Date   

Re: Prototype Fidelity - Part 2

George Eichelberger
 

David:

“The problem articles you cite failed because they did not have accurate pro type information and were not edited or vetted properly.
True, in my example, and ridiculous when done by a professional, commercial publication.

Re HS magazine articles: I agree except that for many people that would submit a modeling article, having their inaccurate information pointed out or performing heavy editing or vetting will simply reinforce the idea that HS groups are elitist and do not want their input.

Ike


Re: Prototype fidelity

MDelvec952
 




The reality of all groups is that their direction is dictated by the varied personalities within, and those opinions are as varied as those on this list. The club with which I'm most involved has a dominating dramatic personality who wants to make mugs and T-shirts for every event, and since he works for a major corporation producing promotional trinkets he runs with the project. For our last event celebrating an anniversary, he took our coveted logo and lopped off details while changing the railroad herald that's part of it without telling anyone so that the stitching on the hat was simpler as he tried to get it under 3000 stitches. The hobby is full off this type of decision making, done by volunteers giving generously. As the group's leader I would never accept such compromise, but in keeping the group going the leaders have to pick their battles.

No rant or rules are going change any of that. I agree that the historical societies should keep a higher standard, and any project with which I'm involved will do that. I was part of the boxcar project that Schuyler mentioned, and I've been part of dozens of others that were all as accurate as was practical for the medium (brass, resin, RTR, etc.). I led the Lackawanna F3 project at Steamtown, painting our Bangor & Aroostook F3 into the Lackawanna freight scheme to tell the story deisels in the steam era.  I personally cut off excess grab irons and moved, fashioned or added details to represent the real Lackawanna 662, since our fictitious Lackawanna 663 would have been of that class. We're not hiding the heritage, and yet we turned that catalog F3, the oldest operating and unaltered F-unit in the world, into a living model of a Lackawanna unit that today pulls trains on the Lackawanna main line and that we maintain in the actual Lackawanna shops designed to service F-units. That TRAINS Magazine readers voted that unit the "must see" diesel of 2014 shows that eaders get our message. And we're having fun with it. Our group has also rescued a 1944-AAR boxcar that was originally CNJ 24165 -- that car will get its steam-era lettering and number in the 22000-series. We may even commission an HO model of that car, and when we do it will be accurate in its appearance and details. I've been involved in the restoration and repatriation of more than a dozen steam-era freight cars, and so far all of them are correctly restored, or will be. Similarly, there are numerous steam-era freight cars around the country without in-service paint which is the choice of those doing the project. 

The results of any group project is a compromise among all of the personalities involved. How do outsiders know before buying something?  I wish the groups producing foobies would call them commemorative or some other word so that the piece isn't misrepresented. Sometimes the group producing the foobie doesn't know.

Too, the model railroading hobby is much bigger than most of us realize. The new generation are buying modern models, building railroads, networking through facebook and twitter and many other sites. There's a page for freelance modelers with more than 600 members and growing, and a bunch of them have created a very realistic system map of the United States featuring only freelance model railroads. The Train-Sim crowd is also growing, building models and track on MicroSoft train simulator. What's interesting is that at our club I've been encouraging the kids to create the many long-gone historic branches in our area -- what better way to relive these operations than to create them in realistic distances, topography and track layout, with proper steam-era freight cars, though creating digital equipment is more difficult than laying track and building scenery. If anyone has played Sid Meier's Railroads video game, they've seen some of the potential of digital model railroading.  Here in North Jersey, the most densely populated part of the country, most of the groups are growing in membership. Other areas aren't so fortunate. The "Thomas" generation is getting their licenses and our NRHS Chapter has been sponsoring kids at NRHS Railcamps, and we've been reaching out via the social media. Some of the railcampers are in their 20s now and these members are modeling and active at our events and restoration projects.

Before the moderator pulls the pin on this thread, I hope he holds back a little. The collective opinions from this group are very enlightening and helpful toward considering the bigger picture of prototype modeling. And they're helping with our internet presence -- we're currently fund raising to help pay for the new main generator in the F3, and the CNJ 1944-boxcar which is entirely run by our younger members -- the perfect project. Visit www.tristaterail.org to take a look.

Thanks                           ....Mike Del Vecchio



President, Tri-State Chapter NRHS
Trainmaster, Morristown & Erie Railway










-----Original Message-----
From: devans1@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...>
To: STMFC <STMFC@...>
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 10:34 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Prototype fidelity

 
Really guys?

First - where are the moderators - I thought STMFC was NOT supposed to be a forum for attacking organizations business practices?

Second - talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Last I checked, the historical societies are supported by volunteers, and many, especially for long-fallen flags, are suffering from a significant drop in membership for the simple fact that most former employees have passed on. So we are to crucify a group that is still trying to promote their fallen flag while their membership drops?

Third - Does this mean a Historical Society that lacks resources to produce fine scale models (Who defines "fine scale" - perhaps only proto48 or proto87 cars need apply?) is no longer useful? I think the IRS has a different criteria (thankfully) for non-profit, educational organizations.

Fourth - A group that complains about the price of fine scale models and how they can not be afforded by many modelers , now finds it unconscionable that an HS produces "stand-in" or even "foobie" models that a much larger segment of the model railroad community can afford?

Here is a sad reality check - most Historical Societies are losing all of their former employee members. Members who worked side by side on the real railroad for decades - they joined the societies almost as a retirement club to preserve bonds and fellowship they had before they joined the society, and those members have provided all of us a very valuable service by preserving and disseminating important railroad history.

But now the HS's need to attract new members, and that will only happen by creating a sense of fellowship between mostly modelers (and a few historians) - who did NOT spend their careers working together.

This challenge is going to be very difficult - to get modelers to volunteer their time for their favorite prototype's historical society to try to keep the flag alive (instead of using that time to build more models for their layouts), and continue to preserve and publish the prototype's materials and historical information. Building a sense of fellowship between modelers so they join and volunteer their time to keep the historical societies viable will be much more difficult if members snipe at each other because they will not agree on the necessary level of fidelity in their models.

How can any of this drivel be considered a positive contribution to the core (and legally required) mission of the HS's to preserve railroad history?

If a car is too foobie for you - don't buy it.

If you want something better, volunteer to help the society produce a better product.

If they determine it can't be done, or will not do it - for whatever reason, then do it yourself - I am SURE the historical society will be happy to provide you the prototype information required for you to develop an ac curate model and sell it yourself.

This sort of intolerance needs to stop - or we will be burying the very organizations that help provide the data modelers on this list need for ANY level of model fidelity.

And you wonder why the commercial hobby press uses "rivet counters" in a derisive manner? This thread makes the case pretty convincingly.

This is a hobby guys - we are not developing flight control software that will kill someone if it does not meet all the requirements.

Sorry Mike, don't care about the food down below - this has reached a new low for intolerance.

Dave Evans
PRRT&HS


---In STMFC@..., wrote :

Andy Carlson wrote:

 
I find it odd that in this forum (STMFC) dedicated to promoting greater accuracy in modeling, we find several defenders of the practice of historical societies offering sham cars as fund raisers. First, fund raising should be a society lower priority of things to do, as the primary purpose of societies should be to promote the subject railroad's history. I don't believe the only way societies survive is by offering duds.

Richard Hendrickson's tiff with the Burlington society was based on the their inexcusable offering of bogus cars to the membership. Richard's strongest protest was that the mission of a society to provide ACCURATE info to the members was compromised when sham offerings are released. He felt that to many members, they look to the society for help with their own goal in acquiring useful information, and because the assumption of "If the society is offering this, it must be researched and produced to a higher level of accuracy", the society let them down.

      Andy says it exactly right, in my opinion. If a historical society cannot make financial ends meet except by issuing foobies, maybe they have exceeded their "sell by" date. If they will not be sticklers for accuracy, who will? And UNDISCLOSED foobies really are a dreadful act by an organization claiming to preserve history.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: Seaboard Decals

Scott H. Haycock
 

Michael,

Ted Cullota (Speedwich Media) makes a set, D103, that covers  these cars. The set includes the information on which lettering should be used, based on your modeling date.

As to color, I've got a book with several color photos of these cars, SAL class B-6, and no two are the same. You should be safe with any shade of BCR, and one or two look warmer and redder, like an oxide red.



Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm
ent


 


Hello to All,

Recently, I came across a couple of undecorated HO 1932 ARA box cars wlflat ends.  After checking some information, I found that there appears to be only two major roads that rostered these flat end cars, the SAL and the NC&StL.  I'd like to paint and letter these cars correctly.  One photo I found was the Seaboard's Route of the Orange Blossom Special #17278.

Can anyone provide me with information regarding an accurate paint (color/manufacturer) and more importantly, does any decal producer or society presently offer the Orange Blossom Special decals  .  I've checked MicroScale to start with and can't find any there.

I'd greatly appreciate any help that any of you may provide.

Thank You,
Michael Bradley




Re: Seaboard Decals

Curt Fortenberry
 


The SCL Modeler ezine had an excellent article on the SAL B6 boxcars in their Issue #7, 2009-1, available on a CD from Atlantic Coast Line & Seaboard Air Line Railroads Historical Society.  The article itself is too big to email (about 25Mb).  Decals from Speedwitch media.  Authors were John Golden (who's on this list) and Justin May (who may be on this list???).

Curt Fortenberry


Re: The Best of Mainline Modeler's Freight Cars

Benjamin Hom
 

Arved Grass asked:
"There were at least 3 volumes of this title published by Phoenix Publishing about 1990. I can only find
the first three volumes on the used book market. Was there ever a volume 4 (or more)?"

No.  There was a single Passenger Car volume, but no further freight car volume beyond the third book.


Ben Hom


Re: Seaboard Decals

Paul Doggett <paul.doggett2472@...>
 

Speedwitch used to do them check their website or ping an email to Ted
Paul Doggett UK


Re: Prototype Fidelity - Part 2

A&Y Dave in MD
 

On Nov 24, 2014, at 9:02 AM, geichelberger@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

So....does a HS only print "perfect" modeling articles and alienate modelers by appearing to exclude their interests and work or should inaccurate article be published with some kind of "good enough" logic? Should the question be dodged (basically what SRHA has been doing) by not running modeling articles at all? People that read the commerci! al modeling magazines probably recognize that the models it discusses are not always perfect. Should modeling articles be left to them?
That is a false dilemma. Publishing a modeling article that provides accurate prototype information and clearly delineated the compromises a modeler must or chooses to make promotes interest AND facts. The problem articles you cite failed because they did not have accurate pro type information and were not edited or vetted properly.

A sidebar in article with historical commentary or documentation of the models compromises would be welcomed with open arms by members of this list.

Instead of a barrier to publication, consider it an opportunity for education and collaboration.

Dave Bott


The Best of Mainline Modeler's Freight Cars

arved_grass
 

There were at least 3 volumes of this title published by Phoenix Publishing about 1990. I can only find the first three volumes on the used book market. Was there ever a volume 4 (or more)?

Thanks,

Arved Grass
Arved_Grass@... or Arved@...
Fleming Island, Florida


Re: A dose of reality to the fidelity thread

asychis@...
 

"If the Steam Era Freight Car Prototype Modeling community was the economic engine it thinks it is in the hobby, you'd have no problem finding any model you want from this era in any store, hobby shop or museum gift shop. The Walthers catalog would be full of every car you could think of."
 
Oh my gosh Nick!  You said sooooo much in one sentence!  :^)
 
Jerry Michels


Re: Prototype fidelity

asychis@...
 

Dave Evans, 
 
A well thought out reply.  It definitely gave me pause, and I agree with 99.9%.  The only comment I have is in the case of false advertising.  That is a concern, and will hurt a society.  As an active member in both the Amarillo Railroad Museum and the Missouri Pacific Historical Society, and involved with sales in both organizations, I understand many of the problems we face with funding.  We do need to make sure we don't bite the hand that feeds us, but unfortunately, it is rather easy to bare one's teeth (i. e. complain) when there are no repercussions to be had.  One's attitude changes when you have a balance sheet for which you are responsible.  Again, as long as any product is well described and not misleading, I am all for an historical society selling anything it wants, STMFC-member approval or no.
 
Jerry Michels


Historical Societies and Prototype Fidelity

Bruce Smith
 

Ike,

Let me answer that from the perspective of the PRRT&HS.   Years ago, many of us “young guys” in the PRRT&HS complained that the KEYSTONE almost never ran any modeling content.  The society kept saying that they would, but then the content almost never appeared.  Then, Al Buchan had a stroke of genius.  He created a separate on-line eZine called The Keystone Modeler (TKM).  And then the explanation for the paucity of modeling information in the Keystone became clear.  The printed magazine is archival.  Once something is out there, it is out there forever.  The printed magazine format is ideal for historical information.  Modeling information is estimated to have an average lifespan of about 10 years before it becomes outdated (somebody releases a better model, builds a better part, or the model/part go out of production).  So we put the modeling information in an electronic format that can be rapidly updated.  Al’s only mistake was to make it monthly, a pace that we managed for a number of years, but then had to cut back to quarterly, just to maintain our sanity.  TKM remains free for the first year and then becomes available, for a fee, on CD.

Now, as to content quality.  We’re pretty demanding.  That may be limiting with a smaller number of modelers, but other modeling eZines appear to be doing a pretty good job there too.  With an eZine, the opportunity exists to publish that article with the incorrect end (as long as you make it clear that the end is incorrect) and then follow that up next year with an article on correcting the end.  TKM would probably NOT publish the article with the incorrect end, but then we’ve got the luxury of having enough material. We’d likely try to get the author to rewrite it with the correct end.  To be frank though, we’ve gotten some pretty bad articles submitted from time to time, and they have been graciously declined.

The approach that I have always advocated is the “Joe Friday” approach.  This is particularly true with model reviews.  That is “just the facts..”  Leave opinions out.  So, “the model has both marker lights from pre 1946 and post 1946 on the boiler, which is incorrect” is far better than “apparently, these idiots don’t even understand what maker lights are for and have put marker lights from pre 1946 and post 1946 on the boiler”.  Even better is to then show the modeler how to correct the issues.  One long running byline in TKM is “Making Bowser Better”.

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."



On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:02 AM, geichelberger@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

I have been rather involved with the Southern Railway Historical Association for about 25 years. One theme that keeps repeating is that we should run more modeling articles in our TIES magazine. In general, I think it is correct to say almost everyone agrees with the concept in principle. Running more modeling articles would certainly create a bridge between the modelers and historians in the group and make better use of the organizations large archives.

But...there is a problem. As a high proportion of modelers are not interested in "nit picking" or "rivet counting", they can, and do, accept models that are less than perfect reproductions of their prototypes. So, if someone were to submit an article on a Southern Railway box car that was truly a b! eautiful model but they kit bashed a car with an somewhat  incorrect end, or the correct trucks were simply not available, should the article be published or excluded because it was not completely accurate? Bad data published in a modeling article can live for years. Years ago, Model Railroader ran two articles in the same "Paint Shop" that said one of the colors on both Southern and Seaboard Air Line diesels was white. That was an absolutely incorrect statement, SR was imitation aluminum and SAL was a very light green, but it lives on with people citing that article as the correct prototype colors to this day.

So....does a HS only print "perfect" modeling articles and alienate modelers by appearing to exclude their interests and work or should inaccurate article be published with some kind of "good enough" logic? Should the question be dodged (basically what SRHA has been doing) by not running mo! deling articles at all? People that read the commercial modeling magazines probably recognize that the models it discusses are not always perfect. Should modeling articles be left to them?


Re: Prototype fidelity

asychis@...
 

Well, by that argument, the societies should only produce models in Prototypical scale (i.e. Proto:48, Proto:87, etc) ignoring the inaccuracies forced by 60+ years of NMRA "standards" and "recommended practices."

I don't have any problem with that!

Others who seek interoperability with heritage equipment following those standards and recommended practices will have a lot of objection with models produced that are fully prototypical accurate.

Arved Grass
That isn't the point since the society is most likely not advertising the model as Proto 87, etc.  If they were and it wasn't, then there is a problem.  I think most modelers would not customarily expect an offering from an historical society to be Proto 87.
 
Jerry Michels


Re: Prototype fidelity

asychis@...
 

Andy, to say that fund raising should be a lower priority of things to do
really ignores that many of the societies exist on the edge of financial
survival. I am not saying that justifies "duds, AKA foobies," but fund
raising is a critical element of their operations. It ENABLES, not the
"promotion," but the documentation of the subject railroad's history.

Schuyler
Agreed Schuyler,  Fundraising is critical.  However, fundraising based on trickery, whether intended or not, is unacceptable (not saying that you suggested this).  There is no problem in my mind with an historical society offering whatever it wants, be that Thomas the Tank Engine or highly accurate models of their railroad's freight cars.  Just as long as I know what they are offering and that the advertising is honest.
 
Jerry Michels
 


Re: Prototype fidelity

asychis@...
 

BTW, if a society exists in making name train dining car settings, then offering bogus mugs would be shameful. But in our societies, no one is looking to their society to offer well-researched coffee mugs.

I sure wish Richard was still with us to speak up on this issue.
 
Andy, I think you captured exactly what Richard would have said.
 
Jerry Michels


Re: Hopper cars from the UPHS and...

Eric Mumper
 

Mike,

The idea of bolsters and center sills on the Atlas car is interesting.  Has Atlas corrected the car, or has the UPHS created parts to correct this?  If the UPHS has created parts, can they be purchased from them?

Eric Mumper


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


Enter the UPHS. They are now producing a special run of the Atlas car AND
the missing bolsters and center sills are no longer missing. The lettering
is correct also for the 1953 time period. Credit the UPHS.


Mike Brock


Prototype Fidelity - Part 2

George Eichelberger
 

These are interesting posts about railroad historical groups and modeling. Could I add another question to the mix?


I have been rather involved with the Southern Railway Historical Association for about 25 years. One theme that keeps repeating is that we should run more modeling articles in our TIES magazine. In general, I think it is correct to say almost everyone agrees with the concept in principle. Running more modeling articles would certainly create a bridge between the modelers and historians in the group and make better use of the organizations large archives.


But...there is a problem. As a high proportion of modelers are not interested in "nit picking" or "rivet counting", they can, and do, accept models that are less than perfect reproductions of their prototypes. So, if someone were to submit an article on a Southern Railway box car that was truly a beautiful model but they kit bashed a car with an somewhat  incorrect end, or the correct trucks were simply not available, should the article be published or excluded because it was not completely accurate? Bad data published in a modeling article can live for years. Years ago, Model Railroader ran two articles in the same "Paint Shop" that said one of the colors on both Southern and Seaboard Air Line diesels was white. That was an absolutely incorrect statement, SR was imitation aluminum and SAL was a very light green, but it lives on with people citing that article as the correct prototype colors to this day.


So....does a HS only print "perfect" modeling articles and alienate modelers by appearing to exclude their interests and work or should inaccurate article be published with some kind of "good enough" logic? Should the question be dodged (basically what SRHA has been doing) by not running modeling articles at all? People that read the commercial modeling magazines probably recognize that the models it discusses are not always perfect. Should modeling articles be left to them?


PS I see a trend on the Internet where people nit pick a commercial model to an absurd point. With the release of Exact Rail's (beautiful!) Big John hopper cars, people have written they will only purchase the model if it can be proven that it operated on a particular stretch of track within their narrow date range or it has a Plate "whatever" stencil when it should be something else. What's going on with that? Are we to believe people are so detailed oriented or are these simply rationales for armchair modelers to avoid purchasing or doing any modeling? I'd be curious to see what models they have that pass their sniff test for accuracy.


Ike



Re: Prototype fidelity

paul.doggett2472 <paul.doggett2472@...>
 

Although l model Southern Pacific circa 1950 l have have an interest in the UK steam era and the problem is the same over this side of the pond.  Produce one car and paint it in 20 or more different  liveries. Wagons in the UK (Freight cars in the states) apart from specialist books wagons are very much a secondary interest you see model trains with models that are all the same dimensions but in wrong liveries headed by a loco that's absolutely superb. Look at any steam era freight train photo and there's cars of all shapes and sizes variations are anything from a couple of inches to a couple of feet in height and also variations in width. Unfortunately we are a minority interest just be thankful that there a few manufacturers that do produce accurate models and kits and trying to get accurate decals well that's just a nightmare. Rant over.

Paul Doggett UK




Sent from Samsung mobile

"Tim O'Connor timboconnor@... [STMFC]" <STMFC@...> wrote:
 

Greg Martin wrote

The sad reality is that most modelers are far more concerned about their locomotive fleets than their freight car fleets with the possible exception of signature cars. They can tell you every phase of a locomotive and it's respective differences, the oddities, the paint schemes and love to debate the color a locomotive builder chose to paint it, mostly making reference to DuPont colors when likely Rinshed Mason was the body color. They spend hundreds on their locomotives while they ignore the most basic details on their fright cars. They spend countless hours detailing them to the neath degree. MY My... 


Greg, you're sure right about locos vs freight cars! Modelers, photographers,
railfans, and former employees alike -- it's all about the locomotives! Just
pick up any "history" book and see what is chosen to represent the railroad --
people, tracks, stations, bridges, locomotives, passenger trains... and buried
in there might be one or two freight car portraits. I have over 300 railroad
books (not counting any of the freight car books that have appeared) so I can
testify that this is largely true.

Oh well this whole discussion is exhausting... The Southern Pacific group on
Facebook now has almost 4,000 members. That greatly exceeds the number of people
who belong to the SPH&TS, which is a large and very healthy society. Many other
societies are much smaller and marginal. Yet I agree with those who think there
is a lot of untapped potential out there.

Let's recognize that we Prototype Modelers are a minority. We're an important
minority, and we've had HUGE SUCCESS in the last 20 years. I can't think of a
major manufacturer (or importer as is now mostly the case) that has not fully
embraced Prototype Models (with varying degrees of fidelity). Let's not spoil
our success by bashing what societies do. Get in there and roll up your sleeves
and try to make accurate models available, if you think that's what will help
your Historical Society to survive.

Tim O'Connor

P.S. The Facebook SP group is totally obsessed with locomotives, trains, and
telephoto photography! I think the ratio of locomotive to freight car photos is
at least 99 to 1. When I post a freight car photo I always try to include some
information about the car. Maybe I'll "hook" some unsuspecting fan and they'll
start taking a greater interest in freight cars.


Re: Identity of very large FD built February 1941

 

I have attempted to upload a photo of CISX 500, used as part of a United
States Steel ad, to the STMFC photos folder in a folder named Brian Ehni
photos.

We¹ll see how well that worked.

Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni

From: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Date: Saturday, November 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM
To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Identity of very large FD built February 1941







Thanks Eric and Marty,


Someone on the Kalmbach forum came up with CISX 500 (from the fine folks at
Fallen Flags):


http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/misc-frt/cisx500alb.jpg




<http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/misc-frt/cisx500alb.jpg>

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/misc-frt/cis...
<http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/misc-frt/cisx500alb.jpg>



View on www.rr-fallenflags.org
<http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/misc-frt/cisx500alb.jpg>
Preview by Yahoo









It shows in my April 1941 ORER as a new entry. It's gone from my July 1945
ORER. There's talk of it getting new reporting marks. I'm not finding it
in any private car listings in the 1945 book.



Evaporated??????







Ed



Edward Sutorik















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


Re: Identity of very large FD built February 1941

 

The weapons themselves were not that heavy (dropped on Japan by B-29,
remember). CISX 500 was used to transport the Jumbo only. As said before,
Jumbo was designed to contain a non-critical explosion of the Gadget (code
name for the Trinity test device), so as to no lose all the plutonium should
the shaped TNT charges not implode the plutonium correctly.

In the event, Jumbo was not used (may have been too heavy for the tower that
Gadget was suspended from), and weathered the explosion.

I would heartily recommend listers watch Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb
Movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_and_Beyond while in no way
related directly to STMFC, it¹s fascinating. For example, I never knew they
actually stacked up 1000 tons of TNT to use as a baseline explosion!

Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni

From: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Date: Saturday, November 22, 2014 at 9:02 AM
To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Identity of very large FD built February 1941







I'd surmise, based on the what's shown in the photo, and the photos in the
same group on Flickr, that this car was used to transport the test weapon to
the detonation site. Not sure if the car was moved away before the test
weapon was detonated or not. IT might have been used to transport the two
other bombs to the coast for loading on Navy vessels.

Marty McGuirk


Re: Prototype fidelity

Tim O'Connor
 

Greg Martin wrote

The sad reality is that most modelers are far more concerned about their locomotive fleets than their freight car fleets with the possible exception of signature cars. They can tell you every phase of a locomotive and it's respective differences, the oddities, the paint schemes and love to debate the color a locomotive builder chose to paint it, mostly making reference to DuPont colors when likely Rinshed Mason was the body color. They spend hundreds on their locomotives while they ignore the most basic details on their fright cars. They spend countless hours detailing them to the neath degree. MY My... 


Greg, you're sure right about locos vs freight cars! Modelers, photographers,
railfans, and former employees alike -- it's all about the locomotives! Just
pick up any "history" book and see what is chosen to represent the railroad --
people, tracks, stations, bridges, locomotives, passenger trains... and buried
in there might be one or two freight car portraits. I have over 300 railroad
books (not counting any of the freight car books that have appeared) so I can
testify that this is largely true.

Oh well this whole discussion is exhausting... The Southern Pacific group on
Facebook now has almost 4,000 members. That greatly exceeds the number of people
who belong to the SPH&TS, which is a large and very healthy society. Many other
societies are much smaller and marginal. Yet I agree with those who think there
is a lot of untapped potential out there.

Let's recognize that we Prototype Modelers are a minority. We're an important
minority, and we've had HUGE SUCCESS in the last 20 years. I can't think of a
major manufacturer (or importer as is now mostly the case) that has not fully
embraced Prototype Models (with varying degrees of fidelity). Let's not spoil
our success by bashing what societies do. Get in there and roll up your sleeves
and try to make accurate models available, if you think that's what will help
your Historical Society to survive.

Tim O'Connor

P.S. The Facebook SP group is totally obsessed with locomotives, trains, and
telephoto photography! I think the ratio of locomotive to freight car photos is
at least 99 to 1. When I post a freight car photo I always try to include some
information about the car. Maybe I'll "hook" some unsuspecting fan and they'll
start taking a greater interest in freight cars.

67561 - 67580 of 196858