Date   
Accurail part#131 36' floor parts

Robert kirkham
 

Was looking at the Accurail site, and considering  ordering their 36’ floors and brake sprues to retrofit some non-Accurail Fowler cars I have.    I had some questions about the parts.  It isn’t entirely clear to me that the part #131 36’ straight underframe and detail set is the same part as used on their #1100 series Fowler cars.    The listings are at: http://www.accurail.com/accurail/parts.htm.

 

Has anyone ordered the parts and able to answer whether they are the same or explain the differences? 

 

Obviously, this is a project that will require some part modifications, so I’m not too fussy here.  Just trying to avoid ordering the wrong stuff.   

 

Rob Kirkham    

Re: SAL "STB" Logo on Boxcars

Tim O'Connor
 


They are just a particular brand of "damage free" load devices

      Spartan Loader: SL
 Spartan Easy Loader: SEL
    Spartan Tri Belt: STB

=====================================

On 8/31/2019 1:14 PM, Allen Cain wrote:
When did the "STB" emblem appear on SAL boxcars?  Also, what does it designate?

Allen Cain

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts

SAL "STB" Logo on Boxcars

Allen Cain
 

When did the "STB" emblem appear on SAL boxcars?  Also, what does it designate?

Allen Cain

Re: Terms For Freight Car Parts

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Randy,

Tell me about it. I believe I was the one who inadvertently introduced the term "Gould Standard" to the hobby some 30 years ago (to my shame!). I used it to describe the Haskell & Barker cabooses used by the various Gould railroads--WP, D&RGW and MP. I put this in quotes, but to my surprise and horror it slipped into the mainstream and has appeared magazine articles and even otherwise well-researched books, implying that this was an official Gould program. Although the Gould roads did use some common equipment designs, AFAIK the commonality was more a matter of purchasing convenience and economies of scale than a serious attempt at uniformity. In short, there was no Gould Standard.

I wish I had never used the term.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff

On 8/31/2019 9:36 AM, Randy Hammill wrote:

. . . But perhaps the person who coined it had a very specific use in mind which has been lost in time. That’s a problem with invented terms, because the meaning can vary over time, where the published term was fixed at the time of publication. It doesn’t mean that it won’t ever change, nor that there may not be multiple terms in use. But at least there’s industry documentation to refer to . . . .


Randy 
--

Randy Hammill
Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1954
http://newbritainstation.com

Re: Terms For Freight Car Parts

Randy Hammill
 

Some of us are more OCD than others. 

I agree in terms of it improving your modeling, other than using consistent terms helps ensure we are talking about the same thing. But part of being a prototype modeler for me is learning about the prototype, and while in times past the colloquial terms might have been used where access to the published terms was more limited, nowadays there is a lot more information available.

But sometimes it also makes a difference in the modeling too. The RP Cyc articles that (finally) identified and detailed the history and terminology of the different offset hopper variations is a huge help in modeling the variations accurately. 

Sometimes terms are non-industry standard, like “post-war box car” which is generally understood to mean “1941 AAR Alternate Standard Box Car with Improved Dreadnaught Ends,” is useful because there were a large number of cars with that configuration.

But sometimes it’s also confusing. For example, what’s the difference between an “Interim Improved Dreadnaught End,” and an, “Improved Dreadnaught End.” best I can tell, they are the same. One is the actual term used by the builder, and the other an invented term, and one that irritates me as well. “Interim” would imply that it is a stop-gap. A temporary implementation until the “real” end is completed. And it was no such thing. It was an end, that also evolved over time like many other things produced over a period of time. But perhaps the person who coined it had a very specific use in mind which has been lost in time. That’s a problem with invented terms, because the meaning can vary over time, where the published term was fixed at the time of publication. It doesn’t mean that it won’t ever change, nor that there may not be multiple terms in use. But at least there’s industry documentation to refer to.

But in general, I just like learning more about the railroad, and once I know the industry published term I prefer to use that.

Randy 
--

Randy Hammill
Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1954
http://newbritainstation.com

Re: Terms For Freight Car Parts

Greg Martin
 

You know everytime this subject comes up, and it does seem to be often (perhaps because I loathe it) I ask myself how does this improve/enhance my modeling?

I respect the use of the terms -- proper -- but when I am talking shop with the crew models terms see to mean and the use of the terms really don't improve the finished model. When I give a clinic I try to focus on the proper, likely because schools in.

Greg Martin



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: "Bob Chaparro via Groups.Io" <chiefbobbb@...>
Date: 8/24/19 11:52 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Terms For Freight Car Parts

Well, your dissertation on the word "proper" is all well and good.

But I never used the word "proper" nor did anyone else in this discussion to date. But I do get your point.

I already knew the Master Car Builders preferred running board(s). Maybe somebody else has an authoritative reference for roof walk. (Athearn doesn't count.)

Sill step vs. stirrup I wasn't so certain about and you appear to have a strong reference source.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


--
Hey Boss,


Somehow I got deleted from this group in late May. I guess someone didn't like me. Jail is a lonely place.

Greg Martin 

Re: 3/4 improved dreadnaught endo for a 10'-0" IH boxcar

Greg Martin
 

Exactly Tony and I believe they offer it as a separate part.

It was always on Richard list of purpose project we developed over Labor Day weekend and it has yet to be offered... go figure.

Greg Martin


Why Yes I have done some modeling...

Sent from AOL Desktop

In a message dated 8/26/2019 5:49:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, tony@... writes:



Isn’t that the end on the IM 12-panel box car?
Tony Thompson 



On Aug 26, 2019, at 4:58 PM, O Fenton Wells <srrfan1401@...> wrote:

Does anyone make such a product?
Fenton Wells

--
Hey Boss,


Somehow I got deleted from this group in late May. I guess someone didn't like me. Jail is a lonely place.

Greg Martin 

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Bill Welch
 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 05:46 PM, Schleigh Mike wrote:
 
Hello Group!
 
The P&N 1101 car is surely an intriguing car and Bill is doing a nice job on the model as his reported work already attests.
 
I have handy at the moment only my October 1958 ORER and these cars therein are listed as PN 1100-1124, 15 cars.  Helpfully, the "vacant" numbers are also listed.  These are the only cars listed for the P&N.  However, another note indicates, "Freight cars owned are not used in interchange service."  This being the case, it would seem likely that these 15 cars were for on-line LCL service and not ever found off-line unless for some other dedicated (return when empty to PN Ry.) service.  Is there any objective evidence that these cars did go off-line?  If not, does such reality quench interest in modeling such a car?  Obviously, this is not an issue with one modeling the P&N.  Of course, in an earlier time, perhaps these cars were out there roaming.  Is this known?
 
Regards from Grove City, Penna.    Mike Schleigh
 
I could care less if the real thing interchanged. Model RR'ing is play for me.
Bill Welch

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Donald B. Valentine
 

   Thank you Steve Hile not only for coming up with the reporting marks and car number that I could not quite make out but also for the reference to a great site for freight car photos. I've just spent an hour in that treasure trove and felt like a kid in a candy store.
Hard to find that many photos from the late 1940's to the mid 1950's in one place today. What a super site!

Cordially, Don Valentine

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Tony Thompson
 

Achleigh Mike wrote:

I have handy at the moment only my October 1958 ORER and these cars therein are listed as PN 1100-1124, 15 cars.  Helpfully, the "vacant" numbers are also listed.  These are the only cars listed for the P&N.  However, another note indicates, "Freight cars owned are not used in interchange service."  

In April 1950, the ORER shows all 25 cars but has the same note about interchange that Mike quotes. In a 1940 ORER, the P&N listings says "Freight Cars Owned:  None."

Tony Thompson



Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

mike turner
 

My guess about the car to the left is it's a caboose with the left half of the X number visible. Some subsidiary of Southern maybe.




On Thursday, August 29, 2019, 1:50:03 PM EDT, Curt Fortenberry <curtfortenberry@...> wrote:


_._,_._,_


Mike Turner
MP-Z35

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Schleigh Mike
 

Hello Group!

The P&N 1101 car is surely an intriguing car and Bill is doing a nice job on the model as his reported work already attests.

I have handy at the moment only my October 1958 ORER and these cars therein are listed as PN 1100-1124, 15 cars.  Helpfully, the "vacant" numbers are also listed.  These are the only cars listed for the P&N.  However, another note indicates, "Freight cars owned are not used in interchange service."  This being the case, it would seem likely that these 15 cars were for on-line LCL service and not ever found off-line unless for some other dedicated (return when empty to PN Ry.) service.  Is there any objective evidence that these cars did go off-line?  If not, does such reality quench interest in modeling such a car?  Obviously, this is not an issue with one modeling the P&N.  Of course, in an earlier time, perhaps these cars were out there roaming.  Is this known?

Regards from Grove City, Penna.    Mike Schleigh


On Thursday, August 29, 2019, 1:50:03 PM EDT, Curt Fortenberry <curtfortenberry@...> wrote:


Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Guy Wilber
 

Garth Groff wrote:

“The side frames are "C.S. Integral Box" design, or so says the data on these cars in Million and Paton's PERE MARQUETTE REVENUE FREIGHT CARS.”

“Cast Steel” is more likely which is about as helpful as using “ARA” or “AAR” truck to label a manufacturers’ side frame.

Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Paul Doggett
 

Garth

Thank you for answer.

Paul Doggett. England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

brianleppert@att.net
 

The "C.S." stands for cast steel, which describes most trucks.

  I've felt these are late versions of Bettendorf T Section trucks, where instead of the upper chords terminating at the upper inboard corners of the journal boxes, the top profile extends over the boxes and curves down into the upper outer corners.  The whole side frame profile is similar to early U section one piece side frames.

Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
Carson City, NV

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Steve and Barb Hile
 

Could be Cast Steel, also.  Could the be, literally, Bettendorf trucks with Simplex bolsters.
 
Steve Hile



From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Garth Groff
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 2:33 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Bill and Paul,

The side frames are "C.S. Integral Box" design, or so says the data on these cars in Million and Paton's PERE MARQUETTE REVENUE FREIGHT CARS. I presume that "C.S." means Cambria Steel, though it could easily mean something else. Yes, it appears to be some sort of "T" or "L" section design. The car was rated for 80,000 lbs, so one presumes these are 40-ton trucks.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff
 

On 8/30/2019 12:21 PM, Bill Welch wrote:
Some from of T-section I think. My is not that car as that car has Hutchins ends. It merely illustrates the scheme I will use. My model will have USRA Andrews from Tahoe.

Bill Welch

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Bill and Paul,

The side frames are "C.S. Integral Box" design, or so says the data on these cars in Million and Paton's PERE MARQUETTE REVENUE FREIGHT CARS. I presume that "C.S." means Cambria Steel, though it could easily mean something else. Yes, it appears to be some sort of "T" or "L" section design. The car was rated for 80,000 lbs, so one presumes these are 40-ton trucks.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff
 

On 8/30/2019 12:21 PM, Bill Welch wrote:
Some from of T-section I think. My is not that car as that car has Hutchins ends. It merely illustrates the scheme I will use. My model will have USRA Andrews from Tahoe.

Bill Welch

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Paul Doggett
 

Bill

Thank you I have not seen any like them but no doubt someone will recognise them.

Paul Doggett 


On 30 Aug 2019, at 17:21, Bill Welch <fgexbill@...> wrote:

Some from of T-section I think. My is not that car as that car has Hutchins ends. It merely illustrates the scheme I will use. My model will have USRA Andrews from Tahoe.

Bill Welch

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Bill Welch
 
Edited

Some form of T-section I think. My model is not that car as that car has Hutchins ends. It merely illustrates the scheme I will use. My model will have USRA Andrews from Tahoe.

Bill Welch

Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One

Paul Doggett
 

Bill 

What are the trucks? 

Paul 


On 30 Aug 2019, at 16:45, Bill Welch <fgexbill@...> wrote:

Tp clarify about the ID of the car coupled to the P&N DS car, I have a print of this photo and indeed it is a C&WC rebuild. Further I should note I am doing the earlier scheme as seen in the attached thanks again to Dr. Campbell who made the decals for me.

Bill Welch

Attachments: