Date   

Re: 2008 Naperville Dates

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Mar 19, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Gene Deimling wrote:

Has the schedule been set for Naperville this year?
October 30 - November 2.

Richard Hendrickson


2008 Naperville Dates

Gene Deimling <losgatos48@...>
 

Has the schedule been set for Naperville this year?

Thanks,
Gene Deimling
El Dorado Hills, CA


Re: ratio of 40 ft. to 50 ft. box cars

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

Ed Mines asked:
"Can someone give an accurate number for this in 1960?"

Did you do a search of the archives? Tim Gilbert undoubtedly ran the
numbers on this.


Ben Hom


Re: ratio of 40 ft. to 50 ft. box cars

Robert <riverob@...>
 

Ratio is 40/50 or 4/5 or 0.80 in any year.

Rob Simpson

--- In STMFC@..., "ed_mines" <ed_mines@...> wrote:

Can someone give an accurate number for this in 1960?

I'm one of those guys stuck in the '40s.

Ed


Re: Draft gear ratings

devansprr
 

--- In STMFC@..., "proto48er" <atkott@...> wrote:

Dave -

I do not know what interests you the most, prototype or model curve
resistance.
Mainly model, but trying to understand the prototype.

.... This testing was done by a couple of engineers (in a
careful scientific manner) back in the early 1960's which
demonstrated this with On3 models. The results were used to set the
On3 wheel standards used by Grandt Line.

In short, unless you model in PROTO:48 or PROTO:87(?), the prototype
curve resistance does not truly represent the situation on the
model. It is apples and oranges!

You need to try an experiment for yourselves! Use the same steam era
freight cars and trucks. First use the stock NMRA wheels. Then turn
prototype dimensions on the wheels and put them back under the same
freight cars, etc. Check curve resistance in each case, or pulling
capacity of the same loco. See what result!

A.T. Kott
A.T.

Thanks for the info - do you know if any of the data from the On3
testing is available anywhere? Could provide some useful insight into
the history of MRR performance testing.

To all,

We are looking into this with the hope of finding a better curve
compensation factor for grades when designing layouts (especially a
helix).

There has been an extensive thread on the LDSig group (over 160 posts
so far), with some intense discussion (full disclosure - some of it
mine.) NMRA's Layout Design Sig, being its own incorporated
organization, may sponsor some research in this area.

I performed some analysis based on locomotive drawbar ratings for
steam era (where I will be modeling), but was looking to find max
tonnage for modern trains to contrast increases in prototype max
tonnage ratings as part of the analysis. I thought drawbar ratings may
provide insight, but I think the other postings in this thread are
correct, look at max TF/TE ratings by era.

If you are interested in the subject, please check out the LDsig group.

Being a better engineer than modeler, I will likely be working this
topic for the LDsig, but I continue to look to this group to figure
out how to create a reasonably accurate recreation of WWII PRR.

Sorry for the interruption.

Thanks,
Dave Evans


ratio of 40 ft. to 50 ft. box cars

ed_mines
 

Can someone give an accurate number for this in 1960?

I'm one of those guys stuck in the '40s.

Ed


Re: Center Sills (Was: Draft gear ratings)

John Hile <john66h@...>
 

FWIW, here are the center sill requirements from the MCB
Specifications for class III, IV, and V tank cars...

Minimum center sill area between points of impact, 30 sq. in.

Ratio, stress to end load, not more than 0.05.

Length of center or draft sill members between braces shall not be
more than twenty times the depth of the member, measures in the
direction in which buckling may take place (Fig. 4).

Continuous sills having cover plates are preferable.

If other construction is used, the effective cross-sectional area,
including connections, must be at least as strong as continuous sills.


The "Fig. 4" referenced is of a built-up center sill with a flat top
plate, channel sides (flanges facing out), no bottom plate, and an
optional angle to reinforce the inside bottom flange of the channel
side, thus increasing the width of the bottom flange. The distance
across the top plate is labeled "A", "B" is the bottom width of the
side channel, "C" is the bottom with of the side channel with
additional angle applied, and "D" is the overall height of the center
sill - channel plus top plate. Each dimension has two arrows to show
buckling forces, parallel to each dimension line, in both directions.
The text below the drawing reads: "Arrow heads show direction in
which buckling may take place. Brace may consist of castings
supporting the members against buckling, or cover plates, or lattice
work, or reinforcing by means of angles etc."


-John Hile


Re: Air Brush Compressors

Walter M. Clark
 

If anyone read my message about my recent move they know I have a
nitrogen tank to back-up my compressor. Actually have two
compressors, a larger one in the garage and a smaller, much quieter
Paasche one for airbrushing and grit blasting. I have all the
fittings necessary to use either compressor for painting and grit
blasting, so I can go through three different propellant sources
before I have to quit and go to bed <g>. I've only used the nitrogen
a couple of times when my previous cheepo compressors failed in the
middle of a job. The first time I learned not to depend on the
downstream valve on the regulator to keep the remaining nitrogen in
the tank at the end of the session. After filling it I now use the
valve at the top of the tank to turn off the flow and preserve the
rest of the gas for the next need. And, as I said, the movers brought
it with the rest of my stuff with no hassle <VBG>.

Walter M. Clark
Time stopped in November 1941
Pullman, Washington, which has a stylized heavyweight passenger car as
part of the city seal, even though no one seems to be sure how the
town got its name.

--- In STMFC@..., "Schuyler Larrabee"
<schuyler.larrabee@...> wrote:

I have one of those. Quiet, yes, powerful, yes, dry, yes. Except
for the frost on the regulator . .
.

And maybe it's my personal situation, but taking that thing to get
refilled or exchanged, is a major
undertaking. I have to take time from work, drive to a part of town
I never go to, and hope he
stays open. I call, but sometimes "Yeah, I'll be here for another
hour" isn't true. And being
without it when I REALLY want to paint is a drag.

Compressor for me.

SGL

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On
Behalf Of Andy Carlson
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:43 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re:Air Brush Compressors

A 20 pound CO2 bottle (or larger) with a bottle regulator will be
forever quiet, forever dry (in
both water and oil) and
only needs inexpensive occasional refills (unless one is an overly
extravagant user of air during
the clean-up process). A
CO2 system for spraying is a fine indulgence worthy of the modest
added costs over a cheap air
compressor, plus bottle
regulators are much more stable than most Home Depot air tank
regulators. I got my bottle for
free, and the air place I
get refills from pays for the hydra-tests if I use the exchange
program, which is nice because
then I don't have to wait for
the refill. Charles Givens told me that he gets 50-60 paint jobs
per bottle fill. Some might
consider this an option????
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

Paul Catapano <pc66ot@... <mailto:pc66ot%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
Buy one that will do
double duty for
air tools in the garage (Nail guns, impact wrench's). A hobby
compressor will cost nearly as much
and you will get more
use out of it.
I have several different compressors in mind, Campbell Hausfield,
Emglo (The most expensive),
Ingersol Rand, and
Senco (By the maker of most of my nail guns, but an Emglo with a
different paint job).
I have been using the Ingersol Rand for about 15 years no
problems, and the Senco for about 5
years no problems. I
have a pressure regulator/moisture trap attachment that I use when
I hook up my air brush.

Paul Catapano
Littlerock Subdivision
Atlantic Inland Railway Co.

"All it takes to start an insane asylum
is a big room and the right kind of people"







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




Re: car condition on 31 August 57

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

In this consist, they are listed as "Stock cars." Any thoughts about how to interpret this? It
IS< a second-hand document that's quoted.
SGL
----------------

I can think of four possibilities, none of which was unusual in 1957.

1. Wrong car number.
2. A wrong initial
3. Illegible initial
4. Wrong car type/


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


Re: Draft gear ratings

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

They may have been designing against yield strength rather than ultimate strength, which would be around 36 ksi rather 60 ksi. Also, the center sill - rather than the draft gear - had to bear the buff or compressive loads. A member that can withstand a given tensile load can fail because of buckling at a load of just a fraction of the tensile strength. The area limit may have been an attempt to provide a certain level of buckling resistance, based on an assumption that the center sill would be two channels or flanged beams with some particular spacing and a symmetrical arrangement. With that assumption I think you could back out what sort of cross-sectional area you'd need to withstand the anticipated buff force.

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Storzek

This assumption would seem to be borne out by the specifications for
the then current production C;ass III cars; the draft gear had to have
a minimum of 150,000 lbs. capacity, but the specification also
required 12.5 sq. in. of steel in the cross section of the center
sill. Even common low carbon mild steels are rated somewhere around
60,000 lbs. / sq. in. tensile strength, so in theory the centersill
sill could withstand 750,000 lbs. of pull. I do understand the concept
of design safety factors, but a factor of five seems excessive, so I
conclude that loadings that would exceed that which could fully
compress the draft gear were anticipated.


PRR G36C

Gary Roe
 

Thanks to an article by Keith Kohlmann in the Jan/Feb issue of N Scale Railroading, I found out that Minitrix made a fairly accurate model of a PRR G36C covered gondola. It just so happens that I was able to find one at a swap meet this last weekend. Now the hard part.

I looked thru the STMFC archives for info on the G36C; but came up empty handed. I found a picture and a freight car diagram on the PRRH&TS web site, which helped a lot; but now I am in need of a little help for the decals to letter this car. In looking at Microscale's web site and decal listings, I didn't see anything that would be useful; but that may be from my ignorance of things PRR. Could someone point me in the right direction? At the risk of being run out of town on a rail, I will admit that I'd just like it to look reasonably close, if 100% accurate decals are not available.

gary roe
quincy, illinois


Re: Draft gear ratings

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "proto48er" <atkott@...> wrote:

On the model (unless you model PROTO:48 which has the correct wheel
tread and flange radii), the tread of the wheels is probably not
conical, and there is no radius at the flange. This has been
demonstrated to cause more rolling resistance even on straight track
on the model than use of prototypically designed model wheels. Curve
resistance was also greater, because the entire weight of the train
has to be dragged a short distance - the conical tread is not
present. This testing was done by a couple of engineers (in a
careful scientific manner) back in the early 1960's which
demonstrated this with On3 models. The results were used to set the
On3 wheel standards used by Grandt Line.
This is getting pretty far afield from freightcars, but in the
interest of correcting outdated information, I'll remind you that
during the same period the design work for the NMRA RP-25 wheel series
was being done, and the RP-25 profile (no matter which "Code" size)
DOES include a tapered tread, and DOES have a generous fillet radius
between the tread and flange. It may not be scaled exactly from the
prototype, but the features are there on nearly all modern wheels made
for the serious hobbyist.

Dennis


Re: Draft gear ratings

proto48er
 

Dave -

I do not know what interests you the most, prototype or model curve
resistance.

On the prototype, the wheel treads are CONICAL and the railhead is
chamfered on the sides. There is a defined radius between the tread
and the flange also. When the prototype goes around a curve, the
wheels-on-axle will travel a longer distance on the outside rail of
the curve than the ones on the inside rail (because the outside rail
is LONGER than the inside rail). The wheels are rigidly mounted on
the axle, so they either have to slide along the rail (dragging the
entire weight of the train for a short distance around the curve), or
(more likely) have the conical treads "ride up" so that the outer
wheels touch the rail closer to the flanges than the inner wheels.
This analysis is made more complex with superelevation and speed of
the train! This sliding or riding up is the most significant
component of prototype curve resistance.

On the model (unless you model PROTO:48 which has the correct wheel
tread and flange radii), the tread of the wheels is probably not
conical, and there is no radius at the flange. This has been
demonstrated to cause more rolling resistance even on straight track
on the model than use of prototypically designed model wheels. Curve
resistance was also greater, because the entire weight of the train
has to be dragged a short distance - the conical tread is not
present. This testing was done by a couple of engineers (in a
careful scientific manner) back in the early 1960's which
demonstrated this with On3 models. The results were used to set the
On3 wheel standards used by Grandt Line.

In short, unless you model in PROTO:48 or PROTO:87(?), the prototype
curve resistance does not truly represent the situation on the
model. It is apples and oranges!

You need to try an experiment for yourselves! Use the same steam era
freight cars and trucks. First use the stock NMRA wheels. Then turn
prototype dimensions on the wheels and put them back under the same
freight cars, etc. Check curve resistance in each case, or pulling
capacity of the same loco. See what result!

A.T. Kott



--- In STMFC@..., "devansprr" <devans1@...> wrote:

I'm investigating the curve compensation factor over on the LDSig
Group. Fairly lively, and occasionally heated debate that may have
scared some members away....

Calculations suggest the factor is a function of the magnitude of
the
draft gear/coupler pulling face forces, since in a curve there are
lateral forces that must be applied at the rail/wheel interface to
react the change in train's drawbar force vector as the force goes
around the curve (nearly instantaneously for the force).

Just looking for some info to help in the analysis. Have since found
some other info on various railroad research papers that helps
answer
part of the question....

Dave Evans


Re: Draft gear ratings

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "devansprr" <devans1@...> wrote:


Calculations suggest the factor is a function of the magnitude of the
draft gear/coupler pulling face forces, since in a curve there are
lateral forces that must be applied at the rail/wheel interface to
react the change in train's drawbar force vector as the force goes
around the curve (nearly instantaneously for the force).

Just looking for some info to help in the analysis. Have since found
some other info on various railroad research papers that helps answer
part of the question, but all of that is post-steam. Not a high
priority, so do not expend more effort on this thread.
Dave,

Now I understand what you're doing, but I still don't think you are
going to find enough data points in the MCB / ARA / AAR car
construction specs to be useful. I would suggest that a lot more
information exists on locomotive drawbar pulling capacity, expressed
as pounds of TE or TF, Tractive Effort or Tractive Force. There should
be a lot more data available on this, and it correlates directly to
how much force was being applied to the train.

I have a problem with assuming the "capacity" listed for the draft
gear is the maximum load that can be transmitted. The 60,000 lbs.
cited for draft gears of Class I and Class II tankcar frames (which
were, admittedly, obsolete designs in 1917, but still permissible in
interchange) is only equal to the TE of a heavy Mikado. If a heavy
Mikado stalled trying to start a train with one of these Cass II
tankcars as the first car behind the tender, does that mean the
tankcars's frame would fail? I don't think so. It only means that the
drawbar would completely compress the draft gear solid against the
stops, and then transmit full force to the next car. This is obviously
the case, because in 1917 they were designing locomotives with
considerably more than 60,000lbs. TE.

This assumption would seem to be borne out by the specifications for
the then current production C;ass III cars; the draft gear had to have
a minimum of 150,000 lbs. capacity, but the specification also
required 12.5 sq. in. of steel in the cross section of the center
sill. Even common low carbon mild steels are rated somewhere around
60,000 lbs. / sq. in. tensile strength, so in theory the centersill
sill could withstand 750,000 lbs. of pull. I do understand the concept
of design safety factors, but a factor of five seems excessive, so I
conclude that loadings that would exceed that which could fully
compress the draft gear were anticipated.

Therefore, I think you would be better off picking representative
examples of motive power that would be used on a given grade in each
era, and using the TE of that motive power as the force in your
calculations.

Dennis


Re: Speedwich decals for SK-R

Craig Zeni <clzeni@...>
 

Paint over them with the Microscale Liquid Decal Film. The stuff works very very well...I've been doing it on old decals with great success.

On Mar 18, 2008, at 6:21 AM, STMFC@... wrote:

1b. Re: Speedwich decals for SK-R
Posted by: "Denis F. Blake" dblake7@... seaboard_1966
Date: Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:51 am ((PDT))

Gee John, that is great to know being that I am about ready to use, finally,
my SAL set from Ted..

Denis Blake
Marysville, OH

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Golden" <golden1014@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:56 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Speedwich decals for SK-R


Hi Dean,

I've used a number of Speedwitch sets and have only had trouble with
the SAL box car set. Of the four or five SAL sets I've used, at
least two of them disintegrated when water was applied. I haven't
had the same problwm with the PRR, NYC or Southern box car set, or
the SAL and Wabash gon set. Just the D-103. I only use filtered
water in the application process.

I talked to Ted last week and he said that Microscale is printing
the SAL decals sets and the quality is much improved. I'm hoping
that'll solve my problem. I recommend you write Ted and tell him
that you're having problems with the set--I'm sure he'll help.

John

John Golden
Bloomington, IN


--- In STMFC@..., "Dean Payne" <1payne1@...> wrote:

I've been doing some decals lately, Champ and Westerfield, and
decided
to tackle my ATSF stock car. The instructions say to use water,
not
setting solution for the first application. No matter, as when I
went
to apply the decals to the car, they came off individually: "A" "."
"T" "." etc. Likewise, the car numbers. Now, I had been shuffling
individual numbers to get the proper car numbers and new and
reweigh
dates on my Champ sets, but this was more work than I had planned.
Especially, I soaked my dim. data a short time, but it also came
off
as individual letters. I gave up on that!
I understand that a thin backing is desireable so that it blends
in,
but it appears that I have no backing at all. Can I get one by
spraying gloss or flat over the decal sheet? This would make
things
easier for me. Or, is there something I am doing wrong? Do I
need to
apply them within 10 seconds of wetting, or something?
Dean Payne


Re: car condition on 31 August 57

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
On the erielack list, a consist was posted for train 11 on that date, as follows:
________________________________________________________________
Train 12 (Marion to Youngstown)
1140 (Passenger Baldwin)
CNW 7870 and SP 102117 (Stock cars for cattle pick-up at Galion from NYC)
This is a mid-summer, non-holiday consist. I can't find any listing for stock cars with those
numbers in my ORER, so I don't know what they are.
In this consist, they are listed as "Stock cars." Any thoughts about how to interpret this? It IS a second-hand document that's quoted.
Neither one of them WAS a stock car in the livestock sense, then or later. They may have meant some other kind of stock, e.g. merchandise. But those ain't what we call stock cars.

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


Re: Draft gear ratings

devansprr
 

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

Dave,

I found the following in the Master Car Builders' Association,
Specifications for Tank Cars, Standard, Revised 1917.


Hope this is helpful,

-John Hile
John,

Thanks to all for the info - very helpful. I found some older AAR
interchange standards on e-bay for pretty cheap if I decide I need the
info bad enough.

The apology for the cross-post is that I'm trying to get a handle on
maximum draft gear/drawbar forces in a train for various eras.

I'm investigating the curve compensation factor over on the LDSig
Group. Fairly lively, and occasionally heated debate that may have
scared some members away....

Calculations suggest the factor is a function of the magnitude of the
draft gear/coupler pulling face forces, since in a curve there are
lateral forces that must be applied at the rail/wheel interface to
react the change in train's drawbar force vector as the force goes
around the curve (nearly instantaneously for the force).

Just looking for some info to help in the analysis. Have since found
some other info on various railroad research papers that helps answer
part of the question, but all of that is post-steam. Not a high
priority, so do not expend more effort on this thread.

In the meantime, I'm still modeling steam era, so I continue to
monitor this group for all of the great info.

But this thread was a bit off topic. Sorry for the diversion and
thank-you for the help.

Dave Evans


Re: car condition on 31 August 57

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Earlier I asked:
On that date, would CNW 7870 and SP 102117 have been properly fitted for the carriage of cattle?
As livestock, that is?

SGL
Tony said regarding SP 102117:
The SP number is a steel box car. Cattle?

Jack Mullen said:
Probably not. CNW 7870 was a 40' PS-1 box. I don't have a 1957 ORER handy to check what special
equipment it might have had, but I'd rather not try to imagine how it could have been fitted for
cattle. ;)

OK, here's why I asked: On the erielack list, a consist was posted for train 11 on that date, as
follows:
________________________________________________________________
Train 12 (Marion to Youngstown)

1140 (Passenger Baldwin)
CNW 7870 and SP 102117 (Stock cars for cattle pick-up at Galion from NYC)
Erie 538 (Storage mail)
Erie 505 (Express)
Erie 500 (Express)
Erie 535 (Dead Head to be set off at Akron) p
Erie 2309 (Rider) Erie 221 (A pick-up at Galion)

Total: 8 cars

This is a mid-summer, non-holiday consist. I can't find any listing for stock cars with those
numbers in my ORER, so I don't know what they are. 500 and 505 are two Stillwell express cars.
2309 is one of the 60' arch-window Stillwell commuter coaches.
___________________________________________

In this consist, they are listed as "Stock cars." Any thoughts about how to interpret this? It
IS< a second-hand document that's quoted.
SGL


Re: car condition on 31 August 57

Jack Mullen
 

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:

On that date, would

CNW 7870 and SP 102117

Have been properly fitted for the carriage of cattle? As livestock,
that is?

SGL
Probably not. CNW 7870 was a 40' PS-1 box. I don't have a 1957 ORER
handy to check what special equipment it might have had, but I'd
rather not try to imagine how it could have been fitted for cattle. ;)

Jack Mullen


Re: car condition on 31 August 57

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
On that date, would
CNW 7870 and SP 102117
Have been properly fitted for the carriage of cattle? As livestock, that is?
The SP number is a steel box car. Cattle?

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

126041 - 126060 of 197031