Date   

Re: B&O underframes

Eric Hansmann
 

Can you share the issue date so I can dig around the online archives?

 

The few images of pre-USRA B&O reefers that I’ve seen have been truss rod cars with a straight steel center sill. The M-15 boxcars had a fish belly center sill and no truss rods.

 

The M-18 boxcar class was similar to the M-15 car design but had truss rods and a steel center sill. About 3000 M-18 cars were put into service in 1916. These are low numbers in comparison to the M-15 cars.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of lrkdbn via groups.io
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 6:00 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] B&O underframes

 

Dear group
In 1917 the B&O ordered a batch of steel underframe freight reefers. Plans were published in the "Railway Age"
trade magazine. The article stated that the underframe was supplied by Ralston. My question is this-is this the SAME underframe as the M-15 DS  box cars i.e. did B&O have a standard underframe design?I can see that the two cars have similar underframes: what I want to know is whether they were exactly the same-say like the Pennsy
X23 and X25 and R7  all have the same underframe.(Things like this come up when you're a rivet counter...)
Thanks for any help you can give
Larry King


Re: Boxcars

Robert kirkham
 


A really good pair of messages Rich, - saved to my reference file.  Thanks for making the time and sharing the photos!

Rob


On Nov 9, 2020, at 1:30 PM, Richard Remiarz <rremiarz@...> wrote:

Rob,
 
You are correct, I only remove the square material where the trucks mount. 
 
I have received other private emails asking about the height difference, and sent the following response:
 
I find the Intermountain cars to be 3-4” higher than other cars, as shown in these photos.  In the first photo, the NYC car is a Branchline kit, and the CB&Q car is a stock Intermountain kit with the higher bolster, both cars 10’6” cars.  In the second photo are an IMWX 10’ car and a stock Intermountain 10’ car.  
 
Using #5 couplers I didn’t really notice a difference, but since I started using scale couplers and found that matching coupler heights was more critical, I also noticed the Intermountain cars would have couplers slightly higher than the coupler height gauge.  
 
I first noticed this many years ago when I was building up a bunch of the Intermountain GN 40’ boxcars, and noticed they were taller than the other 10’ cars (IMWX) I had at the time.  After measuring the various cars, I came to the conclusion that the Intermountain cars were too high, and that the bolster deign was the cause of the problem.
 
I can’t find the article right now, but I recently read an older article that described the history of the IMWX, Red Caboose, and Intermountain cars, and the article described the difference in underframes and heights.
 
Sincerely,
Rich Remiarz
Vadnais Heights, MN
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Robert kirkham
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 2:26 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Boxcars
 
I had no idea!  Thanks for sharing this modification Rich.  To clarify - the only modification is removing the square material on the bottom of the bolster where the trucks mount?  The first photo has me wondering if you were removing material from the top (i.e. the part up against the car body) of the bolsters, cross members etc (which look a lot thicker on the IM than the IMWX cars), but I guess “no”.   
 
Rob
 
On Nov 9, 2020, at 10:42 AM, Richard Remiarz <rremiarz@...> wrote:
 
There have been a few requests for information on how I lower the bolsters on the Intermountain boxcars.  Years ago I realized that Intermountain boxcars rode too high, especially noticeable when next to other boxcars, and the couplers were slightly on the high side.  The first photo shows an IMWX/Red Caboose underframe on the left and Intermountain underframe on the right.  You can see how much higher the bolster is on the Intermountain underframe.  This makes the cars ride too high.  The Intermountain coupler box has a much thicker cover than the IMWX/Red Caboose coupler box to bring the couplers back down with the raised bolster (IMWX/Red Caboose coupler cover on the left, Intermountain on the right.
 
The second photo shows the bolster after I have removed the entire raised portion.  Usually I do this before attaching the underframe, but I have carefully cut it off on some preassembled cars.  I then attach Kadee scale size couplers in a Kadee coupler box (old #5 coupler box in this case).  The existing hole for the pin on the Intermountain coupler box cover is in the correct location for the Kadee coupler box.  Then I fill in the space between the coupler box and the bolster with blocks of styrene.
 
As shown in the third photo, I use a Kadee red washer on the bolster.  The red washers are 0.015” thick.  In a couple of cases (where the bolsters were not cut down as far) the gray washer was sufficient (0.010”).  The washer gives the truck a smooth surface to rotate on, and spaces the car correctly for the coupler height.
 
After attaching the trucks, I check to make sure the car sits level and the coupler heights.  Sometimes I don’t cut down far enough on one side, and need to even up the bolster. 
 
Sincerely,
Rich Remiarz
Vadnais Heights, MN
 
 
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: O Fenton Wells
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:40 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Boxcars
 

Nice looking cars Rich. Can you go a bit more in-depth regarding the I’m cars and shaving off the bolster. How much do you remove?




 
<IM 1.jpg><IM 2.jpg><IM 3.jpg><IM 4.jpg>
 

 
<41BB59C8093B4087A598B7E5FD1C6CC2.png><IMG_9994[10071].jpg><IMG_9995[10069].jpg>


B&O underframes

lrkdbn
 

Dear group
In 1917 the B&O ordered a batch of steel underframe freight reefers. Plans were published in the "Railway Age"
trade magazine. The article stated that the underframe was supplied by Ralston. My question is this-is this the SAME underframe as the M-15 DS  box cars i.e. did B&O have a standard underframe design?I can see that the two cars have similar underframes: what I want to know is whether they were exactly the same-say like the Pennsy
X23 and X25 and R7  all have the same underframe.(Things like this come up when you're a rivet counter...)
Thanks for any help you can give
Larry King


Photographs in Digests

Vera Mills
 

Hello,
For a while now I have been experiencing loss of photographs appearing in digests.
A comment has been made that only two photographs per message make it into the digest
Is it possible to have this problem sorted and/or attach only two photographs max. to a message?
Thanks.
Regards,
Glen Mills


Re: Photo: Photo: NYC&HR Boxcar 100145

Ray Breyer
 

That's exactly what happened to this car, Roger. East Buffalo took this ONE car, and rebuilt with all-new everything as a testbed. All subsequent short boxcar orders were built to the standards of 100145, and most of the 1906 and 1910 standard cars were rebuilt to this standard.

I touch on these cars in my assorted reviews of the Accurail shorties on Eric Hansmann's blog.


Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL



On Monday, November 9, 2020, 03:47:27 PM CST, ROGER HINMAN via groups.io <rhinman11@...> wrote:


A very interesting photo; if I go by the assigned car number, this is a lot 222-B WUF boxcar built in 1907 by ACF to their lot number 4633. The car as shown would then represent a significant rebuilding at the East Buffalo shops in 1912 with the newly designed Kendig steel under frame applied, steel ends , early XLA roof,  Bettendorf cast trucks. and new door hardware. No problem for the accountants to stencil it as “NEW”  Two builder’s photos of the 1907 car are on the Westerfield ACF CD.

Roger Hinman

On Nov 9, 2020, at 1:04 PM, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb@...> wrote:

Photo: Photo: NYC&HR Boxcar 100145
A photo from the National Archives of Canada:
This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.
Possibly built in 1912.
Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Re: Boxcars

James E Kubanick
 

Rich,

Really impressive builds. Thank you for stating your techniques on building the cars.

Jim Kubanick.
Morgantown WV

On Monday, November 9, 2020, 4:31:07 PM EST, Richard Remiarz <rremiarz@...> wrote:


Rob,

 

You are correct, I only remove the square material where the trucks mount. 

 

I have received other private emails asking about the height difference, and sent the following response:

 

I find the Intermountain cars to be 3-4” higher than other cars, as shown in these photos.  In the first photo, the NYC car is a Branchline kit, and the CB&Q car is a stock Intermountain kit with the higher bolster, both cars 10’6” cars.  In the second photo are an IMWX 10’ car and a stock Intermountain 10’ car. 

 

Using #5 couplers I didn’t really notice a difference, but since I started using scale couplers and found that matching coupler heights was more critical, I also noticed the Intermountain cars would have couplers slightly higher than the coupler height gauge. 

 

I first noticed this many years ago when I was building up a bunch of the Intermountain GN 40’ boxcars, and noticed they were taller than the other 10’ cars (IMWX) I had at the time.  After measuring the various cars, I came to the conclusion that the Intermountain cars were too high, and that the bolster deign was the cause of the problem.

 

I can’t find the article right now, but I recently read an older article that described the history of the IMWX, Red Caboose, and Intermountain cars, and the article described the difference in underframes and heights.

 

Sincerely,

Rich Remiarz

Vadnais Heights, MN

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Robert kirkham
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 2:26 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Boxcars

 

I had no idea!  Thanks for sharing this modification Rich.  To clarify - the only modification is removing the square material on the bottom of the bolster where the trucks mount?  The first photo has me wondering if you were removing material from the top (i.e. the part up against the car body) of the bolsters, cross members etc (which look a lot thicker on the IM than the IMWX cars), but I guess “no”.   

 

Rob

 

On Nov 9, 2020, at 10:42 AM, Richard Remiarz <rremiarz@...> wrote:

 

There have been a few requests for information on how I lower the bolsters on the Intermountain boxcars.  Years ago I realized that Intermountain boxcars rode too high, especially noticeable when next to other boxcars, and the couplers were slightly on the high side.  The first photo shows an IMWX/Red Caboose underframe on the left and Intermountain underframe on the right.  You can see how much higher the bolster is on the Intermountain underframe.  This makes the cars ride too high.  The Intermountain coupler box has a much thicker cover than the IMWX/Red Caboose coupler box to bring the couplers back down with the raised bolster (IMWX/Red Caboose coupler cover on the left, Intermountain on the right.

 

The second photo shows the bolster after I have removed the entire raised portion.  Usually I do this before attaching the underframe, but I have carefully cut it off on some preassembled cars.  I then attach Kadee scale size couplers in a Kadee coupler box (old #5 coupler box in this case).  The existing hole for the pin on the Intermountain coupler box cover is in the correct location for the Kadee coupler box.  Then I fill in the space between the coupler box and the bolster with blocks of styrene.

 

As shown in the third photo, I use a Kadee red washer on the bolster.  The red washers are 0.015” thick.  In a couple of cases (where the bolsters were not cut down as far) the gray washer was sufficient (0.010”).  The washer gives the truck a smooth surface to rotate on, and spaces the car correctly for the coupler height.

 

After attaching the trucks, I check to make sure the car sits level and the coupler heights.  Sometimes I don’t cut down far enough on one side, and need to even up the bolster. 

 

Sincerely,

Rich Remiarz

Vadnais Heights, MN

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: O Fenton Wells
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:40 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Boxcars

 

Nice looking cars Rich. Can you go a bit more in-depth regarding the I’m cars and shaving off the bolster. How much do you remove?




 

<IM 1.jpg><IM 2.jpg><IM 3.jpg><IM 4.jpg>

 

 


Re: Scalpels

John Sykes III
 

The sterile blade comment was conjecture, with no scientific proof on my part, to back it up.  One thing I still use is the Xacto #17 chisel  blades (when I can find them) since I can't think of a scalpel blade equivalent.

-- John


Re: Photo: Photo: NYC&HR Boxcar 100145

ROGER HINMAN
 

A very interesting photo; if I go by the assigned car number, this is a lot 222-B WUF boxcar built in 1907 by ACF to their lot number 4633. The car as shown would then represent a significant rebuilding at the East Buffalo shops in 1912 with the newly designed Kendig steel under frame applied, steel ends , early XLA roof,  Bettendorf cast trucks. and new door hardware. No problem for the accountants to stencil it as “NEW”  Two builder’s photos of the 1907 car are on the Westerfield ACF CD.

Roger Hinman

On Nov 9, 2020, at 1:04 PM, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb@...> wrote:

Photo: Photo: NYC&HR Boxcar 100145
A photo from the National Archives of Canada:
This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.
Possibly built in 1912.
Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Re: Boxcars

Richard Remiarz
 

Rob,

 

You are correct, I only remove the square material where the trucks mount. 

 

I have received other private emails asking about the height difference, and sent the following response:

 

I find the Intermountain cars to be 3-4” higher than other cars, as shown in these photos.  In the first photo, the NYC car is a Branchline kit, and the CB&Q car is a stock Intermountain kit with the higher bolster, both cars 10’6” cars.  In the second photo are an IMWX 10’ car and a stock Intermountain 10’ car. 

 

Using #5 couplers I didn’t really notice a difference, but since I started using scale couplers and found that matching coupler heights was more critical, I also noticed the Intermountain cars would have couplers slightly higher than the coupler height gauge. 

 

I first noticed this many years ago when I was building up a bunch of the Intermountain GN 40’ boxcars, and noticed they were taller than the other 10’ cars (IMWX) I had at the time.  After measuring the various cars, I came to the conclusion that the Intermountain cars were too high, and that the bolster deign was the cause of the problem.

 

I can’t find the article right now, but I recently read an older article that described the history of the IMWX, Red Caboose, and Intermountain cars, and the article described the difference in underframes and heights.

 

Sincerely,

Rich Remiarz

Vadnais Heights, MN

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Robert kirkham
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 2:26 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Boxcars

 

I had no idea!  Thanks for sharing this modification Rich.  To clarify - the only modification is removing the square material on the bottom of the bolster where the trucks mount?  The first photo has me wondering if you were removing material from the top (i.e. the part up against the car body) of the bolsters, cross members etc (which look a lot thicker on the IM than the IMWX cars), but I guess “no”.   

 

Rob

 

On Nov 9, 2020, at 10:42 AM, Richard Remiarz <rremiarz@...> wrote:

 

There have been a few requests for information on how I lower the bolsters on the Intermountain boxcars.  Years ago I realized that Intermountain boxcars rode too high, especially noticeable when next to other boxcars, and the couplers were slightly on the high side.  The first photo shows an IMWX/Red Caboose underframe on the left and Intermountain underframe on the right.  You can see how much higher the bolster is on the Intermountain underframe.  This makes the cars ride too high.  The Intermountain coupler box has a much thicker cover than the IMWX/Red Caboose coupler box to bring the couplers back down with the raised bolster (IMWX/Red Caboose coupler cover on the left, Intermountain on the right.

 

The second photo shows the bolster after I have removed the entire raised portion.  Usually I do this before attaching the underframe, but I have carefully cut it off on some preassembled cars.  I then attach Kadee scale size couplers in a Kadee coupler box (old #5 coupler box in this case).  The existing hole for the pin on the Intermountain coupler box cover is in the correct location for the Kadee coupler box.  Then I fill in the space between the coupler box and the bolster with blocks of styrene.

 

As shown in the third photo, I use a Kadee red washer on the bolster.  The red washers are 0.015” thick.  In a couple of cases (where the bolsters were not cut down as far) the gray washer was sufficient (0.010”).  The washer gives the truck a smooth surface to rotate on, and spaces the car correctly for the coupler height.

 

After attaching the trucks, I check to make sure the car sits level and the coupler heights.  Sometimes I don’t cut down far enough on one side, and need to even up the bolster. 

 

Sincerely,

Rich Remiarz

Vadnais Heights, MN

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: O Fenton Wells
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:40 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Boxcars

 

Nice looking cars Rich. Can you go a bit more in-depth regarding the I’m cars and shaving off the bolster. How much do you remove?




 

<IM 1.jpg><IM 2.jpg><IM 3.jpg><IM 4.jpg>

 

 


Re: Boxcars

Robert kirkham
 

I had no idea!  Thanks for sharing this modification Rich.  To clarify - the only modification is removing the square material on the bottom of the bolster where the trucks mount?  The first photo has me wondering if you were removing material from the top (i.e. the part up against the car body) of the bolsters, cross members etc (which look a lot thicker on the IM than the IMWX cars), but I guess “no”.   

Rob

On Nov 9, 2020, at 10:42 AM, Richard Remiarz <rremiarz@...> wrote:

There have been a few requests for information on how I lower the bolsters on the Intermountain boxcars.  Years ago I realized that Intermountain boxcars rode too high, especially noticeable when next to other boxcars, and the couplers were slightly on the high side.  The first photo shows an IMWX/Red Caboose underframe on the left and Intermountain underframe on the right.  You can see how much higher the bolster is on the Intermountain underframe.  This makes the cars ride too high.  The Intermountain coupler box has a much thicker cover than the IMWX/Red Caboose coupler box to bring the couplers back down with the raised bolster (IMWX/Red Caboose coupler cover on the left, Intermountain on the right.
 
The second photo shows the bolster after I have removed the entire raised portion.  Usually I do this before attaching the underframe, but I have carefully cut it off on some preassembled cars.  I then attach Kadee scale size couplers in a Kadee coupler box (old #5 coupler box in this case).  The existing hole for the pin on the Intermountain coupler box cover is in the correct location for the Kadee coupler box.  Then I fill in the space between the coupler box and the bolster with blocks of styrene.
 
As shown in the third photo, I use a Kadee red washer on the bolster.  The red washers are 0.015” thick.  In a couple of cases (where the bolsters were not cut down as far) the gray washer was sufficient (0.010”).  The washer gives the truck a smooth surface to rotate on, and spaces the car correctly for the coupler height.
 
After attaching the trucks, I check to make sure the car sits level and the coupler heights.  Sometimes I don’t cut down far enough on one side, and need to even up the bolster. 
 
Sincerely,
Rich Remiarz
Vadnais Heights, MN
 
 
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: O Fenton Wells
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:40 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Boxcars
 

Nice looking cars Rich. Can you go a bit more in-depth regarding the I’m cars and shaving off the bolster. How much do you remove?



 
<IM 1.jpg><IM 2.jpg><IM 3.jpg><IM 4.jpg>


Re: Scalpels

Dennis Storzek
 

Lester,
You mention grinding the stiffening rib off scalpel blades to get them to fit an X-acto handle. There is another way. I've had little use for X-acto blades over the years, but at one point at a show I found I had scalpel blades but no handle, so I procured a #2 X-acto handle. The collet that holds the X-acto blade is soft aluminum, easy to file, so I just used the edge of a knife edge file to file a groove along the split line on one side of the collet, sufficient to clear the rib on the scalpel blade. Once modified it will accept unmodified scalpel blades, and still work with X-acto chisel blades, too.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Boxcars

O Fenton Wells
 

Thanks so much Rich. I never noticed the difference and am very glad you pointed this out.
Just say'in....and always learn'in
fenton

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:42 PM Richard Remiarz <rremiarz@...> wrote:

There have been a few requests for information on how I lower the bolsters on the Intermountain boxcars.  Years ago I realized that Intermountain boxcars rode too high, especially noticeable when next to other boxcars, and the couplers were slightly on the high side.  The first photo shows an IMWX/Red Caboose underframe on the left and Intermountain underframe on the right.  You can see how much higher the bolster is on the Intermountain underframe.  This makes the cars ride too high.  The Intermountain coupler box has a much thicker cover than the IMWX/Red Caboose coupler box to bring the couplers back down with the raised bolster (IMWX/Red Caboose coupler cover on the left, Intermountain on the right.

 

The second photo shows the bolster after I have removed the entire raised portion.  Usually I do this before attaching the underframe, but I have carefully cut it off on some preassembled cars.  I then attach Kadee scale size couplers in a Kadee coupler box (old #5 coupler box in this case).  The existing hole for the pin on the Intermountain coupler box cover is in the correct location for the Kadee coupler box.  Then I fill in the space between the coupler box and the bolster with blocks of styrene.

 

As shown in the third photo, I use a Kadee red washer on the bolster.  The red washers are 0.015” thick.  In a couple of cases (where the bolsters were not cut down as far) the gray washer was sufficient (0.010”).  The washer gives the truck a smooth surface to rotate on, and spaces the car correctly for the coupler height.

 

After attaching the trucks, I check to make sure the car sits level and the coupler heights.  Sometimes I don’t cut down far enough on one side, and need to even up the bolster. 

 

Sincerely,

Rich Remiarz

Vadnais Heights, MN

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: O Fenton Wells
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:40 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Boxcars

 

Nice looking cars Rich. Can you go a bit more in-depth regarding the I’m cars and shaving off the bolster. How much do you remove?



 



--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


Re: Scalpels

Lester Breuer
 

Scalpels and blades are great; however, I can not argue about the fine edge of the Single Edge Razor Blade (SERB).  Both tools help to build a better freight car.
Lester Breuer


Re: Boxcars

Richard Remiarz
 

There have been a few requests for information on how I lower the bolsters on the Intermountain boxcars.  Years ago I realized that Intermountain boxcars rode too high, especially noticeable when next to other boxcars, and the couplers were slightly on the high side.  The first photo shows an IMWX/Red Caboose underframe on the left and Intermountain underframe on the right.  You can see how much higher the bolster is on the Intermountain underframe.  This makes the cars ride too high.  The Intermountain coupler box has a much thicker cover than the IMWX/Red Caboose coupler box to bring the couplers back down with the raised bolster (IMWX/Red Caboose coupler cover on the left, Intermountain on the right.

 

The second photo shows the bolster after I have removed the entire raised portion.  Usually I do this before attaching the underframe, but I have carefully cut it off on some preassembled cars.  I then attach Kadee scale size couplers in a Kadee coupler box (old #5 coupler box in this case).  The existing hole for the pin on the Intermountain coupler box cover is in the correct location for the Kadee coupler box.  Then I fill in the space between the coupler box and the bolster with blocks of styrene.

 

As shown in the third photo, I use a Kadee red washer on the bolster.  The red washers are 0.015” thick.  In a couple of cases (where the bolsters were not cut down as far) the gray washer was sufficient (0.010”).  The washer gives the truck a smooth surface to rotate on, and spaces the car correctly for the coupler height.

 

After attaching the trucks, I check to make sure the car sits level and the coupler heights.  Sometimes I don’t cut down far enough on one side, and need to even up the bolster. 

 

Sincerely,

Rich Remiarz

Vadnais Heights, MN

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: O Fenton Wells
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:40 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Boxcars

 

Nice looking cars Rich. Can you go a bit more in-depth regarding the I’m cars and shaving off the bolster. How much do you remove?



 


Photo: StLB&M Gondola 11050

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: StLB&M Gondola 11050

A photo from the National Archives of Canada:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=3933071

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


CN Boxcar 483574

Bob Chaparro
 

CN Boxcar 483574

A photo from the National Archives of Canada:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=4453759

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

Car built in 1944.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Photo: Photo: NYC&HR Boxcar 100145

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: Photo: NYC&HR Boxcar 100145

A photo from the National Archives of Canada:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=4427342

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

Possibly built in 1912.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Photo: Lehigh Valley Gondola 32402

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: Lehigh Valley Gondola 32402

A photo from the National Archives of Canada:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=4026586

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

Car built 1942.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Photo: B &O Gondola 262249

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: B &O Gondola 262249

A photo from the National Archives of Canada:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=4026584

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

Car Built 1941.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Scalpels

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Claus, I think you’re correct, however, I misread your statement to begin with, which made me go measure some dimensions on a SERB, and on a handy eXacto blade.

 

My SERB is .01” thick and the dimension of the ground part on the side is .040”, so the included angle between the two ground faces works out to ~14d, 20 minutes.  I thought it would be less.

 

The eXacto is .026” thick with a ground face of 0.075”.  The included angle is therefore ~18d 05minutes.

 

There, the SERB is sharper than the eXacto.

 

Then it dawned on me that you were looking at the SIDE view of the blades . . . and I suppose you’re correct about the strength of the corner vs the pointed tip of the eXacto.  But I’ve never had one break off so it didn’t occur to me that that was what you’re talking about.

 

Nevertheless I now have a Real Answer as to which is sharper!

 

Schuyler

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2020 11:08 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Scalpels

 

Hi Ed and List Members,

 

Ed wrote: "Even single edge razor blades are much better than hobby blades for many jobs"

 

I also have found this to be true. My theory on the topic is that the tip on a single edge razor blade is a 90 degree angle, and the tip on a #11 X-Acto is a much more acute angle, sort of like the tip on the end of a slice of pizza. I suspect it is this acute angle that makes it susceptible to breaking off more easily than the single edge razor blade

 

Claus Schlund

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ed Mims

Sent: Monday, November 09, 2020 7:25 AM

Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Scalpels

 

Years ago I discovered that medical grade blades are vastly superior to hobby grade blades. They are made from high quality steel, are sharper and hold their edge much longer. Even single edge razor blades are much better than hobby blades for many jobs.

Ed Mims
Jacksonville, FL

4501 - 4520 of 183407