|
Re: GM&O GSC 53' 6" Flat Car Build, Bloomington Shops 1951
Kenneth Montero
The Tichy kit for this car (no.1000) has a separate frame, but does not have as a separate part the portion of the frame that is level with the deck. I believe that the Walthers kit for this car did so, but I don't know if the Walthers kit is still available from Walthers, but that kit should show up on Ebay and other reseller sites.
I am asking others of this group to confirm my recollection of the Walthers kit, as I did not purchase one.
Ken Montero
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: GM&O GSC 53' 6" Flat Car Build, Bloomington Shops 1951
Ray Hutchison
The photos show a wonderful modeling opportunity, with the flatcar decks being assembled on the two tracks, perhaps add frames on the side, or flatcar with the frames aon the track waiting for assembly.
Only problem: where to purchase a dozen or half of the frames? Ray Hutchison
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido
Dave Boss
Hello folks
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thank you all for all the input. So I'm to understand the numbers on the UTLX reporting marked cars will be changed to be the correct ones? If so will rapido reanonce the numbering so they can be ordered? Thanks again Good Day Dave Boss
On Wednesday, October 20, 2021, Steve and Barb Hile <shile@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido
Dave Boss
Hi Tim
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I know they offer painted index ones but I don't think any in numbered ones? Dave
On Wednesday, October 20, 2021, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
File /Errata UTLX Steam Era Tank Cars.doc uploaded
#file-notice
main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Notification <noreply@...>
The following files have been uploaded to the Files area of the main@RealSTMFC.groups.io group. By: Steve and Barb Hile <shile@...> Description:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido
Since I am (somewhat) responsible for part of the original question, there were a few, but very few, errors in the UTLX book. I have created an errata document that I will post on this group’s web site.
In particular, the large group of 10,000 gallon tank cars built in 1919 and 1920 had 54” domes, not 60” ones. This large group of cars have become the prototype for the Rapido model.
I hope that this clears up the confusion.
Steve Hile
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Schneider
Well.... Maybe I'll jump in here before this gets too far down the track! We WILL fix the problem! Bill Schneider
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido
Todd Sullivan
Yay! Go Bill !!
Todd Sullivan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido
Bill Schneider
Well.... Maybe I'll jump in here before this gets too far down the track! We WILL fix the problem! Bill Schneider
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido
Dave Parker
The issues concerning consistency between car numbers and physical details were discussed extensively back in September beginning with message 187168. Bill Schneider is well aware of them and is working closely with Steve Hile to enure maximum fidelity. These models will be fine. And yes, they do offer an undec model (I ordered some).
-- Dave Parker Swall Meadows, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido
Matthew Metoyer
Rapido welcomes feedback and they will change what ever is necessary to make the product correct. It is still a preorder so there's plenty of time for the corrections, as long as they know about the problems. Matthew Metoyer Santa Maria CA
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 10:33 AM Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido
Thanks for looking into that and letting us know! I think mistakes are a frequent problem
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
with RTR models and I appreciate the caution. Does Rapido offer any un-numbered cars? Tim O'Connor
On 10/20/2021 12:47 PM, Dave Boss wrote:
Hello Folks --
*Tim O'Connor* *Sterling, Massachusetts*
|
|
|
|
|
|
X-3 Tank Car Rapido
Dave Boss
Hello Folks
I'm no expert by any means on freight cars, I'm just reaching out to the group to correct me if I'm wrong about this. Rapido has always made a excellent an accurate model of various proto types. However the Rapido features list of X-3 tank cars reads a 54" dome as one of details on the model. I have just went through and checked ALL the UTLX numbers against the X-3 Table-4 in Stephen Hile's UTLX tank car book. I read from the table the following data. #17550............ is an 8000 gallon car not a 10,000 gallon car #30443.............is a 60" dome with a screw manway cover not a 54" dome with bolted 2 safety valves All of the rest of the car numbers with any UTLX reporting marks are also 60" domes Also Rapido doesn't say if the model features 1 or both side dome platforms The numbers chosen have both variations? I hope I'm wrong about this, but I just want to hear some of your opinions about this before I order any of these cars Any help is appreciated. Good Day Dave Boss
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: GM&O GSC 53' 6" Flat Car Build, Bloomington Shops 1951
mopacfirst
Aha, now I understand why parts of this thread didn't make sense. The header of this thread, and the D202 decal, both show 53'-6". Now, being a Kansas modeler, I could have expected loads to come in on GM&O flatcars occasionally, so I could use a model of either one of these flatcars, but not a pulpwood car.
I have a couple of the Walthers flats stashed away, and I'd be happy to build one of the longer flats now that I know there's a decal that's right. It doesn't take long on that model to remove the molded-on grabs and steps and replace them. As far as I know, all the models I built ten+ years ago still have their decks adherent and flat, which I can't say for the P2K Pullman flats. Ron Merrick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: GM&O GSC 53' 6" Flat Car Build, Bloomington Shops 1951
Jason P
I can't remember if it was these flatcars or the GSC pulpwood racks that GM&O bought but at least one of them (maybe both?) were assembled after delivery using salvaged trucks, brake components, and such from retired freight cars.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
In either case, the cars did arrive to the GM&O's shop facilities in "kit form" as seen in the photos. -Jason P.
On 10/19/2021 8:37 PM David via groups.io <jaydeet2001=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
GM&O GSC 53' 6" Flat Car Build, Bloomington Shops 1951
David
On the one hand, it seems appropriate that the castings were delivered on a PRR F30a. On the other hand, those were a few feet shorter than the standard GSC flat, so these photos actually show the 42'6" cast flats in GM&O series 70500-70749.
David Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Large Model: MDT Reefer #9000
George Courtney
I cannot help but wonder if a person built this model, including the signs and flatcar would someone question it's prototypicalness? I post tongue in cheek.
George Courtney
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: I received my Rapido X31s today
Jeffrey White
No email they were being shipped. I did get an email when they
received them saying they were about to charge my card. I looked
on their website and it showed my order being packed about a week
later. Jeff White Alma IL
On 10/19/2021 7:44 AM, James Cummings
wrote:
Did you receive a confirmation email prior to delivery? Rapido cashed my check several weeks ago and nothing from them yet. James Cummings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Car capacity vs load limit, was Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
spsalso
Looking at the photo of the T43 load, you can see two triangular or wedge shapes underneath the rising track. They appear to be steel, because they are relatively thin and appear to have welds on the bottom. If so, that means they are likely attached to a long steel tube (you can't weld steel to wood). At the end of the thing I'm calling a steel tube is a ramp-looking object. Notice that its width is about the same as the pair of steel triangular shapes.
OK. Please note that that steel tube is directly over the car side, for good reason, I think. And also note that it is NOT directly under the track. It is under the inside of the track and of the inner road wheels only. While this arrangement loads the car itself nicely, it doesn't look so swell for the tank suspension. So I think someone thought it wise to put something under the outer road wheels, also. The COULD have used another piece of steel tubing. But it looks to me like they used wood. I can see what looks like knots in the wood. I can also see what look to me to be two or three holes in the wood, where I would have place bolts to retain the wood. It's possible they weren't used, however. I also see three cables or ropes or strings hanging from stake pockets. Height of the load was about 14' - 10". PRR had boxcars with a max height of 15' 3 3", at the time. So vertical clearance doesn't look like a problem. Width of the M103 is 12' - 2". The max width of an F30 was 10' - 2". I am just not seeing the track overhanging the stake pocket by a foot, in the photo. I see the overhang as about 4", which would give a load width of 10' - 10", not 12' - 2". A puzzlement. Ed Edward Sutorik
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Large Model: MDT Reefer #9000
Bruce Hendrick
Thanks Bob and Charlie for sharing images and information on this fascinating model. I estimated it was about 20 feet long making it 1:2 scale!
I wonder what happened to it. Does anyone know? Bruce Hendrick Brea, California
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Car capacity vs load limit, was Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
Gatwood, Elden J SAD
Group;
Thanks, Bruce, for the clarifications.
I obviously blew it in relating in this case, the pucker is for the High & Wide guy who has to guarantee it fits within the clearance diagram. There were many cases where that went wrong!
Elden Gatwood
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Bruce Smith
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:09 PM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Car capacity vs load limit, was Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
Tom, Folks
Correct.
And I want to stress another thing... even loading a car to the Load Limit is not "pucker" inducing. That's the SAFE maximum load. As with all engineered structures, there is an additional safety margin. Elden Gatwood has shared correspondence regarding the overloading of PRR's heavy duty flats (eg. F38) and the subsequent discussion of repairs previously.
Finally, most rail cars, including most flat cars, cannot take the entire load limit on the center of the span. Thus the steel box beams on the T43 load (no wood there, in spite of what some have posted) are longer than the treads to help spread the load away from the center of the car. So while there was no issue what so ever with the weight, there appears to have been a concern about the weight at the center of the span.
BTW, the dunnage in the T43 photo is the first time I've even seen a tank loaded in that manner.
Regards, Bruce Smith Auburn, AL
From:
main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Thomas Evans via groups.io <tomkevans@...>
So Bruce, let me paraphrase what you are saying & see if I've got it right:
|
|
|
|