Date   

Re: New Standards for turnouts

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

cj riley wrote (apropos of turnout dimensional issues):
But, like axle lengths etc., the dies are in place and not likely to change soon.
They might indeed change, if the NMRA has the guts to modify the standards as you describe, and then PULL any compliance certificates--with appropriate publicity--for turnouts which no longer comply.
Among other things, this might send a signal that compliance DOES matter. Whether the average modeler cares about things like certificates depends in part on what kind of publicity there is. This is something the NMRA itself CAN control.

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: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

rfederle@...
 

I dont mean to butt in here however as I see it we pretty much do that now. The thing is my standards may not suit the next guy and vise versa. We already choose what is suitable to our needs and either purchase the item and make refinements to reach our standad or we leave it on the shelf and go back home (so to speak).

Setting our own standards to print and trying to get a manufacturer to comply would be a large task. Then you have one manufacturer with this standard and onother with something different. I dont see what this would accomplish except go backwards.

I think we can influence change by supplying the manufacturer with hard data and information. Standards are not obligatory. The B&O have some really nice F7s coming and that was due to supplying good information and much discussion on members parts that wanted something more accurate. This would be meet better than issuing and trying to enforce additional standards.

Just my 2 cents and sorry for intruding.

Robert Federle
---- Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...> wrote:

You are missing my point altogether: If the existing organization
won't do what you think is necessary come up with your
own "Standards". Why bother with an organization at all? I would
think there are enough people here with enough influence and
credibility to get the manufacturers _that matter_ to make things
that are interoperable. What difference does the letterhead on the
spec sheet make so long as the things that the Serious Scale Modelers
want are getting done?

KL

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

Kurt, how little you know of the background of this issue.
Some
of us, including Richard Hendrickson particularly, as well as me,
have
actually volunteered to the NMRA standards people to help. You can
judge from the tone of our remarks how far that's gotten.
With an organization, one cannot simply "do standards
yourself," particularly if the organization is bureaucratic, quite
political, and tending toward hardening of the arteries.


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

Larry, I don't know what support Tony needs from me to publish his
next book or Richard his next RMJ article. More to the point, I
can't see how any sort of standardization document (note the message
subject) would have any effect on improving detail quality and
accuracy. Can you elaborate on this?

My point of reference is armor models, which have improved by an
order of magnitude in detail quality and accuracy the last 20 years.
There are no standards whatsoever in that hobby, so you can see my
skepticism that new standards will make any difference in my areas of
interest.

KL

--- In STMFC@..., Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...> wrote:

Kurt,
If you look at the typical freight car kit from 20 years ago and
the ones being produced today, you will see significant improvement
in
the detail quality and accuracy of the models. The market reacted to
demand created by and made possible by many modelers on this list who
did something. Why you think you cannot or should not contribute to
that is puzzling to me. If you want improved detail quality and
accuracy, why not support those people who have worked very hard (And
continue to work very hard) to get that for you?


Re: 1950's Auto Transport Trailers

prbharris
 

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

Bruce Smith wrote:
However, the original question asked about TOFC auto carriers (ie
autos on truck trailers in turn on flat cars), and frankly,
I'm not sure that ever occurred, or
if it did, it was both extremely rare
and after the time-frame of this list.
There are two photos of this exact thing, on SP, in my Vol. 3 on
flat cars, pp. 302, 303, and they are 1959-model cars.
But I don't know how rare it was.

Tony Thompson
We are working on a model of one of the dual axle style auto carriers,
and have drawings of them. The trailers were used on the Clejan
flatcars as Tony Thompson demonstrates. There was a large roster of
the auto carriers used on the GM service. Better photos are in another
of Tony Thompson's books his 'Color Guide to Freight and Passenger
Equipment Vol 1'p 93 thru 99. These photos were SP publicity shots,
and were staged rather than action reality.

There was a similar trailer, albeit with one axle used by Hudson on
the FlexiVan chassis.

The models of the Pacific Motor Transport autocarrier are will be in N
Scale.

Peter

Peter Harris
N Scale Kits
www.nscalekits.com


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Tim O'Connor
 

Kit? Someone still makes kits?

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...>
Kurt,
If you look at the typical freight car kit from 20 years ago and the ones
being produced today, you will see significant improvement in the detail quality
and accuracy of the models. The market reacted to demand created by and made
possible by many modelers on this list who did something. Why you think you
cannot or should not contribute to that is puzzling to me. If you want improved
detail quality and accuracy, why not support those people who have worked very
hard (And continue to work very hard) to get that for you?
Larry Grubb


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

You are missing my point altogether: If the existing organization
won't do what you think is necessary come up with your
own "Standards". Why bother with an organization at all? I would
think there are enough people here with enough influence and
credibility to get the manufacturers _that matter_ to make things
that are interoperable. What difference does the letterhead on the
spec sheet make so long as the things that the Serious Scale Modelers
want are getting done?

KL

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

Kurt, how little you know of the background of this issue.
Some
of us, including Richard Hendrickson particularly, as well as me,
have
actually volunteered to the NMRA standards people to help. You can
judge from the tone of our remarks how far that's gotten.
With an organization, one cannot simply "do standards
yourself," particularly if the organization is bureaucratic, quite
political, and tending toward hardening of the arteries.


Re: Brake Equipment for SFRD Rr-7 Reefers

John Hile <john66h@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "yingstco" <flyingy@...> wrote:

I am working on a Sunshine kit for the above mentioned car and have a
question. The car has the replacement Murphy panel steel roof.

When this roof was added, would the brake equipment have been upgraded
to the AB system at the same time? Would the handbrake have been
changed to the power type?






Hello Dave,

According to the Jan 1, 1951 ATSF Freight Car Folio, there were 343
live Rr-7 reefers. Of those, 335 had steel riveted ("Murphy") and 8
had outside flexible metal roofs. All are listed as having Ureco hand
brake but no notation of "AB" brakes having been installed. Of
course, cars did receive AB brakes yet retain their Ureco vertical
staff mechanism as documented by a photo in the Santa Fe Reefer Book.

The Santa Fe Reefer Book mentions six Rr-7 cars still in need of AB
brakes as of December 1, 1952 - with plans to replace them by end of
the year. It also states that AB brakes and Ajax power hand brakes
were "frequently" applied when the Murphy roofs were installed, but
not always.


Hope this helps,
John Hile
Blacksburg, VA


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

cj riley <cjriley42@...>
 

Mike Brock wrote:

industrious folks spend their time studying color [ gasp ]
because I'm going
to use RP-25 Code 110 wheels because my 55 hand built
turnouts are built to
match such wheel profiles on the locos used to pull frt

You are fortunate that tou hand laid your track. Di Voss, the standards chair, has been testing all the manufactured turnouts and NONE meet the standards. He has realized that the system in general often specifies minimum and maximum dimensions where the manufacturer chooses that number as his target and manufacturing tolerances cause variations. He is currently working on revisions stating a firm dimension with +- tolerances to make compliance more likely.

But, like axle lengths etc., the dies are in place and not likely to change soon.

CJ Riley


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...>
 

Mike,
If by "very positive" you mean "a can of worms", I agree.
The problem is reverse compatibility. The number of new trucks that come on the market every year is quite small, and if today manufacturers adopted a standard going forward, it would be decades before a majority of trucks on the market met the standard. Retooling existing trucks to meet this standard would be expensive and result in no measurable increase in sales. And if the standard matches manufacurer A's current practice, the rest of the manufacturers will have an unfair financial burden placed on them. Retooling every freight car chassis to conform to the standard - well, I'm not even gonna go there. I understand the desire for these kinds of standards, and how much they would simplify both designing products and the modeler's ability to kit-bash easily. What prevents them from becoming reality is not coming up with a good standard, it is the complexity of implementing the standard. If someone has an idea for how such a standard can be implemented fairly and at a
low cost, then by all means spend the time & effort to set the standards. If not, then even the best of standards won't stand a chance.
Larry Grubb


Mike Brock <brockm@...> wrote:
Jim Betz lists 6 suggestions regarding various truck/bolster dimensions that
might be very useful toward operational compatibility between models of
different manufacturers. Investigation of the 6 would, I think, be very
positive.

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe



Recent Activity

2
New Members

5
New Files

Visit Your Group
Y! Sports for TV
Game Day Companion
Live fantasy league
& game stats on TV.

Yahoo! News
Fashion News
What's the word on
fashion and style?

Sell Online
Start selling with
our award-winning
e-commerce tools.



.


Re: P&WV "Symbol of Service" paint scheme

MOFWCABOOSE@...
 

As someone who has handled many Paul Dunn negatives in their original envelopes, I can say that Paul?rarely put color data on the envelopes. His early negatives, to the end of the 1950s, were usually in pale brown cash envelopes a little bigger then a 616 negative, with the data typewritten on the envelope. In the 1960s he switched to glassine envelopes with the data hand written on it.

That data usually included the railroad, car number, type, class, location, and date. Only if the car color or marking was new or unusual (such as one of the first PRR orange cabooses), did he add a notation (such as "Orange" or "Large Lettering") on the envelope.

In the 1980s when he was selling off large parts of his negative collection, he put a lot of negatives, which he evidently did not take himself, in white envelopes made by cutting down larger ones and sealing one end with a small sticker, with the data hand written on the envelope. And that data was?quite unreliable, BTW. It appeared that he had acquired the negatives from others who didn't supply data, so he just made up whatever he liked. In extreme cases the results were ludicrous: dates years before the cars were built or last repacked, summer dates with several inches of snow on the ground, and (in the days before run-through)?cabooses?hundreds of miles from home rails. Sometimes he even ignored data that was hand-inked on the margins of the negative.

To sum up: be wary of his dates/locations unless he is known to have taken the negative himself, or it can be clearly identified via other means as having been taken when/where he says it was. Many of his own freight car negatives seem to have been taken in the PRR yard along the banks of the?Muskingum River in Zanesville and are easily identified by the background of tall trees. Paul did trade with other photographers, but only occasionally did he specify who they were.

This is important, because Paul Dunn was one of the?relatively few?photographers of freight cars. He apparently started to take them in the early 1940s (though ones that old are rare), and kept at it fairly heavily through the 1960s, when 616 film became scarce.

John C. La Rue, Jr.
Bonita Springs, FL

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 11:41 am
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: P&WV "Symbol of Service" paint scheme







On May 22, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:

That photo of a "red" box car with the "Symbol.." logo originally
appeared as
a black and white photo, with a scale date of 1954 or so, and
honestly,
appears to have been colorized. That is why it has a grey background
on the
herald. Look at the photo closely. Do you see the green rendering of
the
grass? Does it look hazy, and like it doesn't apply to individual
blades? I
am very suspicious of that photo.

As far as I have also ever heard, the "Symbol of service" logo was
not found
on cars before about 1958, which is about the time they shifted to
black for
box cars. The symbol logo was not used on any channel hoppers I have
ever
seen photos of, but was on the offsets, some of which were
rehabilitated in
that timeframe (1958 to ~ 1961). I have never seen photos of P&WV box
cars in
dates prior to about 1958, as evidenced by scale/re-weigh dates, with
the
symbol logo.
Elden,
I offer the following information from in-service photos I have
acquired (all are B&W). Per photos in the 1200-series, the slogan was
in use by April 1954. Photos of 1200 series are from cars built 2-47 by
AC&F (series 1200-1299). Photos of the 1300 series are PS-1s built
11-48 (series 1300-1399).

#1231, RK. 4-54 reweigh, symbol of "Service" slogan, Col. Chet McCoid
photo at Tacoma, Washington, 2-18-55, Bob's Photo.
#1236, RK. 4-54 reweigh, symbol of "Service" slogan, Paul Dunn photo
ca. 1956, Richard Burg collection.
#1314, RK. 3-59 reweigh, symbol of "Service" slogan, Jay Williams
collection.
#1356, MAD. 11-52 reweigh, no slogan, Paul Dunn photo ca. mid-1950s,
Bob Lorenz collection.
#1358, BC 6-53 reweigh, no slogan, W.C. Whittaker photo 5-29-55 at
Portland, Oregon. (original paint)
#1375, NEW 11-48, no slogan, George Sisk photo June 1949 at Joplin,
Missouri. (original paint)
#1384, RK. 1-64 reweigh, symbol of "Service" slogan, Bob Lorenz
collection.
#1392, RK. 11-57, no slogan, photo taken 12-12-57 at Providence, R.I.,
Bob's Photo. (original paint)

I cannot tell with any degree of certainty what color these cars were.
The 1236 doesn't look black, but the photo was taken with full sunlight
on the broadside view, so anything is possible. I wonder if Paul Dunn
made any comments about the color on the negative sleeve.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Kurt Laughlin wrote:
I'm saying that the if the people on this list think new Standards are necessary - and viable - they should stop waiting for someone else to write them and do it themselves.
Kurt, how little you know of the background of this issue. Some of us, including Richard Hendrickson particularly, as well as me, have actually volunteered to the NMRA standards people to help. You can judge from the tone of our remarks how far that's gotten.
With an organization, one cannot simply "do standards yourself," particularly if the organization is bureaucratic, quite political, and tending toward hardening of the arteries.

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: Bare metal foil vs Paint (was Re: Georgia RR cars (was Not boxcar red))

Bruce Smith
 

On May 22, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Gene Green wrote:
Any there any problems getting paint to adhere to bare metal foil?
Gene Green
Gene,

When I used this approach for patch panels on an X29, I did not have any problem, although I also grit blasted the surface. I did however have a problem with coverage as the silver metal foil showed through as a different color then where the red plastic body was painted. On subsequent cars done this way, I have used a base color of silver to even the car out, followed by painting the body color.

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;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Bare metal foil vs Paint (was Re: Georgia RR cars (was Not boxcar red))

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

Any there any problems getting paint to adhere to bare metal foil?
Gene Green


Brake Equipment for SFRD Rr-7 Reefers

yingstco <flyingy@...>
 

I was wondering if I could get some help.

I am working on a Sunshine kit for the above mentioned car and have a
question. The car has the replacement Murphy panel steel roof.

When this roof was added, would the brake equipment have been upgraded
to the AB system at the same time? Would the handbrake have been
changed to the power type?

Thanks for your help.

Dave Yingst
Corning, CA


Re: Fords in Crates WAS: Re: New file uploaded to STMFC

Bill Schneider <branchline@...>
 

Actually, at least early production Ford GPW's ("Jeeps") had the Ford script stamped into the rear body panel much like a pick-up truck until (I think) mid 1943, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fordjeeplogo.JPG ) and a quick web search turned up this page http://www.olive-drab.com/od_mvg_jeeps_overseas_shipping.php showing a similar crate with a smaller Ford script stamped on it, so I guess it would be at least plausible that these are Ford Jeeps crated for oversees shipment.

Bill Schneider
Ford Enthusiast with many hours working on a '44 GPW (without script fenders)

----- Original Message -----
From: Kurt Laughlin
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Fords in Crates WAS: Re: New file uploaded to STMFC


Marty, you are correct. The War Department prohibited commercial markings on
Government equipment. This went so far as to cause the factories to alter
the stamping dies so that commercial logos did noy appear on truck hoods,
grilles, or tailgates.

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: cvsne

I do find it odd war production materiel -- Willys or Ford Jeeps or
otherwise -- would be shipped in a crate marked "Ford" whereas the
vast majority of war materiel I've seen being loaded onto ships was
devoid of the manufacturer's name or logo. I have a similiar photo
showing a shipment of aircraft engines being loaded into a boxcar at
the P&W factory and the crates have some stencilling on them, but not
a "company" logo or even name.


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Jim Betz lists 6 suggestions regarding various truck/bolster dimensions that might be very useful toward operational compatibility between models of different manufacturers. Investigation of the 6 would, I think, be very positive.

He comments further:

"7) A specification of what the diameter of a 33" wheel is (etc.)"

I'm not certain about this. One thing to consider is that the face of such a wheel should be 32.5" in diameter [ or so I'm told by a ACL mechanical dept. guru.

"8) I leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to specify the 'profile'
and size of the wheel tread. The existing RP for this is a long ways
from being prototypical in shape or size - but it does provide for
reliable operations. It is possible that we need more than one spec/RP
for this but we certainly don't need 3 or 4 times the number of actual
manufacturers of wheels of variations!"

I don't quite understand what you mean. Just for HO scale we currently have NMRA RP-25 which contains profiles for Code 110 and true Code 88 wheels. We also have S-4.1 which contains wheel dimensions for Proto 87 and Fine Scale. In addition, technical note TN-1.1.2 [ 28 pages worth ] contains everything most would ever want to know about wheel profiles for Proto 87 and Fine Scale. We also have a pseudo Code 88 produced by various manufacturers but, which [ at least in some cases is a Code 110 wheel reduced to Code 88 in wheel thickness ]. So, it seems to me that we already have a rather significant number of wheel profiles...not just RP-25. Most HO scale locomotives in the past have been built to RP-25 Code 110 wheel dimensions and profiles and track has most commonly been constructed and/or manufacturered to accomodate them. If someone wants to develop another Proto 87 [ or the same for Proto 64 ot Proto 48 ] profile with compatible track turnout frogs, I say more power to them but I'd have to wonder why. If someone wanted to develop a wheel profile somewhat similar to NMRA Fine Scale [ i.e., not as close to scale as Proto 87, 64 and 48 with compatibile track/frog dimensions ], more power to them and then we could have at least 5 different configurations although, again, I'd have wonder why the current Fine Scale wouldn't be satisfactory. Personally, I'd much rather such industrious folks spend their time studying color [ gasp ] because I'm going to use RP-25 Code 110 wheels because my 55 hand built turnouts are built to match such wheel profiles on the locos used to pull frt cars. Pseudo Code 88 wheels? Well, they look better when viewed from their ends but all the King's Men could not pick out the Pseudo Code 88 wheeled car from 2 feet away during a test conducted during a past Prototype Rails and such wheels tend to wobble a bit when negotiating frogs built to Code 110 associated standards.

Mike Brock


Re: Fords in Crates WAS: Re: New file uploaded to STMFC

Charlie Vlk
 

This may have been true on the EXTERIOR of vehicles, etc... but recently I visited the USS Bowfin
and EMD and GE logos were all over the engine room and other model nameplates clearly had
manufacturer names and logos displayed.
Charlie Vlk


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...>
 

Kurt,
If you look at the typical freight car kit from 20 years ago and the ones being produced today, you will see significant improvement in the detail quality and accuracy of the models. The market reacted to demand created by and made possible by many modelers on this list who did something. Why you think you cannot or should not contribute to that is puzzling to me. If you want improved detail quality and accuracy, why not support those people who have worked very hard (And continue to work very hard) to get that for you?
Larry Grubb

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...> wrote:
As to me, I'm not going to do a damn thing. I have no motivation to act.
The only area of improvement that I'd like to see is in the detail
quality and accuracy of the models themselves, but these things are
for The Market to solve, and no Standard is ever going change them
anyway.





Recent Activity

2
New Members

5
New Files

Visit Your Group
Health Zone
Look your best!
Groups to help you
look & feel great.

Yahoo! News
Fashion News
What's the word on
fashion and style?

Dog Groups
on Yahoo! Groups
discuss everything
related to dogs.



.


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Jim Betz
 

I propose the following standards/RPs - which are not currently part of
the specification/designation.

For Each Scale

1) A standard height from the rail to the top of the bolster on the truck.
Yes, this varied on the real cars we are modeling - no that difference
doesn't matter - all trucks can 'conform' to this and not be enough
different from the prototype to matter.

2) At that standard height a specification for the minimum size of a
flat space with a thru hole of a specific dimension (ie. the mounting
face of the truck).

3) A matching flat space with a similar hole (thru or not) on the car (ie.
where the truck mounts on the car). This does not have to be exactly
the same size and shape as the one on the truck - but it ought to be
close to the same.

4) A standard height from the rail to the bottom of the coupler mounting
face (ie. where the coupler box mounts on the car).

5) At that standard height a specification for the minimum size for the
flat space on the bottom of the car - with a specification of the
size of the thru hole used to mount the coupler pocket.

6) A standard wheel axle length specification. This may need to be a
set of specifications of 2 or 3 different lenghts ... but there is
no need for the current rnage of axle lengths.

7) A specification of what the diameter of a 33" wheel is (etc.)

8) I leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to specify the 'profile'
and size of the wheel tread. The existing RP for this is a long ways
from being prototypical in shape or size - but it does provide for
reliable operations. It is possible that we need more than one spec/RP
for this but we certainly don't need 3 or 4 times the number of actual
manufacturers of wheels of variations!

An example is in order - for an HO car there would be a 2/56 clearance hole
in the truck and a specific height of the face that it will use to mount
to the car ... on the car there would be a matching 2/56 hole that is
either already threaded or is ready to be threaded - and there would be a
similar 2/56 hole ready to be threaded to accept the coupler pocket.
The size of the screw intended to be used may (or may not) be different
depending upon the scale - certainly you would need a smaller screw for N-
scale or Z-scale, I'm not so sure about S-scale, for O-scale you probably
want a #4 screw, etc.
I'll even concede that the screws should be similar sizes in metric - as
long as they are specified it doesn't matter that much. For my money the
screws should also include the recommendation of using Phillips heads! It
is even possible that a self-tapping screw can be supplied by the mfgr.

The point? Simple ... every truck or coupler box and coupler or wheelset
can be substituted for any other on any car - as long as it is the correct
scale. The manufacturers have free rein on design of coupler, coupler box,
wheels, trucks, car underframes, etc.

Yes, as I hinted at before - this means that some aspects of the car and
trucks will not be able to be built "perfectly to scale" and still conform to
my proposed standard/RP. Most of the time that is totally unimportant because
the design points I'm talking about are underneath the car and are unseen
when the car is built and sitting on the rails - and, for that matter,
difficult to near impossible to determine even if you pick the car up and
look at it. Certainly someone who has a prototype drawing and looks at it
and measures the model will find "errors" ... but they are -very- small and
of no consequence.

If all the mfgrs had this set of specs - it is my opinion that all new
freight cars/trucks/wheelsets/coupler boxes/couplers would suddenly start
to be interchangeable ... and then if you found a pic of a car you are
interested in that had some offbeat set of trucks under it ... you can
swap out what the mfgr put on it and swap in what was there ... and you
are good to go with no stupid problems such as having to shim for coupler
height, etc.
- Jim in San Jose


ADMIN: The NMRA and Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

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

You still have not indicated what standards you refer to . . .
I don't know either. I'M not the one upset that the NMRA hasn't issued
revised Standards, nor have I ever said that any Standards are needed.
I did quote two messages from people who DO have strong opinions about
model railroading Standardization. I suggest you ask them what THEY
were talking about.

KL

124541 - 124560 of 197109