Date   
Re: Old square bottle Floquil paints.

Ralph W. Brown
 

Hi Denny,

It has been quite some time since I've used it, but I suspect your unlabeled bottle of "dark rum" might be Floquil "glaze." In addition to imparting some luster, as opposed to gloss, to Floquil's otherwise flat finish, I recall it was recommended for making seriously thinned Floquil less "watery." Wish I could remember exactly how Floquil put it.

Pax,


Ralph Brown
Portland, Maine
PRRT&HS No. 3966
NMRA No. L2532

rbrown51[at]maine[dot]rr[dot]com

-----Original Message-----
From: Denny Anspach
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 12:51 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Old square bottle Floquil paints.

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: Walthers HO 1944 AAR modified boxcar

naptownprr
 

Thanks Randy, I didn't know that.


Jim


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Randy Hammill <nhrr@...>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 12:55 AM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Walthers HO 1944 AAR modified boxcar
 
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

Re: Old square bottle Floquil paints.

Roger Huber
 

Danny,

I have used Scalecoat thinner for years with no issues. The unknown bottle might be gloss as I believe the FQ retarder was clear.

Roger Huber
Deer Creek Locomotive Works


On Saturday, April 13, 2019, 11:51:40 PM CDT, Denny Anspach <danspachmd@...> wrote:


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: 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
 

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.  

Gary Laakso
Northwest of Mike Brock


On Apr 13, 2019, at 7:30 PM, mopacfirst <ron.merrick@...> wrote:

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: 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
 

What is SREM improved?  a typo?

   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

Brian Carlson
 

Steve. The steel ribs, actually steel bar only appeared on the outside of superior doors. The inside would be flat steel plate. 

On Apr 13, 2019, at 4:24 PM, StephenK <thekays100@...> 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.   

Any ideas?

Steve Kay

Re: Doors with inside detail

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Stephen,

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.   

Any ideas?

Steve Kay

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.
Tony Thompson 


On Apr 13, 2019, at 1:24 PM, StephenK <thekays100@...> 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.   

Any ideas?

Steve Kay

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,

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:

Thanks Brian and all - Note that 19507 (aluminum) and 19531 (box car red) both show as Compartmentizer

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
WP    20821-21400    580    10-51        8027    7    YSD-2    H    A    M    A3    Note 11
11 - 22 additional cars (various numbers) sent to Pullman-Standard in 1953 and equipped with Compartmentizers. WP repainted cars silver/orange feather with black roof & ends, re# to 19521-19542.

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


-----Original Message-----
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 7:26 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] WP 19531

Anyone have the skinny on this WP PS-1 box car? I -think- it was renumbered by from what? And has it been repainted as well? The photo date is 1956 but I can't make out when the car was built.

The image is a scan of a slide that I own.

Tim O'




Re: WP 19531

Tim O'Connor
 


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:

On Apr 12, 2019, at 6:25 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Anyone have the skinny on this WP PS-1 box car? I -think- it was renumbered
by from what? And has it been repainted as well? The photo date is 1956 but
I can't make out when the car was built.

The image is a scan of a slide that I own.

Tim,
In Oct.-Nov. 1951 the WP received 600 PS-1 box cars WP 20801-21400 built by Pullman-Standard in lot 8027. The first 20 cars 20801-20820 were equipped with Compartmentizers and received aluminum-painted sides & ends along with a full-car length orange feather. The other 580 cars were delivered with freight car red sides & black car cement on the ends, a detail of which will be later discussed. 

Related to the story of WP 19531, starting in 1952 series 20801-20820 was renumbered 19501-19520 with the renumbering being completed by 1-54. Also in mid-1952 the WP sent 20 cars from series 20821-21400 back to Pullman-Standard to be be equipped with Compartmentizers that were built in P-S lot 8121. WP’s intent was for the 20 cars to be painted by P-S to match the 20801-20820 cars & to be renumbered 19521-19540. 

In a letter dated July 15, 1952 addressed to WP, Pullman-Standard advised it would cost the railroad $295.02 per car to sand-blast the black car cement from the ends because the aluminum paint would not adhere well to the black car cement. I came across the letter some 20 years ago while researching the lot 8027 Pullman-Standard correspondence file, documents relating to the construction of selected P-S freight cars that are available for review at the Pullman Library in Union, Illinois.

The railroad decided to not pay P-S to sand-blast the black car cement from the ends, so after installing the Compartmentizers Pullman-Standard returned the 20 cars to WP still in original paint but renumbered 19521-19540. Two additional cars numbered 19541-19542 soon followed to make a total of 42 Compartmentizer-equipped PS-1 box cars by 1-54.

Upon the cars’ return to the railroad, the Sacramento car shops repainted 19521-19542 with aluminum sides & large orange feather to match the original 20801-20820 cars but with the ends that retained the original black car cement as well as black car cement on the roofs. 

Fast-forward to early 1956 when WP 19501-19542 cycled through the Sacramento shops to be repainted in an all freight car red scheme as shown in your slide of 19531 with orange & yellow stencil and small orange feathers. A few photos I’ve seen of these cars denote “SAC. 3-56” when repainted & reweighed. The door & end placards were also lowered at this time.

A photo published on page 25 of the WP Color Guide book shows a MoW car in 1981 (out of scope for the STMFC) in the 1956 paint scheme that remained 25 years later. 

A long-winded answer to your question, but I thought it might be of interest to reflect on some of the details in the sequence of events.

Regards,
Ed Hawkins


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts

Re: WP 19531

Tim O'Connor
 

Thanks Brian and all - Note that 19507 (aluminum) and 19531 (box car red) both show as Compartmentizer

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
WP 20821-21400 580 10-51 8027 7 YSD-2 H A M A3 Note 11
11 - 22 additional cars (various numbers) sent to Pullman-Standard in 1953 and equipped with Compartmentizers. WP repainted cars silver/orange feather with black roof & ends, re# to 19521-19542.

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


-----Original Message-----
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 7:26 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] WP 19531

Anyone have the skinny on this WP PS-1 box car? I -think- it was renumbered by from what? And has it been repainted as well? The photo date is 1956 but I can't make out when the car was built.

The image is a scan of a slide that I own.

Tim O'
--
*Tim O'Connor*
*Sterling, Massachusetts*