Date   

Re: Left and right sides of a car...

buchwaldfam <duff@...>
 

That wouldn't work on box cars... at least not PS-1s. Both
sides left the factory with PS on them.

Phil Buchwald

--- In STMFC@..., "wmcclark1980" <walterclark@e...>
wrote:
Mike,

Port and starboard? I didn't know you used to work on the Love
Boat.

Walter M. Clark
Time stopped in November 1941 (long before the Love Boat, btw)
Riverside, California

And, of course, I knew all that...<g>. I'm just glad nobody said
that as you
face the B end of the car [ The brake wheel end ], that the side
to
your
left is the port side and the side to your right is the
starboard side.

Mike Brock


Re: 1930s GBW boxcar lettering

buchwaldfam <duff@...>
 

Mark,

Was that a red or black rectangle herald on the door? More
importantly, when did each color of herald get used?

Thanks,
Phil Buchwald


Re: NMRA Standards, conventions, magazines, et al

Gatwood, Elden <Elden.Gatwood@...>
 

Jeff;
Thanks for the clarification. I may be guilty of just thinking about
this whole thing from my viewpoint as a historical society supporter and
prototype modeling supporter, and wondering if those in charge of
various venues truly understand what it is that they should be doing;
assuming they want to address certain needs.

It is clear that the goals and objectives of each are different, but
that the NMRA (and others) might be addressing the goals of a steadily
shrinking population. On the other hand, prototype modeling still seems
to be growing. It seems that very few in the NMRA are ready to direct
attention on what they need to do to "bag" the PM folks, which seems to
be an obvious course of action. Or are they fine with the status quo?

I don't know that we need additional PM meets, but I wonder if those in
charge with the NMRA have prepared good planning documents that say
where they expect to go, and how to best meet the needs of their
potential subscribers.

This same issue seems to be one affecting the MR magazine industry, as
well. I know you guys are not happy with what some of the printed mags
are doing, so what should they be doing?

I just don't hear anyone asking any questions! Who is my audience?
What do they want? How can I do this better? I am just seeing fingers
pointed in the wrong direction. Like at me. And I don't see myself as
a problem. If a magazine becomes irrelevant to me, is it my fault that
the owner no longer gets my $?

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
jaley
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 3:51 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] NMRA Standards, conventions, et al

On Oct 5, 10:21am, Gatwood, Elden wrote:
Subject: RE: [STMFC] NMRA Standards, conventions, et al
How many people go to each one of these events? I only "attended" one
NMRA event; the Long Beach one being in my backyard, and found it to
be
a zoo (the parade of baby strollers was astounding). Are Naperville
and
Cocoa really getting that large, or has NMRA shrunk down, or both?

Elden Gatwood
Elden,

Permit me to point out that the Naperville and Cocoa Beach PM
meets are very different in structure from the NMRA conventions.

The focus of Cocoa Beach (and, I infer, Naperville), is on the
clinics that take place in the meeting rooms. While there *is* a
ballroom
with model displays and a few manufacturers and retailers, it is NOT
really a "train show". This is in marked contrast to the NMRA's
"National
Train Show", or (I infer) the Springfield or Amhearst shows.

I, for one, take my enjoyment from attending clinics, and from
talking to like-minded prototype modelers in between the clinics.

[Please note my bias: I am the Clinic Chairman at Prototype
Rails
in Cocoa Beach].

Regards,

-Jeff Aley




--
Jeff Aley jaley@...
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533




Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: The Dispatcher Knows (was: SP Freight Train Numbers . . . )

Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

I don't know how UP or SP dispatchers did it, but Santa Fe dispatchers' train sheets from the 1940s have a row across the top for train symbols. So while a freight train might be departing San Bernardino as the Extra 145 East, the dispatcher can look at the top of the column to see that it's actually the 14-GFX-C or whatever (14-GFX-C = second Green Fruit Express to originate at San Bernardino on the third of the month, as GFX sections 1 through 12 originated at Bakersfield). Interestingly, they also used the symbol line for passenger trains, writing in the letter code to indicate the day of the month the train originated, and if running in sections they used "CC" to denote coaches and "SS" to indicate sleepers - the doubled letters wouldn't be misunderstood as date symbols. As a rule, unfortunately, they didn't use the symbol line for UP trains operating over Cajon Pass on trackage rights.

Speaking of freight train schedules, like many other roads the Santa Fe included freight schedules in employee timetables (at least for all divisions east of Albuquerque), but on a separate page from the actual district (subdivision) schedules, and with the statement that they were for information only to show that they did not confer any timetable authority. Freight schedules were also included in system circulars on freight-train blocking and consolidation (equivalent to what are known on other roads as freight-train procedure books). So while all freights ran as extras, there were scheduled freight services that dispatchers and yardmasters were expected to carry out.

When crews were called they were told the schedule number or symbol of the train they would be running, and those were also displayed on roundhouse call boards. For operational purposes, however, every freight was an extra identified by its engine number and direction.

Oh, what did those UP engines operating over Cajon Pass have in their indicators? Just their engine numbers, to conform to Santa Fe rules. So I can just decal the engine numbers into the indicators and forget about having to change them - it's good to model the Santa Fe.

so long,

Andy


Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@...
Phone: 262-796-8776, ex. 461
Fax: 262-796-1142
www.modelrailroader.com


Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Jared Harper writes:

Sergent probably can be considered a cottage industry at
this point in time, but Kadee probably was when they started.
Sergent certainly won't get beyond the cottage industry stage if
modelers don't by them and try them. The concept seems good as does
the engineering so I am going to take the plunge.
It seems to me that this issue is somewhat analogous to the issue of Proto 87. Proto 87 standards really invove nothing more than wheel size...thread width, flange depth and flange width plus flangeway sizes. Wheels built to Proto 87 will not operate effectively through trackwork built to match Code 110 standards. Nor will wheels built to code 110 standards operate effectively [ read that...derail ] through trackwork designed to match Proto 87 standards. The problem is, of course, that 99.99% of owned equipment was built to Code 110 standards. When it has been suggested that those like me should change to Proto 87 I have always offered to do so as soon as someone will offer to change out all the drivers on my steam locos to Proto 87 sizes...in one week....for free. So far...no offers. A similar issue with regard to the Sergent coupler seems evident. My understanding is that it won't couple to Kadee couplers. If someone will change out all my Kadees and Accumates in one week free of charge, I might change. If the modeler has no fleet of cars and locos...at least not an overwhelming amount, I could see consideration for changing. Given the huge numbers of stuff owned by greedy collector/modelers like me and others in the group, I just don't see it to be practical. Note that Kadee made sure that their 58/78 will couple with their #5. Now...OTOH, had the NMRA decided that deveopling a scale, reasonably accurate coupler was a worthy project back in 2000...perhaps this issue might not now be discussed.

Mike Brock


Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

his part to use only stable "engineering" plastics for both
the coupler halves and the box<
Doing some work on a box the other day I found the center boss is not
centered. In fact it is open on one side from the casting process. All I
had were the same way. So much for accuracy.
I suspect the reason for the plastic on the box is that the coupler
halves are on the same sprue.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Re: ladder free tank car side

ed_mines
 

--- In STMFC@..., Frank Brua <parkvarieties@p...> wrote:
Check out page 61 of the November issue of Model Railroader. There are
three cars in a string without platforms on at least the
photographer's side. Also of note is one of the cars has a ladder
with no platform above it.

Right! Thanks Frank. And there are some odd 2 some tank cars where one
dome is centered and the other is to the side (these were illustrated
in the Champ decal book i think).

Ed Mines


Re: Walthers 34' PS 3 Coal Hopper

Tim O'Connor
 

Tim

As far as I know, Cor-Ten steel was the reason that UP (and later SP)
used Alternate Center Rivet style side sheathing on cars built in their
home shops. ACR is the signature of cars that used the thinner steel.

Tim

Rich,
Thanks for the correction -
Next Question - did any other car builder than Pullman-Standard use
Cor-Ten Steel?
Tim Gilbert


Re: Walthers 34' PS 3 Coal Hopper

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
 

Rich,

Thanks for the correction -

Next Question - did any other car builder than Pullman-Standard use Cor-Ten Steel?

Tim Gilbert

SUVCWORR@... wrote:

Tim:

Corten steel was a proprietary trade mark of US Steel. This was a speciality steel which was self protecting in that in rusting it formed a skin of iron oxide that bonded with the surface of the steel and sealed it preventing further rusting. The first use of Cor-Ten steel in a freight car was by the B&O in 1934. Cor-ten is a high strength steel and allowed the construction of cars with approximately 8% less weight from the steel components. The debate is does the weight savings warrant the significant increase in the cost of construction.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:53:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Walthers 34' PS 3 Coal Hopper

<snip>

The series was described as "Hopper,
Corten Steel" - that steel I believe was a Pullman-Standard proprietary
product.
<snip>


Re: Walthers 34' PS 3 Coal Hopper

Tim O'Connor
 

Two points: A better 2 bay PS3 can be kitbashed from Stewart hoppers,
and hopefully someone will eventually produce a more accurate and more
detailed replacement for the ancient Walthers (ne Train Miniature) model.
I think there was an article published on how to cut up Stewarts to make
PS3's (something like 3 bodies to make 2 cars)...

In the meantime I have a bunch of the TM hoppers from my Dad's pile of
stuff that will be going to Ebay eventually for less than $7.95 each. Ugh!

Tim O'Connor

I think that with a little work, the Walthers car might serve as a stand-in
for these IC hoppers. But with the IC having several thousand conventional
twin hoppers, how often would these 400 cars really show up?
Ray Breyer


Re: SP Freight Train Numbers (was UP...right and left indications)

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Larry Jackman writes:

Just because you do not know what a
train is when it goes by you, The Dispatcher KNOWs. (sound of the
Getting serious for a moment...one would have to conclude that the dispatcher DID know. I wonder what form he used? I mean...the Dispatcher's Record of Movement of Trains as reproduced in The Streamliner has a huge amount of unused space that COULD have included the train's symbol...but doesn't. Any ideas?

Mike Brock


Re: Walthers 34' PS 3 Coal Hopper

SUVCWORR@...
 

Tim:

Corten steel was a proprietary trade mark of US Steel. This was a speciality steel which was self protecting in that in rusting it formed a skin of iron oxide that bonded with the surface of the steel and sealed it preventing further rusting. The first use of Cor-Ten steel in a freight car was by the B&O in 1934. Cor-ten is a high strength steel and allowed the construction of cars with approximately 8% less weight from the steel components. The debate is does the weight savings warrant the significant increase in the cost of construction.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:53:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Walthers 34' PS 3 Coal Hopper

<snip>

The series was described as "Hopper,
Corten Steel" - that steel I believe was a Pullman-Standard proprietary
product.
<snip>


Re: Accumate scale couplers

Tim O'Connor
 

Gene, to my eye they seem too close prototypically speaking
(perhaps 6"-12" when coupled together; it's noticeable). I've
not had any operating problems with them at all and they were
running on the club layout for about 6 months, matched up with
every conceivable brand of equipment.

Tim O.

Tim,
When you say "couple a bit too closely" so you mean closer than the
correct scale dimension or closer than practical for good operation
on typical HO scale curves and turnouts?
Gene Green


Re: Covered Hoppers/Grain

rwitt_2000 <rmwitt@...>
 

"James F. Brewer" wrote:
Tony and Tim,

Thanks for the info! Now I know the mills on my N&W Shenandoah
Valley circa 1956 model railroad probably received inbound shipments
in boxcars.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim O'Connor" <timboconnor@c...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Covered Hoppers/Grain



Grain-capable covered hoppers (approx 3200+ cubic feet) began
to be delivered in the late 1950's. The PS 2893's delivered in
the mid 50's could carry grain but not to their load limit. For
example you may remember the Jack Frost sugar hoppers (which
did exist) which could hold a full load, because sugar is 10%
denser than corn (50lbs/cft instead of 45lbs/cft). Most of the
early 2893+ cft, 3 bay covered hoppers were used for minerals
and industrial products (like roofing granules). Later most of
these cars got 100 ton trucks and reinforced underframes and
carried even denser cargo like cement, silica sand, limestone.


Jim Brewer wrote:
Is it true that covered hoppers were not used to haul grain prior to
1960? I realize that grain was hauled in boxcars for many
years, but
thought the larger capacity covered hoppers developed in the
50's were
intened, at least in part, to haul grain.
I think the 1960 date is a trifle late, but not much.
Practically all those hundreds of 2000-cubic-foot cars built through
the 50s were for cement and comparable loads. At the end of the 50s
true grain cars did begin to appear, but 1960 is not, to my mind, very
late. Perhaps someone has more specifics.
For certain railroads this statement is essentially true. The B&O did
not receive "grain" hoppers until the early 1960s. Having no money
probably affected their decision. I recall seeing in the early 1960s
in Hicksville, Ohio B&O ARA boxcars, Class M-26s, being prepared with
"grain doors" to ship the harvest.

Bob Witt


Re: Sergent Couplers (was coupler debate)

Tim O'Connor
 

Yes, but the electromagnet would have to be OVER the track.

The Sergent coupler has a tiny metal ball inside that acts like
the locking pin on the prototype. It has to move upwards to
unlock the knuckle. In fact a good strong anisotropic magnet
mounted on a small stick, held above the cars should work very
well. This is also how passenger cars with diaphragms should
be quite easy to uncouple. Of course the car itself should not
be attracted to magnets or you'll have a problem...

If you have never seen tiny, super-strong anisotropic magnets,
then go buy one just to see how incredibly powerful they are.
http://www.dansdata.com/images/magnets/magnets480.jpg
They have many high precision applications, like disk drives.

Tim O.

If the Sergeant couplers can be uncoupled by a magnetic wand, would it
be possible to have some sort of electromagnet operated uncoupler - so
you could achieve the same effects as the Kadee?


Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size

bierglaeser <bierglaeser@...>
 

Tim,
When you say "couple a bit too closely" so you mean closer than the
correct scale dimension or closer than practical for good operation
on typical HO scale curves and turnouts?
Gene Green

--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@c... wrote:
Denny,

Although I use the Accurail scale boxes, and appreciate their
detail, I still wish they were made of STYRENE instead of a
material that repels every adhesive known to man. The only
way to attach them is with screws, which mars their appearance
and is also problematic in many cases. The material also is not
easy to cut or file cleanly. What the heck is it made of anyway?
Did I mention they're not easy to paint either?

Mr. Storzek are you listening? :-)

And I have learned to position the draft gear a bit further than
the prototype, because the face of the coupler doesn't protude
as far from the box as a Kadee -- the result being that two cars
with them couple a bit too closely.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Were there 10' IH 50' 1937 AAR DD boxcars?

Gatwood, Elden <Elden.Gatwood@...>
 

Bill;
I believe door and a half cars on the PRR (X28) were introduced to
accommodate auto loading, but were made obsolete by the introduction of
the larger volume, and wider door opening provided by the double-door
X31, which also provided more interior height for those loaders and
bigger vehicles. The X28 were then converted to X28A by elimination of
the auxiliary door, and put back in general service.

Didn't the N&W have a similar experience with the BPa (am I getting that
one right?), but just elect to seal the door?

I don't know off hand how many of the later X37 classes and other
classes were originally provided as double door cars, but they had some
percentage converted back to single door by fixing the auxiliary door in
place, presumably as the need for the wider opening was no longer
needed. In fact, the history of the fleet is replete with examples of
them adding or subtracting doors. Some portion of the end door cars
like the X41A were also sealed at the end, for conversion to another
configuration. As late as the early 60's, they were adding a second
door to cars not originally equipped as such, like the X41E conversions.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Bill McCoy
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 5:59 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Were there 10' IH 50' 1937 AAR DD boxcars?

I'm working on a presentation for Naperville on Central of Georgia
steel boxcars. In 1937 the CG started to accumulate a sizable fleet of
50' door and a half 10' IH boxcars. They have the 4-5 ends and Murphy
square panel roofs that were on so many 1937 AAR 40s. Was there an AAR
spec for a 50' version? Was there an AAR spec for a 40' double door
car?

I also have hit a dead end on why the passion for door and a half 40s
and 50s like the Central had. It's a combination of 4' and 6'
Younsgstown - Camel doors. I know N&W had a fleet of the combo 40s and
the SAL had a fleet of 50s with double 6' doors and plate ends, all
10' IH.

Can anyone cast any light on the why and wherefores of these cars? Was
it a customer requirement or just eveloution? Any help will be
appreciated.

Bill McCoy
Jax






Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Illinois Central Quad Hoppers

rwitt_2000 <rmwitt@...>
 

Ray Breyer wrote in reply:
Did the Illinois Central operate any 40' quad hoppers during the
steam era? If so, what were their numbers, capacities, date of
introduction etc?

Yep; lots of them. I have the following data on IC triples:

Diagram, 80000-80299 series cars, built 1927.
Diagram, 81000-81744 series cars, built 1929.
A lettering recently was offered on ebay for the 1929 series triple
hoppers. [Ebay item #6563374989]

Diagram, 81734-81739 series cars, built 1930 (actually quad hoppers)
Diagram, 81790-81799 series cars, built 1947 (originally Peabody
Coal, bought by IC in 1957)
Builder's photo, 212799, new 11-27
In service photo, 82351, built 5-33 1950 ORER listing, 75000-78959,
80000-80298 and 81000-81744 series cars, all 41' IL.

What is the best starting point for a model?
Probably the Stewart or new Accurail triple offset hopper.
The AAR triple may be suitable for some, but not for the "classic" or
'signature" IC hopper. The diagram illustrated seems reasonably
accurate and correctly shows that the IC used the "hat section"
external bracing later termed the "AAR alternate standard" for the
construction of their off-set side hoppers. In the time period of the
late 1920s, this was the ARA standard construction for quads and was
used on the B&O fleet of W-2 quad hoppers amongst others and this
topic was covered in vol. 5 issue of the RPC. The IC consistantly
designed and built hoppers that used the "stepped" rather than
"tapered" end panels to begin the off-set. I have photos of cars
rebuilt as taller and higher capacity cars in the 1960s that still
used this method of construction.

This type of construction is modeled better with the former
MDC/Roundhouse off-set side triple hoppers. It is not a very good
model, but can serve as a standin. As others have done in the past
one could use pieces from the various cast plastic hopper models
including the Athearn quad to create a correct master and then cast
the sides and ends. I am not sure whose model could serve as an
acceptable "core" body.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Bob Witt


Re: Walthers 34' PS 3 Coal Hopper

Ray Breyer <rbreyer@...>
 

Tim,

There's a copy of the class diagram on the Fallen Flags site, and a photo on
the NEB&W site.

I think that with a little work, the Walthers car might serve as a stand-in
for these IC hoppers. But with the IC having several thousand conventional
twin hoppers, how often would these 400 cars really show up?

Ray Breyer

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim
Gilbert
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:53 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Walthers 34' PS 3 Coal Hopper

Richard White wrote:

There is a guy offering these for $7.95 on e-bay.
Is it suitable for the steam era?
Is the Illinois Central version authentic?
The April 1949 ORER listed 397 IC hoppers in the #73600-73999 series
which had two bays, had inside lengths of 34' 2", cubic capacity of
2,256 feet and 50-ton trucks. The series was described as "Hopper,
Corten Steel" - that steel I believe was a Pullman-Standard proprietary
product. Now how well Walthers model replicates this series is the
question - I do not have a photo of a "real" IC hopper in the
#73600-73999 series to compare - Walthers model has the #73674 car number.

Tim Gilbert







Yahoo! Groups Links














Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Walthers 34' PS 3 Coal Hopper

Garth Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Tim,

Cor-Ten (TM) steel is a name for certain products developed by U.S. Steel. It was used by Pullman and some other companies for freight car side sheets for its high strength to weight ratio and its corrosion resistence.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

Tim Gilbert wrote:

The April 1949 ORER listed 397 IC hoppers in the #73600-73999 series

which had two bays, had inside lengths of 34' 2", cubic capacity of 2,256 feet and 50-ton trucks. The series was described as "Hopper, Corten Steel" - that steel I believe was a Pullman-Standard proprietary product . . . .
Tim Gilbert

149321 - 149340 of 195500