Date   

Re: NMRA Standards and the Need for Revisions

Roger Miener <Roger.Miener@...>
 

Schuyler G Larrabee says ...

Discussion is happening and progress is reputedly being made.
Roger Meiner also has been seen lurking around the Proto87 list.
Maybe he'd
like to comment here?
Eh, well, er, Roger Miener (Note, it's "Mie" and "Mei") is about to
comment.

Ergo, as to the NMRA thing, I can confirm that discussion is in fact
happening and, the last I heard, progress is indeed being made.

Proto:87 is not a standard to replace the present NMRA standard. It
is a standard that is an alternative to the present standard. It is a
coherent set of dimensions for wheel and rail. I'll say it again -
*wheel and rail*. You have to specify the dimensions of both in order
for Proto:87 to work.

You can decide to do Proto:87, or not. It is up to you. However, if
you do decide to do Proto:87, then the Proto:87 standards for wheel
and rail are intended to give you a coherent set of dimensions that
work well together. No dropping into the gap at frogs - even at
number 12 or number 20 frogs - OK? And, there is no need to fill the
flangeways at the frog with solder. Mike Brock loves that part.

Proto:87 is a whole new world. You really need to see how gorgeous
the track looks, and by that I mean the turnouts, crossovers and slip
switches. Proto:87 track looks like the real thing, and well it
should. Proto:87 track is a virtually spot-on scale reduction of the
real thing. It is cool. It is also big.

Absent some weird circumstance, there are no 18" or 24" radius curves
in Proto:87. The current NMRA standards are designed to accommodate
such sharp curves. That is why the current NMRA standards are so
popular. As for Proto:87? No way! Real is real -- And 18" and 24"
radii in HO scale are not real!

Look around your basement or attic. Think about what you want to
accomplish in the available space. It is not an easy choice to make.

Roger Miener
at Tacoma WA


Re: Wheels AND TRACK

Schuyler G Larrabee <SGL2@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: <CBarkan@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Wheels AND TRACK


Perhaps the idea that we do it in two steps would work?

Chris
Two steps, OK. .088 NOW, and .064 (true scale) later. As others have said,
088s work now. True scale won't because of the flangeway issues. And that
next step will be Very Hard to get to.

Oh, BTW, Chris, you said that you don't see the wheels. Try some, just have
them around for a while, and you will wonder why your STEAM ERA FREIGHT CARS
have overshoes on . . .

SGL


Re: NMRA Standards and the Need for Revisions

Schuyler G Larrabee <SGL2@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Brock" <brockm@...>

While...as I said, RP-3 and RP-4 work with code 88 wheels, perhaps other
similar RPs should be developed for other wheels...including P-87 size.
As I mentioned before, I am also a denizen of the Proto87 list, and this,
exactly this, is being done, hotly debated over there, as the NMRA managed
to come up with their own version of Proto87, which isn't quite a direct
reduction of prototype dimensions (!!!!). They ignored the fact that P87
has been around for some 20 years, and has evolved a workable set of
standards which it would have served the NMRA well to simply >>adopt<<.

Nope. "Not invented here."

Discussion is happening and progress is reputedly being made

Roger Meiner also has been seen lurking around the Proto87 list. Maybe he'd
like to comment here?

SGL


Re: wheels

Schuyler G Larrabee <SGL2@...>
 

Mike Brock reports ...

I recently measured a code 88 wheel...Intermountain I think...and
found its
flange to match the NMRA RP-25 dimension for code 88. IOW, its
flange was
not code 110.
From a good source, Mike, one not quite in the company but in a related one,
I find that IM wheelsets are what I described, a flange sized for a 110
wheel, on an 088 wheel.

SGL


Re: M&ST.L red boxcar

Clark Propst <cepropst@...>
 

Terry,
The photos I've seen of these cars show a great deal of over spray. So much so that everything is red. Brake gear,
trucks, wheels, couplers, everything! As the cars aged the trucks would return to mostly black.
I would paint the underbody a grunge color then everything else red. I like to paint the cars white first. It helps
the red really 'pop'. I like either Floquil Signal Red or Socony Red. The white horizontal stripe or stripes to the
right of the door varied in placement.
Most of these cars were painted at Marshalltown Iowa, MN, some at Cedar Lake Minn., MPLS. All were painted between
May of 56 and Nov 60.
Which number series do you plan to model? There are differences between series.
Hope this helps,
Clark Propst

Terry Harrison wrote:

I have built an 1-1/2" scale boxcar. I have the decals for making it a
red M&ST.L car.

Question is, was the whole car red, roof, ends, sides ladders and
stirrups? Were the trucks black and underframe black? Is there a pic
somewhere I could see on line.

Any help would be appreciated. I am ready to paint it.

Terry Harrison


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Roof construction on the Mather boxcars???

Paul Gehrett <pgehrett@...>
 

Hi Folks,

On the Prototype Mather boxcars, was the roof made of galvanized metal or
wood. I'm modeling a couple of them late in their service lives and want to
know if I should simulate the peeling paint down to bare metal look.

Thanks,

Paul Gehrett


Re: Musical Trucks [ frt car ones ]

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Walter Clark writes:

"There is an alternative. Check out Proto87 (there's a link to the SIG
web site on the NMRA web site) There was a very nice article in Model
Railroader a few months back. The trackwork is AWESOME, but the
trucks, with tiny little .064 tread width really grab your eyes.
Proto87 is getting closer and closer to being an "off the shelf"
alternate (not that I'm doing it, understand; I'm just fascinated by
the improvement in the appearance)."
OK...so curiosity is a big motivation. Before we end this thread...getting far removed from just frt cars...what do you model? IOW, do you have a layout or plans for one?

Mike Brock


The F&SM Strikes Again

Benjamin Frank Hom <b.hom@...>
 

Pieter Roos wrote:
And George Sellios has been improving the historicity of his trains with
better and more appropriate equipment (no more heavily weathered
Sante Fe "Shock Control" boxcars in his 1930's world, as on one
cover shot I recall), so I would say each is influential or has been
influenced by prototype modeling.

Sigh. Check out the cover of the September 2003 Mainline Modeler. The
heavily weathered Santa Fe "Shock Control" car is back, and it's joined by
"Southern Serves the South" and CP "Spans the World" boxcars in the
background. (There's a third car in the upper left hand corner that appears
to be a green PS-1 or post-war AAR boxcar, but I'll grant a mulligan on that
one.)

Nothing is ever born without pain.


Ben Hom


Re: 200T Flat

Walter M. Clark
 

IIRC there was an article in "Western Prototype Modeler" magazine back
in the late 60's early 70's that made minimal changes to the Athern
kit and called it a Southern Pacific F-100. No prototype photographs,
though, so there was nothing to compare the model to.

Walter M. Clark
Time stopped in November 1941
Riverside, California

--- In STMFC@..., "JGG KahnSr" <jacekahn@h...> wrote:
I recall the C&NW photo in the CBC reprints I have; Champ made
lettering
sets for PRR and NYC, too, (I shall have to see if they did C&NW,
although I
believe they did). In O scale we have had the Auel kit for many years
(17/64" but very well-detailed, as all of Carl Auel's work was),
recently
re-introduced, as well as the KTM brass import. In addition to the
Athearn
span-bolster car in H0, I recall MDC/Roundhouse offering a die-cast
kit in
the 1950's; since I never owned one, I can't speak for its prototype
fidelity, but the photos looked nice.
Jace Kahn
Mostly Fairbanks

The Athearn heavy duty flat you mentioned is a class F34 on the PRR and
class FG on the C&NW. Photos of these two cars appear in the 1943 Car
Builders Cyclopedia. RailWorks brought out the PRR F34 about a year
ago.

Tom Olsen
Two models that have not made the list of "accurate" models yet are:

Tichy 4040 - ACL flat car

Athearn heavy duty flat car - I know, this model is probably
un-redeamable
as it is way to thick, but it models a real car, supplied as a "kit"
consisting of a cast car body and bolsters to several railroads,
including
PRR and C&NW. This would be a neat opportunity for a resin kit
with an
etched brass deck...and some of the drawings are in the 1940 CBC.
Bruce F. Smith V.M.D., Ph.D.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


Re: Wheels AND TRACK

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Chris Barkan says:


"Larry's right, if you think about it, the MAIN REASON to switch to scale
wheels is that you can then build and operate on prototypical-appearing track."

" Most of us turn a blind eye to this which is perhaps the most
unprototypical looking aspect of model railroads. It is especially evident in the
special work with all the grossly too wide flangeways etc."

Is there anything else other than the flangeway that is incorrect? I recently measured some ME code 83 rail and it matches perfectly with some ARA 132 lb rail dimensions. I say some because the '55 Track cyc includes many different sized rail of the same weight.

"But
the "inertia" imposed by so much of our present-day equipment will have to be
overcome. Perhaps the idea that we do it in two steps would work?"
I think I would go for only one "step". As I've said many times, when someone comes down here with 57, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 77, 79, 80, and 84 inch drivers in code whatever for my 60 or so steam engines, installs them all in a day or so...painted and weathered...and demonstrates that they run as well on the 50 turnouts that he rebuilds during that time period as my code 110 drivers ran on my NMRA S-3 standard turnouts, I'll switch my frt car wheels to code whatever. Until then...IMO...it's a waste of time to worry about it.

Realistically, about all I can see ever happening is that there might be some rather small P87 activity...primarily with shortlines layouts with few engines...probably diesels. Again, only opinion.

Mike Brock


Re: Musical Trucks [ frt car ones ]

Walter M. Clark
 

--- In STMFC@..., newrail@s... wrote:
Quoting Denny Anspach <danspach@m...>:

It is a fun project matching up the exact prototype permutation of
truck to the exact model, but this can commonly fall afoul of a lot
of other priorities, especially if one's cars are intended to be
operated at will with expected reliable behavior in a train.

Prototype truck exactness: a description often more apparent than
real. To my current knowledge, the only Andrews truck that has the
correct overall breadth and sideframe thickness is Accurail, a truck
that fortuitously happens to be very finely modeled, and can also run
like a ball bearing on ice with the proper wheels. For these reasons,
this is my default Andrews truck (recognizing the gazillion different
Andrews trucks out there, most of which are grossly overwide,
overthick, or roll only like a roller skate in deep sand).


Given the unprototypical tread width and other factors, when one
describes a truck as being over wide it occurs to me that they are
addressing 95% of the trucks we have available to us of any style,
make or gauge. The place where this became most obvious to me was in
trying to reduce the width of the grossly overwidth Bethleham tender
boosters that, after some effort, I finally convinced Nick Ries to
include with the B&M 2-10-2's when working with him on the design of
that model some twenty-five years ago. The boosters were nice but went
horribly overboard in width. While it is a bit of a chore I've managed
to reduce their width fully 3/32nds but still not enough to allow the
installation of the same shield on the model's tender that was used on
the prototype to keep a brakeman's feet away from the connecting rod.
Given the "slop" between the outer perimeter of the wheels and the
inner
perimeter of the sideframes in most HO scale trucks this is CLEARLY an
area that could stand a LOT of improvement. No one I have spoken with
seems interested in this becasue it would require updating the long,
long
outmoded NMRA "standards".

Take care, Don Valentine
Don-

There is an alternative. Check out Proto87 (there's a link to the SIG
web site on the NMRA web site) There was a very nice article in Model
Railroader a few months back. The trackwork is AWESOME, but the
trucks, with tiny little .064 tread width really grab your eyes.
Proto87 is getting closer and closer to being an "off the shelf"
alternate (not that I'm doing it, understand; I'm just fascinated by
the improvement in the appearance).

Walter M. Clark
Time stopped in November 1941
Riverside, California


Re: Wheels

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Tim O'Connor writes:

"A friend of mine, who builds excellent hand laid turnouts, fills
the entire frog with solder. Then he gouges it out with an exactly
dimensioned tool -- the NMRA gauge!!"

I have to laugh at this. What goes around comes around, I guess. Back in '76 or '77 at the Denver NMRA National, I attended a clinic by E.Z. Charm on building turnouts. I've used his techniques with great success over the yrs...altering them somewhat. Anyhow, he stopped during his presentation to inquire if Brad Bradley was in the room. Brad...a friend whose name is still on many of the NMRA standards...lived only about 15 miles south of me. It turns out that Brad had broken his leg and couldn't attend...and I so indicated. Relieved, Mr. Charm went on to say that the NMRA track gage made a great tool for cleaning out the flangeway but Brad objected most strenously to this claiming that it was a gage and not a tool. I later removed the portrusion between the flangeway check portrusions [ it was the no go portrusion now on the left corner ] and it made...and still does...a great tool. I didn't mention it to Brad. However, I long ago quit making frogs with solid solder. First, I found it not be necessary and, second, it took a lot of time to saw and file the damned things out.

Mike Brock


Re: Wheel and Track Standards

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Mike Calvert writes:

"The proposal to go to 4' 8.5" gauge is Proto48, and as Mike suggests is very
painful for the oldies, who have invested in expensive brass rolling stock
or large layouts and don't fancy converting it all."

Worse, who's gonna change out all the locomotive drivers to 4'8.5"? Not only that, but what brass locomotive builder is going to invest a huge amount of $ in brass engines with different gaged drivers that his long term buyer will likely not purchase?

"The inference that P48
is "better" is what causes the pain, and the acrimonious comments. As he
rightly points out, the newbies don't care."
But the newbies won't be dictating what is built. $$$ will.

"I'd guess it will be the same for Proto87, once it gets going.
Both the track AND the wheels must comply with the Standard to be "Proto87".
Absolutely. Will some stuff be done in P87? Possibly. However, would I want to market something with a tiny market or a huge one?

Mike Brock


Re: Walthers code 83 switches

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Jon Miller writes:

I build some CV #8s and use them as a crossover. While the 88s do
drop
in the frog area they don't derail.
This does not surprise me. Derrilment could occur, however, and it might be
a function of train speed and other factors. One other thing to check on.
Commercial turnouts are not necessarily to the advertised. The #8 should
have a lead distance...from moving points to the point of the frog...of 9"
and the curving switch rail should be a 117" radius curve [ from the moving
points to about halfway to the frog ]. The rest of the curving rail should
be a 67" radius curve. Incidentally, these numbers vary even among
railroads. The numbers I'm quoting are NMRA RP-12 dimensions.

Not doing any measurements but just
guessing I would assuming it's because the Walthers guard rails are so
loose
as to allow the wheels to pick the point. To get semi-scale we don't need
1/87 specs but we do need less slop and switches build to the tight (very
tight?) side of (modified?) standards. IMHO the bottom line here is
Walthers switches (NMRA standards) are just to sloppy! I think current
manufacturing 'could' build decent switches that would work. [would they
sell, I don't know. Would modelers pay what they would cost, again????]
Keep in mind, though, that all my turnouts are handbuilt. The code 88 wheel
does drop on my #10s. Making the flangeway smaller than called for by the
NMRA standards would put even more side pressure on long wheel based steam
engines. Not good if you want to run smoothly and not derail.

In terms of model slip switches they are
faulty by design and tend to be a lot of trouble.
I had to build a moving points crossing. This looks like a slip switch and
can even perform like one if only half the points "throw". Anyhow, the thing
has worked flawlessly...until now...and was necessary to get a 4-12-2
through the crossing. So...they can be done easily enough.

Mike Brock


Re: Pig Palace

thompson@...
 

Though not Pig Palace in name, the SP built two very large double deckers
in 1964. I think they were 70' cars, and AHM shortened them for their
weird model. they were S-70-1.
Yep. Full photography in my SP Freight Cars, Volume 1.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history


Menasha Woodenware Boxcar Resource

Jim Hill <jrhill@...>
 

Ben Brown wrote:

Some years ago the museum in Green Bay had an actual
[Menasha Wooden Ware] car . . . Two weeks ago I
stopped by Green Bay . . . but the full size car was totally gone.
None of the staff I could find knew where it was or what
I was talking about. I was very disappointed and frustrated
after traveling1600 miles. . . .Perhaps someone else can
enlighten us as to the whereabouts of the actual car.
The bad news is that the car you was looking for in Green Bay's National
Railroad Museum is NOT an actual Menasha Wooden Ware car, but a replica
built some years back from the remains of a SOO Line box car.

The replica car was the subject of a photo article in the July/August 1982
issue of the Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette and--although not authentic
and probably bearing an incorrect car number--can be considered a fairly
accurate representation of the shorter series of box cars owned by the
Menasha Wooden Ware Co.

I'm somewhat alarmed that the Museum staff doesn't know where the car is,
because it's most definitely there and is listed on the Museum's website as
part of its collection.

The good news is that at least one of the original cars is still in
existence, and you were probably only a few miles from it while enroute to
Green Bay (see below).

The Menasha Wooden Ware Corporation still exists under the corporate
umbrella of the Menasha Corporation, has its headquarters in Neenah WI
(Menasha's "Sister City") and is still primarily a manufacturer of packaging
products. You can find a corporate history at
http://www.menasha.com/aboutmenasha/history.jsp, that includes a photo of
one of the Wooden Ware cars.

Drawings for the 51' car are in the MR's older (1947?) Cyclopedia, and
There's also an article and drawing in the
November 1940 issue of Model Railroader, indicating that there were five
different types of Menasha Wooden Ware cars:

Series 2-50 -- 37'-1" x 9'-2" x 8'-6"
Series 52-100 -- 39'-0" x 9'-2" x 8'-6"
Series 102-200 -- 44'-6" x 9'-3" x 9'-2"
Series 202-230 -- 50'-6" x 10'-0" x 9'-2"
Series 232-280 -- 51'-3" x 12'-3" x 9'-9"

As far as models kits are concerned, Mainline made kits in O Scale (with
painted & lettered sides) for several different length versions of these
cars and Walthers produced an O Scale kit for the 50/51' long cars with an
accompanying decal set. There's a review of the O scale Walthers kit
(numbered #214) in the Oct 1972 issue of Model Railroader.As far as I know,
the only version made by Mainline in HO was of the longer car. Decals for
Menasha car #162 are available from Art Griffin
(http://www.greatdecals.com/Griffin.htm).

As with all amateur research of obscure prototypes, much of this information
came from others, opinions may differ and there may well be additional
(and/or contradictory) information elsewhere.

Neenah resident and O Scale modeler Stan Bye actually owned two of the
original prototype cars (#2 and #206) and still has one of them, although
it's in fairly rough shape. Anyone who wants to measure the actual car is
welcome to journey up to Wisconsin's Fox Valley for a visit. While you're
there, don't forget to stop at the Neenah-Menasha Model Railroad Club. All O
Scale and located in a 100+ year old Milwaukee Road combination station . .
. and you'll find several models of the Menasha cars there.

Jim Hill
Madison WI


Menesha

Larry Smith
 

I just checked a couple of sites and found under the museum's site they list the Menesha car as a replica. From the company site and others found on Goggle, that not only did the comapny have cars, but they also owned a railroad. I'll will post my findings as I get more info.

Larry Smith


Re: Wheels

Terry Harrison <nkpman@...>
 

I know you all are in HO. But here is what it is worth.

I hand lay all my track in code 83 in S scale and use 88 mixed in with 110 wheel sets. My biggest turnouts are # 8. I have had no problems with running 88's. As matter of fact, if I have derailments, it is the 110's doing so.

Terry


Menasha Woodenware Boxcars

JGG KahnSr <jacekahn@...>
 

Dear Ben
Jim Hill of Madison (and the O scale list--I am not sure whether he also is on the freight car list) is usually up on what is happening with these. In a discussion a few years ago, he mentioned (if I am remembering accurately) that the car painted for Menasha in the museum (or was it the Mid-Continent Museum?) is not genuine but a repainted Soo Line boxcar. Apparently there are a very few authentic Menasha cars still in existence in private hands but badly in need of restoration.
As to the Wesolowski exhibit, I am puzzled, as my understanding was that the Menasha cars were bought-second hand rather than constructed by the company. The corporation clearly has an archive, and it would be good to have a thorough historical article on the cars, as I believe there has been nothing published since the original write-up in MRR around 1940, which accompanied the drawings of the 50' car reprinted many years ago in the first MRR Cylopedia.
Jace Kahn
Mostly Fairbanks

After working in the Menasha area for a number of years I also
developed an interest in these unusual cars. Some years ago the
museum in Green Bay had an actual car, and more recently added a
display by Wayne Wesolowski which showed one of the cars being
constructed. Two weeks ago I stopped by Green Bay to see both of the
above and they were both missing. The display was packed away pending
rework of the general area, but the full size car was totally gone.
None of the staff I could find knew where it was or what I was
talking about. I was very disappointed and frustrated after traveling
1600 miles. Many of the steam engines they used to have outdoors are
also gone now. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us as to the
whereabouts of the actual car.
Regards,
Ben Brown

--- In STMFC@..., "JGG KahnSr" <jacekahn@h...> wrote:
I have a built-up Mainline 40' woodenware car, another M/L kit for
one of
the 50' cars, and 85% or so of one of the Walthers 50' kits
(awaiting a
break in other projects to finish it off), so , even though I model
mostly
in the 1940-60 period, I am always interested in more background on
these
cars. I just came across a book published by the parent company in
1974
(their 175th anniversary) which has a few more photographs of the
prototype.
I was happy to pick it up at a nominal cost and checked the usual
out-of-print sources and found numerous copies at reasonable prices
for
anyone else on the list who is also interested in these cars.
So far as I can remember, these same kits have all been available
in HO,
although perhaps only the Mainlines are currently so.
Jace Kahn
Mostly Fairbanks

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


Re: 200T Flat

ron christensen
 

I built one of the MDC metal cars with the
span-bolster. You need good wheels to keep it on the
track. A great car to find the bad places in your
track.
I think the CNW car is a close, however I have not
really looked at good pictures of the car. The details
in the model are course. I decaled it for CNW but have
forgotten where I got the decals.
Ron Christensen

--- JGG KahnSr <jacekahn@...> wrote:
I recall the C&NW photo in the CBC reprints I have;
Champ made lettering
sets for PRR and NYC, too, (I shall have to see if
they did C&NW, although I
believe they did). In O scale we have had the Auel
kit for many years
(17/64" but very well-detailed, as all of Carl
Auel's work was), recently
re-introduced, as well as the KTM brass import. In
addition to the Athearn
span-bolster car in H0, I recall MDC/Roundhouse
offering a die-cast kit in
the 1950's; since I never owned one, I can't speak
for its prototype
fidelity, but the photos looked nice.
Jace Kahn
Mostly Fairbanks

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

174561 - 174580 of 197043