|
Re: Walthers HO 1944 AAR modified boxcar
Randy Hammill
The Improved Dreadnaught End was a trademarked design by Standard Railway Equipment Manufacturing Co (SREM).
Randy -- Randy Hammill Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1954 -- — Randy Hammill Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1954 | https//:blog.newbritainstation.com
|
|
|
|
Old square bottle Floquil paints.
Denny Anspach <danspachmd@...>
I have quite a few of the older square bottle Floquil paints that are still both useful and relatively easy to use. I am running out of Diosol solvent and looking for a substitute peer-grade air brush solvent. In California we cannot purchase automobile grade high quality lacquer thinner that would probably serve, having to make do with hardware store clean up grades (or a trip to Reno). Do listers have recommendations for a good substitute?
Also, I have an unopened Floquil bottle (label gone) the contents of which seems to be that akin in color and thickness of a dark rum. I suspect this is Retarder, but do not know. Any ideas? Denny S. Anspach MD Sacramento CA
|
|
|
|
Re: Throwback Thursday: Athearn Rolling Stock Ad, Model Railroader, February 1959
gary laakso
When Central Valley offered their fully detailed underbody for Atheran box cars, I used them to replace virtually all of my blue box boxcar under frames.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Gary Laakso Northwest of Mike Brock
On Apr 13, 2019, at 7:30 PM, mopacfirst <ron.merrick@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Throwback Thursday: Athearn Rolling Stock Ad, Model Railroader, February 1959
mopacfirst
All of this brings to mind my days of modifying Athearn cars, since they and MDC were the only games in town. In about 1970 I made a Santa Fe Fe-26 (40' double door box) by cutting up the Athearn model of the Fe-24 50' double door car. I took one panel out of each side, with corresponding cuts in the roof. This resulted in a 43' car, but it was distinctive and as far as I know, no one who saw it in that era ever realized the difference. Even better, it was painted boxcar red as far as I can recall because the Floquil mineral red hadn't appeared yet.
The mention of the 14 roof panels triggered this memory. I must have cut the panels in such a way as to preserve the spacing of the panels, because I worked with two end-roof-side pieces. I may still have this car. All of my Athearn cars that once operated on the club layout I belonged to are in one box somewhere. Ron Merrick
|
|
|
|
Re: Walthers HO 1944 AAR modified boxcar
D. Scott Chatfield
>What is SREM improved? a typo? SREM is Standard Railway Equipment Manufacturing Company, later nicknamed Stanray. The several Dreadnaught ends were their product. Scott Chatfield
|
|
|
|
Re: Walthers HO 1944 AAR modified boxcar
Tony Thompson
SRE is Standard Railway Equipment, later calling itself Stanray, but not in the time zone of this list. 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
|
|
|
|
Re: Doors with inside detail
Dennis Storzek
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:48 PM, Brian Carlson wrote:
Steve. The steel ribs, actually steel bar only appeared on the outside of superior doors. The inside would be flat steel plate.In reality they are not bars, but ribs pressed into the bottom edge of each sheet that assembles into the door. Each sheet laps over the open pressing on the sheet above and is welded top and bottom, forming a series of closed box sections that give the door its strength. However, it is correct that other than the weld seems, the inside of the door is smooth. Here is a drawing with a sectional view of a typical Superior door: Superior Door Dennis Storzek
|
|
|
|
Re: Doors with inside detail
Bill Welch
Based on what Brian says my approach may have been wrong but on one of my Sunshine 1932 models. Clinchfield I think. I spliced together two Menzes/Athearn metal doors to get the correct rib count. I left the bare metal unpainted as there was some real rust and the bare metal reflected whatever light gets on it.
Bill Welch
|
|
|
|
Re: Walthers HO 1944 AAR modified boxcar
naptownprr
What is SREM improved? a typo?
Jim Hunter
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Randy Hammill <nhrr@...>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 5:42 PM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Walthers HO 1944 AAR modified boxcar In regards to the terminology, best I can tell the 10’6” IH was added as an optional standard in 1941, and didn’t change again until 1947 when the 10’0” IH was removed from
the standard. What we often call ‘1944’ or ‘postwar’ cars simply have SREM Improved Dreadnaugh Ends, but the standard itself didn’t change. Those just happened to be the latest (trademarked) end they produced. The majority were 10’6” IH cars, but as we know, there were a fair number of 10’0” IH cars built too. The “proper” terminology is something I’ve been trying to figure out, because some of it is modeler/railfan/historian terminology, rather than from the actual standards. It is helpful to a certain extent, but we are usually using visible components to describe the variants when I believe the standard was more about the dimensions and underframe is than the carbody. This means, for example, that we often omit cars with Pullman-Standard or ACF carbuilders ends from identification lists as if they weren’t AAR Standard cars of whichever type. Technically, I think that a 10’0” IH car with an Improved Dreadnaught End is a 1937 AAR Standard Car, and one with a 10’6” IH is a Modified 1937 AAR Standard Car, if built before 1947 anyway. After that point it’s a 1947(?) AAR Standard Car. I know that’s not the terminology we usually use, but what do the experts think? Randy — Randy Hammill Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1954 | https//:blog.newbritainstation.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Walthers HO 1944 AAR modified boxcar
Randy Hammill
In regards to the terminology, best I can tell the 10’6” IH was added as an optional standard in 1941, and didn’t change again until 1947 when the 10’0” IH was removed from
the standard. What we often call ‘1944’ or ‘postwar’ cars simply have SREM Improved Dreadnaugh Ends, but the standard itself didn’t change. Those just happened to be the latest (trademarked) end they produced. The majority were 10’6” IH cars, but as we know, there were a fair number of 10’0” IH cars built too. The “proper” terminology is something I’ve been trying to figure out, because some of it is modeler/railfan/historian terminology, rather than from the actual standards. It is helpful to a certain extent, but we are usually using visible components to describe the variants when I believe the standard was more about the dimensions and underframe is than the carbody. This means, for example, that we often omit cars with Pullman-Standard or ACF carbuilders ends from identification lists as if they weren’t AAR Standard cars of whichever type. Technically, I think that a 10’0” IH car with an Improved Dreadnaught End is a 1937 AAR Standard Car, and one with a 10’6” IH is a Modified 1937 AAR Standard Car, if built before 1947 anyway. After that point it’s a 1947(?) AAR Standard Car. I know that’s not the terminology we usually use, but what do the experts think? Randy — Randy Hammill Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1954 | https//:blog.newbritainstation.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Doors with inside detail
Steve. The steel ribs, actually steel bar only appeared on the outside of superior doors. The inside would be flat steel plate.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
See the photo from Gene Greene’s blog post. https://www.google.com/amp/s/myp48.wordpress.com/2018/01/08/modeling-more-information-on-doors/amp/ Brian J. Carlson
On Apr 13, 2019, at 4:24 PM, StephenK <thekays100@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Doors with inside detail
Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
Stephen,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Why not scratch build a door with at least minimal detail on the inside? All you need is a photo of a Superior door from the back (maybe a car interior shot), some thin styrene sheet and strip, and a lot of little tiny rivets, maybe from Archer. You might consider making a few extras and stashing them for the future. Yours Aye, Garth Groff
On 4/13/19 4:24 PM, StephenK wrote:
I am assembling an old IMWX 1937 AAR Boxcar. I have an interior detail kit and am planning on modeling the car with one door open. The wooden floor and walls from the kit will show thru. But the door that comes with the kit has no detail on the inside. I know this almost never makes a difference, but it would be cool if I could show the inside corrugations of the closed door. (It is a Superior door). I thought about using the outside detail as a mold and pressing aluminum foil on it, which would probably work but would really be delicate.
|
|
|
|
Re: Doors with inside detail
Tony Thompson
Sounds like it would work. It won’t be handled, so if you can get it installed it should be fine.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Tony Thompson
On Apr 13, 2019, at 1:24 PM, StephenK <thekays100@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Doors with inside detail
StephenK
I am assembling an old IMWX 1937 AAR Boxcar. I have an interior detail kit and am planning on modeling the car with one door open. The wooden floor and walls from the kit will show thru. But the door that comes with the kit has no detail on the inside. I know this almost never makes a difference, but it would be cool if I could show the inside corrugations of the closed door. (It is a Superior door). I thought about using the outside detail as a mold and pressing aluminum foil on it, which would probably work but would really be delicate.
Any ideas? Steve Kay
|
|
|
|
Re: WP 19531
Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
Tim,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The second group of the silver cars (19521-19542) were drawn at random from 20821-21400 in 1952-54. They were originally BCR, black ends and roofs (car cement, probably painted black over) and lettered in silver with the square WP herald. They were returned to Pullman who added "Compartmentizer" load restrainers. I was surprised to recently learn (from Ed's post IIRC) that the cars were returned in their original paint to the WP, who repainted the sides with the "silver and huge orange feather" scheme themselves. The only difference between the two groups was silver ends on 19501-19520 and black ends on 19521-19542 because of the car cement. Circa 1956 19501-19520 and 19521-19542 were all repainted BCR with the smaller orange feather in your image. WP 19537 was exception. This car rode on roller bearing trucks, probably as a test, and in addition to the silver and orange paint scheme, had an orange "roller freight" logo at the upper right of the car side. This particular car was reweighed 5-53 at Sacramento, which was probably the date it was converted. It was put on display at the State Fair, and possibly other locations, before returning to revenue service. It too would have been repainted BCR red with the rest of the class circa 1956. Yours Aye, Garth Groff
On 4/13/19 11:08 AM, Tim O'Connor
wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: WP 19531
Thank you Ed ! :-) I find since I model a later era that I'm very interested in the history of older cars, because they so often changed over time. Tim O'
On 4/12/2019 9:48 PM, Ed Hawkins wrote:
--
Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Re: WP 19531
Thanks Brian and all - Note that 19507 (aluminum) and 19531 (box car red) both show as Compartmentizer
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Were 20821-21400 delivered in aluminum paint, or oxide red? The aluminum car shows no indication of being repainted, but you say the renumbered cars were all repainted? Or am I still confused? :-[:-D Thanks for your help! Tim O'
On 4/12/2019 8:33 PM, Brian Carlson via Groups.Io wrote:
From Info that I got from Ed Hawkins --
*Tim O'Connor* *Sterling, Massachusetts*
|
|
|
|
Re: WP 19531
Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
Tim,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I can add to Ed's excellent information that this "small-feather" paint scheme was used on other load-restrainer or cushion-underframe cars purchased or rebuilt by the WP in the mid-to-late 1950s. The WP had been pretty inconsistent about their specially-equipped cars, and there were four or five paint schemes floating around, with striking (some might argue garish) silver or orange bodies, most with huge feathers. The paint is said by some not to have held up well, and since these cars were rolling billboards for WP's modest innovation programs, it was apparently decided to come up with a new paint scheme based on BCR. Repaints included 1961-1970, an oft-renumbered block of 40' PS-1s with 8' doors and cushioned underframes delivered in 1954. In 1959 they were equipped with DF-2 loaders and given the small feather paint scheme along with a large DF-2 plate on their doors. WP 3011-3050, 50' single 8' door, riveted PS-1s with DF loaders and cushion underframes received the small-feather repaint scheme at some point. At least one of these, renumbered as WP 3997, escaped repainting and survived into the 1970s as a storage car outside the Stockton roundhouse. My photo is black-and-white, but I remember the car sides were orange and my photo shows its car-length silver feather was still intact. WP series 55951-56000, 50' RBI boxcars with plug doors and DF loaders, probably came in this scheme from PF&F in 1956. Certainly sister cars 56001-56100 carried this scheme when new in 1957. Subsidiary Tidewater Southern received several groups of RBLs from PC&F. 610-610 in 1957 and 611-620 in 1958 were delivered in the small feather scheme with CP in brush script on the doors to advertise PC&F's "Car Pack" loaders. 810-840, also 1958, were equipped with Evans DF loaders and carried the "DF" on their doors. Most of the above information is from Jim Eager's WESTERN PACIFIC COLOR GUIDE. Yours Aye, Garth Groff
On 4/12/19 9:48 PM, Ed Hawkins wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Throwback Thursday: Athearn Rolling Stock Ad, Model Railroader, February 1959
Dennis Storzek
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:20 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
You're right! :-D Athearn shared the roof + ends mold with their other reefer - a woodTim has hit upon the reason why it has been so difficult to track down prototypes for the Athearn "blue box" cars. While the kits are one piece bodies, the injection mold cavity inserts that form the roof, sides, and ends are five separate pieces, and this opened the door to mix 'n match the inserts with new pieces to make future kits... Especially the ends. Given the toolmaking techniques available in those pre-CNC, pre-EDM (Electro Discharge Machining) days, those ends ate the lion's share of the tooling budget, so it made sense to re-use them over and over again. In those long ago days of much less research and a much less sophisticated market, the fact that the rib pattern might be slightly different was not a concern. Once this path was chosen, the fact that the ends were for a 10'-5" car and and some prototypes were only 10'-0" tall was dealt with by simply stretching the sides upward 5" to fit. Those same ends seem to have been used on the 50' boxcars, also. Another oddity that no one has mentioned is the 50' boxcar roofs all seem to be missing a panel, being 14 panels rather than the correct 15. The panels themselves should be the same width as those on the 40' car, but are not. I have no idea why. Dennis Storzek
|
|
|
|
Re: Throwback Thursday: Athearn Rolling Stock Ad, Model Railroader, February 1959
Craig Wilson
The Athearn 50-foot flatcar has proved useful for kitbash projects too. I had copies of drawings of the stake pockets and side racks from the DT&I engineering dept. which I used to build a couple of models: I have seen photos of NP and Soo Line cars which appear to have similar, if not identical, stake pockets and racks which leads me to surmise that these were a commercial product and not home-shop fabricated. The Athearn kitbash also produced a 70-ton DT&I flatcar loaded with 10 Wiking tractors ("Ferguson" models which are very close to the Ford N tractors in a prototype photo). I call it my "$80 load on a $10 flatcar" since I picked up the two Athearn flatcars for $5 each at a swap meet. I have toyed with the idea of replacing this kitbashed flatcar with the nicer Intermountain model but haven't worked up the ambition to redo all the wheel chocks and tie-down cables. Craig Wilson
|
|
|
