Date   

Re: oops/chuckle

ed_mines
 

Better to ruin a $20 kit than a $40 one.


Ed Mines


Yarmouth stirrup steps

ed_mines
 

Anyone else have problems twisting the top of these so the holes lie flat on the sides?


Any suggestions? Stuff does not drill easily.


Ed Mines


Re: oops/chuckle

ed_mines
 

oy veh!


Re: oops/chuckle

Tony Thompson
 


        Those are pretty big grapefruit but it looks to me like they are close to spoiled. Must be heavy, too, judging by how few there are. Interesting cargo.

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: oops/chuckle

mwbauers
 

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTAwWDE2MDA=/z/AycAAOSwBLlVJ6vK/$_57.JPG

oops, indeed !

Best to ya,
Mike Bauers
Milwaukee, Wi

On Apr 11, 2015, at 1:16 PM, ed_mines@... [STMFC] wrote:


Go to e bay-> Red Caboose -> HO -> R30-12-9


Look at the center, small photo below


oops!


Ed Mines


Re: Early Diesel Yahoo Discussion Group?

mwbauers
 

This reminds me of the earliest diesels in the Diesel Spotter books that were so unlike the following regular production models.

The peak of this are the proposed PRR diesels from the20's or so that look like the oddest variations on the blocky and streamlined electrics they were running at the time. Fortunately many of those detailed drawings made it onto The Net and would make fantastic operating models.

I don' know if I could find the site again. But I'm sure glad I saved all of them on my hard drive.

Best to ya,
Mike Bauers
Milwaukee, Wi

On Apr 11, 2015, at 2:11 PM, fgexbill wrote:


Friends, is there a Yahoo group similar to ours that focuses on early Diesels, i.e. covered wagons, B-B road switchers, and the early switchers for EMC/EMD, Baldwin, ALCO, FM, etc. that would look good with our beloved steam era freight cars (mandatory content)?


Bill Welch


Re: Early Diesel Yahoo Discussion Group?

Scott H. Haycock
 

Bill

I know of 2 Yahoo groups: Alco-BLW- FM Modeler, and Baldwin Locomotive Works, both of which deal with steam and early diesel locomotives built by these companies. 



Scott Haycock


 


Friends, is there a Yahoo group similar to ours that focuses on early Diesels, i.e. covered wagons, B-B road switchers, and the early switchers for EMC/EMD, Baldwin, ALCO, FM, etc. that would look good with our beloved steam era freight cars (mandatory content)?


Bill Welch




Re: Early Diesel Yahoo Discussion Group?

spsalso
 

I did one of those searchy things and found that the search term "diesel" brings up a LOT of groups dedicated to the Vinster.  I am not surprised.  He's probably not, either.  All the way to the bank, folks!

Then I entered "early diesel" and got this:

First Generation Diesel Locomotive's

 


And I expect they'd love to increase their membership.



Ed

Edward Sutorik


Early Diesel Yahoo Discussion Group?

Bill Welch
 

Friends, is there a Yahoo group similar to ours that focuses on early Diesels, i.e. covered wagons, B-B road switchers, and the early switchers for EMC/EMD, Baldwin, ALCO, FM, etc. that would look good with our beloved steam era freight cars (mandatory content)?


Bill Welch


oops/chuckle

ed_mines
 

Go to e bay-> Red Caboose -> HO -> R30-12-9


Look at the center, small photo below


oops!


Ed Mines


FS: Atlas HO Undec 1932 ARA Boxcar

pennsylvania1954
 

For Sale: Atlas #20 000 170 1932 ARA Boxcar, undec, body style #1. Body style #1 has "long tab" body, Murphy Panel roof, 4/4 Dreadnaught ends and is correct for MP, MEC, CofG, CLINCHFIELD, WM (if fitted with a Duryea underframe), BAR, D&H, I-GN, MI. Kit has been opened for inspection only. $18 plus $4.75 shipping. Check or MO. Contact OFF LIST only stevehprr "at" cox "dot" net.

Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL





Re: Interesting Freight Cars

Tim O'Connor
 

Bob Witt wrote

> I don't believe I have seen this one. All-steel box car on an older narrow underframe.
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/311334395524

MRS had numerous bizarre rebuilds -- I've seen this one before, but this
is the first one I've seen with SLRX reporting marks. Actual numbers I have
for the MRS cars like this: 5004, 5055, 5118, 5157, 5178. There was another
style of rebuild in series 52xx as well.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Interesting Freight Cars

Tony Thompson
 

Bob Witt wrote:

 

I don't believe I have seen this one. All-steel box car on an older narrow underframe.


     Note also that the height has been increased considerably. 
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





Interesting Freight Cars

rwitt_2000
 

I don't believe I have seen this one. All-steel box car on an older narrow underframe.


The seller has more freight car images currently listed on eBay buried amongst many locomotives images. Below are some other samples where some have re-weigh dates beyond 1960, but the cars most likely were in service before 1960.

PHOTO Northampton & Bath boxcar 522 Size 8 X 10 inch digital photo from orig

 

PHOTO Bangor & Aroostook insulated heater car 2500 "State of Maine" scheme

 

PHOTO Louisiana North West rebuilt double door boxcar 8020 Size 8 X 10 inch

 

PHOTO Norfolk & Western electric power car 514781 Size 8 X 10 inch glossy di

 

PHOTO Union Oil Co Log Angeles tank car UOCX 10323 Size 8 X 10 inch glossy d

 


Bob Witt


Re: tank car identification

Tim O'Connor
 

Tom

Yes but stencils (especially on non-revenue equipment) are not necessarily correct.
I've seen plenty of photos of cars that are incorrectly stenciled. But I think Steve Hile's
reasoning is sound, so the stencil in this case is probably correct. It's been known to
happen now and then. :-)

Tim O'Connor



Do I see two stencils that say "built 10 - 17"?  One on the far end of the tank, the other near the far end of the bolster.
 
Tom Casey

Steve, Jerry Stewart agrees with you that this is a UTLX X-3 built by ACF -- However, Jerry
thinks the car was built in 1937. Is that possible? Can you guys arm wrestle over this and
decide? :-) His reasoning was based on the dome construction and 3-course tank.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/45425384@N04/16878903917/

On the other hand, maybe it's a newer tank on an older underframe...

Tim O'Connor


Re: tank car identification

tyesac@...
 

Do I see two stencils that say "built 10 - 17"?  One on the far end of the tank, the other near the far end of the bolster.
 
Tom Casey

Steve, Jerry Stewart agrees with you that this is a UTLX X-3 built by ACF -- However, Jerry
thinks the car was built in 1937. Is that possible? Can you guys arm wrestle over this and
decide? :-) His reasoning was based on the dome construction and 3-course tank.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/45425384@N04/16878903917/

On the other hand, maybe it's a newer tank on an older underframe...

Tim O'Connor




Hi Tim,
 
I believe that this is an early 6500 gallon UTLX X-3.  There were 2150 built in 1916-17, including 1000 by ACF,
but they were not ACF design.  The tank supports are the give away for me.  Obviously the trucks are not original.
 
Regards,
Steve Hile
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor timboconnor@... [STMFC]
To: STMFC
Sent: Thu, Apr 9, 2015 9:47 pm
Subject: RE: [STMFC] tank car identification

 

Steve, Jerry Stewart agrees with you that this is a UTLX X-3 built by ACF -- However, Jerry
thinks the car was built in 1937. Is that possible? Can you guys arm wrestle over this and
decide? :-) His reasoning was based on the dome construction and 3-course tank.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/45425384@N04/16878903917/

On the other hand, maybe it's a newer tank on an older underframe...

Tim O'Connor




Hi Tim,
 
I believe that this is an early 6500 gallon UTLX X-3.  There were 2150 built in 1916-17, including 1000 by ACF,
but they were not ACF design.  The tank supports are the give away for me.  Obviously the trucks are not original.
 
Regards,
Steve Hile


Re: tank car identification

Steve and Barb Hile
 

There are drawings in various period CBC’s, including the 1922 Newton Gregg reprint tank car collection, of the early 6500 gallon X-3 cars.  They did have 3 longitudinal courses and did have, originally the screw type dome hatch.  They could have replaced this with the bolted type at some late time, I have seen both types in later year photos.

 

The underframe is the tip-off to making it one of the older cars.  The original version of the X-3 underframe had cast steel bolsters that were connected to the stub side sills with four rivets.  The design evolved quickly and 2000 ten thousand gallon X-3’s that were built in 1917 had a different cast bolster that also had four rivets to connect to the stub side sill, but they were closer together.  From the next cars, 1919 and beyond, the bolsters were fabricated from sheet/plate and can be identified by six rivets where the side sill attaches to the bolster.

 

So, this car has a 1917 underframe, for sure.  It isn’t obvious from this flickr photo, but it should be one of the cars where the end sill tapers outward towards the draft gear to provide a slightly wider walkway around the end of the tank.

 

The original cars had K brakes and arch bar trucks, so those are clearly not present in this photo.

 

Regards,

Steve

 


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 9:47 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] tank car identification

 

 


Steve, Jerry Stewart agrees with you that this is a UTLX X-3 built by ACF -- However, Jerry
thinks the car was built in 1937. Is that possible? Can you guys arm wrestle over this and
decide? :-) His reasoning was based on the dome construction and 3-course tank.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/45425384@N04/16878903917/

On the other hand, maybe it's a newer tank on an older underframe...

Tim O'Connor



Hi Tim,
 
I believe that this is an early 6500 gallon UTLX X-3.  There were 2150 built in 1916-17, including 1000 by ACF,
but they were not ACF design.  The tank supports are the give away for me.  Obviously the trucks are not original.
 
Regards,
Steve Hile


Re: tank car identification

Tim O'Connor
 

John that's correct for the Tk-I but the "tank car identification" thread
is about a different car, which turned out to be a Union Tank Car X-3.

Tim O'Connor

Richard Hendrickson is still our friend! From the Santa Fe Tank Car Book he co-authored with Richard Pelouze:

TK-I
AC&F
99098-99297
Class 545 Andrews L-section trucks
Miner draft gear
10,500 gallons
38' 2-1/8" long
48-1/2" ID dome, 14" high above tank shell.

And additional thanks to Steve Sandifer who pulled this data out of the book when I couldn't find my copy

John Barry


Re: tank car identification

Tim O'Connor
 


Steve, Jerry Stewart agrees with you that this is a UTLX X-3 built by ACF -- However, Jerry
thinks the car was built in 1937. Is that possible? Can you guys arm wrestle over this and
decide? :-) His reasoning was based on the dome construction and 3-course tank.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/45425384@N04/16878903917/

On the other hand, maybe it's a newer tank on an older underframe...

Tim O'Connor




Hi Tim,
 
I believe that this is an early 6500 gallon UTLX X-3.  There were 2150 built in 1916-17, including 1000 by ACF,
but they were not ACF design.  The tank supports are the give away for me.  Obviously the trucks are not original.
 
Regards,
Steve Hile


Re: tank car identification

John Barry
 

Richard Hendrickson is still our friend!  From the Santa Fe Tank Car Book he co-authored with Richard Pelouze:  

TK-I
AC&F
99098-99297
Class 545 Andrews L-section trucks
Miner draft gear
10,500 gallons
38' 2-1/8" long
48-1/2" ID dome, 14" high above tank shell.

And additional thanks to Steve Sandifer who pulled this data out of the book when I couldn't find my copy
 
John Barry

ATSF North Bay Lines
Golden Gates & Fast Freights

707-490-9696

PO Box 44736
Washington, DC 20026-4736


From: "Tony Thompson tony@... [STMFC]"
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] tank car identification

 
Bruce Smith wrote:

 
There are at least two other quickly identifiable spotting features that tell you why this is not a “type 17”.  First, the Type 17 had radial courses and second, it (usually) had "elbow” style safety valves off the side of the dome.  

     Just a reminder that the AC&F designations like "Type 17" refer only to the underframe. Buyers specified tank details, including safety valve arrangements. What Bruce describes as spotting features may well be correct for the era, but not because the cars have Type 17 underframes.

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






63961 - 63980 of 196997