Another Test

Shawn:

As Richard has pointed out a number of times, the Tichy tank with the
small dome can be placed on the Type 27 underframe to give us a fair
representation of some cars built during WWII. Richard has promised for
several years to do the conversion and write it up, but has apparently
been trapped by mundane non-railroad activities, like putting a roof
over his head (only important if it protects his trains). I am sure
there are many other possibilities. What is lacking is shared
information. Richard noted recently that the magazines generally don't
want articles unless there is a kit to go with them, but perhaps the
Hawkins-Wider CYC would be a good venue for prototype photos and
thoughts on kitbashing. A possibility, Richard? Others?

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

"Beckert, Shawn" wrote:

Fellow Prisoners,

Going through the ACF book this weekend - blissfully
ignorant of the turmoil I caused with my questions of
last week - I couldn't help but notice, once again, the
sheer variety of tank car shapes and sizes. We've only
scratched the surface with the handful of accurate kits
that are on the market.

Since a new tank car kit seems to hit the shelves only
once every decade, or so it seems, what can we do with
the various kits that now exist? Take, for example, the
underframes from the P2K, Red Caboose, and Tichy kits.
Can they be used as a starting point to make any other
kind of tank car? Can the tanks themselves, or even the
domes, be swapped around to create something new but
prototypical? What part, or parts, would be needed to
open up some kitbashing opportunities?

I'm afraid if we don't come up with some way to stretch
the capabilities of the kits we already have, we'll have
to sit and wait for whatever the manufacturers come up
with. Do we have any recourse on this? Your input, please.

Shawn Beckert

Tony T., threating to become a patternmaker, writes:

I fully appreciate the concept that we make something moldable, though I
have no expertise in doing so. I will make a styrene version (on the
assumption that the tank interior is a more convenient and effective, since
larger, place to put weight). Any ideas on how best to make said underframe
so as to be more readily moldable would be gratefully received.

I take it I'm supposed to jump in at this point. Tony, if this project
progresses from a jovial exchange into something more concrete, we can talk
about specifics at Monrovia or Pleasanton next month.

Gee, Tom, that wasn't my intention. Furthest thing from my mind, actually.
However, now that you've volunteered....

I won't be in Monrovia, but let's all talk at Pleasanton.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

Test

Tony T., threating to become a patternmaker, writes:

I fully appreciate the concept that we make something moldable, though I
have no expertise in doing so. I will make a styrene version (on the
assumption that the tank interior is a more convenient and effective, since
larger, place to put weight). Any ideas on how best to make said underframe
so as to be more readily moldable would be gratefully received.

I take it I'm supposed to jump in at this point. Tony, if this project
progresses from a jovial exchange into something more concrete, we can talk
about specifics at Monrovia or Pleasanton next month.

Tom M.

Richard H. asks:

Let me get this straight. Are you volunteering to build a real HO scale
underframe for this model, or are we talking about a conceptual underframe,
as in conceptual packing (inside joke)? If, in fact, a real underframe is
being contemplated, then it should take the form of molding patterns for
resin parts which could be combined with the PSC tank. I would be
delighted to collaborate on such a project, and will see that appropriate
artwork is created for decal lettering.

I fully appreciate the concept that we make something moldable, though I
have no expertise in doing so. I will make a styrene version (on the
assumption that the tank interior is a more convenient and effective, since
larger, place to put weight). Any ideas on how best to make said underframe
so as to be more readily moldable would be gratefully received.
Are drawings readily available?

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history

Surely it would not be too hard to scratch an underframe? I have built
both styrene and wood (with riveted cardstock overlays) underframes and
they are not that tough. How about, Richard, if I write up an underframe
and you do the rest?

Let me get this straight. Are you volunteering to build a real HO scale
underframe for this model, or are we talking about a conceptual underframe,
as in conceptual packing (inside joke)? If, in fact, a real underframe is
being contemplated, then it should take the form of molding patterns for
resin parts which could be combined with the PSC tank. I would be
delighted to collaborate on such a project, and will see that appropriate
artwork is created for decal lettering.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

In a message dated 2/3/01 12:41:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
RRrealated@yahoogroups.com writes:

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:31:54 EST
From: privatevarnish@aol.com
Subject: Car and Loco Builders Cyclopedias For Sale


I have some old Car and Loco Builders Cyclopedias that I don't need

anymore.

Here's my list. Please let me know if you might be interested in one or

two.

'19 Loco Dictionary & Cyclopedia $300
'28 Car Builders $250
'31 " " $250
'37 " " $200
'40 " " $200
'47 Loco Cycl $150
'49-'51 Car Builders $150
'53 " " $150
'56 Loco Cycl $150
'61 Car Builders $100
'66 Car & Loco $100
'74 " " $ 80
'80 " " $ 80

For UPS, add $6 for first book and $1 for each book thereafter in same
shipment.

If you are interested in any of these years, please advise which and I

will

email you a more detailed description.

Richard H. says:

I've often thought of doing an article on
these cars, but most editors don't want articles on prototypes that can't
be modeled, and we don't have any decent models (the MDC model is hopeless,
as it's virtually impossible to rework the underframe into anything
remotely resembling the prototype).

Surely it would not be too hard to scratch an underframe? I have built
both styrene and wood (with riveted cardstock overlays) underframes and
they are not that tough. How about, Richard, if I write up an underframe
and you do the rest?

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history

Richard H. wrote:

Ah, I get it, Tim. A ploy! I've wondered for a long time how someone who
is obviously very astute and well informed about freightcarology could
occasionally post inquiries and speculations that seemed to come from way
out in left field. Now you're telling me that this inconsistency is a
tactical device.

Perhaps "freightcardiology" might be a more apt term for this device.

Tom M.

Well, the only way to get an answer sometimes is to make speculative
statements! Some experts don't like to speak up unless they get the
bonus of being able to ridicule someone... I have noticed this in
my own profession (computer engineering), so why not here too? I've
gotten an awful lot of good information over the years by playing
the naif.

Ah, I get it, Tim. A ploy! I've wondered for a long time how someone who
is obviously very astute and well informed about freightcarology could
occasionally post inquiries and speculations that seemed to come from way
out in left field. Now you're telling me that this inconsistency is a
tactical device.

...Straightforward questions (like Shawn's which prompted
this discussion) often go unanswered.

Ah, but Shawn's inquiry didn't go unanswered. I answered it, with
essentially the same information I sent to you.

Would you recommend a source for information on the 1916 "X" ? I
can't recall ever hearing of it before.

My UTLX folder is buried in a box of material to re-file, but IIRC there
was a drawing in one of the Cycs (1912 or 1916). A large number of these
cars are listed in several number series in the UTLX 1952 roster, and I
have numerous in-service photos. I've often thought of doing an article on
these cars, but most editors don't want articles on prototypes that can't
be modeled, and we don't have any decent models (the MDC model is hopeless,
as it's virtually impossible to rework the underframe into anything
remotely resembling the prototype).

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

At 11:36 PM 2/2/01 -0600, you wrote:

Tim - The containers are 9'2" wide. What rrs used the Greenville in this
service? Remember, I know nothing after 1930.... Some roads like Erie,
MILW and B&O have cars that look like them to my uninitiated eye. - Al
Westerfield

The Erie definitely owned Greenville gondolas, but the MILW and B&O did
not. The MP/IGN owned none either. I suppose they ran their Youngstown
containers in their 46' or various other gondolas. The SLSF did have the
Greenville design cars, but I don't know if they used the containers. The
NYC of course, and P&LE, owned scads of the Greenville design gondolas. I
have seen photos of mill gondolas loaded with just about everything (hay,
coal, baling wire) so if NYC operated the containers, I can't imagine why
they wouldn't load them into any available gondola.

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@mediaone.net>
Marlborough, Massachusetts

Well, the only way to get an answer sometimes is to make speculative
statements! Some experts don't like to speak up unless they get the
bonus of being able to ridicule someone... I have noticed this in
my own profession (computer engineering), so why not here too? I've
gotten an awful lot of good information over the years by playing
the naif. Straightforward questions (like Shawn's which prompted
this discussion) often go unanswered.

Would you recommend a source for information on the 1916 "X" ? I
can't recall ever hearing of it before.

At 09:08 PM 2/2/01 -0800, you wrote:

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Now that I look it over, I wonder if UTLX #57801 isn't actually one
of those AC&F "high walkway" tank cars from pre-1920 with its walkway
handrails removed?

Tim, please stop trying to make this more complicated than it is. UTLX
57801 in the photo in the Classic Freight Cars tank car book is a UTL Class
X built in 1916 (essentially, an "improved" Van Dyke car with separate
center sill) that had been upgraded with AB air brakes, ARA cast steel
trucks, and a larger diameter dome (the original dome was smaller and had
the single safety valve on an elbox attached to the side of the dome, as
shown in numerous photos of these cars as built).

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@mediaone.net>
Marlborough, Massachusetts

Tim - The containers are 9'2" wide. What rrs used the Greenville in this
service? Remember, I know nothing after 1930.... Some roads like Erie,
MILW and B&O have cars that look like them to my uninitiated eye. - Al
Westerfield

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Now that I look it over, I wonder if UTLX #57801 isn't actually one
of those AC&F "high walkway" tank cars from pre-1920 with its walkway
handrails removed?

Tim, please stop trying to make this more complicated than it is. UTLX
57801 in the photo in the Classic Freight Cars tank car book is a UTL Class
X built in 1916 (essentially, an "improved" Van Dyke car with separate
center sill) that had been upgraded with AB air brakes, ARA cast steel
trucks, and a larger diameter dome (the original dome was smaller and had
the single safety valve on an elbox attached to the side of the dome, as
shown in numerous photos of these cars as built).

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

At 10:40 AM 2/2/01 -0500, you wrote:

The bottom sheet on a Van Dyke tank extends beyond the ends and is
probably thicker to act as the underframe. The dome on 57801 is larger
than that on the Precision Scale tank.

Now that I look it over, I wonder if UTLX #57801 isn't actually one
of those AC&F "high walkway" tank cars from pre-1920 with its walkway
handrails removed?

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@mediaone.net>
Marlborough, Massachusetts

At 04:07 PM 2/2/01 -0600, you wrote:

Howdy,
According to Greg Martin's Scuttlebutt collumn in the January Mainline
Modeler, Microscale has announced set 87-986, assorted 1910-1950 tank cars.
Any comments from y'all on the suitability of this sheet for decaling tanks
such as the P2K and intermountain 8K and 10K gallon tanks?

Bruce, that set has been out for a year or two already! (I guess the
Scuttle is falling a little behind...)

Those decals are exclusively for AC&F high walkway tank cars, and unless
you model pre-1930's or specific railroad MofW tank cars, you won't want
them. They're only good for W&R brass imported models.

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@mediaone.net>
Marlborough, Massachusetts

Having had the topic of home vs. foreign cars come up again I decided to
crunch a few numbers & see whether the data from my conductors books was in
any way similar to an ORER from about the same time. The focus is on
boxcars. The first number in the table below is percentage each roads own
roster of boxcars is of the April, 1950 North American boxcar fleet. My
database lacks the military roster, but as I used a fleet total of 834664
cars I doubt the missing cars would skew the results I show. The second
number is the percentage of total spottings that road has in my 1948
conductors books. 1231 boxcars were recorded by the conductor, making them a
sample size of 0.15% of the total boxcar fleet.

I cut off the listing at the accumulated 80th percentile of the North
American Fleet (i.e., the remaining 20% would have taken up another 80
lines).

If the numbers are close the boxcars are geographically evenly
distributed;if they are not close, some undetermined factor is causing more
or less cars to have been recorded by the conductor.

Results are listed below, sorted by expected % in descending order.


road expected actual
CN 7.97% 0.24%
PRR 7.95% 8.20%
NYC 7.70% 7.96%
CP 6.55% 0.08%
ATSF 4.20% 4.47%
MILW 3.84% 2.84%
BO 3.43% 3.82%
SP 3.33% 2.27%
SOU 3.13% 11.94%
UP 2.82% 3.01%
CNW 2.78% 3.98%
GN 2.68% 2.11%
CBQ 2.59% 3.01%
IC 2.52% 2.27%
NP 2.34% 2.44%
RI 2.18% 2.84%
MP 2.17% 2.11%
CO 1.69% 2.52%
SLSF 1.58% 1.79%
ERIE 1.44% 2.19%
LN 1.39% 3.01%
WAB 1.39% 0.57%
ACL 1.36% 1.79%
SAL 1.13% 1.38%
NW 1.06% 1.46%
SOO 1.06% 1.06%

As one can see, the actual matches the expected very closely, with 3 large
exceptions: Canadian roads are under-represented and the home road (SOU) is
over represented. None of these should be a surprise. One of the smaller
exceptions can also be easily explained: The route from which the conductors
books are taken is a short distance from Knoxville TN, a major gateway
between the Southern and the L&N and the city where most of these cars have
or will pass through. This may also be a factor in the C&O numbers.

The reader is left to draw their own conclusions on what this might mean, if
anything, for building up their roster of boxcars.
-----------------------------------
Dave Nelson

Howdy,

According to Greg Martin's Scuttlebutt collumn in the January Mainline
Modeler, Microscale has announced set 87-986, assorted 1910-1950 tank cars.
Any comments from y'all on the suitability of this sheet for decaling tanks
such as the P2K and intermountain 8K and 10K gallon tanks?

Happy Rails
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith V.M.D., Ph.D.
Scott-Ritchey Research Center
334-844-5587, 334-844-5850 (fax)
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ____________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|____________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0