Date   

Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido

Dave Boss
 

Hello folks
                  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:

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@....io] On Behalf Of Bill Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 1:52 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] X-3 Tank Car Rapido

 

Well.... Maybe I'll jump in here before this gets too far down the track!

Yep, I goofed. And Steve caught it. I just have not had a chance to rework the numbers as I am buried in a couple of loco projects at the moment.

We WILL fix the problem!

Bill Schneider
Rapido Trains


Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido

Dave Boss
 

Hi Tim
            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:

Thanks for looking into that and letting us know! I think mistakes are a frequent problem
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
                    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



--
*Tim O'Connor*
*Sterling, Massachusetts*






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:
Known Errata in in UTLX Steam Era Tank Cars as of October 2021 which includes a photo index in car number order.


Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido

Steve and Barb Hile
 

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
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 1:52 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] X-3 Tank Car Rapido

 

Well.... Maybe I'll jump in here before this gets too far down the track!

Yep, I goofed. And Steve caught it. I just have not had a chance to rework the numbers as I am buried in a couple of loco projects at the moment.

We WILL fix the problem!

Bill Schneider
Rapido Trains


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!

Yep, I goofed. And Steve caught it. I just have not had a chance to rework the numbers as I am buried in a couple of loco projects at the moment.

We WILL fix the problem!

Bill Schneider
Rapido Trains


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:

Thanks for looking into that and letting us know! I think mistakes are a
frequent problem
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
>                     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



--
*Tim O'Connor*
*Sterling, Massachusetts*






Re: X-3 Tank Car Rapido

Tim O'Connor
 

Thanks for looking into that and letting us know! I think mistakes are a frequent problem
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
                    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
--
*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.

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:


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



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@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:01 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Car capacity vs load limit, was Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

 

CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.

So Bruce, let me paraphrase what you are saying & see if I've got it right:

CAPY is just a handy way of classifying cars & can be ignored when actually loading a car.
Ld. Lmt. indicates the actual weight of freight you can put in the car.

This is something that has puzzled me for probably 60 years, but I've never been motivated to actually go out & find the answer.

Thanks for the enlightenment! - Tom E.


Re: Car capacity vs load limit, was Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

I never said the beams under the T-43 were wood … but MOST such beams I have seen, under M-48 and M-60 tanks, ARE wood. Large timbers, maybe 8” X 16” or larger, and 25-plus feet long.

Dan Mitchell
==========

On Oct 19, 2021, at 1:09 PM, Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:

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@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:01 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Car capacity vs load limit, was Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
 
CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn. 
So Bruce, let me paraphrase what you are saying & see if I've got it right:

CAPY is just a handy way of classifying cars & can be ignored when actually loading a car.
Ld. Lmt. indicates the actual weight of freight you can put in the car.

This is something that has puzzled me for probably 60 years, but I've never been motivated to actually go out & find the answer.

Thanks for the enlightenment! - Tom E.


Re: Looking for decals

Chuck Cover
 

Thanks to those who helped me find the Westerfield NWX decals that I was searching for.  Placed my order a few minutes ago.

 

Thanks again,

 

Chuck Cover

Santa Fe, NM

4941 - 4960 of 192787