Date   

Decals needed

Bill Lane <billlane@...>
 

Hi All,

This is a mass email to all of my train groups and friends. I am sorry if it
does not completely fit the group's interest. I am in need of at least one
and preferably 2 sets of HO Western Maryland steam engine decals for a
customer. Please reply to me privately. Here is the same engine and paint
scheme my customer wants.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=484&item=3189583634

I have already checked the Microscale site. They do not make them. Any help
would be most appreciated.


Thank You,
Bill Lane

Custom Brass Painting
http://www.lanestrains.com

Importing a Brass PRR X29 in S Scale
The REA version has been approved for production
http://www.pennsysmodels.com

Modeling the Mighty Pennsy in S Scale in 1957


MoPac GS gondolas

asychis@...
 

Hi everyone. I was wanting information on Missouri Pacific GS gondolas. Did
they have any that would be represented well by the Red Caboose composite or
steel-sided models? Thanks!

Jerry Michels


Re: TMU Cars

Rich Chapin <rwc27q@...>
 

Dennis,

TrainShed # 12 , Tank Cars 1922-1943, has a drawing of a Standard Steel Car
TMU (1925) and a couple of photographs.

I've a photo of a TMU by Jim Sands I downloaded that's dated 1967, but I
didn't note the source (likely Jim's site).

Suggest you do a search for the "Chlorine Institute" and/or chlorination for
details on these cylinders, which are still used in water and wastewater
treatment.

Hope this helps,
Rich

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Short" <dennis.short@verizon.net>
To: "Steam Freight Cars List" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 2:44 AM
Subject: [STMFC] TMU Cars


Looking for sources of plans and photos for Tank Car Multiple Units used
to haul "1-ton" chlorine tanks. Also looking for info on the shape and size
of the tanks they hauled. Also curious when these types of cars went into
disuse or were prohibited from interchange.

Thanks,
Dennis







Yahoo! Groups Links






Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

Andy Carlson
 

--- "John Degnan (RailScaler)" <
Anyone know if anyone makes prototypical looking G
track with solid rail?


John Degnan
Llagas Creek Railway makes real nice flex track.
Check out "Garden Railways", a Kalmbach Monthly.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

James Eckman <FUGU@...>
 



From: "Benjamin Frank Hom" <b.hom@worldnet.att.net>

James Eckman wrote:
"It was mostly over by the early 1900's but some nutcase of a railroad did order a big batch of them in 1920? I think this was the Southern."

These boxcars cars had a steel centersill, which aren't the all-wood cars in question (i.e., no steel centersill, no steel underframe).
Must have been another, it was a very unusual order for the period.

"I think that the increased car sizes along with the increasing difficulty of finding high quality lumber played a big role in this as well since the wooden frame pretty much was not produced after 1910 or so."

Increased car sizes, perhaps, but lack of high quality lumber? Do you have proof to support this?
Only secondary sources like John White. Around page 230 he comments about the 78% increase in framing timber costs between 1897 and 1907 which caused a great deal of worry in the industry. This was in a period of very low inflation. He also mentions earlier on the the large stands of oaks had mostly disappeared by the 1880's.

How do you explain all of that lumber going into those single-sheathed cars in the 1920s?
High quality siding material, southern pine and the like was still in plentiful supply. Most pines are not suitable for major framing timbers.

Lack of durability was a much more significant factor in the death of all-wood construction.
One of the factors for sure.

Jim E.


last double sheathed cars

ed_mines
 

The subject of cheap lumber reminds me that many of railroads that
had the last (i.e. most recently built) wooden sided freight cars
had inexpensive sources of lumber from their own land.

I went to summer camp in the Adarondacks in the '60s. Loggers
approached the camp owners to selectively cut timber on their land
and paid with lumber.

Many of the railroads that had the last double sheathed box cars
built were in areas where they could have had land with timber on
it - Southern, GN, NP and in the northeast LV and DL&W.
10-15 years ago I saw logging in the vinicity of the former DL&W
Tunkhannock viaduct in eastern Pennsylvania so I assume that
Lackawanna had a good supply of inexpensive lumber, maybe even free
from their own land, in earlier years when wood side cars were
popular.

Ed Mines


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

jthirtysix <james_20497@...>
 

1/4 inch scale with correct track gauge is now called P:48
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "behillman" <chris_hillman@m...> wrote:
"dehusman" <dehusman@c...> wrote:

O gauge is 1.25 inches and O scale is 1/4" = 1 ft. But that
makes
gauge 5 ft in O scale. So to rationalize the scale and gauge
they
used 7 mm = 1' scale to get proper standard gauge (well actually
4' 6
1/2") with commercial track and wheelsets.

HO was then "half O" or 3.5 mm = 1 ft.

Then the HO'ers decided to make gauge a scale 4'8 1/2", actual
standard gauge, so even though its "half O", HO gauge (.649 in)
isn't
half of O gauge (.625 in).

Then later some of the O gaugers decided to use 1/4" scale and
make
scale standard gauge track so they use 1/4" = 1 ft O scale and
1.177
in gauge, which was at one time proposed to be called called Q
gauge.

Simple?

Dave H.
*********************************************************************
Response;

Simple????

Uh-h-h,......sorta!!!!!!

Paul Hillman


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

Paul Hillman
 

"dehusman" <dehusman@c...> wrote:

O gauge is 1.25 inches and O scale is 1/4" = 1 ft. But that makes
gauge 5 ft in O scale. So to rationalize the scale and gauge they
used 7 mm = 1' scale to get proper standard gauge (well actually
4' 6
1/2") with commercial track and wheelsets.

HO was then "half O" or 3.5 mm = 1 ft.

Then the HO'ers decided to make gauge a scale 4'8 1/2", actual
standard gauge, so even though its "half O", HO gauge (.649 in)
isn't
half of O gauge (.625 in).

Then later some of the O gaugers decided to use 1/4" scale and
make
scale standard gauge track so they use 1/4" = 1 ft O scale and
1.177
in gauge, which was at one time proposed to be called called Q
gauge.

Simple?

Dave H.
*********************************************************************
Response;

Simple????

Uh-h-h,......sorta!!!!!!

Paul Hillman


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

Paul Hillman
 

"dehusman" <dehusman@c...> wrote:
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "behillman" <chris_hillman@m...>
wrote:
To MY understanding/memory, true "O scale" is 5mm=1'0".!!??
=================================
Response;

Damn Dave,

I made a bad mistake!! I said 5mm when I meant 7MM = 1'-0".

Thanks for the info and clarification.

Paul Hillman


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Andy Carlson wrote:
I think any published conjecture on the loss of
good wood prompting the changeover to steel car
construction is a wee bit revisionist.
From I've heard on this topic, including the PFE Chief Mechanical Officer I interviewed, I agree with Andy (though I'd omit his tactful "wee bit"--or maybe it's sarcastic, in which case I embrace it). And remember, Jack White's expertise on the 19th century does not, by his own admission, extend to the 20th century. There is certainly no indication in the _Railway Age_ discussions of the onset of steel freight car design in the early 20th century which indicate any concern over timber quality.

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


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Brian Leppert wrote:
I haven't seen it in hardback. Mine's softback, with dimensions 8 x 10 x 1/2 inches.
I may go ahead anyway just to have a fresh copy.

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


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

dehusman <dehusman@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "behillman" <chris_hillman@m...> wrote:
To MY understanding/memory, true "O scale" is 5mm=1'0".!!??
=================================
O gauge is 1.25 inches and O scale is 1/4" = 1 ft. But that makes
gauge 5 ft in O scale. So to rationalize the scale and gauge they
used 7 mm = 1' scale to get proper standard gauge (well actually 4' 6
1/2") with commercial track and wheelsets.

HO was then "half O" or 3.5 mm = 1 ft.

Then the HO'ers decided to make gauge a scale 4'8 1/2", actual
standard gauge, so even though its "half O", HO gauge (.649 in) isn't
half of O gauge (.625 in).

Then later some of the O gaugers decided to use 1/4" scale and make
scale standard gauge track so they use 1/4" = 1 ft O scale and 1.177
in gauge, which was at one time proposed to be called called Q gauge.

Simple?

Dave H.


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

John Degnan \(RailScaler\) <RailScaler@...>
 

Paul,

This is where it gets foggy to me, too... I have never really been into G... SIZES (I REFUSE to call it a scale), so I don't really know the spacing of the rails on G track, or even what "scale" to use to find out. The fullness of what I know about anything pertaining to G is on this web page of my site : http://www.trainweb.org/seaboard/scales.htm.

I think I'm just gonna stick with modeling in S and I scales, and collecting HO.


John Degnan
RailScaler@comcast.net
=============================================

----- Original Message -----
From: behillman
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars


John Degnan &#92;(RailScaler&#92;wrote:

Paul,

I have been through this very same discussion with quite a few
folks in the past about G scale... Therefore, I determined that 1/32
scale (which is actually I scale (as in "eye") (also called Gauge 1)
is the best way to go if you gotta have large trains,...

*********************************************************************
Response;

John,

Thanks for the idea. Sounds like a viable avenue. I had a large-
scale tank car when I was about 5 years old. It was metal. (1950's)
It might have been 1/32 scale. I've always woundered what happened
to it.

But, this has now got me curious to do some calculations. What is
the railhead spacing of commercial G track? I've only dabbled with
Bachmann G, but seemingly other G manufacturers are using the same
gauge yet with different scales?

I am many miles from the nearest hobby shop and do not have any G
track in my possession. (My son took it back.)

The interior rail-gauge computed to 4' 8-1/2" would tell something,
or even computed to 3'-0" for narrow-gauge. (Of course there would
be a definite scale difference between standard & narrow-gauge
computations.)

The reason for my questioning this, has to do with available
locomotives and trucks. Scratch-building freight-cars in ANY scale
is no-problem. But you gotta have an engine and wheels too. Those
are both a little more "effort-consuming".

Thanks, Paul Hillman






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

John Degnan \(RailScaler\) <RailScaler@...>
 

Bob Webber wrote:
"G" gauge is, for 4'8.5" correct for 1/32.
It is correct for 3' at 1:20.3 (or Fn3)
It is correct for meter gauge at 1:22.5 (which is why LGB uses it).
It is correct for 2' in (I think it is) 1:16.
*********************************************************************
Gee Bob,

I think you answered all the "G" scale questions right there!!!
I have to agree... cleared up a lot for me, too. Now all I gotta do is find some decent looking G scale track so I can model in 1/32 scale... or is it I scale track...?!? Oh brother, here I go again!

Anyone know if anyone makes prototypical looking G track with solid rail?


John Degnan
RailScaler@comcast.net
From Railroading To Religion... John's World on the Web :
http://www.trainweb.org/seaboard/welcome.htm
=============================================


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

Brian Leppert <b.leppert@...>
 

Tony,
I haven't seen it in hardback. Mine's softback, with dimensions 8 x 10 x 1/2 inches.

Brian Leppert
Carson City, NV

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars


Brian Leppert wrote:
> Maybe the best book on the subject is RAILWAY CAR CONSTRUCTION by
> William
> Voss, published 1892, and fortunately reprinted by the Orange Empire
> Railway
> Museum, Perris CA, in 1999. Price, about $25.

DId OERM do it as a hardback? My paperbound Trainshed version is
wearing out.

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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

Paul Hillman
 

Bob Webber wrote:
"G" gauge is, for 4'8.5" correct for 1/32.
It is correct for 3' at 1:20.3 (or Fn3)
It is correct for meter gauge at 1:22.5 (which is why LGB uses
it).
It is correct for 2' in (I think it is) 1:16.
*********************************************************************
Response;

I think, apparently, Bob Webber provided an excellent clarification
of the G scale/gauge question.

But, now another "scale" question comes back to my mind about "O
scale".

To MY understanding/memory, true "O scale" is 5mm=1'0".!!??

I have "old" Model Railroader magazines which discuss this issue.

Somewhere back in the 19??'s, model trains where being imported to
the US from Germany(?), England(?), which were metric 5mm=1'0".

Then "HO" came along, (Half-O), and thus it was 3.5mm=1'0", as it is
today.

Both "O" & "HO" scales originated in Europe/England????

There was an article in a MR mag about this, 1950ish(?), wherein the
question of going to an American 1/4" scale instead of 5mm, and it
would be called "Q" scale. But, I guess it never caught on.???

How I noticed/remembered this was when I hand-laid some "O" scale
track at 4'-8 1/2" @ 1/4"=1'0". Then I bought some Atlas freight-
trucks, and they were too big for the interior track-gauge that I'd
laid.

I measured the flange-spacing of the trucks and they computed out to
5mm. I respaced the wheels and all was workable.

I've discussed this "fact" with many "pros" who claim they've never
heard of such a thing. My main railroading has been in HO, but my
continuous "dabbling" takes me into other scales as well.

How do "Proto 48" folks address this issue?

Paul Hillman


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

John Degnan \(RailScaler\) <RailScaler@...>
 

Sacramento Northern 32, preserved at the California State Railroad Museum
Hi Randy,

Do you have any photos of that flat car? If so, can you scane them and send me a few copies?

Thanks.


John Degnan
RailScaler@comcast.net
From Railroading To Religion... John's World on the Web :
http://www.trainweb.org/seaboard/welcome.htm
=============================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Randall Hees
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 10:57 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars




At least in the west, Wooden freight cars were still being factory built as
late as 1913, when Holman (San Francisco) went out of business. It appears
that the late freight cars were all for interurban lines. One example is
Sacramento Northern 32, preserved at the California State Railroad Museum,
restored in 1999 was built about 1911. It is an "all wood" flatcar,
including wooden draft timbers, but does have an iron bolster.

Wooden cars were built and rebuilt for both logging and narrow gauge
service much, much later. The West Side Lumber Co was building all wood
flatcars in their shops through world war II, as was The Pacific Lumber Co
for their operations at Scotca, which included trackage rights on the NWP.
The last car out of their shops left in 1974, but that was rebuilt
specifically to donate to the Bay Area Railroad Museum.

Various Southern Pacific shops would build new, or rebuild wooden cars for
their narrow gauge lines until very close to the abandonment of the Keeler
branch in 1960. While SP had included iron bolsters in the narrow gauge
cars built for SPC in 1893, the later gondolas, built circa 1917 had wood
bolsters.

As noted by others, Voss, Railway Car Construction is the primary source,
and has been reprinted by Orange Empire Railroad Museum (it was previously
available as two volumes of the Train Shed series) The early Carbuilder's
Dictionaries are also very useful.

Wood was not abandoned by carbuilders all at once. As iron got cheaper,
and train size and loadings grew, iron (or steel) was substituted (or
supplemented) first the bolsters, then the draft gear, then the center
sills. Bodies remained wood sheathed for a long time. (by the way we
could have a long debate on the use of "sill" for the frame members which
run the length of the car in the center. They were not called sills in
1878 Carbuilders Dictionary, but were by 1885 or so)

Randy Hees







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

Andy Carlson
 

--- James D Thompson <jaydeet@inna.net> wrote:
Increased car sizes, perhaps, but lack of high
quality lumber? Do you
have proof to support this?
Lumber for sheathing isn't subjected to anywhere
near the kinds of
forces required of good structural lumber used for
frame sills, bolsters,
and such. White touches on the decline of cheap,
widely available old-
growth timber as a factor favoring steel car
construction.
Certainly by the "teens" good old growth Eastern White
Oak favored for schooner production was virtually
gone, and the upper Mid-West lumber depletion had
already sent lumber barons to the West in search of
large timber holdings, but this period had not yet
consumed the last of good old growth framing timbers,
which wouldn't be in decline generally until AFTER
WWll. I think any published conjecture on the loss of
good wood prompting the changeover to steel car
construction is a wee bit revisionist.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


Re: CGW PS1's

Tim O'Connor
 

At 04:52 PM 4/27/2004, you wrote:
Tim asked:
What style doors were on CGW 5601-5800?
Tim,
I have photos of 5781 and 5785 they both have 5 panel Superior doors. A
photo of 5615 in Gene's 'color book' has a 7 panel Superior door.
Clark Propst.
Thanks. A 7 panel Superior door seems unusual for a late 50's box car.


Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

Paul Hillman
 

Bob Webber wrote:
"G" gauge is, for 4'8.5" correct for 1/32.
It is correct for 3' at 1:20.3 (or Fn3)
It is correct for meter gauge at 1:22.5 (which is why LGB uses it).
It is correct for 2' in (I think it is) 1:16.
*********************************************************************
Gee Bob,

I think you answered all the "G" scale questions right there!!!

All I gotta do now is start building!!

Thanks, Paul Hillman

157441 - 157460 of 187154