|
Re: Accurail part#131 36' floor parts
Dennis Storzek
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 11:10 AM, Robert kirkham wrote:
Was looking at the Accurail site, and considering ordering their 36’ floors and brake sprues to retrofit some non-Accurail Fowler cars I have.Rob, Eric correctly answered you question about the parts. When you get them, you'll note that there are four cross tie parts, but only three slots. The initial planning for the molds used the old Mainline Modeler drawings of the CPR Fowler carss for reference... and the CPR cars used four cross ties. When I actually had better builders drawings in hand, I came to realize that the Fowler cars built for US roads used only three cross ties, but I left the fourth part in case anyone wanted to use it. You'll have to fill the mounting slots with some strip styrene. Dennis Storzek
|
|
|
|
Re: Flat car sides
Bill Welch
Based on article I found in the hobby press—don't remember which magazine or date of—I used the Concor flat to create a very nice and I believe accurate, based on the article, a CB&Q flat car. The kit by that time was intended to be in TOFC service so I had to fill some holes in the deck. I installed new sill steps, grabs, etc.
Bill Welch
|
|
|
|
Re: SAL "STB" Logo on Boxcars
Allen Cain
Thanks Tim, any idea when this marking first appeared on SAL boxcars? Allen Cain
|
|
|
|
Re: Flat car sides
Richard Townsend
I know they are sow's ears, but I like making silk purses and am hoping for a prototype. Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR
-----Original Message-----
From: Garth Groff <sarahsan@...> To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> Sent: Sat, Aug 31, 2019 1:50 pm Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Flat car sides
Richard,
Consider WP 50' flat cars 2351-2400 (PC&F, 1937) and identical 2401-2700 (AC&F, 1942). The slope started just outboard of the 3rd stake pocket, actually just about mid-way between the truck spring pack and the journal box, and sloped down to even with the 5th stake pocket. Being 50' cars, they had 16 pockets on each side: https://wplives.org/collectionpageimages/freightcarimages/flatcars/wpmw_8674_022709_DSC_4645.jpg . Chad Boas offers a partial resin kit for these cars--underframe, sides and end sills cast in one piece, with a one-piece scribed wooden deck. You supply everything else. I had one of the Con-Cor/Revell flat cars, and seem to remember the side sill was very deep, maybe because the the deck rode high, making the the narrow end parts of the side sill taller than they should have been. Model Power? Well, what else can I say . . . . it's Model Power. Yours Aye, Garth Groff On 8/31/2019 2:29 PM, Richard Townsend
via Groups.Io wrote:
Both
the Revell/Concor (53'6") and Model Power (50') flat cars have
sides where the slope down to the fishbelly begins at about the
third stake pocket from the end and reaches full depth between
the fourth and fifth stake pockets. Question: were there ANY
prototype flat cars of ANY length that had sides like that? All
I have seen have much shallower slopes to the full depth.
Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR
|
|
|
|
Two Single Sheathed Boxcars with Spliced Youngstown Doors
gary laakso
While at the angle of the picture, the doors seem to be spliced, they could be door and a half. Does anyone recognize these cars? The side ladders are short with 7 steps and likely two grab irons.
You need to click on the picture to increase its size.
Gary Laakso Northwest of Mike Brock
|
|
|
|
Re: Flat car sides
Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
Richard,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Consider WP 50' flat cars 2351-2400 (PC&F, 1937) and identical 2401-2700 (AC&F, 1942). The slope started just outboard of the 3rd stake pocket, actually just about mid-way between the truck spring pack and the journal box, and sloped down to even with the 5th stake pocket. Being 50' cars, they had 16 pockets on each side: https://wplives.org/collectionpageimages/freightcarimages/flatcars/wpmw_8674_022709_DSC_4645.jpg . Chad Boas offers a partial resin kit for these cars--underframe, sides and end sills cast in one piece, with a one-piece scribed wooden deck. You supply everything else. I had one of the Con-Cor/Revell flat cars, and seem to remember the side sill was very deep, maybe because the the deck rode high, making the the narrow end parts of the side sill taller than they should have been. Model Power? Well, what else can I say . . . . it's Model Power. Yours Aye, Garth Groff
On 8/31/2019 2:29 PM, Richard Townsend
via Groups.Io wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Accurail part#131 36' floor parts
Robert kirkham
Thanks Eric
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Eric Hansmann
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2019 11:16 AM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Accurail part#131 36' floor parts
The straight underframe part is the same as the Fowler kit underframes. There are a few extra parts. Overall the main underframe casting is the same for the three different 36-foot Accurail boxcar kits. The centersill, cross member, and brake hardware parts are what varies between the straight and fishbelly centersill versions.
Eric Hansmann Murfreesboro, TN
|
|
|
|
Flat car sides
Richard Townsend
Both the Revell/Concor (53'6") and Model Power (50') flat cars have sides where the slope down to the fishbelly begins at about the third stake pocket from the end and reaches full depth between the fourth and fifth stake pockets. Question: were there ANY prototype flat cars of ANY length that had sides like that? All I have seen have much shallower slopes to the full depth. Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR
|
|
|
|
Re: Accurail part#131 36' floor parts
Eric Hansmann
The straight underframe part is the same as the Fowler kit underframes. There are a few extra parts. Overall the main underframe casting is the same for the three different 36-foot Accurail boxcar kits. The centersill, cross member, and brake hardware parts are what varies between the straight and fishbelly centersill versions. Eric Hansmann Murfreesboro, TN
On August 31, 2019 at 12:10 PM Robert kirkham <rdkirkham@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
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
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? --
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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
|
|
|
|
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
In a message dated 8/26/2019 5:49:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, tony@... writes:
--
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:
|
|
|
|
Re: Piedmont & Northern 1101 Styrene and Resin Build Part One
Donald B. Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
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:
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.
Mike Turner MP-Z35
|
|
|
