed in (like during coupling?), or when they were going around tight curves, they did not want to r/b's to touch. They also seem to have gotten even longer on really long box cars, but that may be for another list...
>
>Elden Gatwood



Re: Running Board Overhang Length

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Friends,

How much would a Duryea Cushion Underframe add to the length of a car? I know the Santa Fe had some boxcars with these. I'm looking photos of some Duryea-equipped D&RGW 68000 and 67500 boxcars in Jim Eager's Color Guide, and the running board certainly does extend a bit further than most other boxcars. Hmmm. I didn't notice this before, and so my model of a 67500 series car is wrong.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff


On 5/29/14 4:29 PM, Tim O'Connor timboconnor@... [STMFC] wrote:
 

Elden

Yes that's a good point, these were all Shock Control cars.

Tim O'Connor

>Did that car have extended draft gear/cushioning? I have been looking at PRR box cars, and they all seem to be around 6" for "standard" draft gear, but longer on cars with extended draft gear or cushioning, and of course, on cars with end doors. There seems to have been some intent to make the gap between r/b's on coupled cars as small as possible, recognizing when the coupler got pushed in (like during coupling?), or when they were going around tight curves, they did not want to r/b's to touch. They also seem to have gotten even longer on really long box cars, but that may be for another list...
>
>Elden Gatwood



Re: alcohol, dullcote & decals

Douglas Harding
 

Ed, try Future Floor Finish with Tamiya flattener mixed it. The Future is 100% gloss acrylic, but the Tamiya flattener is designed for use with acrylics. You will have to experiment with the mix ratio.

 

This website http://www.swannysmodels.com/TheCompleteFuture.html   recommends:

 

Future does produce a glossy finish so many modelers will introduce a flattening material or only use it as a pre-decal sealer. If you wish to use flattened Future as a final coat here are a couple of suggested ratios of Tamiya flat base for different effects:

       1 part flat base to 3 parts Future = very flat

      1 part flat base to 10 parts Future = flat

       1 part flat base to 15 parts Future = satin

 

Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 


Re: alcohol, dullcote & decals

Charlie Duckworth
 

Ed
I've slowly been switching over to Tru-Colors paints. I've been using both their gloss and flat finishes with good results. Problem I've had with Dullcote is after a few months, I seem to get some whitish spots the size of a piece of sand on the model (only 6 or 8 to a side). They can be removed with the tip of an Exacto blade but its another reason why I like the Tru-Color flat.

Charlie Duckworth


Re: Running Board Overhang Length

Tim O'Connor
 

Elden

Yes that's a good point, these were all Shock Control cars.

Tim O'Connor

Did that car have extended draft gear/cushioning? I have been looking at PRR box cars, and they all seem to be around 6" for "standard" draft gear, but longer on cars with extended draft gear or cushioning, and of course, on cars with end doors. There seems to have been some intent to make the gap between r/b's on coupled cars as small as possible, recognizing when the coupler got pushed in (like during coupling?), or when they were going around tight curves, they did not want to r/b's to touch. They also seem to have gotten even longer on really long box cars, but that may be for another list...

Elden Gatwood

68481 - 68500 of 193389