Date   

Re: Northern Pacific stock car(was weathering)

bill_d_goat
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "George W Simmons" <GEORGESIMMONS@...>
wrote:

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Sandifer" <steve.sandifer@>
wrote:

Roads lined the cars with cardboard and used them for grain
movements.
______________
Also, they were used for hauling cantaloupes and possibly other melon
to market.

George Simmons
Dry Prong, LA
Also freshly creosoted ties.
Bill Williams
Bush, LA


Re: rivets

Tom Madden <tgmadden@...>
 

Ed Mines asked:
Are you saying that shaft of rivets holding the sheet metal skin of a
box car to the frame is 1 inch?
No, I'm saying this is Wayne Long's formula for calculating head
diameter and distance above the surface if you know the rivet's body
diameter. He used 1" as an example, feel free to apply the formula to
your choice of body diameter.

Tom Madden


Re: rivets

Andy Carlson
 

I am of the opinion that the Branchline Trains line of riveted boxcars pleases me greatly. I have not measured them, but their rivets are smaller than my NWSL produced rivets with their 0.010" rivet die, which is their smallest.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

richtownsend@netscape.net wrote: I have no analysis to back it up, but I have always thought that in the smaller scales (HO and smaller) texture (including rivets) might need to be a little oversized since light and atmosphere don't scale down.? So a truly scale rivet might be close to invisible (although we've just read that this is not so....) given the effects of "full size" light.? On structures it seems that scale nails would be invisible, as would scale stucco texture.? I'm thinking here of slightly oversized, not the 6-inch rivets we've seen on some plastic freight cars manufactured in the late steam era.


rivets

ed_mines
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Madden" <tgmadden@...> wrote:
Here's a formula from Wayne Long:

The "size" of the rivet (in inches) is the outside diameter of the
shaft which goes into the two or more holes in the metal pieces
being riveted together. The diameter of the rivet head, where it
bears on a metal surface is size x 1.5 + 1/8". The head at its
highest point off the same metal surface is:
size x 1.5 + 1/8" x 0.425.

Apply this information to a standard 1" rivet and you get:

Shaft = 1" O.D.

head = 1 5/8"

head thickness = 11/16" + which is 0.22 mm in HO scale
Are you saying that shaft of rivets holding the sheet metal skin of a
box car to the frame is 1 inch?


Re: rivets

Richard Townsend
 

I have no analysis to back it up, but I have always thought that in the smaller scales (HO and smaller) texture (including rivets) might need to be a little oversized since light and atmosphere don't scale down.? So a truly scale rivet might be close to invisible (although we've just read that this is not so....) given the effects of "full size" light.? On structures it seems that scale nails would be invisible, as would scale stucco texture.? I'm thinking here of slightly oversized, not the 6-inch rivets we've seen on some plastic freight cars manufactured in the late steam era.


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon






________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AIM(R) Mail ! - http://webmail.aim.com


Re: rivets

Tom Madden <tgmadden@...>
 

Ed Mines asked:
Maybe those rivets are "scale". how big is a rivet head? 3/4 inch?
That's .009 inches (9 mils). What's the height? 1/3 the diameter?
That's .003 inch. I would be surprised if rivets are only 1/2"
Here's a formula from Wayne Long:

The "size" of the rivet (in inches) is the outside diameter of the
shaft which goes into the two or more holes in the metal pieces
being riveted together. The diameter of the rivet head, where it
bears on a metal surface is size x 1.5 + 1/8". The head at its
highest point off the same metal surface is:
size x 1.5 + 1/8" x 0.425.

Apply this information to a standard 1" rivet and you get:

Shaft = 1" O.D.

head = 1 5/8"

head thickness = 11/16" + which is 0.22 mm in HO scale
Tom Madden


rivets

ed_mines
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Madden" <tgmadden@...> wrote:
It's no comment on business practices to say that the first IM R-40-
10 had very poorly defined rivets on the side sheets. I have one,
kept as an example, and the vertical and horizontal rows of rivets
are essentially invisible. Even under magnification. The ones on the
doors and the clusters of four at the lower edges are fine, but not
the numerous smaller ones. Right diameter, just not cut deep enough
into the die.
Maybe those rivets are "scale". how big is a rivet head? 3/4 inch?
That's .009 inches (9 mils). What's the height? 1/3 the diameter?
That's .003 inch. I would be surprised if rivets are only 1/2"

Rrinted sides aren't much of an exaggeration.

Look at the scale rivets on the Westerfield X23s.

Ed


Re: IMWX R-40-10 : What's wrong with it?

Tim O'Connor
 

Gene

7/1000th's or about 1/150th of an inch is quite small, and
not easy to measure on a flat car side, but it is HIGHLY
visible to the human eye and in fact you can easily perceive
a difference between .006, .008 and .010 wire diameters for
example -- and those only differ by 2/1000th's of an inch
each. On the other hand, I can't see anything without my
reading glasses anymore... :-(

Tim O'Connor

Using 1:87.1 (because I haven't looked at the recently posted table
yet) those two dimensions become 0.0075344" and 0.003229"
respectively. To me that's really, really small.


Re: IM R-40-10 : What's wrong with it?

Andy Carlson
 

It is interesting to note that the first Intermountain '37 AAR boxcar was done in O scale. The next one tooled was the one done for Jerry Porter's IMWX in HO. The 3rd (and latest) '37 AAR car that Intermountain tooled is their own HO car. All three of these cars have the same mistakenly done floor stringers. The error is that the pair of stringers look like the tool maker was planning on doing 3 stringers (such were to become the later standard) and after discovering the error, simply stopped the cutting operation after only 2 were cut, making the finished spacing very incorrect.

The Murphy raised panel roof on the first 2 cars was done very satisfactorily, but even with the experience of doing the roof correctly twice, on the final HO roof tooled for IM them self, the raised panels were misshaped and overly large. When asked about this retrograde mistake, the answer I got was that the old digital file was not compatible for their new CNC machine, so they started all over. But somehow the incorrect underframe stringers managed to translate over to successive tooling! So bad translates, good doesn't....

-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

Anthony Thompson <thompson@signaturepress.com> wrote:
The most remarkable thing to me about the "first version" of the
IM model in HO of the R-40-10 was that it INTRODUCED errors not present
in the O scale version done previously by, you guessed it, IM. Go
figure.
The comment was made at the time, "Gee, guys, why not go to
your own stockroom and look at a nice, big model?" The O scale version
isn't perfect either, but is better than the first HO one.


Re: IM R-40-10 : What's wrong with it?

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

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

The most remarkable thing to me about the "first version"
of the
IM model in HO of the R-40-10 was that it INTRODUCED errors not
present
in the O scale version done previously by, you guessed it, IM. Go
figure.
The comment was made at the time, "Gee, guys, why not go
to
your own stockroom and look at a nice, big model?" The O scale
version
isn't perfect either, but is better than the first HO one.
Just by chance I was visiting Intermountain several years ago when
they were first working on the EMD F-units. They had designed the HO
scale EMD 'bulldog' nose in the computer and seemed pretty satisfied
with it. When they rescaled it to N scale the shape changed
visibly. I stood there looking over their shoulders while they tried
to figure out what happened.

Is it possible that the same thing happened to the R-40-10 reefer?

Gene Green


Re: IMWX R-40-10 : What's wrong with it? WAS: ACF 1958cft covered hopper roofs

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Madden" <tgmadden@...> wrote:

It's no comment on business practices to say that the first IM R-40-
10 had very poorly defined rivets on the side sheets. I have one,
kept as an example, and the vertical and horizontal rows of rivets
are essentially invisible. Even under magnification. The ones on
the
doors and the clusters of four at the lower edges are fine, but not
the numerous smaller ones. Right diameter, just not cut deep enough
into the die.
This is just a question. It is not intended to criticize or question
and manufacturer or contributor to this forum.

When looking at a box with riveted sides I can not always see the
rivets. Usually when I do see the rivets what I am actually seeing
are the shadows cast by the rivets.

The head of a 3/8" rivet, which I believe to be fairly commonly used
on the sides of box cars, has a diameter of 21/32". It protrudes out
from the surface 9/32". Those are pretty small dimensions.

Using 1:87.1 (because I haven't looked at the recently posted table
yet) those two dimensions become 0.0075344" and 0.003229"
respectively. To me that's really, really small. I'm sure there are
members of this forum who can accurately make such measurements but I
am not among them.

Has anyone on this list who possess the requisite skills and
instruments ever actually measured a rivet on an HO scale model? Can
you share the results of such measurements? Athearn blue box doesn't
count.

Gene Green
Out in the west Texas town of El Paso


Re: IM R-40-10 : What's wrong with it?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Ed Hawkins wrote:
The original version of the InterMountain (not IMWX) R-40-10 HO-scale model was distributed to hobby dealers without having been reviewed by persons knowledgeable of the prototype car. Suffice it to say to stay away from any R-40-10 kits that don't say "Premium Line" on the box label. The "Premium Line" kits cost more, but they are the retooled version that corrected a number of "issues" that were inherent with the original tooling.
The most remarkable thing to me about the "first version" of the IM model in HO of the R-40-10 was that it INTRODUCED errors not present in the O scale version done previously by, you guessed it, IM. Go figure.
The comment was made at the time, "Gee, guys, why not go to your own stockroom and look at a nice, big model?" The O scale version isn't perfect either, but is better than the first HO one.

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: IMWX R-40-10 : What's wrong with it?

Tim O'Connor
 

J.P. was puttering around at Springfield. I talked to him
briefly while visiting with Steve Funaro. He has slowed down
but he looked well and was as sharp as ever.

Tim O'Connor

I haven't seen J. P. for a couple of years, and the last time I saw
him he wasn't feeling well. He is very knowledgeable about the hobby,
and a vigorous and involved J. P. kept (can keep) InterMountain on
its toes.

Tom Madden


Re: IMWX R-40-10 : What's wrong with it? WAS: ACF 1958cft covered hopper roofs

Tom Madden <tgmadden@...>
 

Ed Hawkins:
Suffice it to say to stay away from any R-40-10 kits that don't
say "Premium Line" on the box label. The "Premium Line" kits cost
more, but they are the retooled version that corrected a number
of "issues" that were inherent with the original tooling. It's
possible that all of the non-Premium Line kits were recalled. This
debacle, as I called it, caused InterMountain extra work and cost
that was completely avoidable had they performed one extra step in
their production process. However, I won't dwell on this since
company policies and practices are out of scope of this forum.
It's no comment on business practices to say that the first IM R-40-
10 had very poorly defined rivets on the side sheets. I have one,
kept as an example, and the vertical and horizontal rows of rivets
are essentially invisible. Even under magnification. The ones on the
doors and the clusters of four at the lower edges are fine, but not
the numerous smaller ones. Right diameter, just not cut deep enough
into the die.

J. P. Barger, who put a lot of money into InterMountain, told me that
he insisted the dies be recut. And recut again when the first recut
wasn't good enough. The final product is very nice, but the Premium
Line kit listed for $5 more than the original version.

I haven't seen J. P. for a couple of years, and the last time I saw
him he wasn't feeling well. He is very knowledgeable about the hobby,
and a vigorous and involved J. P. kept (can keep) InterMountain on
its toes.

Tom Madden


Re: ACF 1958cft covered hopper roofs

Tim O'Connor
 

Rob

Another good CB&Q (partial) roof shot is in the MS PRR
Color Guide Volume 2, p. 61.

Tim O'

At 2/2/2008 08:25 PM Saturday, you wrote:
Ed,
There is a good photo of a roof in the Mike Spoor / MS book "CB&Q color Guide..." of a CB&Q HC-1B. It's a Paul Winters on page 82.
In the Burlington Buletin No.20 ( Covered Hoppers) also has 3 photos. 1 is from Rod (Bat) Masterson pp 8 and 2 are Hol Wagner's pp18.

The earliest cars were built at Galesburg with welded roof panels. That series was 180000 - 180099. The balance of the ACF cars had the desired ribbed roof.

Thanks for keeping them honest. We modelers appreciate all youe work.

Sicerely,
Rob Manley


Re: IMRC R-40-10 : What's wrong with it? WAS: IMWX

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

Poop.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Hawkins

The original version of the InterMountain (not IMWX) . . .


Re: IMWX R-40-10 : What's wrong with it?

Tim O'Connor
 

IRC and Red Caboose have had problems with reefers.

IRC R-40-23, first and best of IRC's own efforts (and done
very quickly to put the kabosh on Porter's HO R-40-23
although PRS brought out Porter's S-scale version)
IRC SFRD reefers (Longs), another good job
IRC R-40-10, messed up and reissued as the Premium version,
ironic because IRC's first reefer was O scale R-40-10
IRC R-40-25 (Amarillo) required re-tooled roofs, but ends
made specifically for this model are still wrong
IRC ART steel reefers -- Ed has documented the history of
this project that took years to straighten out and
meanwhile IRC released inaccurate tooling in non-ART
paint schemes (I think Amarillo sponsored these too)
IRC FGE reefers -- experts like Bill Welch have expressed
disappointment in these models

RC R-30-9 real screwup, first car was an incorrect R-30-12
(shorter than R-30-9) that was revised, and finally a
new R-30-9 was tooled. But many incorrects kits made
it out the door. But at least now we have ok R-30-12
and R-30-9 plastic kits (although Sunshine masters by
Frank Hodina are much better)

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the RC HO R-70-15...

Tim O'Connor

Kurt,

The original version of the InterMountain (not IMWX) R-40-10 HO-scale
model was distributed to hobby dealers without having been reviewed by
persons knowledgeable of the prototype car. Suffice it to say to stay
away from any R-40-10 kits that don't say "Premium Line" on the box
label. The "Premium Line" kits cost more, but they are the retooled
version that corrected a number of "issues" that were inherent with the
original tooling. It's possible that all of the non-Premium Line kits
were recalled. This debacle, as I called it, caused InterMountain extra
work and cost that was completely avoidable had they performed one
extra step in their production process. However, I won't dwell on this
since company policies and practices are out of scope of this forum.
What isn't out of scope was the fact that the original R-40-10 models
were substandard. Perhaps Tony will offer his perspective.

Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: IMWX R-40-10 : What's wrong with it? WAS: ACF 1958cft covered hopper roofs

Ed Hawkins
 

On Feb 3, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Kurt Laughlin wrote:

As referenced below.
KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Hawkins

. . . All I want is the chance to
review them, and if there are any significant errors, to have them be
aware before going into full production (basically to obviate a
replication of the PFE R-40-10 debacle). . .
Kurt,
The original version of the InterMountain (not IMWX) R-40-10 HO-scale
model was distributed to hobby dealers without having been reviewed by
persons knowledgeable of the prototype car. Suffice it to say to stay
away from any R-40-10 kits that don't say "Premium Line" on the box
label. The "Premium Line" kits cost more, but they are the retooled
version that corrected a number of "issues" that were inherent with the
original tooling. It's possible that all of the non-Premium Line kits
were recalled. This debacle, as I called it, caused InterMountain extra
work and cost that was completely avoidable had they performed one
extra step in their production process. However, I won't dwell on this
since company policies and practices are out of scope of this forum.
What isn't out of scope was the fact that the original R-40-10 models
were substandard. Perhaps Tony will offer his perspective.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


IMWX R-40-10 : What's wrong with it? WAS: ACF 1958cft covered hopper roofs

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

As referenced below.

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Hawkins

. . . All I want is the chance to review them, and if there are any significant errors, to have them be aware before going into full production (basically to obviate a replication of the PFE R-40-10 debacle). . .


Delano photos. Hopefully not OT.

boomer44 <boomer44@...>
 

A.T.

In regards to Delano "darkroom art" I don't think this would be the case. I live and worked in Rochester, NY at the home of the "Yellow Box". Kodachrome processing is quite technical requiring exact temperatures and timing also to include an "exposure" of the film. This is beyond the capabilities of any home user and any but the largest processing labs even today. At the time of the Delano photos I believe only Kodak could process Kodachrome. I see by what others have written here I should include Technicolor as well. Kodachrome is the most stable of all transparency films.

You can manipulate the exposure in the camera to lighten or darken the overall color rendition of the picture. Delano could have done this to enhance the color saturation in his photos. National Geographic is famous for doing this. That is why their magazine photos have such intense color. When you shoot a transparency what you see is pretty much what you get.

I also thought his photos appeared somewhat dark myself. Then "click" went off in my head. When we look at the Delano photos here we are viewing them as opaque prints and not as transparencies. This might help explain why they appear dark. Compare his B&W to Kodachrome photos for their "darkness" if you will. If he is consistent across the board then you have your answer.

I was struck by the overall grimy appearance of the cars. If there was rust, there must have been some ala the X-29 patch jobs, it would be hard to see.

Gordon Spalty

113841 - 113860 of 183396