Date   

Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits

Ed Hawkins
 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 8:17 AM, David North wrote:

<SNIP>
Is the Accurail 3 bay hopper a match for any of these?
David,
The Accurail 3-bay hopper was patterned after 1,000 class W-7 cars
built for B&O in 1947 (435000-435999). This is based on the ends of the
model, which "tries" (poorly) to duplicate Z-sections that support the
end sheets from the top of the ends to the end sills. The Z-sections
were more closely spaced than other end arrangements using either
channels or angles. The sides on the Accurail model match the
configuration used on a substantial number of 70-ton triples, but none
for Santa Fe as far as I can tell.

The Accurail model has a straight side sill between the bolsters with
an angled section from the bolster to the corner post. Santa Fe's cars
in classes Ga-73, Ga-81, Ga-86, Ga-100, Ga-109, and Ga-121 all had
sides that were straight from end to end with a shallow fish-belly
between the bolsters. The Stewart/Bowser model better represents these
ATSF cars, although there still needs to be modifications to the ends.
These ATSF cars all had vertical angles from the top of the ends to the
end sills, whereas the Stewart/Bowser model has channels that extend
from the bottom of the end sheets to the end sills. This would be a
relatively easy modification to make.

I have not yet found prototype photos of classes Ga-66 and Ga-77 to
verify the side and arrangement used on these cars (series
183000-183224 and 183425-183924). Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Re. RPCyc volume 17

Dave Nelson
 

Was there an announcement for RPC-17?

Dave Nelson


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits (4800 Series Wood Reefers)

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 14, 2008, at 10:59 PM, Bob Chaparro wrote:

Does anyone know the prototype for these kits? Are they acccurate for
any class of PFE reefer?



No - and it's not as though we need yet more models of PFE wood
reefers. The prototypes for the Accurail reefers were originally
built for the Burlington in the early 1920s, then absorbed into the
Fruit
Growers Express fleet as BREX cars when the Q turned over its reefer
operations to FGE. The model represents these cars in modified form
as they appeared after World War II.


Richard Hendrickson


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 6:17 AM, David North wrote:

Richard,

ATSF rostered 70 ton 3 bays from at least 3 makers. Some of the
classes were

GA-43, GA-73 & GA-86 from ACF

GA-77 & GA-81 from PSCM

GA-100 & GA-109 & GA-121 from GAT

Is the Accurail 3 bay hopper a match for any of these?

I haven't seen one of these in the flesh. Only the pic on their
website

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/art/7500/7501.jpg

I actually thought the Stewart 70ton 3 bay was good for one/some of
these.

http://bowser-trains.com/hocars/Stew_offset/Stew_offset_hopper.htm

Now I'm wondering if these two models represent the same car.

Or perhaps more correctly if the ACF, PSCM and GAT cars are of
identical or
similar design?


























The early class Ga-21 (1929) and Ga-43 (1936) three bay hoppers were
built to a design that, AFAIK, has never been modeled. The post-WW-
II Santa Fe three bay hoppers, beginning with class Ga-73, were all
built to the AAR standard design which is accurately modeled by both
the Stewart/Bowser and Accurail cars. I apologize for overlooking
the Accurail hopper as an accurate model of a Santa Fe prototype car.


Richard Hendrickson


Re: CCB photo

water.kresse@...
 

Elden,

Thanks for your good information. It all makes sense. Do we have any good SHIPPING weight numbers for these tanks . . . vs. combat loaded weights?

Al Kresse
Romeo, MI

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Gatwood, Elden J SAD " <Elden.J.Gatwood@sad01.usace.army.mil>
Guys;

The old military guys I know told me that the M4 did not come with a
dedicated lock as-built, but there were problems with damage to the elevating
gears in shipment, so they made crude locks out of wood for shipment
overseas. Then they found there was a need for locks when they were
traveling long distances in-country, so they mounted a dedicated lock on the
back deck (sometime after the Normandy invasion). This was quickly found to
be a problem when a few tanks got shot at and didn't have the time to move
the turret 180 degrees to return fire, so was quickly re-mounted on the front
glacis. When they were close to the front they could leave the top
unfastened, so the gun could be quickly moved up and the lock drop out of
engagement. The final series of M4 were furnished from the factory, with the
lock mounted on the glacis. The last part looks to be true in photo
evidence. They were all supplied from the factory with covers over the
turret mantlet and openings. The MGs were stowed. The bow MG had a canvas
cover. M4 generally came from the factory with stenciling and numbering.

BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat. Sorry for all the minutiae, but I
got an earful yesterday, and thought someone (well OK, maybe no one) might
find it interesting.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most, but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.

Elden Gatwood

________________________________

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Smith
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:03 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: CCB photo

On Sun, April 13, 2008 8:27 pm, John Golden wrote:
Bruce,

I have a question. Since the tanks are in transit, shouldn't the
gun/turret be secured in the barrel lock? Did you research show
otherwise?

John
John,

I'm not sure. There is a clear photo of M4A3 tanks loaded onto a SOUTHERN
flat and there are no barrel locks visible. OTOH, there are many shots of
Shermans with barrel locks, and few loaded on flat cars with barrel locks
on. I'll likely model the rest of the fleet with locks ;^)

regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


NMRA photo collection

gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

Group,
Just thought I would post a follow up to my discussion about a
month ago regarding the NMRA Kalmbach library and their photo
collection. I ordered 216 scans (600 dpi TIFF) of various freight car
photos in their collection, and the final tab was $1.75 per scan. I
was charged a $5.00 CD burning fee for each order (2 orders), and
then a $15.00/hr fee for the research time involved. The scans are
great! If you have Culotta and Kline's "The Postwar Freight Car
Fleet" you have a lot of the photos (with great captions), but I am
now able to zoom in and read most of the reweigh dates, repacking
locations, etc. I also can zoom in and see underbody details, etc.
Anyway, I saved over $300 by joining NMRA and then ordering the
scans, so whatever your other feelings about the NMRA, the membership
is at least worth it for that reason. A couple of gripes: not all the
photos I ordered were scanned, and the reason given was that the
archivist was unable to find them. I hope they aren't lost
permanently. Also, I was told after my second order that I couldn't
order anymore photos from the Robert Charles collection, as I have
exceeded their "20% rule", apparently you can only order twenty
percent of a collection as scans, prints, etc. before the NMRA cuts
you off.
Hope this information is of some use to other list members who
are still in the process of building their photo collection.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Stanley, ND


Re: The Strange Case of the MP Hoppers on the Santa Fe

Robert <riverob@...>
 

What type of 3-bay hoppers were typically used by the MP in this
service?

Thanks,
Rob Simpson


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Brock" <brockm@...> wrote:

Santa Fe gurus are no doubt pulling out what hair they have left
today after viewing the photo on pg 25 of the just appearing War
Bonnet, First Quarter 2008. They probably thought...ohhh nooo...when
they looked carefully at the photo. It shows a nice view of the San
Bernardino yard in 1950 with mention that the El Captitan is
arriving. However, much more interesting to those on the STMFC that
are always on the lookout for "eastern style" hoppers in California
is a string of cars 5 tracks away. Here we see no less than 8 MP 3
bay hopper cars [ maybe more ]...filled with what looks
like...well...coal. MP's coal source was primarily the fields in
Southern Illinois which is categorized as "...a high volatile, medium
sulfur, low ash, high BTU bituminous coal" in the book Burlington
Bulletin No. 35, The Q in the Coal Fields". Coal gurus can tell us if
this source is classified as metallurgical coal but the Burlington
book does not give such an impression.

Coincidentally, there are photos of other MP hopper cars "lost" out
in the "real west". America's Colorful Railroads shows no less than 2
MT's being returned eastward on the D&RGW in Tennessee Pass and The
Iron Horse and I shows MP hoppers in...of all places...Laramie, WY.

I've always been an admirer of the MP "Eagles" logo but I must
confess I didn't think those in California would be so blessed as to
see it as well as those in Laramie.

Mike Brock


Re: RPCyc volume 17

Storey Lindsay
 

Ed (with an apology to the Group),

SBCGLOBAL.NET will tell you the problem lies with the sender of the e-mail message; that they have no idea why the messages are being refused; that they don't have a quarantine list (to block spam, pornography, etc.). But, the only people I have messages refused are those who use SBCGLOBAL.NET, including my 92-year-old mother (I have recommended she change her service provider).

Storey Lindsay
Celje, Slovenia

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Hawkins
To: des Norman ; Storey Lindsay
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 15:26
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re. RPCyc volume 17


Des and Storey,
I have received both of your payments for Vol. 17. The books arrived Monday afternoon. Pat and I are packaging the books in the cardboard mailing envelopes and will be mailing them starting Wednesday.

With regard to your email messages bouncing, I don't know why that is happening. I'm regularly receiving mail from the STMFC, one other discussion group that I'm a member, and many individuals who have sent me emails in the past few days and weeks. I have also been in contact with numerous hobby dealers by email and have received many responses in the last few days. The latter typically use the rpcyc@sbcglobal.net address.

I will contact AT&T, who manages the sbcglobal domain, and try to find out why your messages are being returned.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


On Apr 15, 2008, at 4:01 AM, Storey Lindsay wrote:


Des,

I have the same problem with both of his addresses. I wanted to tell him
that my check was in the mail, but my return address has continually been
refused.

Storey Lindsay
Celje, Slovenia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Des Norman" <desanorman@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "STMFC group" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:36
Subject: [STMFC] Re. RPCyc volume 17

> Hi,
> Apologies for this email.
>
> My messages to Ed Hawkins on 2 different addresses (rpcyc@sbcglobal.net
> and hawk0621@sbcglobal.net) keep on bouncing.
>
> If Ed sees this can he contact me direct off-list, or does anyone else
> know if there's a problem.


Re: CCB photo

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

Guys;



The old military guys I know told me that the M4 did not come with a
dedicated lock as-built, but there were problems with damage to the elevating
gears in shipment, so they made crude locks out of wood for shipment
overseas. Then they found there was a need for locks when they were
traveling long distances in-country, so they mounted a dedicated lock on the
back deck (sometime after the Normandy invasion). This was quickly found to
be a problem when a few tanks got shot at and didn't have the time to move
the turret 180 degrees to return fire, so was quickly re-mounted on the front
glacis. When they were close to the front they could leave the top
unfastened, so the gun could be quickly moved up and the lock drop out of
engagement. The final series of M4 were furnished from the factory, with the
lock mounted on the glacis. The last part looks to be true in photo
evidence. They were all supplied from the factory with covers over the
turret mantlet and openings. The MGs were stowed. The bow MG had a canvas
cover. M4 generally came from the factory with stenciling and numbering.



BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat. Sorry for all the minutiae, but I
got an earful yesterday, and thought someone (well OK, maybe no one) might
find it interesting.



One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most, but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.



Elden Gatwood



________________________________

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Smith
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:03 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: CCB photo



On Sun, April 13, 2008 8:27 pm, John Golden wrote:
Bruce,

I have a question. Since the tanks are in transit, shouldn't the
gun/turret be secured in the barrel lock? Did you research show
otherwise?

John
John,

I'm not sure. There is a clear photo of M4A3 tanks loaded onto a SOUTHERN
flat and there are no barrel locks visible. OTOH, there are many shots of
Shermans with barrel locks, and few loaded on flat cars with barrel locks
on. I'll likely model the rest of the fleet with locks ;^)

regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits

David North <davenorth@...>
 

Richard,

ATSF rostered 70 ton 3 bays from at least 3 makers. Some of the classes were

GA-43, GA-73 & GA-86 from ACF

GA-77 & GA-81 from PSCM

GA-100 & GA-109 & GA-121 from GAT



Is the Accurail 3 bay hopper a match for any of these?

I haven't seen one of these in the flesh. Only the pic on their website

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/art/7500/7501.jpg



I actually thought the Stewart 70ton 3 bay was good for one/some of these.

http://bowser-trains.com/hocars/Stew_offset/Stew_offset_hopper.htm



Now I'm wondering if these two models represent the same car.

Or perhaps more correctly if the ACF, PSCM and GAT cars are of identical or
similar design?

Cheers

Dave


Reboxx couplers

armprem
 

Speaking of couplers,does anyone know what is happening with the Reboxx
coupler?The design work was well advanced as demontrated at Prototype
Rails a few years ago.A Premo


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits (4800 Series Wood Reefers)

Carl J. Marsico <Carlmarsico@...>
 

The Accurail reefer is a BREX prototype.

CJM

Bob Chaparro <thecitrusbelt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does anyone know the prototype for these kits? Are they acccurate for
any class of PFE reefer?

Thanks.

Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA

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

... The reefer model is nowhere close to the Santa Fe's Rr-4 class
or any other of its modified USRA wood reefers, which had, in
addition to different ice hatch covers and platforms, different
roofs, different underframes, and five foot wide doors.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Re. RPCyc volume 17

Storey Lindsay
 

Des,

I have the same problem with both of his addresses. I wanted to tell him that my check was in the mail, but my return address has continually been refused.

Storey Lindsay
Celje, Slovenia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Des Norman" <desanorman@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "STMFC group" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:36
Subject: [STMFC] Re. RPCyc volume 17


Hi,
Apologies for this email.

My messages to Ed Hawkins on 2 different addresses (rpcyc@sbcglobal.net
and hawk0621@sbcglobal.net) keep on bouncing.

If Ed sees this can he contact me direct off-list, or does anyone else
know if there's a problem.

Many thanks.
Des Norman

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re. RPCyc volume 17

Des Norman
 

Hi,
Apologies for this email.

My messages to Ed Hawkins on 2 different addresses (rpcyc@sbcglobal.net and hawk0621@sbcglobal.net) keep on bouncing.

If Ed sees this can he contact me direct off-list, or does anyone else know if there's a problem.

Many thanks.
Des Norman


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits (4800 Series Wood Reefers)

Bob Chaparro <thecitrusbelt@...>
 

Does anyone know the prototype for these kits? Are they acccurate for
any class of PFE reefer?

Thanks.

Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA

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

... The reefer model is nowhere close to the Santa Fe's Rr-4 class
or any other of its modified USRA wood reefers, which had, in
addition to different ice hatch covers and platforms, different
roofs, different underframes, and five foot wide doors.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Converting cars to Accumate's coupler box

Rob Kirkham <rdkirkham@...>
 

Glad to hear I'm not alone in finding ways to work with the Accumates Jim. Since I am using Sergent couplers in them I'm a little more restricted in my options available in the trickier mounting locations such as the tank car.


Rob Kirkham

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim & Lisa Hayes" <jimandlisa97225@verizon.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Converting cars to Accumate's coupler box


I'm a fan of the Accumate Proto:HO coupler and box and almost always adapt
my freight car frames to accept them, but occasionally I just go with Kadee
#58s and this is one of those times. I did use a #90 screw to hold the
coupler box cover on though.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1377 - Release Date: 4/14/2008
9:26 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1377 - Release Date: 4/14/2008
9:26 AM






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

Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1376 - Release Date: 4/13/2008 1:45 PM


Re: PRRPro TM8/AC&F Type 11 Project

Bruce Smith
 

On Mon, April 14, 2008 6:56 pm, Dave & Donna Johnson wrote:
Is there a list of Type 11 Private Owner Cars?

Thanks

Dave J
Dave,

Alas no. The only real list of private owners for tank cars was for the
AC&F type 27 in an early edition of the RP Cyc. Adding to our problems is
that these lists do not reflect the movement of cars between fleets or
consolidations. You can get some ideas from the builder's photos in the
Kaminski book, but buillder's information on cars built between 1911 and
1917 has little to do with the reality of 1944 (for me) or later (for many
list members).

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: RMC PRR G22 article

rwitt_2000 <rmwitt@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:

On Fri, April 11, 2008 11:38 am, Larry Kline wrote:

Bruce
I have a print from microfilm of PRR drawing 408101C, Rev F, dated
3-1-1951, brake arrangement for G22, G22a. It shows a brake
arrangement that matches the Kincaid drawing in RMC. The only
differences I can see are 1) The AB valve bracket is centered
between
the cross ties, and 2) There is a horizontal lever at each bolster
that connects to the brake rods that go down the center sill, and
has
chains to connect to the brake levers on the trucks.

The Kincaid drawing also is close to the recent Kohs O scale G22b.
see:
http://www.kohs.com/PRR%20G22b%20Pages/G22b%20Prod%20Sample%20Photos/
G22b%20Prod%20Sample%20Photos.html

Larry Kline
Larry,

Thanks - interesting. The Kohs version looks more logical to me than
the
drawing...<VBG> Oh well! I guess those of us modeling the G22B with
AB
brakes may have some changes to make in our models. I'd be curious to
know if the brake levers were reworked when the car was converted to
AB or
if they were always that way, even on the KD equipped cars.

Regards
Bruce
Bruce and Larry,

From my field measurements and observations of a G22B in non-revenue
service made in Indianapolis in 1980's, the brake arrangements of that
gondola basically agrees with the Kinkaid drawings. By this time the
car obviously was converted to AB brakes and equipped with a power hand
brake. My notebook for G22 includes a sketch I made on the Westerfield
instruction sheet showing how the brake components and levers should be
mounted. I still have to build the kit :-).

I will scan and post what photos I have of the lever arrangement.

Regards,

Bob Witt


Re: PRRPro TM8/AC&F Type 11 Project

Dave & Donna Johnson <ironhoss@...>
 

Is there a list of Type 11 Private Owner Cars?

Thanks

Dave J

----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Erickson
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:16 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: PRRPro TM8/AC&F Type 11 Project


Group, as Bruce said in his post, the AC&F Type 11 tank car project
also includes private owner Type 11 tank cars.

Besides the Associated and National Oil cars offered by Funaro &
Camerlengo, Texaco, Mobilgas, Kendall, and other oil companies had
Type 11 cars at different times. The STMFC Group has discussed Type
11 tank cars several times in the past.

Check it out if you are interested.

I am looking to do some private owner cars, circa late 1930s-early
1940s. Do any list members have in-service photographs of Type 11
cars? I am particularly interested in Kendall Refining (KRTX
reporting marks) or Koch Tank Line (OFKX reporting marks; linked to
Kendall, as mileage reports and remittances were sent to Kendall's
traffic manager) cars.

Thanks in advance, Rob Erickson


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 14, 2008, at 8:16 AM, John Hile wrote:

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "sfeforever" <dwedel1@> wrote:

On Richard Hendrickson's accurate Santa Fe kits he doesn't list
any
Accurail kits. None of the kits are even close ? How 'bout
Branchline's
Santa Fe kits ? Was the list compiled before Accurail's and
Branchline's offerings ?

Dwight,

There is a more recent list on the S.F. Rwy Hist. & Modeling Society
site. See the online resources section at atsfrr.net then look under
Richard Hendrickson. IIRC, two Branchline cars are listed there
(Bx-44 and Fe-27), but no Accurail. The only close ATSF Accurail cars
I am aware of would be the DS wood box as a Bx-2 and perhaps the DS
wood reefer as a USRA car. The reefer may be close to the Rr-4 for
which it is decorated, but I have not done any comparisons to the
prototype. At the least, I suspect hatch orientation and hatch
platforms would need to be changed. To be honest, I have not focused
on either of the Accurail cars, as the prototypes had been rebuilt
into steel-bodied cars by my era of interest...1952-53.























I compiled that list YEARS ago, so it's seriously out of date. I'm
of two minds about publishing lists of that sort at all; they may be
useful at the time, but then they don't go away, and fairly soon they
become not only obsolete but misleading. As John says, the
Branchline Bx-44 and Fe-27 models are accurate, apart from some
details. As for the Accurail models, the only one that's
prototypically correct for the Santa Fe is the 40' USRA wood sheathed
box car (assuming you can live with the molded-on grab irons and
such), and the Santa Fe Bx-2s were all rebuilt into steel cars by
1942. The reefer model is nowhere close to the Santa Fe's Rr-4 class
or any other of its modified USRA wood reefers, which had, in
addition to different ice hatch covers and platforms, different
roofs, different underframes, and five foot wide doors.

Richard Hendrickson

117061 - 117080 of 188615