Date   

Re: The Keystone Modeler - December 2006

ljack70117@...
 

I just went to the web site and issue 41 is there.
Thank you
Larry Jackman
Boca Raton FL
ljack70117@...

On Dec 11, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Garth G. Groff wrote:

Ben,

Uhhhh. There's no December issue on the site. Did you get a bit ahead
with your announcement?

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:
The December issue of The Keystone Modeler is online at
http://www.prrths.com/Keystone%20Modeler/Keystone_Modeler.htm

Here's What I'm Working On
1:48 Harbor Scene by Hugo Pallesen

Model Review – Walthers Platinum Line N6B Cabin Car by Jim Hunter

Making Bowser Better - Modeling the H21 by Bruce Smith

Modeling the PRR's Flat Car Fleet – Part 10 The F34 by Elden Gatwood

Happy Holidays!


Ben Hom




Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: The Keystone Modeler - December 2006

ljack70117@...
 

It was there as I finally got it down loaded
Thank you
Larry Jackman
Boca Raton FL
ljack70117@...

On Dec 11, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Garth G. Groff wrote:

Ben,

Uhhhh. There's no December issue on the site. Did you get a bit ahead
with your announcement?

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:
The December issue of The Keystone Modeler is online at
http://www.prrths.com/Keystone%20Modeler/Keystone_Modeler.htm

Here's What I'm Working On
1:48 Harbor Scene by Hugo Pallesen

Model Review – Walthers Platinum Line N6B Cabin Car by Jim Hunter

Making Bowser Better - Modeling the H21 by Bruce Smith

Modeling the PRR's Flat Car Fleet – Part 10 The F34 by Elden Gatwood

Happy Holidays!


Ben Hom




Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: The Keystone Modeler - December 2006

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Ben,

Uhhhh. There's no December issue on the site. Did you get a bit ahead with your announcement?

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:

The December issue of The Keystone Modeler is online at
http://www.prrths.com/Keystone%20Modeler/Keystone_Modeler.htm

Here's What I'm Working On
1:48 Harbor Scene by Hugo Pallesen

Model Review � Walthers Platinum Line N6B Cabin Car by Jim Hunter

Making Bowser Better - Modeling the H21 by Bruce Smith

Modeling the PRR's Flat Car Fleet � Part 10 The F34 by Elden Gatwood

Happy Holidays!


Ben Hom


Re: B&O Class W-1A Truck Identification

rwitt_2000 <rmwitt@...>
 

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

On Dec 9, 2006, at 6:19 PM, rwitt_2000 wrote:

I don't have that CBC to compare the photos, but according to an
article in Railway Age (April 12, 1924) it describes the use of arch
bar trucks designed by Edwin C. Washburn, assistant to the president
of the B&O. The trucks were placed on new cars ordered in 1922 with
capacities of 40-ton, 55-ton and 70-ton. The class W-1a were rebuilt
by various car builders ~1922 for the B&O so there is a high
probability that the trucks used were of this Washburn design. The
illustrations of the side frame in the RA article appear very similar
to the one in the photo posted by Ben.
Bob, there is a drawing of the Washburn truck side frame in the 1928
Car Builders' Cyclopedia, as well as a photo of a very similar truck
identified as a "Tatum XLT Improved Arch Bar Truck Used on the
Baltimore & Ohio." Neither is the truck shown in Ben Hom's photo.
I'll stick with my original identification of the truck on the W-1a;
it's unmistakably a Pilcher arch bar truck. I will add that the B&O
was well known (one might even say notorious) for its determination
during the 1920s to keep using arch bar trucks of one design or another
at a time when virtually every other RR in North America was converting
to cast steel side frames. None of the improvements that originated in
the B&O's mechanical department overcame the basic weakness of the arch
bar design, which was that the nuts and bolts holding it together
tended to loosen or fail unless the trucks received regular and
frequent preventive maintenance – which, of course, couldn't be assured
on cars that traveled widely off-line in interchange service and might
not come back through the owner's shops for literally years.

Richard Hendrickson
Richard, thank you for sharing your source material and noting the
differences in these truck designs. Yes, the B&O with Washburn and
Tatum tried to keep the arch bar truck alive. We have yet to find a
company memo explaining and/or justifying the expenditures to replace
all those arch bar trucks.

Bob Witt

Indianapolis, Indiana


Re: B&O Class W-1A Truck Identification

Guy Wilber
 

In a message dated 12/10/2006 8:31:30 PM Central Standard Time,
rmwitt@... writes:

We have yet to find a company memo explaining and/or justifying the
expenditures to replace all those arch bar trucks.

Bob,

The justification for expenditures to replace all those arch bar trucks was
to conform with the AAR's ban on arch bar side frames in interchange (July 1,
1940).

Regards,

Guy Wilber
West Bend, WI


Re: SOUTHERN PACIFIC B-50-12A REBUILT BOX CAR

Jim & Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

The Sunshine kit was introduced in 1992 but has been discontinued.



Jim Hayes

Portland Oregon



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Fred
Mullins
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 7:10 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] SOUTHERN PACIFIC B-50-12A REBUILT BOX CAR



Folks,
I would like to learn more about this car. When was it rebuilt and
from what class of car? When did the rebuilding take place and how
long did these cars stay on the rails? Is sunshine still making these
cars? Does anybody else make them in HO? also can anybody point me to
some photos of these cars? I'm looking for end detail shots as well.
Thanks for any help!
Merry Christmas
___


Re: Billboard question for Richard Hendrickson

okiemax <northtowner@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

okiemax (not signing his name) wrote:

May I have an update on your progress on the billboard reefer book?
It is in our pipeline. We have a couple of minor things to
finish before it is ready to go out.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history
Thanks. I'm looking forward to the book.

Max carey


Re: Monon Covered Hopper

Mont Switzer <mhts_switzerm@...>
 

Dan,

The short answeer is no. The Monon didn't begin loading grain in covered hoppers until the late 1960's and then only on a limited basis. Instead the railroad operated a number of boxcars with roof hatches.

Your Athearn car respresents the Monon's first group of 3 bay covered hoppers. They were built in 12-53 by Pullman Standard and numbered C.I.L. 4401-4430.

In 1953 three bay covered hoppers were pretty spcialized cars and the railroad would only have purchased them if had a pre-determined purpose which was the case. All 30 cars were equipped with vibrators to handle flour with cars 4401 - 4415 being assigned to General Mills.

The flour business ultimately ended up on airslide cars and the 3 bay covered hoppers were placed in sand service assinged to Sand Brokers at Michigan City, IN.

Due to the nature of the products that these cars handled I suspect they did not travel far from their midwest ownership and they could always seen on line.

An interesting side note concerns the sand cars that moved between Michigan City, IN and Indianapolis, IN. As I attempted to dupicate Monon operatons and schedules in HO scale I learned that train scheduling between Michigan City branch and Indianapolis branch had the railroad moving sand cars between the two points via Monon, IN overnight. This is a good example of how model operations can assist us in learning how the prototype operated.

Mont Switzer





"D. Port Jr." <hudson464@...> wrote:
Hi everyone,

I have a Athearn PS 2893 Covered Hopper lettered for the Monon.

Did the Monon use them for grain loading?

Thank You.

Dan Port Jr.








---------------------------------
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.


Re: Cubic Capacity Confusion

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Kurt Laughlin wrote:
I'm compiling a list of the "most common" boxcars for my layout and decided to use the recapitulation lists for each RR in the ORER as a start for finding total quantities for a particular road. I'm a bit puzzled by the rather varied interpretation of cubic capacity values. For example, I see listings for 3712, 3713, 3715, 3716, and 3719 cu ft XMs which appear to all be 40-6 x 9-2 x 10-0 AAR cars. Also, from the RPC 8 article on 10-0 IH XMs, B&O 285000 is 3715, CRP 22057 is 3713, CRP 22501 is 3712, C&O 14111 is 3713. Why the variation? If I fix the length and height at the nominal values then each inch of width accounts for 33-3/4 cu ft, so to get a 1 cu ft difference means a change of about 1/32 of an inch in width or height or a hair over 1/8 inch in length. Were they really measuring or calculating things that closely? Is there a standard procedure for calculating cubic capacity?
My understanding from talking to a railroad employee who was responsible for submitting material for ORER issues is that there was some latitude allowed in how the railroad chose to round off (or not round off) dimensional measurements. It is accordingly not surprising that entries vary.

Another oddity is that the volume numbers painted on cars do not always match the numbers in the ORER.
A railroad did not have to letter in accord with the ORER; and different parts of the company (different departments) were responsible for the two sets of data. Certainly it's true that the SP, with which I'm most familiar, had ORER entries at odds with its own freight car lettering.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Billboard question for Richard Hendrickson

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

okiemax (not signing his name) wrote:

May I have an update on your progress on the billboard reefer book?
It is in our pipeline. We have a couple of minor things to finish before it is ready to go out.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Cubic Capacity Confusion

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

I'm compiling a list of the "most common" boxcars for my layout and decided to use the recapitulation lists for each RR in the ORER as a start for finding total quantities for a particular road. I'm a bit puzzled by the rather varied interpretation of cubic capacity values. For example, I see listings for 3712, 3713, 3715, 3716, and 3719 cu ft XMs which appear to all be 40-6 x 9-2 x 10-0 AAR cars. Also, from the RPC 8 article on 10-0 IH XMs, B&O 285000 is 3715, CRP 22057 is 3713, CRP 22501 is 3712, C&O 14111 is 3713. Why the variation? If I fix the length and height at the nominal values then each inch of width accounts for 33-3/4 cu ft, so to get a 1 cu ft difference means a change of about 1/32 of an inch in width or height or a hair over 1/8 inch in length. Were they really measuring or calculating things that closely? Is there a standard procedure for calculating cubic capacity?

Another oddity is that the volume numbers painted on cars do not always match the numbers in the ORER. Some examples: NYC 109445 - marked 2956, listed as 2955. From the RPC 8 article mentioned above, SP 102199 is marked 3782 cu ft, ORER lists it as 3783. I could understand a mistake in repainting, but the SP pics are builder's photos.

KL


Re: C&EI block lettering

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Thanks to Ed Hawkins, Richard Hendrickson and Ted Culotta for the help with my question.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Sharing Knowledge: Was Parasitism

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Jace Kahn and Dan Stinson could not state the case any better, nor any more fairly. Knowledge sharing is a truly civilized and gracious activity. We are hobbyists, not members of a trade or academic group harboring competing personal agendas.

I have a fairly large personal railroad reference library (and one of the largest such public facilities is just down the street). Although I know full well that the answers to many of the questions that I might, or actually do pose to this erudite list must reside somewhere on the bookshelves or in the stacks, I also realize at the same time that the answers might only come after hours or days of searching (time better spent building steam era freight cars!); and even then the facts will arrive totally without the benefit of being wrapped in the broad rich editorial context so common on this List. The high value of the latter should not be underestimated in any way. It is the heart of this effort IMHO.

Listers undervalue their own knowledge whenever the posted response to a question is an intimidating abrupt 'Look it up!'. It takes not a whit more effort for those who are in the know to simply give a short positive answer, while perhaps at the same time also pointing out the availability of the information in specific reference or references.

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Car and Locomotive Builders Cyclopedias for sale 1957, 1961, and 1966

Captain Dudley
 

Guys:
I posted 3 Car and Locomotive Builders Cyclopedias up for sale on ebay
today. They are 1957, 1961 and a 1966 version. These are great
reference books for modelers and historians! and they are heavy!!

Mike Dudley


Re: B&O Class W-1A Truck Identification

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 9, 2006, at 6:19 PM, rwitt_2000 wrote:

I don't have that CBC to compare the photos, but according to an
article in Railway Age (April 12, 1924) it describes the use of arch
bar trucks designed by Edwin C. Washburn, assistant to the president
of the B&O. The trucks were placed on new cars ordered in 1922 with
capacities of 40-ton, 55-ton and 70-ton. The class W-1a were rebuilt
by various car builders ~1922 for the B&O so there is a high
probability that the trucks used were of this Washburn design. The
illustrations of the side frame in the RA article appear very similar
to the one in the photo posted by Ben.
Bob, there is a drawing of the Washburn truck side frame in the 1928
Car Builders' Cyclopedia, as well as a photo of a very similar truck
identified as a "Tatum XLT Improved Arch Bar Truck Used on the
Baltimore & Ohio." Neither is the truck shown in Ben Hom's photo.
I'll stick with my original identification of the truck on the W-1a;
it's unmistakably a Pilcher arch bar truck. I will add that the B&O
was well known (one might even say notorious) for its determination
during the 1920s to keep using arch bar trucks of one design or another
at a time when virtually every other RR in North America was converting
to cast steel side frames. None of the improvements that originated in
the B&O's mechanical department overcame the basic weakness of the arch
bar design, which was that the nuts and bolts holding it together
tended to loosen or fail unless the trucks received regular and
frequent preventive maintenance – which, of course, couldn't be assured
on cars that traveled widely off-line in interchange service and might
not come back through the owner's shops for literally years.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Billboard question for Richard Hendrickson

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 10, 2006, at 8:34 AM, okiemax wrote:

May I have an update on your progress on the billboard reefer book?
I've been wondering that myself, so I will hand off your query to the publisher, who subscribes to this list.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: C&EI block lettering

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 10, 2006, at 2:39 AM, Ted Culotta wrote:

Tony:

I believe that the style to which you are referring came into being at
the beginning of 1937 with the C&EI's first 1937 AAR box cars.
That's what I thought, Ted, until I discovered that I have photos of the large C&EI stenciling on gondolas built as far back as 1910. However, I don't have any evidence of its use on box cars prior to the delivery of the 64000-64999 series '37 AAR cars in January of 1937. C&EI's USRA double sheathed box cars were built ca. 1920 without the billboard stenciling, but C&EI didn't keep those cars and in the 1920s and later its only double sheathed cars with flat side areas large enough for the big C&EI lettering were 36' cars, and I don't know whether the big lettering was applied to them. Other C&EI box cars were single sheathed, and there was a smaller version of the big initials that was applied to them. However, the earliest photographic evidence I have showing that usage dates from 1938 (on a car leased from Mather).

Richard Hendrickson


Billboard question for Richard Hendrickson

okiemax <northtowner@...>
 

May I have an update on your progress on the billboard reefer book?


Re: ADMIN: Parasitism

armprem
 

Correction:you ARE NOT impelled

----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Premo" <armprem@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] ADMIN: Parasitism


For what it is worth;There are many members of this group who may be at
the entry level of the hobby.Many lack the background of the more
experienced hobbyist.For the advancement of the hobby I think we should all
strive to assist the neophyte whenever possible . There is still much that I
have yet to learn about specific prototypes.I look upon this group as sort
of a fellowship,a fraternity if you will.As Mike said,you impelled to
respond to a question.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Brock" <brockm@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:52 PM
Subject: [STMFC] ADMIN: Parasitism


From time to time the subject as recently titled "Parasitism" seems to
find
its way into discussion on the STMFC. As has been mentioned by others,
none
of us has a copy of every reference book associated with the subject of
this
group...or others. Given that, it is likely that most of us have, from
time
to time, asked for help. A problem I run into relatively often is...where
is
the info that I'm seeking in the stuff I do have? The magazine index is
extremely valuable, of course, but it doesn't have everything AND the
title
may not be of much use. For example, I know I saw a photo in a long ago
Trains Magazine of a pushing contest on the Milw Road in which an
articulated steam engine and an electric engine were attempting to push
against each other to see who had the most tractive effort and adhesion [
the electic engine won, BTW ]. Now...how would one look that up?

I suppose I view the issue somewhat like with the US Constitution's First
Amendment. Free speech. Within certain limitations, you can generally say
what you wish. And now for Brock's Amendment. "I don't have to listen".
The
point is...no one should be offended by someone asking for help on a
subject. At the same time, no one in the STMFC is obligated to respond.
And
no one should be offended by the reply...or non reply. Some replies can
necessarily be a bit complex or they might be missleading. Hence, it might
be better to indicate where the info lies. Note the STMFC rule:

"It should be noted that discussions by the group's members
includes questions and answers regarding the group's subject. However, it
should also be noted that the group is not to be considered necessarily as
a
library with its members prepared to respond to questions or acting as
sources for information. Such responses are entirely voluntary and at no
time is any group member obligated to respond to a request for
information.
In fact, the group is not a good vehicle to transmit large amounts of
information. The group is a good vehicle, however, to provide guidance as
to
where a member might find information."

An interesting example occurred recently on another group. The rather
simple
question was..."Was UP 4-8-4 #833 and oil burner or coal burner?" The
response is...both. However, there is much more to it because the
questioner
is intertested in modeling the engine with a brass model. To avoid
missleading the questioner, a detailed response would be
required...IMO...also requiring research for validation. I didn't have
time
to do an adequate job so I did not respond [ maybe later ]. Incidentally,
responding to such questions can be rewarding and fun. It can also be a
learning project. If one has the time.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner










Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/571 - Release Date: 12/5/2006
11:50 AM




Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/571 - Release Date: 12/5/2006 11:50 AM


Re: ADMIN: Parasitism

armprem
 

For what it is worth;There are many members of this group who may be at the entry level of the hobby.Many lack the background of the more experienced hobbyist.For the advancement of the hobby I think we should all strive to assist the neophyte whenever possible . There is still much that I have yet to learn about specific prototypes.I look upon this group as sort of a fellowship,a fraternity if you will.As Mike said,you impelled to respond to a question.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Brock" <brockm@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:52 PM
Subject: [STMFC] ADMIN: Parasitism


From time to time the subject as recently titled "Parasitism" seems to find
its way into discussion on the STMFC. As has been mentioned by others, none
of us has a copy of every reference book associated with the subject of this
group...or others. Given that, it is likely that most of us have, from time
to time, asked for help. A problem I run into relatively often is...where is
the info that I'm seeking in the stuff I do have? The magazine index is
extremely valuable, of course, but it doesn't have everything AND the title
may not be of much use. For example, I know I saw a photo in a long ago
Trains Magazine of a pushing contest on the Milw Road in which an
articulated steam engine and an electric engine were attempting to push
against each other to see who had the most tractive effort and adhesion [
the electic engine won, BTW ]. Now...how would one look that up?

I suppose I view the issue somewhat like with the US Constitution's First
Amendment. Free speech. Within certain limitations, you can generally say
what you wish. And now for Brock's Amendment. "I don't have to listen". The
point is...no one should be offended by someone asking for help on a
subject. At the same time, no one in the STMFC is obligated to respond. And
no one should be offended by the reply...or non reply. Some replies can
necessarily be a bit complex or they might be missleading. Hence, it might
be better to indicate where the info lies. Note the STMFC rule:

"It should be noted that discussions by the group's members
includes questions and answers regarding the group's subject. However, it
should also be noted that the group is not to be considered necessarily as a
library with its members prepared to respond to questions or acting as
sources for information. Such responses are entirely voluntary and at no
time is any group member obligated to respond to a request for information.
In fact, the group is not a good vehicle to transmit large amounts of
information. The group is a good vehicle, however, to provide guidance as to
where a member might find information."

An interesting example occurred recently on another group. The rather simple
question was..."Was UP 4-8-4 #833 and oil burner or coal burner?" The
response is...both. However, there is much more to it because the questioner
is intertested in modeling the engine with a brass model. To avoid
missleading the questioner, a detailed response would be
required...IMO...also requiring research for validation. I didn't have time
to do an adequate job so I did not respond [ maybe later ]. Incidentally,
responding to such questions can be rewarding and fun. It can also be a
learning project. If one has the time.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner










Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/571 - Release Date: 12/5/2006 11:50 AM

137141 - 137160 of 195507