Date   

Re: Coltexo Corp. CLTX cars

Ed Hawkins
 

On Apr 21, 2008, at 10:11 AM, asychis@aol.com wrote:

Does anyone have information about or know of photos of these cars? I
don't
have much other than that. They might be carbon black cars. I know
they
are leased form UTLX. CLTX reporting marks were used by Coltexo from
1937-1961.
My interest in the cars comes from some research I am doing on a
Santa Fe
(C&OW) branch from Heaton, TX, south to Coltexo, TX, where there were
two
carbon black plants.
Jerry,
CLTX had 15 carbon black cars numbered 101-115 built by AC&F from 1934
to 1937 in 3 groups of 5 cars each. I have AC&F builder's photos from
the first two groups (cars 104 and 107). CLTX 107 is in Ed Kaminski's
ACF book. I don't have any in-service photos and no doubt the lettering
changed over time. The carbon black cars can be accurately modeled with
the kit from Rail Shop (www.railshop.net), however, Chris has not yet
done decals for the CLTX cars.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


PRR T&HS Microfilm Service

Bill Lane
 

Hi All,

I am just reporting that I have recently had yet another excellent
experience ordering PRR mechanical drawings from the PRR T&HS Microfilm
Service. http://www.prrths.com/PRR_Microfilm.html The available drawings
were shipped in a very timely manner. I would like to thank society
volunteer Dick Price for providing such fast professional service. It is
sincerely appreciated.

Thank You,
Bill Lane

Modeling the Mighty Pennsy & PRSL in 1957 in S Scale since 1988

See my finished models at:
http://www.lanestrains.com
Winner of the 2007 Josh Seltzer NASG Website Award
Look at what has been made in PRR in S Scale!

Custom Train Parts Design
http://www.lanestrains.com/SolidWorks_Modeling.htm

PRR Builders Photos Bought, Sold & Traded
(Trading is MUCH preferred)
http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRphotos.xls

***Join the PRR T&HS***
The other members are not ALL like me!
http://www.prrths.com
http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRTHS_Application.pdf

Join the Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines Historical Society
It's FREE (for now) http://www.prslhs.com
Preserving The Memory Of The PRSL



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1388 - Release Date: 4/20/2008
3:01 PM


Re: M4 flat car loads - was CCB photo

Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:21 AM, water.kresse@comcast.net wrote:
Actually, in reading through some recently found (declassified) from Nov-Dec 1943 Newport News Divisional Office files, they had problems with letting C&O employes, who didn't have security checks, take these trains back to their homes.

It would be interesting to know where the guard(s) rode.
Al,

For secure shipments guards would usually ride in the cabin car or in an extra coach and the shipment would be located as close to the rear of the train as possible. Alternatively, some companies owned their own cabin cars for precisely this reason and these would be coupled directly to the load in question (I think that this was more common with odd dimension loads). Early in the war, there are several films that show unit movements (men with their equipment) and these movements had armed men posted ON the equipment. I'm sure it was an interesting ride.

Note also that some shipments might have railroad personnel along for the ride. Several years ago I read an account of a boxcar of aircraft instruments showing up on the UP during WWII and when the UP figured out what it was worth, they assigned an employee to "escort" that car until it was unloaded and off their hands. He rode in the caboose.

Pinkertons were posted at critical points along the route.
U.S. Military Police were also assigned to guard specific locations. MPs will be present at these locations on my planned layout ;^)

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ \
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: Status of Accu-Paint

Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...>
 

Rob,

George recommended using denatured alcohol if you run out of Accu Thinner. He had a tough time keepin it in the shop too. His advice worked very well, to the point that I stopped buying the thinner. As a custom painter I was used to ordering by the case, and picking it up from George.

There is a shop that advertises they have A-P in quantity; I will reflect on my sources and post it when I find it.

Fred Freitas

Rob Sarberenyi <espeef5@pacbell.net> wrote:
Has anyone heard official status about the ongoing availability of
Accu-Paint? Produced by SMP Industries, George Bishop has offered this
superior line of model railroad paints (actually artist inks) since the
mid-1970s. IMHO, there is no finer paint available for model railroad
application, certainly far superior to Floquil, although Scalecoat isn't too
bad.

Star Brand Paint, available from PBL, is essentially the same type of paint
as A-P, however, they don't yet offer the large variety of colors as
does/did A-P. Hopefully this changes over time as more colors are added to
Star's product line
http://www.p-b-l.com/

Accu-Paint's website was removed some months ago
http://www.smp-ind.com/accupaints.html

Here are archived pages from the Wayback Machine
http://web.archive.org/web/20060716005544/http://www.smp-ind.com/accupaints.
html

Although I still have a decent supply of some A-P colors left, I'm down to
my last two large 473 ml bottles of thinner. I'd definitely like to find
more A-P thinner, but checking stock at local dealers shows they're out, as
is Walthers. :~(

Web searches have found a couple threads on different forums speculating
about A-P closing down. If someone knows George and could provide the
official word on the future of A-P, I'm sure several like myself would like
to know.

If indeed A-P is no more, I may have to start playing around with mixing
Tamiya paint colors for certain model railroad applications
http://tamiyausa.com/

Meanwhile, I'll certainly use Star Brand Paints for the model railroad
colors they offer.


Rob Sarberenyi


Re: M4 flat car loads - was CCB photo

water.kresse@...
 

Actually, in reading through some recently found (declassified) from Nov-Dec 1943 Newport News Divisional Office files, they had problems with letting C&O employes, who didn't have security checks, take these trains back to their homes.

It would be interesting to know where the guard(s) rode. Pinkertons were posted at critical points along the route.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@auburn.edu>
On Thu, April 17, 2008 4:57 pm, Kurt Laughlin wrote:
Where is the picture? A DD tank is quite obvious even under a tarp.
The Iron Horse At War, James A. Valle, photo by Jack Delano, p144.

One thing about secure shipments, though, you don't draw attention to them
by posting a sign saying "The object underneath this tarp is TOP SECRET" .
When I posted my first comment I didn't have the book at hand, but a scan
I made several years ago. The caption indicates the the cars are in
Argentine Yard and the placards "specify careful handling and no humping".
I find that interesting because the placards face the end, not the side
of the car, and as the caption says, that seems a bit careful for a tank!

Why tarp a tank anyway? Unless there was something to hide. I can tell
and interesting story about Conrail and an M1 Abrams, but that's a bit out
of era.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Coltexo Corp. CLTX cars

asychis@...
 

Hi,

Does anyone have information about or know of photos of these cars? I don't
have much other than that. They might be carbon black cars. I know they
are leased form UTLX. CLTX reporting marks were used by Coltexo from
1937-1961.
My interest in the cars comes from some research I am doing on a Santa Fe
(C&OW) branch from Heaton, TX, south to Coltexo, TX, where there were two
carbon black plants.

Thanks,

Jerry Michels



**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)


Re: Barrett Hopper Car

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

Armand Premo wrote:
"I am interested in building a Barrett hopper car. While it is
considered a hopper car it looks very much like a tank car. Does anyone
on the list have any information about this group of asphalt cars? Any
information would be appreciated."

Armand, did you pull the 2005 discussion on these cars the last time
you asked this question last year? See post #58094 for details on a
photo posted in the group photos section, and search the archives
for "Barrett Tarvia" for the discussion thread.


Ben Hom


Barrett Hopper Car

armprem
 

I am interested in building a Barrett hopper car.While it is considered
a hopper car it looks very much like a tank car.Does anyone on the list
have any information about this group of asphalt cars?Any information
would be appreciated.A.Premo


Re: "How far to go" ... was ... Intermountain FGEX / WFEX Reefers

Westerfield <westerfield@...>
 

In pattern making my credo is, "perfection is the enemy of excellence." - Al Westerfield


Re: Army tanks on flats

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

The only reliable place to find historic T/O&Es would be the Army's Military History Institute or the National Archives. I just tried the online documents section of the MHI and the site is unavailable now.

http://www.ahco.army.mil/site/index.jsp

There was an online source for WW II tables but the link seems to be dead.

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Green

To determine with precision the equiment of a military (maneuver)
unit you need the TO&E, Table of Organization & Equipment. This
lists EVERYTHING, people and equiment from vehicles to spoons for the
mess.

I've often wondered if copies of old TO&Es could be found somewhere
because I, like Richard, would like to accurately model a complete
unit loaded on a string of cars.


Re: "How far to go" ... was ... Intermountain FGEX / WFEX Reefers

Bruce Smith
 

On Sun, April 20, 2008 2:13 pm, Jim Betz wrote:
Sometimes we can take prototype accuracy to a level that is
'unrealistic'. This may be one of them.

While Bruce is correct in what he says about these models ... I feel
that
it is important to point out that a two inch difference in the real car
height is .02 inches (real inches - in HO scale). And that when I went
to my digital caliper and opened it to that value the size of the
opening was not just small ... but -very- small.

Jim,

You have, inadvertantly I think, made the point that these 2" are in fact
VERY important. Why do I say so? Which series of cars will you be using
the IM cars for? The 12' 7" cars or the 12' 11" cars? The difference
between those two series is a very noticable 4". Post WWII, you should
see a CLEAR 3-step stair-step in a string of FGE/WFE wood reefers. If you
use the IM reefer for the 12'11" series as IM apparently intended, and the
Sunshine kit (although it is a foot short in length) for the 12'7" series,
then as you note, you will have a barely visible difference in height,
when that difference ought to be more noticable. I CAN see a 0.23"
difference. And, I can readily see a difference between 0.046" and 0.023"
;^)

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Army tanks on flats

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

To determine with precision the equiment of a military (maneuver)
unit you need the TO&E, Table of Organization & Equipment. This
lists EVERYTHING, people and equiment from vehicles to spoons for the
mess.

I've often wondered if copies of old TO&Es could be found somewhere
because I, like Richard, would like to accurately model a complete
unit loaded on a string of cars.

I would look first at the libraries of the various service schools
for old TO&Es. Infantry = Ft. Benning, GA; Artillery = Ft Sill, OK;
Armor = Ft Knox, KY; Air Defense Artillery = Ft Bliss, TX; Medical
= Ft Sam Houston, TX; Transportation = Ft Eustis, VA.

The military has had LOTS of freight cars since World War II. See
ORERs for details. There was a spurt of acquisition during the
Korean War but not one I could notice during Viet Nam. (I was on
active duty from 1960 through 1987.

A few years ago Fort Bliss received 200 brand new flat cars. I spite
of this I still see long strings of mostly yellow TTX flats out at
Bliss. I've seen unit moves in and out of Bliss for air defense
outfits, armored cavalry units, British and Dutch support units of
some sort and it is all quite interesting.

By the way, there are now 6 locomotives at Bliss including 2 gensets
and 1 green goat. The 3 older GP-whatevers are headed for Hill AFB
in Utah.

Gene Green
MSG, USA, Ret


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

Hi Richard;

My source info is mostly packed away, here here is a start that may
prompt corrections for those with the info to hand.

The WWII era tank company had 22 tanks formed in 4 platoons of 5
tanks
each and a two tank HQ. IIRC the HQ also had two jeeps and a
halftrack
assigned.

The modern tank company has 14 tanks, 3 platoons of four tanks and a
two tank HQ. Interestingly, this happens to mirror the late WWII
German organization! I'm not sure if there are any other vehicles
assigned, not time the organization was changed.

In the late 1950's the unit would probably have M48 tanks, maybe
M47s,
and almost certainly would have been transported on Army/DODX 50
foot
heavy flat cars as modeled by Roco (sold by AHM and later Walthers).
The use of railroad owned equipment to transport military units
pretty
well ended with WWII as best as I can tell, although Korea might
have
also required the additional transportation resources beyond what
DOD
could supply.

Pieter Roos

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, richtownsend@ wrote:

We seem to have some experts on tanks in this group, so I am
inspired to ask a question that has been nagging at me for years.? I
want to model a late steam era train carrying a group (company?
platoon?) of M-47 tanks from their normal base to be embarked for
overseas deployment.? So my question is what and how much of what
kinds of?equipment should be included?? Like tanks, for instance.?
How
many?? I read somewhere that a company of tanks is (was) made up of
14
tanks.? True?? What other equipment should be included?? Fuel
tankers?? Jeeps?? Ammo trucks?? Spare parts trucks?? Command
vehicles
of any type?? Other?? These would go on steam era flat cars so I
assume the question is in scope.

Also, how likely is it that they would be on Army flat cars,
particularly those of the 6-axle type?


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon


Re: "How far to go" ... was ... Intermountain FGEX / WFEX Reefers

gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Andy Carlson <midcentury@...> wrote:


I personally enjoy resuts that are breathtaking to the extreme likeness of replication.
Imagine the Kadee cars with fatter details, and the Highliners A units with details off by
"only 2-3 inches".
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA



Agreed. With CAD/CAM technologies, there really isn't a good reason for error, especially
when you have experts willing to review preproduction drawings, when errors are much
cheaper to fix. Why should IM get a free pass for tooling rivets on a MILW ribside boxcar,
or a non-existent groove just above the sidesill on a GN plywood boxcar, and then ask us
to pay $30 for the model? Proto 2000 and Branchline don't release models with major
errors (with one notable exception that was noted and fixed), why does IM?

Oh well, if they botch the covered hopper, maybe Kadee will tool one.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Stanley, ND


Re: "How far to go" ... was ... Intermountain FGEX / WFEX Reefers

Andy Carlson
 

I personally enjoy resuts that are breathtaking to the extreme likeness of replication. Imagine the Kadee cars with fatter details, and the Highliners A units with details off by "only 2-3 inches".
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


Re: Army tanks on flats

Pieter Roos
 

Hi Richard;

My source info is mostly packed away, here here is a start that may
prompt corrections for those with the info to hand.

The WWII era tank company had 22 tanks formed in 4 platoons of 5 tanks
each and a two tank HQ. IIRC the HQ also had two jeeps and a halftrack
assigned.

The modern tank company has 14 tanks, 3 platoons of four tanks and a
two tank HQ. Interestingly, this happens to mirror the late WWII
German organization! I'm not sure if there are any other vehicles
assigned, not time the organization was changed.

In the late 1950's the unit would probably have M48 tanks, maybe M47s,
and almost certainly would have been transported on Army/DODX 50 foot
heavy flat cars as modeled by Roco (sold by AHM and later Walthers).
The use of railroad owned equipment to transport military units pretty
well ended with WWII as best as I can tell, although Korea might have
also required the additional transportation resources beyond what DOD
could supply.

Pieter Roos

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, richtownsend@... wrote:

We seem to have some experts on tanks in this group, so I am
inspired to ask a question that has been nagging at me for years.? I
want to model a late steam era train carrying a group (company?
platoon?) of M-47 tanks from their normal base to be embarked for
overseas deployment.? So my question is what and how much of what
kinds of?equipment should be included?? Like tanks, for instance.? How
many?? I read somewhere that a company of tanks is (was) made up of 14
tanks.? True?? What other equipment should be included?? Fuel
tankers?? Jeeps?? Ammo trucks?? Spare parts trucks?? Command vehicles
of any type?? Other?? These would go on steam era flat cars so I
assume the question is in scope.

Also, how likely is it that they would be on Army flat cars,
particularly those of the 6-axle type?


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon


Re: "How far to go" ... was ... Intermountain FGEX / WFEX Reefers

Dave Nelson
 

Jim Betz wrote:
Hi All,

First and foremost - this is not an attack on, or refutation of,
what others have said about these models ... I'm merely using the
prior postings on that thread as a spring board to my ideas/attitudes
on this topic.

Sometimes we can take prototype accuracy to a level that is
'unrealistic'. This may be one of them.

For those of you who express those facts in 3.5mm / inch plastic can draw
one subjective conclusion. Those of us who "model" 12" / foot via 3d cad
software can draw a different subjective conclusion. But facts are facts
and IMO it's best when they're surfaced w/o regard to whatever subjective
opinion might spring forth later on, not to mention w/o regard to how one
enjoys putting those facts to work in a hobby.

Dave Nelson


Re: "How far to go" ... was ... Intermountain FGEX / WFEX Reefers

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Betz . . .

Take your digital caliper and open it to .02 inches and see what I mean.

. . .


Or stack five sheets of copier paper together.

KL


Army tanks on flats

Richard Townsend
 

We seem to have some experts on tanks in this group, so I am inspired to ask a question that has been nagging at me for years.? I want to model a late steam era train carrying a group (company? platoon?) of M-47 tanks from their normal base to be embarked for overseas deployment.? So my question is what and how much of what kinds of?equipment should be included?? Like tanks, for instance.? How many?? I read somewhere that a company of tanks is (was) made up of 14 tanks.? True?? What other equipment should be included?? Fuel tankers?? Jeeps?? Ammo trucks?? Spare parts trucks?? Command vehicles of any type?? Other?? These would go on steam era flat cars so I assume the question is in scope.

Also, how likely is it that they would be on Army flat cars, particularly those of the 6-axle type?


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon


Re: "How far to go" ... was ... Intermountain FGEX / WFEX Reefers

Greg Martin
 

Jim and Kurt comment...

For a bit more accurate idea adjust your digital calipers to millimeters and
crank it down to .5834 mm. not that is small. It is the fat side of
nothing...

Greg Martin

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Betz
. . .

Take your digital caliper and open it to .02 inches and see what I mean.

. . .

Or stack five sheets of copier paper together.

KL









**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)


Re: "How far to go" ... was ... Intermountain FGEX / WFEX Reefers

rfederle@...
 

This has probably been said before as I have not closely followed this thread.

I think the level of detail on todays models is great compared to just a few years ago. I personally can accept the few inches off here or there as long as it is reasonable accurate "to me". Rather than count rivets or inches, I would prefer to have a prototypically accurate paint job with the correct lettering / logo, etc. applied.

If there are certain details I feel are necessary, I will need to get away from the TV and apply them myself.

I feel manufacturers are listening and trying to please a majority (some of the time). Sometimes this is true and sometimes not, but you cant please everyone all the time.

I may anger some but it sounds like, to me anyway, that alot of those arguing were not modeling 30 years ago or so. If they were I believe they could appreciate the products we have today and not be as critical.

Just my opinions.

Robert Federle
---- Jim Betz <jimbetz@jimbetz.com> wrote:

Hi All,

First and foremost - this is not an attack on, or refutation of, what
others have said about these models ... I'm merely using the prior postings
on that thread as a spring board to my ideas/attitudes on this topic.

Sometimes we can take prototype accuracy to a level that is 'unrealistic'.
This may be one of them.

While Bruce is correct in what he says about these models ... I feel that
it is important to point out that a two inch difference in the real car
height is .02 inches (real inches - in HO scale). And that when I went to
my digital caliper and opened it to that value the size of the opening was
not just small ... but -very- small.
Probably small enough that if I was looking at two HO cars coupled
together on a track that I would be unable to detect the difference -
without changing my view angle to be precisely at roof level. I
certainly do not think I would notice nor even be able to detect the
difference in a train moving on the layout - even if I was viewing it
at the optimum angle to determine car height differences. And when I
look at photos/videos of real trains I see that there were lots of
minor variations in car height - and although I don't always look for
it I like the fact that the trains that I run have those same differences -
even if those differences are on "the wrong models". Yes, I would like
the car height in the trains I run to all be correct for the cars being
modeled - but I guess I'm also admitting that I'm willing to accept the
fact that I care more about seeing some differences from car to car ...
than in the fact that the differences I'm seeing are those that would have
actually been there on a real train (ie. the cars modeled).
Let's face it 2 scale inches is in the range where most of us would
be tempted to not even fix it if it is a difference in the coupler height ...
much less the roof line. Yes, most of us would grumble about "why couldn't
they even get the couplers right?" ... and fix the coupler mismatch ===> but
some of us would say "good enough" and leave them alone. And I'm not
certain I'd have to disagree with that decision because it isn't clear
that it would cause any problems in operations - nor that anyone would
notice the difference unless they were focusing on the coupler matches
at the time. This is definitely the level of difference that I see on
operating layouts ... every ... time I go to a run - when I look for it.

Take your digital caliper and open it to .02 inches and see what I mean.

(If you don't have one you can buy them from Harbor Freight for very
reasonable prices - I recommend the 4" metal one at $14.99 which is
their item # 47256-6VGA - I bought two so I'd have one at the model
bench and another at the work bench. These are ideal for most
purposes in HO and it is uncertain how often you need the 6" size.)

I would certainly purchase the correct model based upon height - if I
had two models in front of me and they were, in -all- other respects,
identical ... and the same price.
But, for me at least, items such as the accuracy of the paint scheme,
the level of detail, the size of the detail, whether or not it has the
correct doors or roof, etc. are of far more importance ... to me ... than
whether or not the roofline is 2" high/low.

I am not saying I don't care about the accuracy of the dimensions
of the models I purchase and build. I do. But I don't think I'd "pass"
on the subject model or any other due to 2 scale inches. Based upon
the opening of my digital caliper I'm not certain I'd pass on 4 scale
inches quickly - I'd probably stew over it a few days and then end
up purchasing it "until a better example comes along".

I do agree that these particular models are lettered incorrectly and
wish that Intermountain would "get their act together" on these kinds
of details - but I also understand the 'pressure' to re-use molds and/or
lettering setups when you are doing relatively small runs of a model.
Stuff like this is relatively easy to do if you are starting out on a
totally new project (model for production) but can be expensive to do
if you are doing a "rework" project. And I'd certainly rather have
Intermountain continue in existence than not. I don't think that the
success or failure (based upon number of copies sold) of any one model
will make/break a company like Intermountain - and I share everyone's
concern for "do it right the first time" - but I do sympathize with
the almost daily dilemma that companies such as Intermountain are faced
with in making decisions of this type.
And I also understand that if I ... and hundreds/thousands of other
guys keep buying them "until a better model comes along" that we are
effectively contributing to the continuation of the practice of providing
us with so many inaccurate models.
All of this makes me "uncertain" where I come out on the question of
whether or not I'd prefer Intermountain to not have produced these
models in this size and paint scheme at all - versus not having them
available.

There is a part of me that wants to do "just one accurate model every
so many days/weeks" ... but I also have to admit that I am far more
willing to "just purchase a model, replace/check the couplers and trucks,
weather it, and put it in the train case to be run" than that desire to
have -correct- models would imply that I should be doing. Just like most
of you I have to admit to a CONsiderable amount of laziness when it
comes to researching and/or executing the models I call "mine". A fairly
large part of this is due to the fact that I prefer to "run trains"
to "working on trains".
It's sort of like golf ... it's much more fun to play 18 holes than it
is to spend an hour on the driving range working on your game. And then
you grumble to yourself about "why do I keep doing that?" when you miss a
shot. But you don't necessarily go to the driving range the next day ...

On the plus side these are very nice models and do "look the part" even
if they aren't "spot on". Personally, I always have to consider my time -
there are so few models that are "perfect" - even in terms of 'sins of
commission' much less 'sins of omission' - that I find I have to accept a
lot of compromises I'd rather not even have presented to me. The old saw
about " ... in a perfect world ... " is certainly very much in play on
this topic! And life is much more prone to be "messy" than it is to being
"perfect". We each have to choose how much messiness makes us happy ...

- YMMV (and that's a GOOD thing) ... Jim
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Intermountain FGEX / WFEX Reefers
Posted by: "Bruce Smith" smithbf@auburn.edu smithbf36832
Date: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:58 pm ((PDT))

On Fri, April 18, 2008 12:44 pm, John Hile wrote:
Hello All,

Recently ran across the notes I made after reading Bill Welch's
information (Thank you Bill) on the FGEX and WFEX prototypes IM
recently attempted to model. From that info, along with Bill's RMJ
article and posts from this list, I believe I made correct
assessments as listed below. I would, however, appreciate any
corrections or confirmations.
John,

Bill has indicated that he feels that these cars are models of the 12'11"
rail to eave height post-WWII rebuilt cars (FGE 5000-56999, 57000-58999
and 59000-59999 series), which is clearly how you have addressed your
comments on the models. However, as I have noted before, they measure
12'9", falling almost exactly in the middle between the 12'7" 1927 cars
and the 12'11" rebuilds. As we talked about these over on the PRRPro
list, I think it was Ed Martin who pointed out that a loaded 12'11" car
would likely measure 12'9" ;^) so if you revise the truck sideframes to
show 2" of spring compression, you're good to go. Otherwise, these cars
might be useful fodder for the 12'7" variety with some trimming (which we
will be doing in a few projects on the PRRPro list), but alas in their RTR
forms, these are accurate models of nothing...

Of course, as you note, the attempt by IM to number them for 1921, 12'1",
6" side sill reefers is completely bogus.

Unfortunately, the Sunshine resin cars for the 1921 and 1927 (and I assume
the post war 12'11" cars) are a full foot too short in length, leaving us
with no accurate models of the signature FGE wood reefers.

Regards
Bruce

120921 - 120940 of 192655