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

Larry - thanks - John

I see what you mean -- but isn't it just a Van Dyke tank mounted
onto a later frame (really, just a center sill)?

At 12:52 AM 2/2/01 -0500, you wrote:

Tim,
Look again, 57801 is not a Van Dyke car.
I don't think that they lasted past 1953.
There are only five standard gauge cars listed in the 7-53 ORER.
Bill Kelly

Tim wrote:

snippage<
There's a 1969 photo of UTLX #57801, a Van Dyke tank car, in the
Classic Freight Cars Volume 2.

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

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.

Bill Kelly

Tim wrote:

I see what you mean -- but isn't it just a Van Dyke tank mounted
onto a later frame (really, just a center sill)?

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Bill, if you get this, you are alive and well on the STMFC. Let me know.

To start sending messages to members of this group,
simply send email to

STMFC@egroups.com

If you do not wish to belong to STMFC, you may
unsubscribe by sending an email to

STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com

You may also visit the eGroups web site to modify your
subscriptions:

http://www.egroups.com/mygroups

Mike Brock

There is also the Precision Scale model of a Van Dyke, which has
slightly different dimensions, and I would think could be mounted on
a new underframe. - John

Shawn, the Precision Scale model is accurate for prototypes that
lasted into the 1960's. Richard Hendrickson wrote an article on
modeling them, including modifications to Bowser (?) caboose trucks
that have the correct wheel base. Precision Scale makes, I think,
two different models -- regular and "deluxe". The more expensive
one is better/sturdier because it has metal parts where needed.
There's a 1969 photo of UTLX #57801, a Van Dyke tank car, in the
Classic Freight Cars Volume 2. It appears to be riding on normal
ASF A-3 Ride Control trucks.

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

At 10:07 PM 2/1/01 -0600, you wrote:

Just doing some tests to see if my Youngstown containers would fit in the
Intermountain and Lifelike kits - I plan to issue a 10 container load for
Mop. Turns out the Lifelike car is about 6" narrower than prototype and
won't fit the containers. Intermountain is about 2" oversize and will (and
would have if the correct width). - Al Westerfield

Al... I wonder if your load will fit Sunshine's Greenville car
(same prototype as the Proto2000). It came with thin-wall sides.
I can test fit it for you, if you're interested. ;o)

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