Date   

Re: Classic Trains on CD

Tim O'Connor
 


Magazines are not photos. I have issues of MRH (a FREE online publication with photos)
that are 300 Megabytes each in size, and they are PDF files.

Kalmbach could EASILY insert new advertising material into old issues of magazines if
they were really worried about copying and sharing PDF files. Advertisers pay for eyeballs,
so they'd be more than happy if people cheated, and probably spend enough to more than
cover the scanning and distribution costs - Just as they do for MRH and others.

ALL methods of digital copy protection can ALL be defeated. After all, software engineers
understand how it works, and them who create these methods will know how to get around them.
The days of selling paper copies of the same image over and over and over are drawing to a
close. Besides which, inks and paper are bad for the environment. :-)

Tim O'Connor





On 12/27/2019 1:01 PM, Bob Webber wrote:
This is an issue with digital images - people *WILL* copy, share and post on the internet.  They have since the inception (which is one reason Microsoft's process is so convoluted and pricey now).  They will also copy & share things that were specifically and explicitly forbidden by the license they signed (same).

You may disagree with the concept, then you shouldn't sign the license (which is a whole issue unto itself with EULAs being printed in -5 pt script and running on for chapters).  

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

You may wish for better copies in PDF form (which isn't the best vehicle) and be able to ...well...make it portable (as the name implies) for your own purposes.  That is and likely will be fine.  It's the people who post such images on the internet (and or pass copies along to friends and manufacturers as their own) that kill offerings and drive up prices.  

I'd love to hear "solutions" (off-line or at Cocoa) as we have had to stop supplying some materials until some of this is resolved.  It *WILL* make images harder to view, it *WILL* make images harder to come by, it *WILL* result in "policing" - people insist that anything on the Internet must be free, and any material feeding it must be too. They also insist that anything they "own" is theirs to do with as they please.   That will kill more than you know.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  Others do as well, mainly due to "pirates", but also to sensibly defray costs.  Feeling that it is the sellers problem (to pay for acquisition, maintenance, repair, and logistics) is simply uninformed or deliberately and willfully ignorant - and the reason many things available in the past & today will not be leaving archives - you'll have to visit them in order to look, and cameras and phones will not be allowed. 

At 10:44 AM 12/27/2019, Tim O'Connor wrote:
My issue with Kalmbach is their proprietary images - If the images were good quality in
a PDF format, I would get the entire MR/Trains/Classic/etc and load them onto my hard drive.

Bob Webber



--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: Numerous steam era freight cars at Jersey City, August 20, 1929

Nolan Hinshaw
 

On Dec 28, 2019, at 05:41, Brian Rochon <berochon@...> wrote:

From the Erie-Lackawanna list today:

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-28-19/X6844.jpg
That shot has some grand detail of a concrete cribbing!

^<@<.@* hat less at less point at star
}"_# | back brace double base pound space bar
-@$&/_% dash at cash and slash base rate
!(^I@|=> wow open tab at bar is great
;`+$?^? semi backquote plus cash huh DEL
,#"~|)^G comma pound double tilde bar close BEL


SN Tank Car MW 68

David
 

This car is something of a puzzle, particularly its original builder. I'm open to any suggestions as to its origins (I know it is not an AC&F car as Ed Kaminski told me it wasn't a few years back).
I have no idea why he said that. The car in the pics is pretty much a standard AC&F Type 4.

David Thompson


Re: Numerous steam era freight cars at Jersey City, August 20, 1929

Bill Daniels <billinsf@...>
 

Nice panoramic shot... notice the T&NO boxcar at the left end, and, no, it’s not that long, but an artifact of the panoramic camera that shot the image.

Bill Daniels
Santa Rosa, California


On Dec 28, 2019, at 5:41 AM, Brian Rochon <berochon@...> wrote:



From the Erie-Lackawanna list today:

 

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-28-19/X6844.jpg

 

Brian Rochon


Numerous steam era freight cars at Jersey City, August 20, 1929

Brian Rochon
 

From the Erie-Lackawanna list today:

 

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-28-19/X6844.jpg

 

Brian Rochon


SN Tank Car MW 68

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford
 

Good Friends,

While working through scanning Sacramento Northern negatives shot by the late Kenneth Jenkins, I came to the tank car below. This car is something of a puzzle, particularly its original builder. I'm open to any suggestions as to its origins (I know it is not an AC&F car as Ed Kaminski told me it wasn't a few years back).

SN MW 68 was one of three tanks purchased used in 1937. I am not certain, but United Commercial, a vendor of used equipment, may have been the source. AFE records show them as 7,500 gallon cars, but the actual capacity of this car is 7,923 gallons (could that dome hold 423 gallons?). There is a large wooden box added to the top of the tank, which apparently held a gasoline pump and hoses. The lettering on the frame of the first photo seems to give a build date of 1/05.

The first photo is by Will Whittaker (negative also in my collection), and shows the car when new to the SN, circa 1938 (repack date).

The second view is the Jenkins shot, and since it clearly has AB brakes, that means it is post-1955. AB brakes were added on AFE 27-54 dated 8/8/55.

I have only seen one photo of one of the other tanks from this lot, and I can't say if they were all the same. What frustrates me today is that I saw one of these cars on the deadline in West Sacramento about 1967. I only took a photo of the car next to it (a burned out caboose), and that photo tantalizingly shows just the tank's end without enough information to be useful. Oy! But hey, I was only 16. Kids do dumb things.

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff  🦆


Westerfield S.P. SS Boxcars

Richard Stern
 

Westerfield has released a number of new kits for Southern Pacific single-sheathed B50-15 boxcars.  They have a number of unusual paint schemes, but I suspect from the descriptions that they did were only used on the SP, and didn't go into interchange servce.  Can someone give me (a) some idea how the following were used and (b) whether they'd be seen on connecting railroads:
Original Wood Sheathed, SP Pacific Motor Trucking (PMT) and Overnight Versions of the B-50-15 SS Box Car
Thanks
Rick 


Re: micro coat flat

Craig Zeni
 

On Dec 27, 2019, at 1:08 PM, main@RealSTMFC.groups.io wrote:

3a. Re: micro coat flat
From: Jon Miller <atsfus@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:58:31 EST

/On 12/26/2019 6:40 PM, Craig Zeni wrote://
/
/bought mine from spruebrothers.com/
They list two types, matt and satin, no flat. As these come from the EU what is the same as flat, matt?
Satin - semi gloss.
Matte - flat

Craig Zeni
Cary NC


CP 40 DD boxcar with end doors, Sylvan kit #1073 rerun reservations

Brent Greer
 

Cross posted from the Canadian Modeling List (with permission from the posting individual)

CP 40 foot Double Door with end door boxcar preliminary announcement, Sylvan kit HO-1073
I will be getting a custom run of Sylvan Models kit # HO-1073 Canadian Pacific Railway 40 foot double door boxcar with end door done in the New Year. This kit can be used to model 1938 built (road numbers 295500-295549), 1940 built (road numbers 295600-295649) and 1942 built (road numbers 295659-295799) cars. There were a total of 300 cars in this series. Many were subsequently renumbered into work service 404xxx numbers.

The kit includes 13’6” doors for the 1938 cars along with the door extension that CP added to some cars, along with 15’ doors for the 1940 and 1942 built cars. In addition the kit will include Sylvan decals, etched brass ladders and a pair of Bettendorf trucks. Wheels and couplers are not included.

Some of these cars lasted in revenue service into the early 1980’s, and some survived into the 1990’s or longer in company service. They are appropriate for steam era through to the modern day period.

The kits will be $50 each. Please contact me via email at <mlwm420 AT gmail DOT com> to reserve your cars. No payment is required to reserve your model, payment will be due when the models ship. Shipping to your mailing address will be extra.

Prototype photos of these cars in their original numbers are challenging to locate; below are a few photos of these cars in work service numbers via Canadian Freight Railcar Gallery, courtesy of Chris van der Heide.

http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cp404243&o=cprail

http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cp404243detail1&o=cprail

http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cp404094&o=cprail

http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cp404094_2&o=cprail

http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cp404077&o=cprail


I have reserved a couple. If you are also interested, contact Marc Simpson off-list at the address listed in the body of his message above.

Brent
________________________________
Dr. J. Brent Greer


Re: Retainer Valves - HO Scale

Eric Hansmann
 

I’m satisfied with the retainer valves on the Tichy K brake system parts sprue. I drill a hole and insert a length of 0.008-inch diameter wire before snipping them off the sprue. The brake parts all go into a multi-compartment box and the retainer valves are ready to install after the wire is in place.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Lester Breuer
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2019 7:23 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Retainer Valves - HO Scale

 

Tichy on the #3013 spruce with no part number; however, across from the bell crank #22-3013 - inexpensive

Precision Scale in plastic #31796 about $ .84 each last time I ordered them, 4 per package
I do not know brass part number as do not use.

Another possible option is to cast your own.  Press the part you have into clay or silicone mold putty ( MicroMark is one source) to make cheap quick mold and fill with and J_B Weld ( epoxy).  Will take some time to dry.

Another possible option is to cast your own in rubber molds and resin.

Lester Breuer


Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Retainer Valves - HO Scale

Tom Madden
 

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 11:01 AM, George Corral wrote:
Has anyone tried these?  Shapeways: Bulk Retainer Valves by K. Kadwell Mfg. Co.
I bought a set of 20 but haven't done anything with them. The back side is clean but the front side has the "frosty" look you get with this process. I expect that will clear up when they are ultrasonically cleaned with Bestine solvent. The material is very brittle and difficult to drill, so the designer has incorporated a stub coming out the bottom for the retainer pipe, with the idea that the modeler will make a butt joint between the stub and the wire retainer pipe. Problem is, the stub may be larger than the diameter of the wire you want to use. I can't get anything in to directly measure the stubs, but comparing them visually with drill shanks, they are about the same diameter as, and certainly no smaller than, a #80 drill, 0.0135". 

Tom Madden


Re: Classic Trains on CD

Bob Webber
 

Tony, both are happening, often in step.  For instance, they (we) might have given up on some, but they are not processing others.  There is the main issue - one has to rationalize the costs vs. the benefits (note I did not say revenue or profit). 

And...it depends on who owns what.  Were we to own the 2.5 million objects in the collection, and not be held by agreements - we'd likely put some images (lower-res, smaller size, less optimal formats) on the web.  We can not do that, by agreement. 

I know of several archives that have, as you say, "given up" in terms of simply conserving, making they items available locally only, and hoping for a better day.  Others are giving up by putting all or most on-line (in poorer qualities).  Others straddle.  There are many  options, but those options may be rather restricted by something not in your power to change. 

Selling images may well be low income - depending on the scheme of things and your interpretations.  We have ONLY that revenue stream, and that pays for everything we purchase (large format and other scanners, computers, storage, storage containers, etc. etc.).  We are still ahead by doing so.  We could *NEVER* pay a salary, or pay for the new building going up - but everything else is and must be covered.

At 12:18 PM 12/27/2019, Tony Thompson wrote:
Bob Webber wrote:

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

   Comments about abuse of licensing and permission are quite correct. But I think Bob is wrong about what institutions "are going to do." In fact, my impression is that many institutions have given up on this issue, and are increasingly posting uncontrolled images on the web. Selling digital images is a VERY low-income idea, and I suspect many are simply deciding to make images available. Otherwise they languish in darkness.

Bob Webber


Re: Retainer Valves - HO Scale

Ralph W. Brown
 

Hi Jon, Peter, et al.,
 
Tichy offers any array of wire diameters from 0.008” to 0.032” in 8” and 3’ lengths, as well as 0.040” wire but apparently only in 8” lengths.  The wire is phosphor-bronze rather than brass, but I’ve never found that to be a problem for me.  See: https://www.tichytraingroup.com/Shop.aspx?SearchValue=wire.  Some of the Tichy wire products appear to be currently available from Walthers too.  https://www.walthers.com/search/category/products/accessories/scratch-building-supplies/manufacturer-name/tichy-train-group/show/120?is_active_flag=141007&match=AND&q=wire.
 
Clover House offers straightened brass in 12” lengths and an array of diameters (https://cloverhouse.com/Cart/index.php?cPath=64&osCsid=cmrtivslojmrbbtq8ci2oeqv56), as well as 100’ coils of phosphor-bronze wire in 0.013” and 0.020” diameters (https://cloverhouse.com/Cart/index.php?cPath=30_32).
 
Pax,
 
 
Ralph Brown
Portland, Maine
PRRT&HS No. 3966
NMRA No. L2532

rbrown51[at]maine[dot]rr[dot]com
 

From: Jon Miller
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2019 12:23 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Retainer Valves - HO Scale
 
On 12/27/2019 8:52 AM, Peter Hall wrote:
does anyone know of a source for 0.015” brass wire?

Tichy?

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Re: Classic Trains on CD

Tony Thompson
 

Bob Webber wrote:

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

   Comments about abuse of licensing and permission are quite correct. But I think Bob is wrong about what institutions "are going to do." In fact, my impression is that many institutions have given up on this issue, and are increasingly posting uncontrolled images on the web. Selling digital images is a VERY low-income idea, and I suspect many are simply deciding to make images available. Otherwise they languish in darkness.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  

        Of course this is entirely right. But those who charge huge prices, such as the Smithsonian, either believe they can get it because they have great material, or are trying to make images into a "profit center," as business schools faithfully teach you to do. I'd bet the profit is microscopic and shrinking.

Tony Thompson




Re: Retainer Valves - HO Scale

Peter Hall
 

Music wire is a good idea, and phosphor-bronze.  DPH seems to be out of DA wire entirely, sadly.

Thanks
Pete

On Dec 27, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Pete

Des Plaines Hobbies carries an incredible array of wire and tubing products. I'll be shocked
if they don't have any. Another item that I have is small STEEL wire (music wire) - great for
applications where you want wire that does not bend (e.g. tank car handrails, brake rods, etc).
My local "Hobby Town" store sells it.

Tim O'



On 12/27/2019 11:52 AM, Peter Hall wrote:

Speaking of small parts for brake systems, does anyone know of a source for 0.015” brass wire?  I can’t find it from any of the usual sources.

Thanks
Pete


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: Classic Trains on CD

Bob Webber
 

This is an issue with digital images - people *WILL* copy, share and post on the internet.  They have since the inception (which is one reason Microsoft's process is so convoluted and pricey now).  They will also copy & share things that were specifically and explicitly forbidden by the license they signed (same).

You may disagree with the concept, then you shouldn't sign the license (which is a whole issue unto itself with EULAs being printed in -5 pt script and running on for chapters).  

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

You may wish for better copies in PDF form (which isn't the best vehicle) and be able to ...well...make it portable (as the name implies) for your own purposes.  That is and likely will be fine.  It's the people who post such images on the internet (and or pass copies along to friends and manufacturers as their own) that kill offerings and drive up prices.  

I'd love to hear "solutions" (off-line or at Cocoa) as we have had to stop supplying some materials until some of this is resolved.  It *WILL* make images harder to view, it *WILL* make images harder to come by, it *WILL* result in "policing" - people insist that anything on the Internet must be free, and any material feeding it must be too. They also insist that anything they "own" is theirs to do with as they please.   That will kill more than you know.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  Others do as well, mainly due to "pirates", but also to sensibly defray costs.  Feeling that it is the sellers problem (to pay for acquisition, maintenance, repair, and logistics) is simply uninformed or deliberately and willfully ignorant - and the reason many things available in the past & today will not be leaving archives - you'll have to visit them in order to look, and cameras and phones will not be allowed. 

At 10:44 AM 12/27/2019, Tim O'Connor wrote:
My issue with Kalmbach is their proprietary images - If the images were good quality in
a PDF format, I would get the entire MR/Trains/Classic/etc and load them onto my hard drive.

Bob Webber


Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Retainer Valves - HO Scale

George Corral
 


Has anyone tried these?  Shapeways: Bulk Retainer Valves by K. Kadwell Mfg. Co.

George Corral
Holiday, FL.


Re: Retainer Valves - HO Scale

Donald B. Valentine
 

Prantle's HAD 14 on Greedbay. They have 0 now.

Cordially, Don Valentine.


Re: Retainer Valves - HO Scale

Jon Miller
 

On 12/27/2019 8:52 AM, Peter Hall wrote:
does anyone know of a source for 0.015” brass wire?

Tichy?

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Re: Retainer Valves - HO Scale

Dennis Storzek
 

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 08:52 AM, Peter Hall wrote:
Speaking of small parts for brake systems, does anyone know of a source for 0.015” brass wire?  I can’t find it from any of the usual sources.
 
Tichy has .015" phosphor bronze wire, which I happen to like better than brass because it's stiffer. Here is a link to their catalog page:
https://www.tichytraingroup.com/Shop/tabid/91/c/ho_wire/Default.aspx

Dennis Storzek