Date   

Re: B&O Freight Car Red

bdg1210 <Bruce_Griffin@...>
 

Gene,

I'll take a shot at this, but since data for this is not fully
organized it is open to some interpretation. I use Polly Scale Boxcar
Red with a touch of roof brown for pre 1945. In the post 1945 through
my 1953 layout era I use their zinc chromate primer. Boxcars appear
much less brown than they did in the earlier scheme in color
photographs. The fourth quarter 2006 Sentinel (B&ORRHS) had a brief
article on this topic and it confirms that many B&O modelers use these
colors from various manufacturers.

There are two Railmodel Journal articles that speak to this subject,
but they do not give color info in PollyScale colors. They are in the
August 1989 and June 1990 issues.

Regards,
Bruce D. Griffin

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Deimling" <losgatos48@...> wrote:

I had read several different accounts as to the proper shade of red
for B&O boxcars in the post-1946 era. The few color photos I recall
seem to lean towards a bright orange/red oxide color. What shade of
Polyscale paint would best fit a wagontop boxcar during the early
1950s prior to the use of the billboard lettering. Would the pre-
1946
be similar or more like Polyscale freight car red?

Thanks,
Gene Deimling


Re: ADMIN: A goal of the STMFC: Fidelity to the prototype

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Posted by: "James Eckman" > Why subscribe to STMFC if you didn't want build accurate prototype cars? Since the emphasis of this group is standard gauge of a relatively modern era, interchange is a fact of life so even with a freelance railroad it's nice to have the visiting cars right.

Don't assume everyone on the list is a model builder. I don't build highly detailed models and am not likely to do more than put some more kits together - I'm still working on eight Silver Streak kits from the 60's.

My main interest is operations, 50's era, and I've found this list very useful because it often touches on operating practices with steam era cars.

I like the NEBW classification thing.

> Certainly if you need a large, varied freight car fleet, you may need some stand ins that aren't the best for operations purposes until you can get or make better cars, I always liked the NEBW grading system for cars, maybe we should carry it one step further:

C - Car is reasonably prototypical, some mistakes that are apparent to knowledgeable people, dimensions may be a little off, an accurate color scheme and and any blatant lettering mistakes easily corrected with redecaling the car.

I'm most comfortable with class C is a practical compromise .

There's another factor that ought to be recognized before being scornful of those of us who keep the cars like the Athearn three-dome. We don't all have the money to buy only very accurate cars, and with some of those inaccurate oldies we can at least have enough cars to operate a railroad. I want my trains to look good, but not of the expense of being unable to operate as I want because of lack of cash and skill level to to satisfy the rivet counters.

As I said above, there are other good reasons for being on this list.


Malcolm Laughlin, Editor 617-489-4383
New England Rail Shipper Directories
19 Holden Road, Belmont, MA 02478


Re: The lists collective knowledge

toddsyr <toddsyr@...>
 

In the mean time, do as most of us do when something interests us. Just make the files on your own PC for those items you feel are important. I keep them all in a folder called simply "Railroad Data". I use WordPad for such things. Creating a sub- folder for such topics will enable you to store images with the appropriate content as well. All will be neatly stored and easily accessed provided you give the files and folders short but accurate names. Sorry for stating the obvious, but some are new to the world of computing and need a heads up. I know I did when I first heard of the idea. Besides, it will save you alot of time sifting through things that don't interest you or are irrelivent.

Todd K. Stearns


Re: Tichy kits

Barry Roth
 

Where can one get a look at this photo? Thanks,

Barry Roth

Anthony Thompson <thompson@signaturepress.com> wrote:

I bet you're referring to the USG-A car photographed by Bob Smaus
in Los Angeles. As Richard has already observed, the Tichy kit CAN be
modified to represent one of those wartime cars. But "awfully" close? I
kinda think your wishful thinking is showing, Elden. <g>



.





---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.


When Did DT&I Buy 65 Santa Fe Fe-13 or FE-20 Box cars ?

Andy Carlson
 

Anyone interested, I have a color image shot about 1958 in So CA from the Gerstley collection of this same car. send me a request off-list at <midcentury@sbcglobal.net> and I will send a copy. I have offered this image before, so many of you have it already.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@opendoor.com> wrote:

64 cars numbered DT&I 16200-16263 acquired ca. 1956. These were
"whalebelly" steel auto cars, rebuilt by the Santa Fe in the 1930s on
underframes originally built in 1909-1910. I have a photo of DT&I
16202 which was still stenciled with its Santa Fe class symbol Fe-9,
but other similar classes (Fe-6 through Fe-11, Fe-13, Fe-14, Fe-16
through Fe-18, Fe-20) may also have figured into this transaction.


Re: Tichy kits

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Gatwood, Elden wrote:
But, as Mont said, there was a prototype that was awfully close to this car, even though we all believe you that the kit itself may have been created from an unbuilt specific prototype. I would just love to see a photo of the car that Mont referred to (and may have photographed), and which these other unmentionable guys swear existed in southern California on some siding at some time....It would make modification and lettering...and use of that kit...plausible.
I bet you're referring to the USG-A car photographed by Bob Smaus in Los Angeles. As Richard has already observed, the Tichy kit CAN be modified to represent one of those wartime cars. But "awfully" close? I kinda think your wishful thinking is showing, Elden. <g>

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: Tichy kits

Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

Richard;



It is no good for me to give up the names, as you guys will just savage them
all weekend! I don't want that on my head. They would never forgive me, and
I have enough of those folks around.



But, as Mont said, there was a prototype that was awfully close to this car,
even though we all believe you that the kit itself may have been created from
an unbuilt specific prototype. I would just love to see a photo of the car
that Mont referred to (and may have photographed), and which these other
unmentionable guys swear existed in southern California on some siding at
some time....It would make modification and lettering...and use of that
kit...plausible.



I myself have given up on facts, and now stick to photos and railroad
documents that I think represent the truth...unless someone Photoshopped
them, or the data doesn't represent reality, or someone got the link between
documentation and application wrong....



A case in point that constantly makes me laugh is the existence of what
Pennsy guys call an MP229, or a list of engine assignments by month for the
entire system. It is what some SPFs use as the bible of what engine was
where and when; only, there are photos that prove most of them wrong, over
and over again. The MP229 is not the holy grail. A motive power foreman
sent an engine where he needed it when he needed it, based on what was
available, and then some guy photographed it in the wrong place at the wrong
time. They must have known they were documenting non-facts, otherwise they
wouldn't have done it. It just drives the regimented among SPF-dom frenzied
with aggravation. I love it.



Have a good weekend, guys!



Elden Gatwood





________________________________

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 12:44 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Tichy kits



On Aug 3, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:

Mont;

I have also heard the second half of the story on the Gould tank car,
and
there are some that swear that there was a car in SoCal "back when"
that was
used to verify measurements off the USRA car plans; either way, we
will never
know for sure, something I have learned over many years of watching
real
railroading and finding photos that proved my assumptions incorrect
over, and
over, and over....
Not sure where you heard this tale, Elden, but it's simply not true; no
such car existed. The reason Gould chose to model the USRA design is
that his molding machines would not handle a one piece tank, or even
the separate pieces of a three course tank, but were adequate for the
separate pieces of a four course tank. When he found the excellent,
highly detailed drawings of the USRA tank car in the 1919 Car Builders'
Dictionary, he thought it was just the thing, and it never occurred to
him that such elaborate drawings would have been prepared for a car
that was never built. Unfortunately, he was egged on in this project
by a certain magazine editor/publisher who considered himself the
ultimate authority on prototype modeling and who could have done (but
didn't) the relatively simple research required to discover the truth.
Worse, when the model appeared and several of us (myself included)
pointed out that there was no prototype for it, said editor wrote a
supercilious editorial claiming that we were a bunch of amateurs who
didn't know what we were talking about.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: When Did DT&I Buy 65 Santa Fe Fe-13 or FE-20 Box cars ?

Tim O'Connor
 

At 8/3/2007 12:20 PM Friday, you wrote:
The Mainline Modeler of March, 1991 at page 27 features a picture of the former Santa Fe 50 foot boxcars in DT&I colors but the author was not sure what class of cars were purchased from the Santa Fe by DT&I. My Sunshine Prototype Data Sheet has no mention of the sale. What decals would work for these cars as DT&I cars?

Herald King definitely made the large "We Have The Connections"
compass logo that was applied to these cars. Since this was used
for many DT&I freight cars, I should think it's included in other
currently available decal or dry transfer sets as well.

There is a Charles Withers photo of DT&I 16020 taken "circa" 1955
that shows this paint scheme. It's an Fe-13.

I have detailed photos I took of one of these cars that I found
in Morrisville Vermont in the 1990's. The DT&I sold it to StJ&LC
at some time, I don't know when.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Tichy kits

Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

Tony;



Thanks for verifying that it was that close. I found it interesting that
there existed a prototype for a 10k 3-dome that looked that much like a
shortened Athearn that it was possible to actually use that car for
something, but stranger things have happened.



Take care,



Elden









________________________________

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:05 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Tichy kits



Gatwood, Elden wrote:
BTW, with all this talk of the Athearn tank cars, I went back and
found the issue of Mainline Modeler that had the car in it I used to
kitbash the Athearn 3-dome . . . (I measured the Ath car, and it
roughs out to about 13k).
Actually, Elden, if you measure it carefully and use the
correct conversion factors, it is almost exactly 12,500 gallons--as it
should be for an SP car.

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
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: The lists collective knowledge

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Don Burn wrote:
Things that would be wonderful in such a list:

1. Actual prototypes for the car
2. Deficiencies in the model
3. Articles and other data on improving the model
4. Sources of prototype photos for the car
As we discussed on the list awhile back, a wiki would be perfect for this, because those who have elements of the info can add them when convenient, without taking on too much at a time, and the material remains flexible for correction or update. But no one on the list had BOTH the expertise and the time to set up a wiki for the purpose.
Is this still true?

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: When Did DT&I Buy 65 Santa Fe Fe-13 or FE-20 Box cars ?

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Aug 3, 2007, at 9:20 AM, gary laakso wrote:

The Mainline Modeler of March, 1991 at page 27 features a picture of
the former Santa Fe 50 foot boxcars in DT&I colors but the author was
not sure what class of cars were purchased from the Santa Fe by DT&I.
My Sunshine Prototype Data Sheet has no mention of the sale. What
decals would work for these cars as DT&I cars?
64 cars numbered DT&I 16200-16263 acquired ca. 1956. These were
"whalebelly" steel auto cars, rebuilt by the Santa Fe in the 1930s on
underframes originally built in 1909-1910. I have a photo of DT&I
16202 which was still stenciled with its Santa Fe class symbol Fe-9,
but other similar classes (Fe-6 through Fe-11, Fe-13, Fe-14, Fe-16
through Fe-18, Fe-20) may also have figured into this transaction. The
whole story on these and other Santa Fe furniture and automobile cars
is in my book on the subject published by the Santa Fe Railway
Historical & Modeling Society (see their website). I don't know
offhand of suitable DT&I decals.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Tichy kits

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
. . . Unfortunately, he was egged on in this project by a certain magazine editor/publisher who considered himself the ultimate authority on prototype modeling and who could have done (but
didn't) the relatively simple research required to discover the truth. Worse, when the model appeared and several of us (myself included) pointed out that there was no prototype for it, said editor wrote a supercilious editorial claiming that we were a bunch of amateurs who didn't know what we were talking about.
Richard is SO tactful. But for those who haven't already figured it out, the foolish editor in question was Bob Hundman. I don't think Bob gets a free pass on this particular piece of bad judgement.

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: Tichy kits

Marcelo Lordeiro <mrcustom@...>
 

Sorry guys I was trying to forward the message to a friend and sent to the list.
This is Portuguese that is spoken in Brasil.
A nice weekend for everybody.

Marcelo

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Tichy kits


On Aug 3, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:

> Mont;
>
> I have also heard the second half of the story on the Gould tank car,
> and
> there are some that swear that there was a car in SoCal "back when"
> that was
> used to verify measurements off the USRA car plans; either way, we
> will never
> know for sure, something I have learned over many years of watching
> real
> railroading and finding photos that proved my assumptions incorrect
> over, and
> over, and over....

Not sure where you heard this tale, Elden, but it's simply not true; no
such car existed. The reason Gould chose to model the USRA design is
that his molding machines would not handle a one piece tank, or even
the separate pieces of a three course tank, but were adequate for the
separate pieces of a four course tank. When he found the excellent,
highly detailed drawings of the USRA tank car in the 1919 Car Builders'
Dictionary, he thought it was just the thing, and it never occurred to
him that such elaborate drawings would have been prepared for a car
that was never built. Unfortunately, he was egged on in this project
by a certain magazine editor/publisher who considered himself the
ultimate authority on prototype modeling and who could have done (but
didn't) the relatively simple research required to discover the truth.
Worse, when the model appeared and several of us (myself included)
pointed out that there was no prototype for it, said editor wrote a
supercilious editorial claiming that we were a bunch of amateurs who
didn't know what we were talking about.

Richard Hendrickson








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


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/933 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 14:22


Re: Tichy kits

Marcelo Lordeiro <mrcustom@...>
 

E eu me divirto com estas catucadas.

Abraço

marcelo

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Tichy kits


On Aug 3, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:

> Mont;
>
> I have also heard the second half of the story on the Gould tank car,
> and
> there are some that swear that there was a car in SoCal "back when"
> that was
> used to verify measurements off the USRA car plans; either way, we
> will never
> know for sure, something I have learned over many years of watching
> real
> railroading and finding photos that proved my assumptions incorrect
> over, and
> over, and over....

Not sure where you heard this tale, Elden, but it's simply not true; no
such car existed. The reason Gould chose to model the USRA design is
that his molding machines would not handle a one piece tank, or even
the separate pieces of a three course tank, but were adequate for the
separate pieces of a four course tank. When he found the excellent,
highly detailed drawings of the USRA tank car in the 1919 Car Builders'
Dictionary, he thought it was just the thing, and it never occurred to
him that such elaborate drawings would have been prepared for a car
that was never built. Unfortunately, he was egged on in this project
by a certain magazine editor/publisher who considered himself the
ultimate authority on prototype modeling and who could have done (but
didn't) the relatively simple research required to discover the truth.
Worse, when the model appeared and several of us (myself included)
pointed out that there was no prototype for it, said editor wrote a
supercilious editorial claiming that we were a bunch of amateurs who
didn't know what we were talking about.

Richard Hendrickson

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






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


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/933 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 14:22


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


Re: Mantua/Tyco tank car

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Ed Mines wrote:
I liked the aforementioned Mantua cars best. I also liked the short lived Walthers car which I think was originally tooled by Train Miniature. It was similar to if not identical to Varney.
The Walthers car is clearly a re-tooled Varney. Problem is, in addition to its overly fat tank proportions and overall oversize dimensions, the dome-top details are exaggerated and should really be replaced. Combined with the slapdash approximation to an underframe, such a visible part of a tank car, there are just too many things which are too hard to fix. The Varney car really is of no value except to a collector, and that must be the subject of some other list.

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: The lists collective knowledge

Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

Don Burn wrote:
Seeing the discussion's of Tichy and other tank cars raises a
question, has the list thought of capturing this collective knowledge
in some format other than the list? It would be extremely helpful
for those of us who are not as experienced to know there was for
instance a file "HO Tank Cars" that had the information on Tichy and
the other products out there.

Things that would be wonderful in such a list:

1. Actual prototypes for the car
2. Deficiencies in the model
3. Articles and other data on improving the model
4. Sources of prototype photos for the car

I realize this is a lot of work, but even capturing the discussion on
the list for the current tank car discussion and putting it in a file
for later reference would be a good start.

Don Burn
Don, your suggestion has been made on several previous occasions -- it is a
good idea after all -- but the reality is there has never been an an
agreement between enough people willing and capable to doing the work to
implement the idea. For instance, there was a group of us who considered
putting information into a wiki. I offered a complete digital ORER as one
aspect of it. Nothing came of it as the group was lacking both time and the
technical knowledge to pull it off.

That's not to say this idea will never happen, but to explain why it hasn't
happened yet.

Dave Nelson


Re: Fidelity to the prototype -- and giraffes

Tony Thompson
 

Peter Weiglin wrote:
Each of us picks our own "compromise point;" the place at which we say it's "good enough for me." It seems that most of the differences of opinion we encounter stem from differing priorities or compromise points among the participants in the discussion.
Well said, sir.

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: Tichy kits

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Gatwood, Elden wrote:
BTW, with all this talk of the Athearn tank cars, I went back and found the issue of Mainline Modeler that had the car in it I used to kitbash the Athearn 3-dome . . . (I measured the Ath car, and it roughs out to about 13k).
Actually, Elden, if you measure it carefully and use the correct conversion factors, it is almost exactly 12,500 gallons--as it should be for an SP car.

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: ADMIN: A goal of the STMFC: Fidelity to the prototype

Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

RICH NUNN wrote:
Dear Denny and other modlers/cognescenti:

Well said Dr. Denny- onto better modeling and leave the other crap
in the dirt.
Do not assume that everybody who participates on this list are modelers --
at least not he kind of modelers you have in mind. I do 3D CAD
representations of freight cars (and other railroad items) and have, for the
most part, given up on "traditional model trains". So what is important to
me are the facts, not the plastic, and if it is the facts to which you refer
to as crap may I respectfully suggest you re-read the list rules and broaden
your point of view.

Dave Nelson


Re: Mantua/Tyco tank car

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Aug 3, 2007, at 8:45 AM, ed_mines wrote:

Are these close to any real cars?
No

Before there was so much prototype information available I used to
have about a dozen plastic tank cars on the shelf in what I thought
looked like a pretty realistic train.

I liked the aforementioned Mantua cars best. I also liked the short
lived Walthers car which I think was originally tooled by Train
Miniature. It was similar to if not identical to Varney.
The Walthers model was a somewhat improved version of the Varney
tooling; T-M had nothing to do with it. In the early days when T-M was
owned by Ted Hollow, a T-M tank car model was announced but AFAIK the
tooling was never completed (maybe never even started). The problem
with both the Mantua and the Varney/Walthers models was that they were
seriously out of scale; in both cases, the tanks were way too large.
The latter were apparently intended to at least roughly represent the
AC&F Type 21 three course 10K gal. cars, but their tanks actually
scaled out to about 11,000 gals., a size that was never built. And, of
course, in both cases the underframes were hopelessly crude.

The Athearn car didn't match any of the others. It was bigger and the
dome had less height.

Mantua "heavies" (were they originally Lindburg?),
Yes.

Richard Hendrickson

118581 - 118600 of 183520