Date   

Re: Kits? Yep...they're still with us

Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...>
 

Guyz,

Allow me to fill in 3 more; Megow, Kaisner, and Laconia.
Fred Freitas

ljack70117@adelphia.net wrote:
Did I see John English in the list?
Thank you
Larry Jackman
Boca Raton FL
ljack70117@adelphia.net
I was born with nothing and
I have most of it left

On Feb 3, 2007, at 10:40 AM, <rfederle@cox.net> <rfederle@cox.net>
wrote:

And Armand, you forgot Quality Craft, Suydam and Penn Line to name
a few more.

Robert Federle
---- "A. Premo" <armprem@surfglobal.net> wrote:
Tony,You forgot to mention Silver Streak , Central
Valley ,Globe and
Mantua to name a few others.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Thompson" <thompson@signaturepress.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Kits? Yep...they're still with us


Another point worth making is that there really wasn't
all that
much scratch building 50 years ago or so. You just made do with what
you could get. Layouts were full of Athearn and Ulrich metal cars,
Varney plastic, and some paper-side cars. You could visit layouts
all
over the country and see the exact same freight cars (and structures
and passenger cars and . . . ) because anything else was far too
much
trouble. Sure, some talented and energetic people were building
great
models, but I'd guess there were no more of them then than now. And
what they built wouldn't be that impressive today. Just go back and
look at the magazine photos.
Layouts like Jack Burgess's YV were really inconceivable
then.
Jack has had to scratch build an awful lot, but 50 years ago you
couldn't even get sheet styrene (nor would you have known what to do
with it), and the very first brass engines were just coming into
view.
People thought Ambroid kits were "too hard," and hey, those Bowser
locomotives didn't look THAT odd with Belpaire boilers on your
free-lanced short line. And there was hardly any serious prototype
information being published; practically no modelers had
discovered the
Cyc and other resources.
The progress to today is really qualitative, not just
quantitative. Richard Hendrickson is right when he says "THIS is the
golden age." When we have one of these discussion about where the
hobby
is and where it's going, let's not forget where it's come from.

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




Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.15/659 - Release Date:
1/30/2007 9:31 AM


----------------------------------------------------------
-----------




Yahoo! Groups Links







---------------------------------
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.


Re: Branchline AAR boxcar

Ed Hawkins
 

On Feb 2, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Richard Hendrickson wrote:

On Feb 2, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Camas74 wrote:

> In looking at the end ladders supplied with the branchline kit and
> referencing protoype photos of NP boxcars, it looks to me like the
end
> ladders are the same width as the side ladders...
>
> All my photos are at an angle however so I can't be sure one way or
> the other...Can someone enlighten me if the branchline end ladders
are
> accurate, either for the NP or other RR's cars of this type???
To which Richard replied:

I've always been puzzled about why the BLT end ladders are narrower
than the side ladders. There may have been prototype cars on which
that was true, but if so I'm not aware of it. And I have several
photos that clearly show the end ladders on the NP's post-WW-II AAR
box
cars to be the same width as the side ladders.

Richard Hendrickson
Matt and Richard,
Side and end ladders came in multiple ways for the 10'-6" IH AAR box
cars built from 1945 to 1960. Cars of this type built in "Richard's
era" of October 1947 and before often had side and end ladders of the
same width. Side ladders were commonly, but not universally, 18-1/2"
apart (measurement between the rung bolt head centers). Some cars built
during the 1945-1960 period had end ladders 2" narrower than the side
ladders. There were other fractional differences in widths.

Complicating the matter for modelers and manufacturers of plastic
"standard" AAR box cars, during the 1950s the bottom part of the end
ladders were sometimes flared on one side (like Kadee tooled for PS-1
box cars), and there were at least two variations of this arrangement
I've found. Common examples of these end ladders have the top 5 rungs
at 16-1/2" wide and the bottom 2 rungs at 18-1/2" wide (again, measured
to the bolt centers). Additional variations included the common use of
both 7-rung and 8-rung ladders, different types of ladder rungs, each
with different methods of attachment, and different rung spacing. For
example, 18-3/8" spacing was common for 7-rung ladders but was not a
universal dimension.

When Branchline Trains tooled their "standard" AAR 50' and 40'
Blueprint Series AAR box cars, they had numerous challenges that
resulted in having to make judgment calls and compromises on the many
variations found in the technical data and photographs they used. I can
vividly recall conversations with Bill Schneider when we discussed
variations of side and end ladders. Bill kept reminding me about the
tooling cost that needed to be kept within reason. Originally BLT
settled on one set of 7-rung ladders that they tooled, and they chose
to have the end ladders narrower than the side ladders. With some
"encouragement" they later produced a set of 8-rung ladders.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


SAL B-7 Box Coming in BOTH S Scale AND HO!!!

John Degnan <Scaler164@...>
 

Everyone is probably already familiar with my efforts to get the SAL's B-7 Round Roof (or Turtle-Back), 19000-19499 series boxcars produced in my new scale of interest - S scale. But I have just this morning received comfirmation from my manufacturer that this model will definitely be offered in HO as well. The S scale version will come first (hopefully by the end of this year), and the HO version second (date still to be determined).

ALL reservations should be made with Jim King (jimking3@charter.net) of www.smokymountainmodelworks.com. And if anyone has any photographs of these cars you can offer as helps for this project and its accompanying, promotional web page (below), they should be sent to myself (scaler164@comcast.net) AND Jim King.

Promotional Web Page:
http://www.trainweb.org/seaboard/SALRoundRoofBoxCarProject.htm

If one man can make it happen in S scale, surely there is enough interest amongst HO scalers to see this car made in HO. So send Jim and e-mail and let him know how many you'd like to have!


John Degnan
Scaler164@comcast.net
The Seaboard Air Line Information Collective and Photo Archive
www.trainweb.org/seaboard or
www.trainweb.org/seabonard/index.htm
P.S. ALSO coming in S and HO : SAL LOW-Side Gondolas!!!


The DS/SS split - Thanks and an update

laramielarry <ostresh@...>
 

Many thanks to the following people answered my request for help in
pinning down the split between double sheathed and single sheathed
box and auto cars for the U.S. fleet in July, 1950: Jim Brewer, Al
Brown, Brian Ehni, Richard Hendrickson, and Dennis Storzek. Thanks to
their efforts, over 8,000 cars have been removed from "Unknown"
status and categorized into DS, SS, steel, or "Other". Here is the
current breakdown:

U.S. box, auto, and ventilator cars in interchange service, July,
1950 ORER:
Type_____ %_____ number
DS _____ 9.0% __ 64,629
SS ____ 21.1% _ 150,612
Steel _ 66.5% _ 475,872
Other __ 0.7% ___ 4,758
Unknown_ 2.7% __ 19,258
Total __ 100% _ 715,129

This means that over 97% of the fleet is categorized; two-thirds of
it is steel and the rest is a combination of DS, SS, or "Other". The
DS/SS split is 30% DS and 70% SS. Nearly all of the "Other" category
consists of the Santa Fe's "panel" cars or the GN's "plywood" cars.
The ORER classifies the "panel" cars as DS, and the "plywood" cars
are often considered DS also, so shifting them would add a little to
the DS side of the ledger.

Later today (if time permits), I'll post the breakdown for several
specific railroads.

*****

Answers have been given for about half of the cars on my "help
needed" list, but the other half still remains.

I will be most appreciative if you can provide me information on the
following car series. Most important is whether the cars are DS, SS,
steel (or steel rebuild), or "other" (if "other", what?). If in
addition you can provide the date when built (and rebuilt, if
appropriate), that would be great! Further information such as
class, sub-category (e.g., "Fowler" or "Ribside") would be nice, but
is not necessary. Of course, references to photographs would be
wonderful. The classification should reflect the status of the
series as of July, 1950. If these cars can be classified, over 98% of
the fleet will be categorized.

Road, AAR, Kind, Series, IL, Door, Capy, Qty
CNW, XM, Box, 63000-64898, 40'6", 6'0", 80000, 515
CNW, XM, Box, 74900-76898, 40'6", 6'0", 80000, 971
CNW, XM, Box, 111000-111998, 40'6", 10'0", 80000, 482
CNW, XMR, Auto, 54000-54798, 40'6", 12'0", 80000, 393
CG, XM, Box, 40300-40699, 39'10", 6'0", 80000, 351
IC, XM, Box, 15500-15796, 40'2", 6'0", 80000, 291
IC, XM, Box, 25000-25499, 40'3", 6'0", 80000, 258
IC, XM, Box, 37500-37993, 40'6", 10'0", 80000, 486
IC, XM, Box, 40250-40499, 50'5", 12'0", 75000, 242
L&N, XM, Box, 13500-13999, 40'6", 6'0", 100000, 244
L&N, XM, Box, 48700-48949, 40'6", 10'0", 100000, 243
MEC, XM, Box, 35301-35650, 40'6", 6'0", 80000, 243
MP, XM, Box, 44000-44410, 40'4", 6'0", 80000, 408
MP, XM, Box, 45251-45494, 40'3", 6'0", 80000, 239
MP, XAR, Auto, 75280-75479, 40'6", 12'1", 80000, 200
MP, XAR, Auto, 75480-75999, 40'6", 12'1", 80000, 338
MP, XAR, Auto, 76150-76999, 40'6", 12'1", 80000, 308
SB&M, XM, Box, 20051-20550, 40'0", 6'0", 80000, 384
SP, XM, Box, 66175-66674, 40'6", 10'7", 100000, 428
T&P, XM, Box, 30000-30316, 40'6", 6'0", 80000, 312

Thanks in advance!

Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming


Re: Kits? Yep...they're still with us

ljack70117@...
 

Did I see John English in the list?
Thank you
Larry Jackman
Boca Raton FL
ljack70117@adelphia.net
I was born with nothing and
I have most of it left

On Feb 3, 2007, at 10:40 AM, <rfederle@cox.net> <rfederle@cox.net> wrote:

And Armand, you forgot Quality Craft, Suydam and Penn Line to name a few more.

Robert Federle
---- "A. Premo" <armprem@surfglobal.net> wrote:
Tony,You forgot to mention Silver Streak , Central Valley ,Globe and
Mantua to name a few others.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Thompson" <thompson@signaturepress.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Kits? Yep...they're still with us


Another point worth making is that there really wasn't all that
much scratch building 50 years ago or so. You just made do with what
you could get. Layouts were full of Athearn and Ulrich metal cars,
Varney plastic, and some paper-side cars. You could visit layouts all
over the country and see the exact same freight cars (and structures
and passenger cars and . . . ) because anything else was far too much
trouble. Sure, some talented and energetic people were building great
models, but I'd guess there were no more of them then than now. And
what they built wouldn't be that impressive today. Just go back and
look at the magazine photos.
Layouts like Jack Burgess's YV were really inconceivable then.
Jack has had to scratch build an awful lot, but 50 years ago you
couldn't even get sheet styrene (nor would you have known what to do
with it), and the very first brass engines were just coming into view.
People thought Ambroid kits were "too hard," and hey, those Bowser
locomotives didn't look THAT odd with Belpaire boilers on your
free-lanced short line. And there was hardly any serious prototype
information being published; practically no modelers had discovered the
Cyc and other resources.
The progress to today is really qualitative, not just
quantitative. Richard Hendrickson is right when he says "THIS is the
golden age." When we have one of these discussion about where the hobby
is and where it's going, let's not forget where it's come from.

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




Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.15/659 - Release Date:
1/30/2007 9:31 AM


---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------




Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: Kits? Yep...they're still with us

armprem
 

Ambroid too.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: <rfederle@cox.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "A. Premo" <armprem@surfglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Kits? Yep...they're still with us


> And Armand, you forgot Quality Craft, Suydam and Penn Line to name a few more.
>
> Robert Federle
> ---- "A. Premo" <armprem@surfglobal.net> wrote:
>> Tony,You forgot to mention Silver Streak , Central Valley ,Globe and
>> Mantua to name a few others.Armand Premo
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Anthony Thompson" <thompson@signaturepress.com>
>> To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [STMFC] Kits? Yep...they're still with us
>>
>>
>> > Another point worth making is that there really wasn't all that
>> > much scratch building 50 years ago or so. You just made do with what
>> > you could get. Layouts were full of Athearn and Ulrich metal cars,
>> > Varney plastic, and some paper-side cars. You could visit layouts all
>> > over the country and see the exact same freight cars (and structures
>> > and passenger cars and . . . ) because anything else was far too much
>> > trouble. Sure, some talented and energetic people were building great
>> > models, but I'd guess there were no more of them then than now. And
>> > what they built wouldn't be that impressive today. Just go back and
>> > look at the magazine photos.
>> > Layouts like Jack Burgess's YV were really inconceivable then.
>> > Jack has had to scratch build an awful lot, but 50 years ago you
>> > couldn't even get sheet styrene (nor would you have known what to do
>> > with it), and the very first brass engines were just coming into view.
>> > People thought Ambroid kits were "too hard," and hey, those Bowser
>> > locomotives didn't look THAT odd with Belpaire boilers on your
>> > free-lanced short line. And there was hardly any serious prototype
>> > information being published; practically no modelers had discovered the
>> > Cyc and other resources.
>> > The progress to today is really qualitative, not just
>> > quantitative. Richard Hendrickson is right when he says "THIS is the
>> > golden age." When we have one of these discussion about where the hobby
>> > is and where it's going, let's not forget where it's come from.
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.15/659 - Release Date:
>> 1/30/2007 9:31 AM
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.15/659 - Release Date: 1/30/2007 9:31 AM
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re: Kits? Yep...they're still with us

rfederle@...
 

And Armand, you forgot Quality Craft, Suydam and Penn Line to name a few more.

Robert Federle
---- "A. Premo" <armprem@surfglobal.net> wrote:

Tony,You forgot to mention Silver Streak , Central Valley ,Globe and
Mantua to name a few others.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Thompson" <thompson@signaturepress.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Kits? Yep...they're still with us


> Another point worth making is that there really wasn't all that
> much scratch building 50 years ago or so. You just made do with what
> you could get. Layouts were full of Athearn and Ulrich metal cars,
> Varney plastic, and some paper-side cars. You could visit layouts all
> over the country and see the exact same freight cars (and structures
> and passenger cars and . . . ) because anything else was far too much
> trouble. Sure, some talented and energetic people were building great
> models, but I'd guess there were no more of them then than now. And
> what they built wouldn't be that impressive today. Just go back and
> look at the magazine photos.
> Layouts like Jack Burgess's YV were really inconceivable then.
> Jack has had to scratch build an awful lot, but 50 years ago you
> couldn't even get sheet styrene (nor would you have known what to do
> with it), and the very first brass engines were just coming into view.
> People thought Ambroid kits were "too hard," and hey, those Bowser
> locomotives didn't look THAT odd with Belpaire boilers on your
> free-lanced short line. And there was hardly any serious prototype
> information being published; practically no modelers had discovered the
> Cyc and other resources.
> The progress to today is really qualitative, not just
> quantitative. Richard Hendrickson is right when he says "THIS is the
> golden age." When we have one of these discussion about where the hobby
> is and where it's going, let's not forget where it's come from.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.15/659 - Release Date:
1/30/2007 9:31 AM
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re: Kits? Yep...they're still with us

pullmanboss <tgmadden@...>
 

Tony Thompson wrote:

Another point worth making is that there really wasn't all that
much scratch building 50 years ago or so. You just made do with
what you could get. Layouts were full of Athearn and Ulrich metal
cars, Varney plastic, and some paper-side cars. You could visit
layouts all over the country and see the exact same freight cars
(and structures and passenger cars and . . . ) because anything
else was far too much trouble.
Which is why many of us who were interested in scratchbuilding
gravitated to narrow gauge. The sort of detailed prototype
information we now take for granted began surfacing for Colorado
narrow gauge half a century ago. MR articles by Len Madsen, RMC
plans by Al Kamm and the availability of John Maxwell's drawings
from the newly-established Colorado Railroad Museum gave narrow
gaugers a leg up on serious prototype modeling. Plus the prototype
equipment still existed and was accessible for measuring and
photographing.

Next month marks the 50th anniversary of Len Madsen's landmark March
1957 MR article on scratchbuilding a D&RGW narrow gauge drop bottom
gon. That, and his article on scratchbuilding the Chama coaling
tower a couple of years later were responsible for pulling me into
serious HOn3 modeling for over 25 years. When I tired of the "quaint
and decrepit" factor in the mid-80's, Dennis Storzek's article
on "Seven Improvements to Athearn Box Cars" and Richard
Hendrickson's WestRail conversion kits were there to greet me and
demonstrate that the detailed information we took for granted in
narrow gauge modeling was coming to light for standard gauge. More
than anything, it's the availability of good prototype information
that makes good modeling possible.

To close the loop on the thread title, I was in Caboose Hobbies on
Wednesday. There were dozens of Red Caboose and InterMountain cars
on the shelves, but not one RC or IM kit.

Tom Madden


Kits? 50 + years ago.

Rhbale@...
 

Some of those kits are still around, virtually in their original form, albeit
under different names. The HO flat car and wood bridge kits Tom Ayres (Ayres
Models) originally developed in the 1950s were later sold to Augie Kniff
(Tru-Scale) who in turn sold them to E. Suydam Company. To assist Leo Campbell get
his new company started in the mid-1960s, Tom Ayres persuaded Ed Suydam to
sell the bridge line to Campbell. Leo retired last year and sold Campbell Scale
Models, including the bridges, to Peter Campbell (no relation) who continues to
offer the bridges today - some 55 years later. A similar circuitous life
befell Ayres mat board structure kits which are still manufactured and sold by
Alpine Division Scale Models.

Dick Bale
Carlsbad, CA


Re: Kits? Yep...they're still with us

armprem
 

Tony,You forgot to mention Silver Streak , Central Valley ,Globe and Mantua to name a few others.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Thompson" <thompson@signaturepress.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Kits? Yep...they're still with us


> Another point worth making is that there really wasn't all that
> much scratch building 50 years ago or so. You just made do with what
> you could get. Layouts were full of Athearn and Ulrich metal cars,
> Varney plastic, and some paper-side cars. You could visit layouts all
> over the country and see the exact same freight cars (and structures
> and passenger cars and . . . ) because anything else was far too much
> trouble. Sure, some talented and energetic people were building great
> models, but I'd guess there were no more of them then than now. And
> what they built wouldn't be that impressive today. Just go back and
> look at the magazine photos.
> Layouts like Jack Burgess's YV were really inconceivable then.
> Jack has had to scratch build an awful lot, but 50 years ago you
> couldn't even get sheet styrene (nor would you have known what to do
> with it), and the very first brass engines were just coming into view.
> People thought Ambroid kits were "too hard," and hey, those Bowser
> locomotives didn't look THAT odd with Belpaire boilers on your
> free-lanced short line. And there was hardly any serious prototype
> information being published; practically no modelers had discovered the
> Cyc and other resources.
> The progress to today is really qualitative, not just
> quantitative. Richard Hendrickson is right when he says "THIS is the
> golden age." When we have one of these discussion about where the hobby
> is and where it's going, let's not forget where it's come from.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.15/659 - Release Date: 1/30/2007 9:31 AM
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re: Rail Model Journal??

pullmanboss <tgmadden@...>
 

Jon Miller asked:
What issue, it seems it's a couple of months behind.
And Tony Thompson answered:
You're right, Jon, it tends to run a couple of months off. What I
got at the end of January was the issue for December 2006. But they
do come regularly.
My January 2007 issue arrived earlier in the week.

Tom Madden


Re: Rail Model Journal??

David Ball
 

I got mine this past week (and it had to travel 1/3 of the way around the
world)

David Ball


_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon
Miller
Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2007 3:40 p.m.
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Rail Model Journal??



My last copy was November but I'm guessing December is close. Just a
slow PO.

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






--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.20/664 - Release Date: 2/02/2007
3:42 p.m.



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.20/664 - Release Date: 2/02/2007
3:42 p.m.


Re: Rail Model Journal??

David Ball
 

Ah, thank you Mr Thompson. I've always wondering if the differential between
cover date and when I get it was because they are behind, or due to their
shipping.

Ta

David Ball


_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2007 3:04 p.m.
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Rail Model Journal??



Jon Miller wrote:
What issue, it seems it's a couple of months behind.
You're right, Jon, it tends to run a couple of months off. What I
got at the end of January was the issue for December 2006. But they do
come regularly.

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, HYPERLINK
"mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com"thompson@signaturep-ress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history






--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.20/664 - Release Date: 2/02/2007
3:42 p.m.



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.20/664 - Release Date: 2/02/2007
3:42 p.m.


Re: The DS/SS split - help needed

al_brown03
 

Continuing:


IC, XM, Box, 37500-37993, 40'6", 10'0", 80000, 486
IC, XM, Box, 40250-40499, 50'5", 12'0", 75000, 242
L&N, XM, Box, 13500-13999, 40'6", 6'0", 100000, 244
L&N, XM, Box, 48700-48949, 40'6", 10'0", 100000, 243
MEC, XM, Box, 35301-35650, 40'6", 6'0", 80000, 243
MILW, XAR, Auto, 9000-9499, 40'6", 15'0", 80000, 498
Steel, horiz rib, blt 3-6/47. RP CYC 13 pp1-75.

MILW, XM, Box, 15500-15749, 50'6", 15'0", 100000, 248
Steel, horiz rib, blt 5-8/46. RP CYC 13 pp1-75.

MP, XM, Box, 44000-44410, 40'4", 6'0", 80000, 408
MP, XM, Box, 44500-44788, 40'4", 6'0", 80000, 281
SS, blt 6/29 as DD, rblt single-door before 4/47.
Postwar Freight Car Fleet, p62.

MP, XM, Box, 45251-45494, 40'3", 6'0", 80000, 239
MP, XAR, Auto, 75280-75479, 40'6", 12'1", 80000, 200
MP, XAR, Auto, 75480-75999, 40'6", 12'1", 80000, 338
MP, XAR, Auto, 76150-76999, 40'6", 12'1", 80000, 308
MP, XAR, Auto, 88500-88803, 50'6", 14'7", 100000, 302
SS, blt '26-27, rblt '41. MM 1/96 pp35-38.

SB&M, XM, Box, 20051-20550, 40'0", 6'0", 80000, 384
N&W, XM, Box, 40000-40603, 40'6", 6'0", 100000, 594
PM , XM, Box, 88000-88349, 40'6", 6'0", 80000, 229
SS 1-1/2D, blt '26, aux doors sealed post '34. FFC v1 p48.

RI, XMR, Auto, 159250-159899, 40'6", 14'6", 80000, 361
SS, blt late '20s. FFC v1 p53.

RI, XM, Box, 160250-160599, 40'6", 12'0", 80000, 334
SS, blt late '20s. FFC v1 p53.

-- hth --

-- Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Re: Kits? Yep...they're still with us

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Another point worth making is that there really wasn't all that much scratch building 50 years ago or so. You just made do with what you could get. Layouts were full of Athearn and Ulrich metal cars, Varney plastic, and some paper-side cars. You could visit layouts all over the country and see the exact same freight cars (and structures and passenger cars and . . . ) because anything else was far too much trouble. Sure, some talented and energetic people were building great models, but I'd guess there were no more of them then than now. And what they built wouldn't be that impressive today. Just go back and look at the magazine photos.
Layouts like Jack Burgess's YV were really inconceivable then. Jack has had to scratch build an awful lot, but 50 years ago you couldn't even get sheet styrene (nor would you have known what to do with it), and the very first brass engines were just coming into view. People thought Ambroid kits were "too hard," and hey, those Bowser locomotives didn't look THAT odd with Belpaire boilers on your free-lanced short line. And there was hardly any serious prototype information being published; practically no modelers had discovered the Cyc and other resources.
The progress to today is really qualitative, not just quantitative. Richard Hendrickson is right when he says "THIS is the golden age." When we have one of these discussion about where the hobby is and where it's going, let's not forget where it's come from.

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: How is the AB brake cylinder mounted on the PRR G-22 gondola?

Bruce Smith
 

On Fri, February 2, 2007 7:19 pm, proto48er wrote:
Two things still bother me about Westerfield's website photos. First,
in the G-22 section, there is a drawing from Kalmbach Pub. Co. from
1986 (?) which shows the brake arrangement! I would have preferred a
PRR drawing! Second, in Westerfield's GRa section, it shows the same
squirrily brake arrangement - I do not recall that GRa's ever had drop
doors or steel floors (which would have allowed enough extra strength
for mounting of a brake cylinder on a longitudinal plate between two
crossmembers). Why would the GRa's have this arrangement? Do the GR's
and the FM's have it too? (I do have two GRa's, one GR, one FM and one
FGRa to detail in another project, if I live long enough). As usual,
more questions than answers!
A.T.,

This is the standard brake arrangement for PRR cars of this era. I was
about to say that it had nothing to do with drop doors, but it may well
have originated in that style car. Regardless, it was applied to the GR
(and FM which is a twin to the GR), GRa and many other cars such as the
X25 and X29. Similar brakes were used on the B&O M-26A. Westerfield and
F&C have nice castings for the levers in their kits (note that the
Sunshine FM has a bogus brake arrangement drawing in the instruction).

BTW, we just finished an FM project on the PRRPro group <G>.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: trucks for flatcar?

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 2, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Steve Bishop superlab2003 wrote:

I am finishing an Eastern Car Works depressed center flat for the New
Haven RR. My information on the trucks says they were simply "low
profile, friction bearing, four-wheel trucks". Any idea what HO trucks
would be closest to the prototype?
The correct trucks for these models are Eastern Car Works' own Commonwalth High Capacity trucks, stock #9063.

Richard Hendrickson


Kits? Yep...they're still with us

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Jack Burgess writes:

"While I appreciate all of the new freight cars, both plastic and resin, all
of these "riches" (as I mentioned before) may have reduced our hobby to a
"ready to run" hobby. After all, there is very little that you can't now
purchase ready to run....engines, DCC systems, freight cars, structures,
track, etc. It seems that MR especially has embraced this idea...."


Actually, while I think Jack is correct about much that he said, he has a small but interesting conflict in this part of his comments. "Resin". As Jack well knows "resin" is not ready to run. I don't doubt that it is true that people wish to purchase ready to run but one cannot purchase ready to run resin cars...at least not yet. Part of the reason for buying ready to run stuff is, as Jack alludes to, it's easy to do AND it's probably the only way some of us are going to acquire the huge fleets of cars we seem to require. Today there are many, many frt cars not available in plastic so we are forced to go the resin route if we want some of these gems. For that matter, there are still large numbers of frt cars simply not available...in any form. Anyhow, the point is, we seem to see very different frt car acquisitions by the same people...ready to run plastic and "ready to build" resin cars....kits.

Mike Brock


Re: Mainline Modeler ?????

Eugene E. Deimling <losgatos48@...>
 

We miss the vintage Mainline Modeler when it was forward leaning
publication that tried to raise the level of standard gauge modeling
to that of narrow gauger. He used the Gazette as a model to copy. He
was not able to match the Gazette in terms of authors and material.
The Gazette authors contributed 90% of the magazine content with
little coming from the staff. This is the idea situation. Hundman
had to generate much of his own material. He did do some useful
scale plans with excellent photo coverage. There were flaws in his
plans and sometimes the text contained poorly researched technical
data but you find differences with prototype general arrangement
drawings. I have attempted to scratch build many models from
prototype drawings only to find out the actual car didn't match the
drawings precisely. Builders made changes and issued revisions. A
drawing alone does not assure you an accurate model.
As Tony pointed out, Bob Hundman had lost touch with the hobby. It
has changed in many dimensions. Bob still thought that people were
interested in learning techniques on scratch building a freight car.
His articles may have been tedious but they did contain useful some
techniques.
There are many excellent sources of prototype data and sources for
modeling inspiration today that didn't exist when the Mainline Modeler
was started. We won't miss the recent magazine since only a few
thousand were buying it anyways.

Gene Deimling


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@...> wrote:

What we miss of Mainline Modeler is not the tree articles, the
editorials, or multi-installment construction projects.... but the
prototype pictures, reproduction of builder and railroad drawings and
diagrams, the prepared drawings (however imperfect), in-depth studies
of locomotive and car types, introduction of new model building
techniques, etc...
We miss the POTENTIAL of Mainline Modeler and its overall legacy
more than the reality of its recent past.
Somewhat like X2200 South.... another publication that has "gone
south" if you pardon the pun..... they established the taxonomy of
Diesel Locomotives beyond what sufficed for the builders and the
railroads... but have devolved into a reporter of roster changes and
new deliveries and liveries in contemporary railroading.
I would think with the obvious popularity of modeling the prototype,
as evidenced by the growing attendance at seminars across the country,
there would be a market for a magazine to fill the void left by
Mainline Modeler.... that would expand and complement what we can get
from the occasional article in the mainstream magazines and the RPC,
Essential Freight Cars, and other books and journals (and online
magazines such as the PRR & B&O efforts).
While freight cars, locomotives, and structures have been covered
hard for the past four decades there is still much to learn and
document.... and we've not scratched the surface on Passenger Cars,
Traction and many other topics.
We owe a huge debt to Bob Hundman. His body of work in Mainline
Modeler and other publications, as well as his behind-the-scenes work
in supporting the Manufacturers has made a tremendous positive impact
on the Hobby.
I, for one, miss Mainline Modeler and can only hope a group of
people comes along that can continue his work.
Charlie Vlk


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: How is the AB brake cylinder mounted on the PRR G22 gondola?

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

I'm not on vacation - just trying to get some projects done.
NO DASHES IN PRR CAR CLASSES.

A. T. Kott wrote:
"Two things still bother me about Westerfield's website photos.
First, in the G22 section, there is a drawing from Kalmbach Pub. Co.
from 1986 (?) which shows the brake arrangement! I would have
preferred a PRR drawing!"

So would I, A.T., but I simply don't have one handy. PRR freight car
General Arrangement drawings have been cataloged and microfilmed by
the PRRT&HS; reproductions can be ordered from the society:
http://www.prrths.com/Downloads/01%20Microfilm%20Drawing%20Ordering%
20Information%20Rev.%202006-02-07.pdf

Here's the drawing catalog:
http://www.prrths.com/Downloads/02%20Frt%20Car%20Gen%20Arrt,%20Rev.%
202006-02-07.pdf

The MR drawing that you cited is actually from April 1950.


"Second, in Westerfield's GRa section, it shows the same squirrily
brake arrangement - I do not recall that GRa's ever had drop doors or
steel floors (which would have allowed enough extra strength for
mounting of a brake cylinder on a longitudinal plate between two
crossmembers). Why would the GRa's have this arrangement?"

The Class GRA cars did not have drop doors. The only good reason I
could give you is that the PRR mechanical department preferred this
arrangement for cars with fishbelly center sills. Note that the
contemporary Class X25 boxcars have the same arrangement. If you
don't believe me or the Westerfield model photos, see the files
section of the STMFPH group for a Richard Burg photo of a Class X25
boxcar being scrapped at Lancaster PA in 1980 (File name - X25
Underframe.jpg). Although the car had been converted to AB brakes,
the original brake arrangement including the cylinder mounting is
clearly visible.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFPH/files/


"Do the GR's and the FM's have it too?"

Yes. See the October 2003 issue of The Keystone Modeler for a
corrected copy of the Class GRA drawings from the February 1990 issue
of Mainline Modeler. (The Mainline Modeler drawings are incorrectly
labeled, with a drawing of an as-built car with KD brakes
labled "Modified with AB Brakes". It's no longer posted on the
Society website, but is available (along with the first 36 issues of
TKM) from Al Buchan on CD.


Ben Hom

129061 - 129080 of 188712