Guys, many thanks for the prompt and authoritative assistance.
Pacific Limited sounds a great loss.
Regards
Jonathan Marcus
Apologies about not puting my full name.

Greg Martin wrote:

I am not sure what purpose it would serve to compare them together not knowing which is correct, do you? Why compare one that might be wrong to another that my be right? Shouldn't we first establish which one best represents the prototype per the original drawing or doesn't that matter????

Surely any sensible review would compare to the prototype, whether of one or two models.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest 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

Dean,

I wrote...

I too would like to see a comparison, but not to each other,

rather both to an accurate set of plans. This is the only true
comparison.

Greg Martin

Then you wrote...

"Greg, I think you missed Bruce's point. What is desired is a
comparison of the two to see which better matches an "accurate set of
plans." A review of either vs. the plans would be nice, but it would
be nice to have a side-by-side comparo to know which is a closer
match to the prototype (vs. the competing product.) Since the
Broadway is available in an earlier paint scheme not available from
Walthers, that makes it a better choice for me, unless a review shows
some other problem.

We have the same need for a side-by-side comparison of the Funaro B&O
wagontop vs. the Model RR Warehouse. The Model RR Warehouse version
has been narrowed to correct the width, but we don't know whether it
builds into a better kit than the Funaro or vice versa. I'll bet one
is better in some places than the other and vice versa, neither being
perfect. Until someone knowlegable has both in hand, along with the
prototype plans, we may not know which to buy.
Dean Payne"

I am not sure what purpose it would serve to compare them together not knowing which is correct, do you? Why compare one that might be wrong to another that my be right? Shouldn't we first establish which one best represents the prototype per the original drawing or doesn't that matter????

In your words...

"We have the same need for a side-by-side comparison of the Funaro B&O
wagontop vs. the Model RR Warehouse. The Model RR Warehouse version
has been narrowed to correct the width, but we don't know whether it
builds into a better kit than the Funaro or vice versa."

I could personally care less if a B&O car is fatter to another unless we can clearly establish which on is correct... I just want the correct one or to know which one requires less work to make it so and I believe(correct me if I am wrong)the only way to that is from a correct set of plans... Otherwise what's the purpose of the comprison... The other mehtod is simple conjecture of "I sure like this one better..." Let's first establish which one it correct.

Greg Martin

Arthur Marr wrote:

The Pacific Limited G-50-12s' do have the rivets so are correct for that
class. They also have the Dalman trucks. is also Pat is noted for doing
very good research and producing prototype models, witness his many
versions of the 1932 ARA or his multiple versions of the NYC USRA rebuilds.

I have one of the PL cars, but it is packed in an inaccessible way right now, so I couldn't check it directly. Obviously with the Dalmans the car should be in the second half of the -12 number series. (There is much more info on these cars in Volume 1 of the "SP Freight Cars" books.) I agree that Pat's research is usually impeccable and his O scale models uniformly impressive.

Too bad he is another victim of the times and we have probably seen the
last of his black boxes.

From what I've heard, " the times" have little to do with it. But that's not a topic for this list.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest 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

Hello folks,

I have not yet brought my slide scanner online since
my move last year, though I thought with the recent
interest in the Gerstley slide collection this would
be a good time to show one of the rarer images. Though
most of the Gerstley collection has sharp Kodachromes,
this one wasn't, so the color has shifted. But being a
Black Overnight car, I thought some STMFC'ers would
like a medium resolution (996K)sample of this car,
photographed in Taylor yard, So CA.

Anyone wanting a copy of this SP car, send me an email
(off-list <midcentury@sbcglobal.net>with SP car in the
subject line, and I will get it to you. Enjoy,
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

Tony,
The Pacific Limited G-50-12s' do have the rivets so are correct for that
class. They also have the Dalman trucks. is also Pat is noted for doing
very good research and producing prototype models, witness his many
versions of the 1932 ARA or his multiple versions of the NYC USRA rebuilds.
Too bad he is another victim of the times and we have probably seen the
last of his black boxes.

Art Marr
Reno, NV

Jon (not signing his full name) wrote:

Can anyone tell me which trucks - Dalman or Bettendorf T-section - would be most
appropriate for the late 1940's, early 1950's time-frame? The prototype is the slope-sided
drop bottom gon as modelled by pacific Limited some years back.

That depends on which class you want to duplicate, Jon. The G-50-9, -10 and -11 classes all had T-section trucks from either ASF or Bettendorf, but the G-50-12 class of 1000 cars had half T-section (ASF) and half 2-level Dalman trucks from Bettendorf. Classes G-50-11 and -12 are distinguished by a row of rivets on the side sheets where they join to the sloped part. IIRC the Pacific Limited cars don't have that and are therefore G-50-9 or -10.
Those are the as-built trucks. In the 1950s, a number of cars received replacement AAR trucks, so that is a possibility too.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest 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

Ray,I,for one, would like that information.Armand Premo

Can anyone tell me which trucks - Dalman or Bettendorf T-section - would be most
appropriate for the late 1940's, early 1950's time-frame? The prototype is the slope-sided
drop bottom gon as modelled by pacific Limited some years back.
Many thanks.
Jon

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, tgregmrtn@a... wrote:

Scott wrote:

Now that Broadway has released their GACX 53'6" express reefer,

why should we care? Is it a different prototype than the Walthers
model? They look almost identical. The Broadway version costs a
couple dollars more.<<

Bruce wrote:

Scott,

AFAIK, they are identical prototypes. I would LOVE to see an

unbiased side by side review of these cars.

Regards
Bruce<

I too would like to see a comparison, but not to each other,

rather both to an accurate set of plans. This is the only true
comparison.

Greg Martin

Greg, I think you missed Bruce's point. What is desired is a
comparison of the two to see which better matches an "accurate set of
plans." A review of either vs. the plans would be nice, but it would
be nice to have a side-by-side comparo to know which is a closer
match to the prototype (vs. the competing product.) Since the
Broadway is available in an earlier paint scheme not available from
Walthers, that makes it a better choice for me, unless a review shows
some other problem.

We have the same need for a side-by-side comparison of the Funaro B&O
wagontop vs. the Model RR Warehouse. The Model RR Warehouse version
has been narrowed to correct the width, but we don't know whether it
builds into a better kit than the Funaro or vice versa. I'll bet one
is better in some places than the other and vice versa, neither being
perfect. Until someone knowlegable has both in hand, along with the
prototype plans, we may not know which to buy.
Dean Payne

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Schuyler Larrabee"
<schuyler.larrabee@v...> wrote:

Manfred Lorenz:

Why did the manufacturers use small panels anyway? Why didn't
they simply cut a sheet of steel the length of the car roof
and weld it together? Why these individual panels with the
accompanying troubles of making all those seams? Same for the sides?

Expansion and contraction, a significant dimension over a 40' car, is

absorbed by the individual

panels. Yes, the entire car expands and contracts, but the joints

help deal with it.

SGL

Ships should do the same and have seem to have no problems. That is, if
they are not named Fitz.

As long as the materials have the same properties there should be not a
problem with temperatures I think.

Manfred

Stephen,

I've got lots of data on the W&LE 78000-series cars. They went as a group to
the NKP in 1949. I've got 17 in-service NKP photos, a copy of the original
1948 W&LE diagram sheet, a copy of the original 1950 NKP diagram sheet, and
a copy of the 1960 NKP diagram sheet (the NKP was performing class repairs),
all scanned and stored on my harddrive. Let me know what you want, and I'll
email it to ya.

Ray Breyer

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:

Expansion and contraction, a significant dimension over a 40' car, is absorbed by the individual
panels. Yes, the entire car expands and contracts, but the joints help deal with it.

Schuyler is right, and the idea doesn't require separated panels; the segments and their ribs can all contribute to local expansion, even if the roof is welded. OTOH, stamping an entire roof is a pretty big die and a pretty big press, for no real gain that I can see.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest 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

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "rockroll50401" <cepropst@n...> wrote:

Guy, Oct 95 MLM magazine has a nice article on how to build one of
these cars. The auther states the cars were rebuilt at St Cloud MN
in 60-61. So your photo is correct :)

Chet, you read this? Guy thinks I'm you! I've finally made the big
time!!
Clark Propst
Not from Meaniesoda

Well, I have been called Clark a few times, so what does that make me?

Chet French
Dixon, Illinoise

<< No photos, but it is one of the GN 'Glacier Green' with the

standing

"happy" goat emblem rebuilts from the middle 50s. >>

Chet,

"Rocky" were renumbered into the 27000-27799 beginning in

December

of 1960. I have

a photo of 27086 stenciled 1-1960 proving only a small portion of

the "Rocky"

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Schuyler Larrabee"
<schuyler.larrabee@v...> wrote:

Expansion and contraction, a significant dimension over a 40' car,

is absorbed by the individual

panels. Yes, the entire car expands and contracts, but the joints

help deal with it.
=======================
Aren't 86' boxcars welded though?

I would think that the reason was stamping a small piece of metal would
be much easier than trying to stamp an entire car roof as one piece.
They needed to be stamped as the corrugations give the panels strength.
By using smaller pieces you could sub contract the stamping out and
ship the roof sections to the car shop or rip track, with a one piece
roof that would be very cumbersome to ship. In addition if a roof was
damaged, you could replace one section as opposed to having to replace
and entire one piece roof.

Dave H.

Manfred Lorenz:

Why did the manufacturers use small panels anyway? Why didn't
they simply cut a sheet of steel the length of the car roof
and weld it together? Why these individual panels with the
accompanying troubles of making all those seams? Same for the sides?

Expansion and contraction, a significant dimension over a 40' car, is absorbed by the individual
panels. Yes, the entire car expands and contracts, but the joints help deal with it.

SGL

I drove 180 miles (round trip) to Cabela's to buy my wife a new Walleye rod only to find they don't carry that model in the store anymore. Kind of like a 37 car with round versa square ends.

I stopped at the local Super Wally World on the way home to check out the latest Craftsman only to find Ted did and article on a passenger car!

They say bad things come in threes...Now I'll turn on the TV and find the Cowboys have won...

Clark Propst

IF the pattern maker is a model railroader , is also the resin caster and was the freight car design mananger for a car builder , I'm sure you will get something outstanding.
Marcelo Lordeiro

Speaking of "size of presses available for stamping," there is an NdeM 40' box #76079 in Volume 7 of Classic Freight Cars. The caption says it was built a few months after this list's era ends (March 1961) but I can ask if there were cars with this kind of end built earlier?
At first glance it looks like a typical R-3/4 end of the mid-50s and later, but the lack of intermediate ribs at two places instead of one suggests that it was made in 3 panels instead of two. Hence my R-1/3/3 designation. Cars of that height had been getting two-section ends for over 25 years by then.

Scott Pitzer

Guy, Oct 95 MLM magazine has a nice article on how to build one of
these cars. The auther states the cars were rebuilt at St Cloud MN
in 60-61. So your photo is correct :)

Chet, you read this? Guy thinks I'm you! I've finally made the big
time!!
Clark Propst
Not from Meaniesoda

<< No photos, but it is one of the GN 'Glacier Green' with the

standing

"happy" goat emblem rebuilts from the middle 50s. >>

Chet,

"Rocky" were renumbered into the 27000-27799 beginning in December

of 1960. I have

a photo of 27086 stenciled 1-1960 proving only a small portion of

the "Rocky"