Date   
Re: Brake mounting

Jeff Coleman
 

I don't know the date hanger type brake beams were outlawed but it was well past the cutoff date of this group. I remember working on these in the late 1970's.

Jeff Coleman

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 4:16 PM Eric Lombard <elombard@... wrote:
Hello Everyone... from marginally warmer Chicagoland,

Can someone enlighten me/us as to the final date on which brake beams suspended from the car body were no longer accepted for interchange? I have found a date, 1/1/1909, on which brake beams were banned from body-suspended mounting for new equipment. 

Eric Lombard
Homewood, IL

Throwback Thursday: Westerfield

Benjamin Hom
 

Railroad Model Craftsman, October 1982 issue, ad for the first four offerings from Westerfield.


Ben Hom

Re: USRA DOUBLE SHEATH BOXCAR DRAWINGS

Dennis Storzek
 

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:40 AM, WILLIAM PARDIE wrote:
I believe that many railroads built their own cars from the USRA design.  Certainly the cars went through a number of incarnations once on line in brake gear and other appliances.  I do get confused, however, with the comment accompanying many comments in articles stating that "XYZ railroad TOOK DELIVERY
of a certain number of USRA box cars".  Did these railroads specify specific alterations to the original design?
No alterations to the cars in the original order, which were ordered by the USRA and assigned to different railroads, according to what the gov't perceived was their need for more cars. Remember, during this period the day to day operations of the railroads was effectively nationalized, so when the carbuilders shipped the cars on the gov't orders, the railroads took delivery. Unfortunately, the railroads still existed as independent corporate entities, who were expected to pay for the new cars. Not all were willing to do so, which lead to some re-assignments. Didn't really matter to the USRA as an operating entity; they just wanted more cars in the general fleet, and didn't really care whose reporting marks were on them.

After the war ended and the railroads were returned to the control of their owners, some roads did place additional orders for the USRA designs, but were free to make any modifications they chose. These later cars are typically referred to here as "USRA clones". The USRA specified inside height of 9'-0" was universally despised by the industry, who thought it wasteful, and most, if not all of the clones were ordered with a 5" lower inside height.

I'm not aware of any railroad that actually built clones in their own shops.

Dennis Storzek
 

Re: Decals for SFRD (Santa Fe) 50' reefers

Joseph
 

John,
I have Champ BRH-219 with the 40’ stuff used up.  A notation on the instructions says that this scheme was never used on 50’ cars.  I am thinking they meant the slogan(the Scout)

You are welcome to it if you want to try to make something from it

Joe Binish
Mstl852 at gmail dot com


On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:14 PM, john oseida via Groups.Io <xseinc@...> wrote:

I'm looking for a source for decals for SFRD (Santa Fe) 50' ice reefers in HO scale.  More specifically classes RR-10/17/22/26/30/31/37/42 and ideally in the straight-line map scheme used from late 1940 through mid-1947.  There were some differences in the maps applied to 40' cars vs. 50' cars and I'm attempting to locate lettering specific to the 50' cars.  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

John Oseida
Oakville, ON

Re: Decals for SFRD (Santa Fe) 50' reefers

charles slater
 

I would try and find an old Champ set on ebay as they have both the 40' and 50' maps. Just look for the train slogan you want.
Charlie Slater

Sent from Outlook



From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of john oseida via Groups.Io <xseinc@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:14 PM
To: RealSTMFC@groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Decals for SFRD (Santa Fe) 50' reefers
 
I'm looking for a source for decals for SFRD (Santa Fe) 50' ice reefers in HO scale.  More specifically classes RR-10/17/22/26/30/31/37/42 and ideally in the straight-line map scheme used from late 1940 through mid-1947.  There were some differences in the maps applied to 40' cars vs. 50' cars and I'm attempting to locate lettering specific to the 50' cars.  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

John Oseida
Oakville, ON

Brake mounting

Eric Lombard
 

Hello Everyone... from marginally warmer Chicagoland,

Can someone enlighten me/us as to the final date on which brake beams suspended from the car body were no longer accepted for interchange? I have found a date, 1/1/1909, on which brake beams were banned from body-suspended mounting for new equipment. 

Eric Lombard
Homewood, IL

Decals for SFRD (Santa Fe) 50' reefers

john oseida
 

I'm looking for a source for decals for SFRD (Santa Fe) 50' ice reefers in HO scale.  More specifically classes RR-10/17/22/26/30/31/37/42 and ideally in the straight-line map scheme used from late 1940 through mid-1947.  There were some differences in the maps applied to 40' cars vs. 50' cars and I'm attempting to locate lettering specific to the 50' cars.  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

John Oseida
Oakville, ON

Re: USRA DOUBLE SHEATH BOXCAR DRAWINGS

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

As always I will defer to Tony's expertise on anything freight car related.  I believe that many railroads built their own cars from the USRA design.  Certainly the cars went through a number of incarnations once on line in brake gear and other appliances.  I do get confused, however, with the comment accompanying many comments in articles stating that "XYZ railroad TOOK DELIVERY
of a certain number of USRA box cars".  Did these railroads specify specific alterations to the original design?

Bill Pardie



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: O Fenton Wells <srrfan1401@...>
Date: 1/30/19 9:31 AM (GMT-10:00)
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] USRA DOUBLE SHEATH BOXCAR DRAWINGS

Didn't Mainline Modeler did an extensive series on these boxcars in the late 1970's I seem to remember.
Fenton

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:25 PM Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:
BILL PARDIE wrote:

Last week there was some discussion on the lack of drawings for the USRA double sheath box cars.  I was rather tied up so I hope that this comment is not too late
For anyone fortunate enough to have some of the old Train Shed Cyclopedias by Newton Greg there are drawings of both the single and double sheath cars in Volume
#3.  This series is a compelation of drawings from the Car Builders Cyclopedia and are much easier to handle than the CBC.  

    But are these not the "original USRA design" drawings, rather than the cars as actually built?

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history







--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...

Scrapers for flatcar loads

ron christensen
 

With some talk about scrapers I thought I would photograph a few of my collection. I think most are out of this time period. You can judge.
The manufacturer is marked on the photo, except the one marked img it is as follows;
The Euclid is a List Toy 1963, Bulldozer Is Lesney, 1/11 made in USA no other mark, these are close to N scale
UMEX too big for 1/87 probably to small for S scale
Lindaeo  close to O scale  (strange name had to look 3 times)
EKO is very close to 1/87
The Mercury and the Lesney 4 wheel tractor scraper are too small for 1.87 but too big for N scale i think
EKO and UMEX look like the AHM, Roco models or Mini Movers
Ron Christensen

Re: Linkage repair on a brass locomotive

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

Due to the tiny size of the rivets used in HO valve-gear, the tools needed to set them are mostly available only from the suppliers of such rivets. That’s Bowser (ex Kemtron), maybe PSC, and someone mentioned some european (German?) supplier. Others?

Similar tools (not necessarily rivet-sets) are also available from commercial jeweler’s suppliers. Some of these are useful as a PART of the rivet-heading process. Ideally, using a proper rivet-set, the entire rolling operation can be done in one application. Note that my personal experience is the the heads form better with repeated light impacts rather than one big smash. However, the result can be achieved using several different tools applied in the proper order, such as …

1) a tapered tool like a center punch used to start the flare of the rivet, to perhaps 45 degrees

2) a ball-shaped tool to continure the flare out to perhaps 90 degrees. A small bearing-ball works well here. A Jeweler's “dapping” punch works well here if you can find a really small one.


3) a punch with a cup-shaped hollow tip to continue the roll well past 90 degrees. Jewelers use such “bezel-stone setting punches" for setting jewels. Watchmaker’s use such punches for setting small bearings … I have several varieties. Often these come with a small frame to hold the punches in alignment with a setting anvil.


The simple hand-tool set is not very expensive. The watchmaker’s set with alignment frame, etc., is quite expensive. How much of such work do you expect to do? Simple, cheaper tools will usually work even if they louse-up sometimes. How many blank rivets can you buy for the cost of the watchmaker’s setting device? Hundreds at least.

This is careful, fussy work for sure. It takes proper technique, experience, a good rivet blank, and some luck. Ideally the rivet can be flared and rolled without cracking it. That’s not always possible. Sometimes the rivets are too hard and brittle making a proper roll impossible. Such rivets are made of brass, copper, and steel. The softer the better. If the new head cracks examine it under strong magnification … you’ll have to decide if it looks good enough. If it’s mostly rolled over it’ll work … these little things are NOT highly stressed. If it’s rather squashed flat with several cracks, it’ll likely fail. Often it’ll take more than one try to get it acceptable.

If one has a small lathe the job becomes easier since you can make your own rivets and the tools to set them. They are not complicated.

Dan Mitchell
==========


On Jan 30, 2019, at 10:28 PM, Bryian Sones via Groups.Io <bryian.sones@...> wrote:

Dan,

With all that said. I assume there might be better tools available than others. Do you have any suggestion on where to get the best tool for this and which to buy? 
Also, thank you to everyone for the input. There are really good suggestions and advice.


Thank you,

Bryian Sones
Union Pacific Prototype Modeler
Murrieta, CA


On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 12:03 PM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:


Good advice.

When setting such a rivet one wants to roll the hollow end over into a bead rather like a doubled-over sock. You do not want to just squash it flat. Flattening it may work, but will usually crack the rivet’s new head, and weaken the rivet. This is why rivet-set tools are made.

<tubular_set.gif>

They form the new head with a smooth sort-of “rolling-over” action (no true rotary motion is involved). Lacking a rivet-set of the correct size, a reasonable alternative is to carefully expand the rivet just a bit with a countersink or other pointed / tapered tool, then work the edge outward and down with a small jeweler’s ball-peen hammer. It’s not as good as using a proper rivet-set, but can be quite satisfactory.

As an aside, this is the same idea as rolling in boiler tubes in a tube-sheet. Here the much larger tubes ARE actually rolled into form with a rotary-roller tool driven by a large air or electric drill. As the tool rotates inside the hollow tube it forces the metal outward then bends and stretches it back over itself forming a bead.

<universal-combo-bead copy.png>

Such a tool would be great for hollow rivets too, but for HO valve gear the parts would be microscopic!

Dan Mitchell
==========
On Jan 30, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Edward <edb8391@...> wrote:

I would also like to add that when setting such a rivet to join moving parts, that it not be set too tight.
If set and too tight, the rivet should be removed and the job done over.
Trying to work a tight joint to free it up could damage the rivet 's upset.
Binding might also cause the moving parts to possibly fail at some point. 
Putting a thin piece of paper or similar removable material between the moving parts before riveting may help avoid the issue.

Ed Bommer
.



<tubular_set.gif><universal-combo-bead copy.png>

Information access for Resin Car Works kits

Eric Hansmann
 

The latest Resin Car Works blog post discusses accessing the extra prototype details to help you build RCW kits and what happens to the details when a kit is retired.

http://blog.resincarworks.com/about-our-kits/



Eric Hansmann

RCW web guy

Re: Soo Line Wood Boxcars #100-444 / Accurail 7000 Series Kitbash #100-444

Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 03:02 PM, Sean Murphy wrote:
The WC cars were nearly identical from my understanding.
The WC cars, 1500-1652 (even) were identical. All 250 cars were done as one batch during the winter of 1950-1951, and then proportionally assigned to the two corporate entities. While these look like simple upgrades of older cars, the rebuilding was quite extensive as not only the centersills were replaced, but also the side sills, and the posts re-spaced to increase the door opening from 5 to 6 feet. Company records don't show any one to one correlation with older car numbers; I believe these were essentially new cars built of salvaged material. These are some of the few Soo single sheathed cars that were equipped with brake steps and high power hand brakes. Here is a link to a photo on the Fallen Flags web site, note the tiny W.C. at the upper left hand corner of the side that denotes WC ownership.

SOO 1584

Dennis Storzek

Re: Linkage repair on a brass locomotive

Ralph W. Brown
 

Hi Bryian,
 
Years ago, well decades really, I had zero problems using the tool provided with the Penn Line kit I was building at the time.  Some time later I had a much beefier tool custom machined for me and it also worked without difficulty.  Bowser presently offers a riveting tool for the valve gear rivets (Part No. 1-36), which I suspect is very like, if not the same as, the Penn Line tool.
 
Incidentally, I didn’t use the paper-between-the-parts trick mentioned previously, but it seems to me the instructions (yes, I read instructions) said something about not getting too aggressive with the hammer, or words to that affect.  Still, if one’s “hammer” lacks finesse, the paper sounds like a good idea.
 
Pax,
 
 
Ralph Brown
Portland, Maine
PRRT&HS No. 3966
NMRA No. L2532

rbrown51[at]maine[dot]rr[dot]com
 

From: Bryian Sones via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 10:28 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Linkage repair on a brass locomotive
 
Dan,
 
With all that said. I assume there might be better tools available than others. Do you have any suggestion on where to get the best tool for this and which to buy?
Also, thank you to everyone for the input. There are really good suggestions and advice.
 
 
Thank you,
 
Bryian Sones
Union Pacific Prototype Modeler
Murrieta, CA


On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 12:03 PM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:


Good advice.
 
When setting such a rivet one wants to roll the hollow end over into a bead rather like a doubled-over sock. You do not want to just squash it flat. Flattening it may work, but will usually crack the rivet’s new head, and weaken the rivet. This is why rivet-set tools are made.
 
 
They form the new head with a smooth sort-of “rolling-over” action (no true rotary motion is involved). Lacking a rivet-set of the correct size, a reasonable alternative is to carefully expand the rivet just a bit with a countersink or other pointed / tapered tool, then work the edge outward and down with a small jeweler’s ball-peen hammer. It’s not as good as using a proper rivet-set, but can be quite satisfactory.
 
As an aside, this is the same idea as rolling in boiler tubes in a tube-sheet. Here the much larger tubes ARE actually rolled into form with a rotary-roller tool driven by a large air or electric drill. As the tool rotates inside the hollow tube it forces the metal outward then bends and stretches it back over itself forming a bead.
 
 
Such a tool would be great for hollow rivets too, but for HO valve gear the parts would be microscopic!
 
Dan Mitchell
==========
On Jan 30, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Edward <edb8391@...> wrote:
 
I would also like to add that when setting such a rivet to join moving parts, that it not be set too tight.
If set and too tight, the rivet should be removed and the job done over.
Trying to work a tight joint to free it up could damage the rivet 's upset.
Binding might also cause the moving parts to possibly fail at some point.
Putting a thin piece of paper or similar removable material between the moving parts before riveting may help avoid the issue.

Ed Bommer
.
 


Re: Soo Line Wood Boxcars #100-444 / Accurail 7000 Series Kitbash #100-444

thomas christensen
 

Sean,
 The Soo magazine from the SLHTS, Winter 2014 Volume 36 Number 1 has an article  on kitbashing these cars.
Tom Christensen

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:36 PM, Sean Murphy
<sean.p.murphy.design@...> wrote:
Hi everyone,

I am looking for photos of Soo Line boxcars #100-444 which were rebuilds in 1950 that resemble the Accurail 7000 series wood boxcar. I am looking at doing a kitbash in HO to get it close to the real thing. Drawings, dimensions, and info would also help, too._._,_._,_

Out of Scope messages

Mikebrock
 

Tim O’Conner writes:

 

“Aren't discussions critical of vendors' business practices (or consequences of their alleged negligence)
prohibited from the STMFC list?”

Yes. However, note the rule: Members are permitted to criticize or praise manufacturer's products free from criticism from other members. Criticism of a manufacturer's business practices is, however, not within the scope of the group. So, one might criticize a drawing but not the right of the drawer to make an error. As Tim says, “due diligence” or perhaps “the proof of the pudin’ is in the eatin’ or maybe “Beware of the drawer’s dawg” should be exercised.

 

And, I might note that the rules of the STMFC are very clear that messages MUST be about freight cars:

“ALL SUBJECTS OTHER THAN THOSE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH STEAM ERA FREIGHT CARS ARE PROHIBITED FROM MEMBER MESSAGES. Thus, all admin, security, or "policing" functions will be conducted only by myself or my representatives.” Meaning that all discussions critical of Hundman personally are out of scope.

Last, there have been several messages out of scope lately. The STMFC management has been preoccupied with Prototype Rails and has not responded as strongly as it should have. This is changing.

Mike Brock

STMFC Owner

STMFC Owner

 

Re: Linkage repair on a brass locomotive

Bryian Sones
 

Dan,

With all that said. I assume there might be better tools available than others. Do you have any suggestion on where to get the best tool for this and which to buy? 
Also, thank you to everyone for the input. There are really good suggestions and advice.


Thank you,

Bryian Sones
Union Pacific Prototype Modeler
Murrieta, CA


On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 12:03 PM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:


Good advice.

When setting such a rivet one wants to roll the hollow end over into a bead rather like a doubled-over sock. You do not want to just squash it flat. Flattening it may work, but will usually crack the rivet’s new head, and weaken the rivet. This is why rivet-set tools are made.


They form the new head with a smooth sort-of “rolling-over” action (no true rotary motion is involved). Lacking a rivet-set of the correct size, a reasonable alternative is to carefully expand the rivet just a bit with a countersink or other pointed / tapered tool, then work the edge outward and down with a small jeweler’s ball-peen hammer. It’s not as good as using a proper rivet-set, but can be quite satisfactory.

As an aside, this is the same idea as rolling in boiler tubes in a tube-sheet. Here the much larger tubes ARE actually rolled into form with a rotary-roller tool driven by a large air or electric drill. As the tool rotates inside the hollow tube it forces the metal outward then bends and stretches it back over itself forming a bead.


Such a tool would be great for hollow rivets too, but for HO valve gear the parts would be microscopic!

Dan Mitchell
==========
On Jan 30, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Edward <edb8391@...> wrote:

I would also like to add that when setting such a rivet to join moving parts, that it not be set too tight.
If set and too tight, the rivet should be removed and the job done over.
Trying to work a tight joint to free it up could damage the rivet 's upset.
Binding might also cause the moving parts to possibly fail at some point. 
Putting a thin piece of paper or similar removable material between the moving parts before riveting may help avoid the issue.

Ed Bommer
.



Re: Detail Associates (was DW) composite GS gon FS

Benjamin Hom
 

Detail Associates ad from the March 1989 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman.


Ben Hom

Re: USRA DOUBLE SHEATH BOXCAR DRAWINGS

Bill Welch
 

Personally I am not very good at reading drawings plus over the years with the stories of inaccuracies of drawings in the hobby press, I only use photos to guide my modeling.

Bill Welch

Re: Soo Line Wood Boxcars #100-444 / Accurail 7000 Series Kitbash #100-444

Sean Murphy
 

Thanks Andy,

Any chance you have the book? I don't and was wondering if I could get an image posted or scanned from the source. The WC cars were nearly identical from my understanding.

Re: USRA DOUBLE SHEATH BOXCAR DRAWINGS

Tim O'Connor
 


Aren't discussions critical of vendors' business practices (or consequences of their alleged negligence)
prohibited from the STMFC list? We know Branchline followed an incorrect drawing... but there is such a
thing as "due diligence" too. ;-)

Tim O'



On 1/30/2019 3:13 PM, Benjamin Hom wrote:
Fenton Wells wrote:
"Not bad for an old guy, at least the info was in Mainline Modeler at some time, right wrong or indifferent."

Tell that to the manufacturers who got burned.  I'll bet Branchline had better uses for the money spent on fixing that 41 ft boxcar tooling.


Ben Hom


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts