On Feb 9, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Beckert, Shawn wrote:

Well, I tried searching the archives to get an idea of which type
of Dalman was more common, plain bolster or lateral motion. I
found little information on this. So, if I have a lot of steam-era kits
in the closet (and I do) what percentage of each design should I
have on hand: 50/50, 25/75? Some other proportion?

From what I can tell, it was somewhere around 50/50 in the freight car fleet as a whole. But, of course, it depends on the cars you want to model. Some RRs (e.g. Santa Fe) preferred lateral motion Dalmans, others the plain bolster Dalmans. Buy a bunch of both; whatever you don't use can be sold later, as we're highly unlikely to get better HO scale Dalman trucks any time soon (maybe never).

Richard Hendrickson

I think Tony summarized the matter very well: I didn't notice any glaring errors in Hundmann's work (but perhaps I wasn't looking closely enough), and in the simpler, less-demanding days when Harold Geissel regularly produced drawings for MRR, we were glad to get them. It was only later that one began to notice the errors in the latter's work: I think I first began to realize the problem when I bought my first O scale locomotive, a Custom Brass 44-tonner, and found details that didn't match any 44-tonner I was familiar with. And then I checked the Geissel drawings from MRR... Unhappily, Custom Brass then used his drawings from MRR for their RS-1; it took me months of research and effort to correct the errors on mine, but probably most of the original buyers were so happy to have an O scale RS-1 that the errors didn't bother them.
I think he generally started with CBC's and perhaps issues of the older trade periodicals and redrew them with a clear line, suited to modelling. It is easy to be critical of him from our enlightened perspective now, but at the time, it was good to have him, and his work, with its characteristic clarity, was a welcome feature whenever it appeared.
I was under the impression that he was an architect, although I can't say where I got that; Ed Mines, however, suggests he worked for Kodak?

Jace Kahn, General Manager
Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.

.

--- In STMFC@..., "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@...> wrote:
J.Harold Geissel, the Dean of Railroad Draftsmen, was not perfect
either....and I believe Bob has surpassed him in terms of volume of
work and accuracy.

If I'm not mistaken Mr. Geissel worked for a big company that
allowed employees to do personal work at work. Bruce Smith and I
worked for that same company; Kodak isn't doing so well now.

Bob Hundman worked for himself and spent a lot of time doing time
consuming drawing (including copying drawings from CBCs) that brought
few readers to his magazine. I'll bet at least half of us on this
list have steam era CBCs or Trainshed reprints.

Bob tried to be a one man show - many of his employees knew little or
nothing about trains or modeling.

I wrote an article for him in the early '80s. My gripe was no one
edited my text. It read like a cave man wrote it.

Ed

Bob Hundman worked for himself and spent a lot of time doing time
consuming drawing (including copying drawings from CBCs) that brought
few readers to his magazine. I'll bet at least half of us on this
list have steam era CBCs or Trainshed reprints.

Certainly true. It's well known that Geissel, though producing
superb-looking drawings, was prone to inventing things that he had no
documentation for, sometimes producing "howlers" of inaccuracy. There
are certainly long lists of Geissel errors out there. I would never
accuse Hundman of that tendency, but at the same time, Hundman did make
errors, many of them errors which could have been easily corrected with
a quick check through someone knowledgeable about the subject. My own
impression, though, is that usually Hundman regarded HIMSELF as that
person.

Tony Thompson

_________________________________________________________________
Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

There's one on Ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Brand-New-Athearn-RTR-65-Mill-Gondola-Undec-Kit_W0QQitemZ260004976578QQihZ016QQcategoryZ19130QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem

It's not a kit, which would seem to make painting and marking more difficult.

KL

Truth-in-observation here: Jim and I have already exchanged thoughts on the basic issue of the numbers of O scale flanger kits on the market, years after they were produced.
I can't speak for other O scale modellers, but I have two kits, one to be finished as the O&W original prototype (Ambroid might have sold more of them if they'd been advertised as that--L&HR has a limited constituency) and one for Unadilla Valley (also ex-O&W, and UV may actually have more of a following than L&HR). They are not going anywhere; I haven't built them yet because I have had to move around quite a bit, and I've discovered from experience that Ambroid/QC built-up kits don't respond well to the post office. I DID build the HO version many years ago when it was recently-produced (lettered for O&W to go behind my NPP camelback), and it built up very nicely. A good friend in HO from Holyoke MA was glad to take many of those kinds of cars off my hands, as it is truly a labor of love to intentionally build a classic "craftsman" kit for anyone else.

Jace Kahn, General Manager
Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.

Ed Mines asked:

I wonder what kit is least likely to ever get built -
Ambroid ACF hoppers?

In O Scale, I'm betting on the Ambroid/QC/Gloor-Craft Lehigh & Hudson River
flanger kit. I've seen dozens of them for sale on eBay -- and not a single
one of them had been built (or even started).

Jim Hill

_________________________________________________________________
Search for grocery stores. Find gratitude. Turn a simple search into something more. http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_gratitude&FORM=WLMTAG

Andy Carlson wrote:

I wish to reduce my stock of Tahoe Model Works Dalmann
trucks. To clear these out, I am offering them at a very good
price of $4.00 each when purchased in quantities of 5 or more
pairs. These all come equipped with code 88 Semiscale
wheelsets.

Dalman 2-level with plain bolsters (list $6.25)
Dalman 2-level w/ lateral motion (list $6.25)

Well, I tried searching the archives to get an idea of which type
of Dalman was more common, plain bolster or lateral motion. I
found little information on this. So, if I have a lot of steam-era kits
in the closet (and I do) what percentage of each design should I
have on hand: 50/50, 25/75? Some other proportion?

TIA,

Shawn Beckert

Andy Miller wrote:

As I recall Ulrich made a Vulcan truck. It was real, but rare. It looked sort of like a "Bettendorf" but the side frame had a flange around the perimeter.

Andy, there are a number of differences between Vulcan and "Bettendorf" trucks, not only the separate journal boxes mentioned by Richard Hendrickson, but a flare to the sideframe above and outside each journal, a very distinctive feature which can identify these trucks, as well as a different shape to the sideframe openings between journals and springs. In fact, I'd be willing to say that the only way the two trucks look alike is that they have cast side frames.
BTW, most Vulcans did NOT have the separate boxes bolted in place.

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

In a message dated 2/9/2007 8:32:39 PM Central Standard Time,
ostresh@... writes:

WP, XM, Box, 19001-19050, 40'4", 6'1", 100000, 48
All Steel "rebuilds" from DS Auto Cars (1924) Bettendorf U/F


WP, XM, Box, 27001-27600, 40'3", 6'0", 80000, 62
DS ~ "reconditioned" from 16001-18500 series (1917,18)


WP, XM, Box, 316001-318500, 40'3", 6'0", 80000, 56

DS ~ 16001-18500 series cars still equipped with arch bar trucks (not to be
interchanged)

Regards,

Guy Wilber
West Bend, WI

Touching very briefly on the Clouser question, he also cast the On2 tank and flat for Scale Rail Equipment Company's kits for Bridgton and Harrison's #14 (Jim Egan, the owner, then lived in St Louis); the instructions show a completed tankcar sitting next to a completed standard gage steel boxcar (and I believe it was 40' rather than 50'), lettered for D&RGW.
I have seen only one of the standard gage cars (and that was a 50' but I think with double doors), one offered for sale by someone from Austin TX at last year's O scale show in Chicago (I think he was asking $150 for it).
And, yes, Rich Bosak owned first Downtown Hobbies, later Chicagoland farther out; he died this last year.
Moving on to Ulrich, in addition to the Vulcan sideframes, my recollection was that they also produced the T-section/diamond-frame early Bettendorfs. Except possibly for Red Ball lead trucks, I remember those as being the only way to get that prototype in HO, years ago.
Jace Kahn, General Manager
Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.

Your post says Clouser produced seven different freight cars. What
were they? The bio in 48/ft. doesn't say. The only Clouser car I have
knowlingly seen is the 50 foot 8 foot single door AAR boxcar.
Rod

proto48er wrote:

Dennis -

We posted at almost exactly the same time! I believe the FoxValley
website may have a couple of errors. First, I know Clouser made (7)
different freight cars, as outlined in my post. Second, I think he
first sold kits (built-up bodies) in 1968 or 1969 - not as early as
1965. The earlier date may be the first use of his casting process.
However, he may have sold interurban bodies before 1968. He reissued
one of his car kits in 1982 or so at the instance of a group of "O"
scale modelers. There were (50) kits made then.

He sold the remainder to Mr. Bosak

(sp.?) at Chicagoland Hobbies in about 1985. >
A. T. Kott

As I recall Ulrich made a Vulcan truck. It was real, but rare. It
looked sort of like a "Bettendorf" but the side frame had a flange
around the perimeter.
Andy Miller

. I recall
the
Ulrich's came with a sort of odd truck. Was there a prototype for this
or
just made up?

BTW, if anyone is really interested in these I can try and find them.
Do not
think I will ever use them again.

Russ

Being an eastern modeler I used to buy Ulrich fish belly hoppers
whenever I could find them. I have at least 6.

Occasionally I found kits where the castings warped or broke into
pieces. most of the time the castings were OK.

The grab irons are overly thick as are the end posts. Otherwise I
like
the cars a lot. They look a lot more like the real cars than the
Stewart cars (have at least 10 of these). Has anyone else noticed
this?
What's the short coming of the Stewart cars?

The Ulrich cars weigh a lot more than the Stewart cars so I doubt the
2
could be mixed in a model train that actually moves (not likely with
my
models).

Ed

_________________________________________________________________
Valentine�s Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8323,ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24095&tcode=wlmtagline

On Feb 9, 2007, at 12:47 PM, guycwilber@... wrote:

Did the ARA DS "Sample" cars built by Santa Fe and Union Pacific operate in
revenue sevice (as built) or were they rebult with matching ends and hardware
before being placed into service?

Guy, both cars went into revenue service as built, with the mis-matched ends and other details, and continued in that form for many years.
The Santa Fe Bx-7 class car remained on the active roster until the early 1950s (and, unlike the similar Bx-8, -9, and -10 classes that followed it) was never rebuilt with a steel body. UP 100100 lasted in revenue service through WW II and into the late 1940s. It was then either retired or renumbered (I'd have to do some more research to determine which).

Richard Hendrickson

On Feb 9, 2007, at 5:19 AM, Miller, Andrew S. wrote:

As I recall Ulrich made a Vulcan truck. It was real, but rare. It
looked sort of like a "Bettendorf" but the side frame had a flange
around the perimeter.

Vulcan trucks weren't at all rare. Though not as popular as the
Andrews design, they were widely used in the 'teen and '20s. Like
Andrews trucks, Vulcans had separate journal boxes that bolted into
place. Though a bit crude by current standards, the Ulrich Vulcan
truck hasn't been replaced in HO scale, as it represented a truck with
T-section side frames (except for the center part of the upper chord)
while Kadee's Vulcan truck has U-section side frames.

Richard Hendrickson

On 9-Feb-07, at 1:53 AM, Eric wrote:

Does anyone have an opinion on prototypicality these cars?

http://walthers.com/exec/productinfo/326-12019
http://walthers.com/exec/productinfo/326-12017
http://walthers.com/exec/productinfo/326-12018
http://walthers.com/exec/productinfo/326-12019
http://walthers.com/exec/productinfo/326-12020

More than a little iffy for this crowd. The model is of a late NSC 40-foot boxcar with an 8' door (and for that matter not far from an ECC car of the same time), acquired by CN in 1956-57, and by CP I believe as late as 1961. TH&B also had cars rebuilt with 9' doors, which would look similar (CN rebuilt many cars with 9' doors in later years) but in both of these cases they were drawn from earlier cars built with 6' doors.

These models were offered by H&D Hobbies in Canada a few years ago in various CN/CP markings (and probably TH&B as well), and what we're seeing here is a fresh run in various box-baggage paint schemes. Unfortunately, CN didn't use 8' door cars in this particular service (I'm not sure about CP, but I think this probably holds true for them as well).

Unfortunately, as much as I would like to like this model, I just can't. There has been reference to some really gross rivets already (true, by the way), but there is the opposite problem of the door, which is just too shallow. I also don't like the look of the trucks which just seem too flat. I also seem to recall that the ends are probably too angular for my liking as well. It just looks too much to me like a train set car, except when the price tag is viewed!

Personally, I'd probably start with a Branchline car, substitute resin NSC-3 ends (which are -- or were -- available first from the Canadian Model Railway Parts Guild, and later transferred to Sylvan), and find a PS-1 roof to go with it -- and don't forget those 8-rung Canadian ladders with end stirrup steps! The results will be far more pleasing.

Ian Cranstone
Osgoode, Ontario, Canada
lamontc@...
http://freightcars.nakina.net
http://siberians.nakina.net

Several years ago I bought from the NKP Historical Society a specially
painted McKean Range DD 40' boxcar with a diagonal panel roof and 4-4
ends. Before I spend a lot of time making up for the underframe and
other parts shortcomings to get the car up to contemporary standards I
thought I would see if any one in the group can comment on how accurate
this model is. The car number is NKP 22101 and has a 12' door opening.
The car has 3-5 panel riveted sides and fishbelly side sills. Built
date which I expect the society researched is 10-29 and weigh data
shows AX 10-52.

Thanks,

Bill McCoy
Jax

Wrong link. Try:

http://4wheelrailroader.tripod.com/id9.html

--- In STMFC@..., "Rich C" <richchrysler@...> wrote:

I think I recall the old Central Valley diamond archbar trucks that

were often supplied with their "old time" series of kits would be an
excellent candidate for this boxcar. A pair of those with the
appropriate Reboxx semiscale wheels would be a great combination.

Rich Chrysler

quick search of the Walthers site shows four that look more or less
suitable, granting that I'm not an arch-bar expert:

Precision Scale diamond arch bar side frames
Bethlehem Car Works arch bar (#134)
On-Trak #5301
Walthers diamond arch bar (perhaps a little heavier truck than the
others)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

Jeez, guys. Anyone here know the difference between swing motion and
ridgid bolster archbar trucks? I dare say the difference, both in
function and appearance, is considerably greater than the differences
between the various pressed steel boxcar ends that everyone is always
discussing. The prototype Tyler is modeling has swing motion trucks,
and NONE of the suggested model parts are that type of truck.

See the following link for the type of truck he needs to model:

http://www.tichytraingroup.com/index.php?page=view_product.php&id=214&category=Freight+Car+Parts

The only difference is the boxcar would have coil springs deep behind
the sidframe rather than the leaf springs shown.

Dennis

Unfortunately (in this case) both the Grandt and Tichy doors are also
too late in design for 1902, much less the 1870s, being Camel designs
from the 1920's.

Tichy does make a set of seperate early door hardware,
3070 BOXCAR DOOR HARDWARE HO Yes $2.50

which are for earlier style doors (the door itself would be made from
styrene sheet).

Pieter Roos

--- In STMFC@..., "Miller, Andrew S." <asmiller@...> wrote:

Tyler,

Both Tichy
www.tichytraingroup.com
And GrandtLine
www.grandtline.com
Make vertically planked wood doors. Unfortunately, they both have a
horizontal brace across the middle of the door, which your StP&P car
does not have. In the absence of any other candidate you could make a
door from scribed Evergreen plastic sheet, or carve the brace off one
of these doors, or lower you standards ;-)

Tichy also makes an archbar truck similar to, but not exactly like
yours.

regards,

Andy Miller

<SNIP>

I need manufacturer name and part number of the doors and trucks for
this car in HO scale.
here is a link to an article full of photos on the car.

http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/conservation/reports/box_car.pdf

Sincerely,

Tyler Turpin

--- In STMFC@..., Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...> wrote:

1920 . . NA
1925 . . 1,078,004
1930 . . 1,059,604
1935 . . . 809,280
1940 . . . 705,346
1945 . . . 741,946
1946 . . . 728,463
1947 . . . 726,882
1948 . . . 734,872
1949 . . . 719,349
1950 . . . 714,568

Thanks for the table, Tim!

Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming

I wish to reduce my stock of Tahoe Model Works Dalmann trucks. To clear these out, I am offering them at a very good price of $4.00 each when purchased in quantities of 5 or more pairs. These all come equipped with code 88 Semiscale wheelsets.

Dalman 2-level with plain bolsters (list $6.25)
Dalman 2-level w/ lateral motion (list $6.25)

Shipping will require another $4.00 for Priority mail



Please contact me off-list at <midcentury@...>
Thanks,
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

I think I recall the old Central Valley diamond archbar trucks that were often supplied with their "old time" series of kits would be an excellent candidate for this boxcar. A pair of those with the appropriate Reboxx semiscale wheels would be a great combination.

Rich Chrysler

Then there's the T-frame Bettendorff design -- the side frames are sort of diamond-shaped (need to look twice to make sure you have them right side up) and one flange of the "T" comes toward you. These are correct for some applications of the Ulrich GS gon, and also for many PFE wood reefers. I think Ulrich supplied them with its GS gon kits.

Barry Roth

"Miller, Andrew S." <asmiller@...> wrote:
As I recall Ulrich made a Vulcan truck. It was real, but rare. It
looked sort of like a "Bettendorf" but the side frame had a flange
around the perimeter.

regards,

Andy Miller

Ed & Garth,
I have one that runs on the Midwest Mod-U-Trak layout at Naperville. I haven't heard any bad comments about it.
Rob Manley