Date   

Re: Best source of lettering for HO B&O M-15 wagon-top rebuild

rwitt_2000 <rmwitt@...>
 

Rob Adams originally asked ... Can someone recommend an HO scale
lettering set for the B&O M-15 steel rebuilds as they would have
appeared Circa 1938. Also, an appropriate paint color (or mix). I
prefer Scalecoat I or Floquil.

Jim Mischke replied: > Color was "Freight Car Brown" in B&O
literature. It's the color of Kiwi brown shoe polish.<

Dean Payne added: >>The paint used was Polly Scale 414354 "Special
Oxide Red". The color does not appear to be "brown", but more of an
oxide (no surprise)."<<

The B&O DID NOT use the same freight car color throughout its long
history. Jim Mischke is essentially correct for the earlier freight
car color for the B&O ~pre-1940. Needless to say there are few color
photographs from this period. I found one in the Library of Congress
collection available through this link to the FSA-OWI, 1939-1945.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html

Select browse 'Geographic Locations' and select the range to include
Illinois. Then Select 'Illinois-Chicago' it should be picture 23 of
134. There are many others to view.

This is a color photo of the former IC Freight Terminal in downtown
Chicago [ca. 1943] and the car in the foreground is a class M-26
painted in that 'Kiwi Brown' color Jim references. Some may argue
that the colors may be shifted, but this may be one of the better
color photos available of a B&O box car painted in the earlier color.

There has been much discussion on the proper color for B&O freight-car
red, but most are about the post-WWII colors that some of us remember
and have color slides or photos to reference. For that period of time
the "red-oxide" is appropriate.

I have posted a low res. copy of the above photo to the Files section
of STMFPH in the folder B&O Freight Cars.

I hope this helps.

Bob Witt


Re: Best source of lettering for HO B&O M-15 wagon-top rebuild

Patrick Wider <pwider@...>
 

--- In, "Dean Payne" <deanpayne@n...> wrote:

The most recent edition of the B&O modeler has an article on the M-
53, very similar to the M-15 rebuild.
borhs.org/ModelerMag/
The paint used was Polly Scale 414354 "Special Oxide Red". The color
does not appear to be "brown", but more of an oxide (no surprise).
The article states the two early lettering styles are "Early Kuhler"
(late 1937-early 1940) and "Wartime" (late 1940-mid 1945), but
doesn't specifically state this color is correct for both lettering
schemes. That is implied, however, as the author build one in each
scheme. I seem to remember Special Oxide Red as being the proper
color, but can't find my documentation right now, of course.
According to color photographs published of B&O freight cars in the 1950s, the color of
these cars during this period would clearly be chacterized as "oxide red." Of course, one
must consider the accuracy of colors as portrayed on the printed page by the CMYK color
process. According to AC&F B&O sample paint chips in my possession, the best matches
for the paints used on AC&F B&O cars are:

Thresher Varnish Co. Freight Car Red (1951): Floquil 80% Oxide Red, 20% Southern Freight
Car Brown
Pittsburgh Synthetic Red (1947): Accupaint Rich Oxide Brown
Pittsburgh Freight Car Red (1951): Floquil Zinc Chromate Primer
Dupont Freight Car Red (1951): Accupaint Rich Oxide Brown

According to two Boles Color Drift Cards for B&O Freight Car Red (8/50 and 10/59),
Accupaint Iron Oxide is a close match.

I hope this helps for B&O cars from 1947 to 1960. Sometime prior to this period, based
upon the chips in my possession, most railroads tended to use colors that are close to
brown "earth tones."

Pat Wider


UTLX.

Arnold van Heyst
 

Thanks for this enormous feedback about this subject.

Another one...........
I'm still in search for the 8.000 gallon UTLX by Proto 2000.
They have released it some years ago.
Is there someone in this magnificent group who is willing to sell me
some unbuild kits?

Arnold van Heyst
Netherlands.


Re: SP Tank Car Domes

Shawn Beckert
 

Tony Thompson wrote:

It was recently brought to my attention that awhile back on
this list, it was asserted that some SP steam-era tank cars
had 60-inch diameter domes. (I did not catch this in passing.)
I have just checked drawings for O-50-9, O-50-12 and O-50-13
cars, and all had 54-inch diameter domes; photos confirm that
these cars were all very similarly proportioned.
Whoa, Tony, wait a sec. What about those partial drawings I sent
you recently? Doesn't the diagram for the O-50-13 indicate a 61 1/2"
(interior diameter) dome? I've reposted the measurements I sent the
list a few weeks ago:


Class Drawing Date Gal. Dome Hgt Dome Dia.(int)
------- ------------ ------ --------- --------------
O-50-12 11-9-28 12,500 24" 54"

O-50-13 6-26-43 12,500 22" 61 1/2"

O-50-14 7-31-43 8,000 19" 54"

I wish we could find a full set of *legible* plans for the O-50-13's
so we could lay this issue to rest :(

Shawn Beckert


Re: Building kits

Roger Parry <uncleroger@...>
 

Another light in which we may view this debate is evolution. When one is building the layout, there is great anticipation of running and later operating one's creation. As we achieve the operation of sections and later the entire layout, we need rolling stock to populate the yards and industries. We need actors in the play about Railroad Operation as Frank Ellison would say. To this end we can acquire reasonable models and fill our immediate needs inexpensively in terms of time and money. As we progress, we can refine the fleet as time and money allow. I started with Athern and Train Miniature cars, swapped them for Accural, Red Caboose, Intermountial, and brass. Now I build a F&C, Westerfield or Sunshine kit and replace one of the less detailed and less "correct" cars but in my own time. I still have had the benefit of operation with acceptable pieces of rolling stock.

On Dec 16, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Rich C wrote:

Tim Gilbert wrote:
Fortunately certain RTR models for what the manufacturers feel are
"generic" (read "marketable") cars have improved in quality over what
was produced even five years ago. This has left the "rarer" (read "less
marketable") cars to the resin kit or scratch builder. In the middle are
caught the kit bashers.

Given this scenario, what can be done to make models of a wider variety
of freight cars more "marketable?"
One thing that directly addresses this scenario are the series of different
replacement ends, roofs, and other bits that Sylvan Scale Models has been
producing now for a number of years to model specific series of Canadian
40ft. steel boxcars beginning in 1937 and evolving up through the mid
1950's. The basis for these cars are the IMWX 1937 AAR boxcar kits that I
believe are now produced by Red Caboose.

In addition to encourage the faint of heart to try these, Stafford Swain has
written in depth articles with listings showing each prototype variant and
how to model it. Great material for first timers as well as veterans.

Therefore a quality mass produced styrene injection molded kit with
replacement resin roof, ends, board walks, etc. can allow the craftsman
prototype modeler to build an accurate model of a specific prototype
manufacturing run.

More of this sort of "replacement part" products and Sunshine's "mini kit"
concept based on easily purchased mass produced kits to get you to a
relatively rare prototype not otherwise available I think is the key to what
Tim talks about above.

All that said, I personally prefer building quality resin kits compared to
today's quality styrene kits. Quite frankly I usually find the resin kits
easier to handle and to build, and much more personal satisfaction in the
end result.

Rich Chrysler




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/9MtolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
~->


Yahoo! Groups Links






Ready to ship Media blasters from North Coast

Andy Carlson
 

I have just talked to John Polyak, owner of North
Coast Hobbies, supplier of media blast & paint spray
booths. He has asked that I give his current email
address to this group.

John has media blasters ready to ship, and has the
hobbiest sized blast tips which allow greater
precision than the larger wands as supplied in store
bought units.

John has also stated that he can ship a new unit to
the purchaser the same day John is contacted, allowing
the purchaser to send a check within a few days. This
will get you the blaster quickly. John is doing this
because he no longer accepts credit cards. He trusts
people.

He also sells Paint Spray booths, which you might want
to discuss with him.

Contact John at :<jrpolyak@juno.com> He is located in
McKees Rocks, PA., home to the Pressed Steel Car Co.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai Ca


Re: Building kits

Rich C <richchrysler@...>
 

Tim Gilbert wrote:
Fortunately certain RTR models for what the manufacturers feel are
"generic" (read "marketable") cars have improved in quality over what
was produced even five years ago. This has left the "rarer" (read "less
marketable") cars to the resin kit or scratch builder. In the middle are
caught the kit bashers.

Given this scenario, what can be done to make models of a wider variety
of freight cars more "marketable?"
One thing that directly addresses this scenario are the series of different replacement ends, roofs, and other bits that Sylvan Scale Models has been producing now for a number of years to model specific series of Canadian 40ft. steel boxcars beginning in 1937 and evolving up through the mid 1950's. The basis for these cars are the IMWX 1937 AAR boxcar kits that I believe are now produced by Red Caboose.

In addition to encourage the faint of heart to try these, Stafford Swain has written in depth articles with listings showing each prototype variant and how to model it. Great material for first timers as well as veterans.

Therefore a quality mass produced styrene injection molded kit with replacement resin roof, ends, board walks, etc. can allow the craftsman prototype modeler to build an accurate model of a specific prototype manufacturing run.

More of this sort of "replacement part" products and Sunshine's "mini kit" concept based on easily purchased mass produced kits to get you to a relatively rare prototype not otherwise available I think is the key to what Tim talks about above.

All that said, I personally prefer building quality resin kits compared to today's quality styrene kits. Quite frankly I usually find the resin kits easier to handle and to build, and much more personal satisfaction in the end result.

Rich Chrysler


Re: Building kits

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
 

Clark Propst wrote:

Last winter I spent my time constructing a layout instead of my usual building freight car kits. Now, I have many projects demanding my hobby time. I still need to build a bunch of freight cars for proper layout operation.

The other day I counted how many kits I have to build. I was surprised at the ratio of 'quality' plastic kits to resin. About 5 to 1. I thought "Why is that?" My best answer is that there is more motivation and anticipation to see what the completed resin kit will look like. You spend hours fretting over this chunk of light gray stuff waiting to see the detail 'miracle' appear as you spray on the paint. Quite rewarding, each a masterpiece. Plastic kits on the other hand show their hand as soon as you open the box. So I think, why waste a couple hours cussing the assembly of something I already know what it's going to look like. So, If I don't need it for the layout right away it goes back in the drawer, that's no motivation to build it. Even worse, I have a photo of a Santa Fe stock car taken here in town on the CGW. That car could have easily been transferred to my RR and spotted at the packing house we serve. I bought a Westerfield model of that car...it's still in the drawer after two years...at Trainfest in Milwaukee in Nov. I bought a RTR Intermountain ATSF stock car...it's spotted at the packing house cattle pens right now.

So, I say to the group: "Hi, My name is Clark Propst and I bought a RTR model..."
Clark,

Welcome to the 21st Century where "time is money."

Fortunately certain RTR models for what the manufacturers feel are "generic" (read "marketable") cars have improved in quality over what was produced even five years ago. This has left the "rarer" (read "less marketable") cars to the resin kit or scratch builder. In the middle are caught the kit bashers.

Given this scenario, what can be done to make models of a wider variety of freight cars more "marketable?"

Tim Gilbert


Building kits

Clark Propst <cepropst@...>
 

Last winter I spent my time constructing a layout instead of my usual building freight car kits. Now, I have many projects demanding my hobby time. I still need to build a bunch of freight cars for proper layout operation.

The other day I counted how many kits I have to build. I was surprised at the ratio of 'quality' plastic kits to resin. About 5 to 1. I thought "Why is that?" My best answer is that there is more motivation and anticipation to see what the completed resin kit will look like. You spend hours fretting over this chunk of light gray stuff waiting to see the detail 'miracle' appear as you spray on the paint. Quite rewarding, each a masterpiece. Plastic kits on the other hand show their hand as soon as you open the box. So I think, why waste a couple hours cussing the assembly of something I already know what it's going to look like. So, If I don't need it for the layout right away it goes back in the drawer, that's no motivation to build it. Even worse, I have a photo of a Santa Fe stock car taken here in town on the CGW. That car could have easily been transferred to my RR and spotted at the packing house we serve. I bought a Westerfield model of that car...it's still in the drawer after two years...at Trainfest in Milwaukee in Nov. I bought a RTR Intermountain ATSF stock car...it's spotted at the packing house cattle pens right now.

So, I say to the group: "Hi, My name is Clark Propst and I bought a RTR model..."


Re: Deleting inadvertent posts

pullmanboss <tgmadden@...>
 

Not that I can see, Jerry. I don't see an edit option available to
the list owner, either.

Tom Madden

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "jerryglow2" <jerryglow@c...> wrote:

Good info: I wasn't aware of that. Is there any way to edit a post
or
would you have to delete the old and submit a new revised one?

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "pullmanboss" <tgmadden@w...> wrote:

Apologies for stepping on Mike's or Jeff's toes, but an author
can
delete any of his posts at any time. That doesn't stop
inadvertent
posts from going to subscribers getting individual emails, but
does
keep them out of the daily digests (if deleted in time) and
reduces
clutter in the archives. You have to delete from the STMFC web
site,
but if you find and open your post from the Message list there
will
be
a Delete option available at the upper right.

Tom Madden


Re: Reefer running boards, especially NP

mopacfirst
 

Thanks guys -- I've done things on slim evidence before and regretted t
later. In this case, I have already painted the (Plano) Apex running
board, so it's going on the 91250 series car this weekend.

Ron Merrick


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@o...>
wrote:

On Dec 15, 2005, at 6:21 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

According to an Feb 2005 email from Richard Hendrickson, 91000-91249
(the PFE R-40-23 copies) had Morton running boards.

The photo you refer to is from series 91250-91499, the R-40-25
clones.
So those could have had Apex running boards.
Unfortunately, the NP freight car diagrams for these cars don't call
out the running board manufacturers. However, I have two photos of
91250-91499 series cars in which the running boards are clearly
visible, and in both cases they're the Apex steel grid type.

Richard Hendrickson


Lanes Trains Website update

Bill Lane <billlane@...>
 

Hi All,



I have just completed a major rebuild of my Lanes Trains website. Most of
the old photos have been replaced. I have added at least 150 new photos of
models I have painted, and also what has been made in S Scale. Please give
it a look. I have about 40 hours in the update.



Please note that I do not know how to do websites with hot linked photos
yet. My website is done in WORD. Click on the link below the photos and that
will take you to another page.



Happy Holidays!





Thank You,

Bill Lane



Modeling the Mighty Pennsy in S Scale in 1957



See my finished models at:

http://www.lanestrains.com



Importing a Brass S Scale PRR X29 & G26

http://www.pennsysmodels.com



ALL of the production X29 have arrived as of 6-30-05

Replacement PRR decals arrived 10-5-05



***Join the PRR T&HS***

The other members are not ALL like me!

http://www.prrths.com


Re: Deleting inadvertent posts

jerryglow2
 

Good info: I wasn't aware of that. Is there any way to edit a post or
would you have to delete the old and submit a new revised one?

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "pullmanboss" <tgmadden@w...> wrote:

Apologies for stepping on Mike's or Jeff's toes, but an author can
delete any of his posts at any time. That doesn't stop inadvertent
posts from going to subscribers getting individual emails, but does
keep them out of the daily digests (if deleted in time) and reduces
clutter in the archives. You have to delete from the STMFC web site,
but if you find and open your post from the Message list there will
be
a Delete option available at the upper right.

Tom Madden


SP Tank Car Domes

Tony Thompson
 

It was recently brought to my attention that awhile back on this list, it was asserted that some SP steam-era tank cars had 60-inch diameter domes. (I did not catch this in passing.) I have just checked drawings for O-50-9, O-50-12 and O-50-13 cars, and all had 54-inch diameter domes; photos confirm that these cars were all very similarly proportioned. The Tichy "large dome" part is 60 inches, and thus in my opinion cannot be used to correct the dome on an Athearn tank car, though it may provide the correct height. The Athearn dome, on the cylindrical part, is only about 10 scale inches high, and ought to be about 21 inches.
All the cars mentioned above had nominal 12,500-gallon capacity. The Class O-50-14 cars were 8000 gallons and appear to have similar if not smaller domes. If anyone can provide more (or better) information, I'd be delighted to hear it.

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


Proto48 Modeler Website Updated

Eugene Deimling <losgatos48@...>
 

The Proto48 Modeler website has been updated with new photos and information
including an article on making rivets by master locomotive builder, Tom Mix.


I want to thank our contributors and webmaster, George Losse, for their
support.



Happy Holidays,



Gene Deimling

Editor, The Proto48 Modeler

http://www.proto48.org <http://www.proto48.org/>


Re: Best source of lettering for HO B&O M-15 wagon-top rebuild

Dean Payne <deanpayne@...>
 

The most recent edition of the B&O modeler has an article on the M-
53, very similar to the M-15 rebuild.
borhs.org/ModelerMag/
The paint used was Polly Scale 414354 "Special Oxide Red". The color
does not appear to be "brown", but more of an oxide (no surprise).
The article states the two early lettering styles are "Early Kuhler"
(late 1937-early 1940) and "Wartime" (late 1940-mid 1945), but
doesn't specifically state this color is correct for both lettering
schemes. That is implied, however, as the author build one in each
scheme. I seem to remember Special Oxide Red as being the proper
color, but can't find my documentation right now, of course. Look in
the archives, maybe?
Dean Payne

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "jim_mischke" <jmischke@w...> wrote:


Color was "Freight Car Brown" in B&O literature.

It's the color of Kiwi brown shoe polish.

Westerfield sells older decals



--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Rob Adams <steamera@n...> wrote:

Can someone recommend an HO scale lettering set for the B&O M-15
steel rebuilds as they would have appeared Circa 1938. Also, an
appropriate paint color (or mix). I prefer Scalecoat I or Floquil.

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards, Rob Adams


Re: PFE Reefer running boards (was especially NP)

Tony Thompson
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
Tony, I have two PFE diagrams for the R-40-23 and although both
mention FIVE different hand brakes, TWO different running boards
and even FIVE different draft gears (for 50 permutations total),
they don't say which cars got which!
Obviously, TIm, you need way more data. <G>

P.S. Gene, the diagrams come from Dick Harley. I think he did make
copies for sale at one time. That's how I got copies.
Dick has occasionally made available partial or complete PFE diagram books, including a number of pages happily supplied by me. I don't think he now contemplates (or ever has contemplated) being the publisher and distributor of such books to a general audience. I will copy him on this e-mail and see what his reply may be. Maybe we can form up someone else to take this on, if Dick isn't going to do so.

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


Re: UTLX Tank Cars

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 15, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Steve and Barb Hile wrote:

Here is some additional and corrected information.

UTLX 84999 was, indeed, a one of a kind car. It had a welded tank set on the very common standard UTLX X-3 riveted underframe. So, it could, theoretically be modeled by placing the Red Caboose tank on a Sunshine X-3 underframe. It was built in 1948.

UTLX 49000-49499 were 12000 gallon tanks that look similar to the Red Caboose car, but the tanks are 20% larger. I don't have dimensions, but would wager a guess that the increase was more in diameter than in lenght. They were built as ACF lot 3555A in 1951.

UTLX 39000-39499 were the 10000 gallon tanks the most closely match the Red Caboose car. These 500 cars were ACF lot 3555 in 1951. The underframes were NOT standard design UTLX, but rather more stock ACF.
Thanks, Steve. I hadn't realized that the 49000 series cars were 12K gals.; the only photo I have is a 3/4 view in which the larger tank isn't readily apparent.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: UTLX Tank Cars

Steve and Barb Hile
 

Here is some additional and corrected information.

UTLX 84999 was, indeed, a one of a kind car. It had a welded tank set on the very common standard UTLX X-3 riveted underframe. So, it could, theoretically be modeled by placing the Red Caboose tank on a Sunshine X-3 underframe. It was built in 1948.

UTLX 49000-49499 were 12000 gallon tanks that look similar to the Red Caboose car, but the tanks are 20% larger. I don't have dimensions, but would wager a guess that the increase was more in diameter than in lenght. They were built as ACF lot 3555A in 1951.

UTLX 39000-39499 were the 10000 gallon tanks the most closely match the Red Caboose car. These 500 cars were ACF lot 3555 in 1951. The underframes were NOT standard design UTLX, but rather more stock ACF.

I hope this helps.

Steve Hile

On Dec 15, 2005, at 6:16 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

> Richard Hendrickson wrote
>
>>> Largely true, however UTL bought 500 welded 10K ICC-103Ws from AC&F
>>> in
>>> 1951 (UTLX 49000-49499) that were built to the same AC&F design
>>> modeled by RC. Anyone who models 1951 or later (neither Bruce nor I
>>> do) can use a couple of these models lettered UTLX.
>
> The Red Caboose cars are lettered for 1949, e.g. UTLX #85301. So they
> have to be renumbered and get corrected new dates. Red Caboose also
> gave some of their government cars numbers belonging to GATC tanks.

Tim, that's probably because there is a published builder's photo of
UTLX 84999, which was built late in 1948, and RC "extrapolated" 85000
series numbers on that basis. However, 84999 was a one-off sample car,
and the 49000-49499 series, which were essentially identical, didn't
come along until three years later.

Richard Hendrickson



SPONSORED LINKS Train travel Freight car Canada train travel
Train travel in italy North american


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "STMFC" on the web.

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: UTLX Decals.

Bill Kelly
 

Tony Thompson wrote:
Bruce is right to put quotes around "dome" for the jacketed tank
car, as the normally "proper" name is "valve casing." But in some
manufacturer literature and in the AAR tank car committee reports, that
feature is indeed called a "dome," so the industry wasn't entirely
consistent. But one does need to realize that the purpose of the dome
on an unpressurized car was to provide expansion space. Not only is
that not relevant in a pressurized car, there is virtually no interior
volume in a valve casing which could accept expansion.
Ed Hawkins added:
Tony,
Confirming your statement, the AC&F engineering drawings during the
1920s through 1950s consistently specified "dome housing" or "dome
arrangement" for nomenclature in the title blocks. This was the case
for all ICC classes of tank cars.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins
AAR Specifications for Tank Cars calls it simply a protective housing
while the Bureau of Explosives of the AAR calls it a dome, I guess they
can't decide. My AC&F information, while 1960s, calls it a protective
housing also. The UTC info, also 1960s, calls it a manway housing. My
favorite and the name I've used for years is from GATC. They call it a
manway bonnet.
Later,
Bill Kelly

137341 - 137360 of 186242