Date   

thin polystyrene

ed_mines
 

My recollection is that at least some of the clear plastic sheets used
for note book pages are polystyrene or polystyreen related.

If it's attacked by MEK it probably is at least polystyrene related.

Ed


Re: ACY 50' PS1

SamClarke
 

Hello Group and Tim,

Here are two shots of the ACY 50 foot PS-1s on the Fallen Flags site.

We'd considered doing this version several times but also have not found enough photos to justify the effort yet. This version has 8 foot door openings and an underframe like the 40 foot PS-1s which is why they have the side sill tabs.

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/acy/acy3623ajw.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/acy/acy3693alb.jpg

Sam Clarke
Kadee Quality Products

----- Original Message -----
From: Schuyler Larrabee
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 1:35 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] ACY 50' PS1


Any clues to the photographer, location, date?

SGL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 10:45 AM
> To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [STMFC] ACY 50' PS1
>
> it's a post-1960 photo but shots of tab sill 50' PS-1's
> are kinda rare...
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res8zy1u/Aucts02/acy1.jpg
<http://mysite.verizon.net/res8zy1u/Aucts02/acy1.jpg>
>
> Tim O'
>
>
>
>


Re: SP-B-50-15 box car

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Tim O'Connor asks:


"?? Mike, if the diameter is measured halfway into the tread, wouldn't
the actual diameter of the wheel be LARGER? And of course the flange
depth marks the ultimate extremity of the wheel diameter..."

Consider a "33" wheel. The measurement being taken halfway into the tread would mean that, at that point, the wheel is 33" in diameter. At that point the tread is about 0.25" "wider" than at the wheel's face. To clarify, draw a line through the wheel's center such that the line intersects the tread on the right side and the left side of the wheel as you view the wheel from its side...looking directly at its face. The total wheel width at that point on the tread is 0.5" wider than the wheel's face. The flange...if I recall correctly...is about 1" deep so the face reads 32.5" wide, the tread 33" wide, and the flange 35" wide.

Mike Brock


Re: SP-B-50-15 box car

Tim O'Connor
 

?? Mike, if the diameter is measured halfway into the tread, wouldn't
the actual diameter of the wheel be LARGER? And of course the flange
depth marks the ultimate extremity of the wheel diameter...

In any case, I think it's clear no part of the wheel protruded beyond any
part that would be considered to be the "end" of the car (in this case).

Tim

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Mike Brock" <brockm@brevard.net>
Schuyler Larrabee writes:


"Um . . . . my calculator insists that the distance at the end of your
calculations is 10.5", not
11.5". But hey, that one inch is only .01148" at HO scale."

Not only that, but Ron Dittmer...long time employee of SAL or ACL and their
predecessors in the mechanical dept. tells me that wheel diameter
measurements were not done at the face of the wheel but, rather, halfway
into the tread. In fact, he says, a device was used which wrapped around the
wheel and measured the circumference from which the diameter was calculated.
Those that don't agree can take it up with him next Jan at Prototype Rails.
Anyhow, if this is correct, the actual diameter at the face would be 0.5"
less than we might think. Which would be 0.00574".

Mike Brock





Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: SP-B-50-15 box car

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Schuyler Larrabee writes:


"Um . . . . my calculator insists that the distance at the end of your calculations is 10.5", not
11.5". But hey, that one inch is only .01148" at HO scale."

Not only that, but Ron Dittmer...long time employee of SAL or ACL and their predecessors in the mechanical dept. tells me that wheel diameter measurements were not done at the face of the wheel but, rather, halfway into the tread. In fact, he says, a device was used which wrapped around the wheel and measured the circumference from which the diameter was calculated. Those that don't agree can take it up with him next Jan at Prototype Rails. Anyhow, if this is correct, the actual diameter at the face would be 0.5" less than we might think. Which would be 0.00574".

Mike Brock


Re: Hercules 8000g Type 21 Tanks

Michael A. Shelley <mashelley@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "John Hile" <john66h@...> wrote:

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Michael A. Shelley" <mashelley@> wrote:

I have at least one of these kits, although I forget which number
(s).
On a slight tangent, were any of these cars built prior to 1925?
Michael,

In the 2/98 RMJ article you will get a builder's photo for PMCX 718,
blt 12/28, with K (KC?) brakes.

-John Hile

Thanks for all the replies. The K-brake kit would be an ideal solution
if I didn't already have several of the AB-brake kits and extra Tichy
KC brake sets around.

Michael A. Shelley


Boxcar build dates?

destron@...
 

Hi,

I'm looking for information as to when the following cars were built:

CNJ 33781
D&H 22962
ELS 7000 and 7096

I've uploaded photos that I have of these to the "Frank's Randomness"
folder in the Files section. The photo of the CNJ car is from Library &
Archives Canada, the other three are from online.

Thanks,

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC

-----
http://hydrorail.hostwq.net/index.html - Rails along the Fraser
http://hydrorail.rrpicturearchives.net/ - Rail Photos


Re: CB&Q FM-12 Flatcar - which plastic trucks do I need in HO scale?

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Mar 2, 2008, at 7:53 PM, ogdentowebercanyon wrote:

I have a W&R imports CB&Q FM-12 flatcar that I want to replace the
trucks on with plastic ones. Which trucks should I use for the car?
Thanks.
Jason, the trucks on the FM-12 class flat cars were AAR self-aligning
spring-plankless trucks. The Life-Like (now Walthers) trucks are
pretty close.

Richard Hendrickson


CB&Q FM-12 Flatcar - which plastic trucks do I need in HO scale?

ogdentowebercanyon
 

I have a W&R imports CB&Q FM-12 flatcar that I want to replace the
trucks on with plastic ones. Which trucks should I use for the car?
Thanks.

Jason


Re: SP-B-50-15 box car

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Um . . . . my calculator insists that the distance at the end of your calculations is 10.5", not
11.5". But hey, that one inch is only .01148" at HO scale.

SGL

A 50 ton truck has a wheelbase of 5'6" (66"). Half of a 33"
wheel is 16.5", so add 33" + 16.5" = 49.5". That gives you
the distance from the center of the kingpin to the furthest
distance of the wheel tread. So a distance of 60" for the
kingpin-to-striker still leaves you 11.5" distance from the
wheel tread to the striker -- not quite at the car end. The
striker is a few inches from the "end" (end sill? end ladder?
end rib?) but I think the wheel does not extend past any of
those "end" parts.

Tim O'Connor

Anthony Thompson wrote:

The important thing about photos is to notice that different
trucks have different side frame size and thus slightly different
wheelbase.
Perhaps I've misunderstood something... when I see the phrase "5' truck
spacing" I think centerline of the truck bolster to car end is just 5',
something that puts the wheel rim right at the car end. Is that completely
wrong?

Dave Nelson


Re: SP-B-50-15 box car

Tim O'Connor
 

A 50 ton truck has a wheelbase of 5'6" (66"). Half of a 33"
wheel is 16.5", so add 33" + 16.5" = 49.5". That gives you
the distance from the center of the kingpin to the furthest
distance of the wheel tread. So a distance of 60" for the
kingpin-to-striker still leaves you 11.5" distance from the
wheel tread to the striker -- not quite at the car end. The
striker is a few inches from the "end" (end sill? end ladder?
end rib?) but I think the wheel does not extend past any of
those "end" parts.

Tim O'Connor

Anthony Thompson wrote:

The important thing about photos is to notice that different
trucks have different side frame size and thus slightly different
wheelbase.
Perhaps I've misunderstood something... when I see the phrase "5' truck
spacing" I think centerline of the truck bolster to car end is just 5',
something that puts the wheel rim right at the car end. Is that completely
wrong?

Dave Nelson


Re: SP-B-50-15 box car

Dave Nelson
 

Thanks for the info guys, much appreciated.

Dave Nelson


Re: SP-B-50-15 box car

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dave Nelson wrote:
Perhaps I've misunderstood something... when I see the phrase "5' truck spacing" I think centerline of the truck bolster to car end is just 5', something that puts the wheel rim right at the car end. Is that completely wrong?
You are right about what the "5 feet spacing" means, but depending on the exact wheelbase of the truck, the wheel rim may or may NOT be exactly at the car end plane.

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: SP-B-50-15 box car

Dave Nelson
 

Anthony Thompson wrote:


The important thing about photos is to notice that different
trucks have different side frame size and thus slightly different
wheelbase.
Perhaps I've misunderstood something... when I see the phrase "5' truck
spacing" I think centerline of the truck bolster to car end is just 5',
something that puts the wheel rim right at the car end. Is that completely
wrong?

Dave Nelson


RI PFE Reefer

Rod Miller
 

Around May 1, 2006, Tony T. wrote here (message # 54267)
that RI was considered for membership in the PFE "tent"
(read Tony's message).

I had always liked the RI herald and PFE, and thought an RI
PFE car would be nice to look at along with invoking some
interesting-to-watch double takes on the part of visitors
to my layout.

Using considerable modeler's license, I decorated a Red Caboose
O scale reefer that Bill McClung was nice enough to supply
lettered except for heralds and reporting marks (one of the
few times in my life that my timing was accidentally perfect -
Bill was just preparing the decorating instructions for a run
of RTR cars when I called him).

A photo has
been posted to the files section under Rod Miller's Pics:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/Rod%20Miller%27s%20Pics/

The photo shows the car before couplers were mounted, cut levers,
and weathering.

Rod


Re: SP-B-50-15 box car

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dave Nelson wrote:
I'm looking at a SP lettering diagram in one of Tony's books for a B-50-15 and -16 boxcar. The diagram, in scale, clearly shows that the truck center to car end spacing is 5'. OTOH, in Martin's documentation for the B-50-15 /-16 models, he states the B-50-16 series had a truck spacing of 5'6".
Dave, if you are referring to page 222 in my Vol. 4, note that the "B-50-16" at upper right is an addition to an existing drawing. It would not be expected to show the differences of the newer class.

So for the -16 series, which is true -- Martin's document or the SP lettering diagram?
The important thing about photos is to notice that different trucks have different side frame size and thus slightly different wheelbase. Be sure in looking at photos that you compare apples to apples.

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: SP-B-50-15 box car

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Mar 2, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Dave Nelson wrote:

I'm looking at a SP lettering diagram in one of Tony's books for a
B-50-15
and -16 boxcar. The diagram, in scale, clearly shows that the truck
center
to car end spacing is 5'. OTOH, in Martin's documentation for the
B-50-15 /
-16 models, he states the B-50-16 series had a truck spacing of 5'6".

Now it makes perfect sense to me that the truck spacing could be the
only
thing that differentiates the two car series as in all other regards
they
seem to be identical.

A review of photos did not help me determine the facts of the matter.
I
tend towards thinking Martin is correct and the SP diagram really is
just
for lettering.

So for the -16 series, which is true -- Martin's document or the SP
lettering diagram?
The truck spacing on the B-50-15 and B-50-16 classes was different, 5'
on the -15s and 5'6" on the -16s. The other major difference was the
ends, 7-8 corrugated on the -15s and 3-5 Dreadnaught on the -16s. Both
were delivered with Bettendorf T-section trucks, but post-WW-II photos
often show them with retro-fitted AAR U-section trucks.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: ACY 50' PS1

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Any clues to the photographer, location, date?

SGL

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 10:45 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] ACY 50' PS1

it's a post-1960 photo but shots of tab sill 50' PS-1's
are kinda rare...

http://mysite.verizon.net/res8zy1u/Aucts02/acy1.jpg
<http://mysite.verizon.net/res8zy1u/Aucts02/acy1.jpg>

Tim O'




Re: SP-B-50-15 box car

Dave Nelson
 

I'm looking at a SP lettering diagram in one of Tony's books for a B-50-15
and -16 boxcar. The diagram, in scale, clearly shows that the truck center
to car end spacing is 5'. OTOH, in Martin's documentation for the B-50-15 /
-16 models, he states the B-50-16 series had a truck spacing of 5'6".

Now it makes perfect sense to me that the truck spacing could be the only
thing that differentiates the two car series as in all other regards they
seem to be identical.

A review of photos did not help me determine the facts of the matter. I
tend towards thinking Martin is correct and the SP diagram really is just
for lettering.

So for the -16 series, which is true -- Martin's document or the SP
lettering diagram?

Dave Nelson


Re: SLSF 6000 end photo - what are these?

John Sanders
 

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

On Mar 2, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Dean Payne wrote:

I found the following photo of a Frisco car with some things on
the
end that I just can't identify:

http://thelibrary.springfield.missouri.org/lochist/frisco/friscoline/
images/photos/p01756.jpg

There is a device of some sort right under the running board,
but this
is the A end, so it doesn't appear to be brake related.
Also, the right side appears to have something riveted onto the
side
to the right of the tack board. Any idea what these are?
Dean, 6000 wasn't a revenue service number; this car must have been
a
former single-sheathed box car equipped for MW or some other sort
of
company service. The "device" under the running board was an
electrical conduit and shielded connector plug. The protuberance
to
the right of the placard board is anybody's guess; a side view
photo of
this car would doubtless reveal what it was.

Richard Hendrickson


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This is an end view of the Impact Demonstration car built from, as
Richard said, one of the single-sheathed car. Look in the Equipment
section of the web site for the side view. One of the early 1950s
issues of the company magazine had a color photo of the newly
converted car. The conversion and photos were made at the
Springfield North Shops.

John Sanders
Springfield, MO

122121 - 122140 of 192622