Date   

Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

David North <davenorth@...>
 

Bureaucracy is the structure and set of regulations in place to control
activity, usually in large organizations and government. As opposed to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhocracy> adhocracy, it is represented by
standardized procedure (rule-following), formal division of powers,
hierarchy, and relationships. In practice the interpretation and execution
of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy> policy can lead to informal
influence. It is a concept in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology>
sociology and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science> political
science referring to the way that the administrative execution and
enforcement of legal rules are socially organized. Four structural concepts
are central to any definition of bureaucracy:

1. a well-defined division of administrative labor among persons and
offices,

2. a personnel system with consistent patterns of recruitment and stable
linear careers,

3. a hierarchy among offices, such that the authority and status are
differentially distributed among actors, and

4. formal and informal networks that connect organizational actors to
one another through flows of information and patterns of cooperation.

Examples of everyday bureaucracies include
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government> governments,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_force> armed forces,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation> corporations,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital> hospitals,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court> courts,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_%28government_department%29>
ministries and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School> schools.



Hi Tony

Given the above definition of bureaucratic, as a past NMRA board member I
thank you for your compliment.



And I reckon both you and Richard are older than me (and I wasn't the
youngest Director), so that hardening of the arteries chip might be
misdirected (VBG)



As to "quite political"? Yep, that's true.



And you can "do standards yourself". Just might mean that no-one else agrees
or adheres to them.

Establishing industry standards is a different thing.

And then having some way to motivate everyone to comply is another level
altogether.



Seriously, what do people expect the NMRA to do when a manufacturer doesn't
comply?

We don't issue a C&I Certificate. Someone recently suggested elsewhere that
manufacturer be verbally abused.

He needs to get a reality check. This is a business relationship.

Most manufacturers see the advantage to them of using the standards

a) They don't have to reinvent the wheel - the standard is there to
use cost free

b) Their products will interchange with others - which should make
them more attractive to consumers



But no one can MAKE them use the standards. It's their prerogative to build
things as they wish.

What I believe will provide the best result is for modelers to contact the
manufacturer and voice their discomfort.



I personally feel there is a pressing need for a coupler/coupler box
standard. I recently bought some new Athearn RTR, and found while fitting
KDs that the post inside the box was a bigger diameter than the traditional
size. So I had to shave down the diameter. Didn't take long, but I really
shouldn't have to do it.

What leaves me confused is why some designer at Athearn decided to change
what Athearn have used for the last 40? years at least.

What chance have we as hobbyists got, when a company doesn't comply with ITS
OWN standards?

Cheers

Dave North


Re: NYC rebuilt flat car

Jeff English
 

Tim,

I don't know of any available cross-references to identify a car's NYC
Lot from an X-series number (i.e., in company service).

But the car appears to be a forty-foot car, and possibly Lot 292-F,
built in 1912.

Jeff English
Troy, New York

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Anyone know more about this car -- original series, length,
when it was built, rebuilt, etc?
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/nyc-x29550.jpg

Tim O'Connor


NYC rebuilt flat car

Tim O'Connor
 

Anyone know more about this car -- original series, length,
when it was built, rebuilt, etc?
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/nyc-x29550.jpg

Tim O'Connor


Re: Georgia RR cars (was Not boxcar red)

Bruce Smith
 

On Thu, May 22, 2008 5:04 pm, timboconnor@comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@yahoo.ca>
But, how did you plan to use the foil on the Wabash car? Looks
interesting, and I'm ALWAYS interested in new techniques.
I was thinking of just covering the scribed wood. But the foil may
be too thin for this application. I'm more likely to use aluminum
HVAC tape, which is thicker and has a strong adhesive backing.
I've used it to build very small details like brackets and gussets.

Tim O'
Tim,

The foil is far too thin. It conforms to the details and would nicely
show the scribed wood below it. For a really radical solution, why not
remove the sheathing by sanding the back of the side and replace it with
styrene or brass. Mont Switzer did this on an Intermountain PRR USRA gon
a few years back... of course, he didn't have to do the sanding part as
the wood sides are separate on that model ;^)

Regards
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

I think Pieter has the right idea.

One thing mentioned to by Mike below needs highlighting. I don't think ANY standard proposed by the people here is going to appeal to trainset crowd, and frankly there's really no point worrying about them. However, what if the resin companies, Branchline, Accurail, Proto2000, Kadee and whoever else has products directed toward the "Serious Scale Modeler" (SSM) adopted them? The people proposing the standards would be happy, I'd think. For the resin and kit companies, I'd say that standardized dimensions would appeal to 99% of THEIR customers, and strongly doubt people would be turned away from them for doing it ("99% of the buyers won't know or care. IMO").

So we'd have a world where the trainset crowd isn't really following any standard (i.e., exactly like today) and the SSMs would have products that would be easier to use out of the box.

It's lunacy to expect companies to retool to new standards, however judging by those suggested, NEW tool models shouldn't be a burden, rather setting dimensions to one value rather than another.

Anyhoo,
KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Brock
"Certainly all the manufacturers COULD decide that they want to stick
with their own dimensions to avoid tooling a new truck to go on that
new car kit. If all of them persist, the standard goes nowhere. If the
major players adopt the standard, the smaller manufacturers will more
or less have to follow."

Not really. 99% of the buyers won't know or care. IMO.

"Is it fair? Not entirely, but that's business."

Correct. A manufacturer is going to respond to his market. I can see the
manufacturer accepting a standard that 100% of his market can use. I don't
think he'll respond to one that 3% of his market can use.


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

Before things get to far along, all dimensional values should include tolerances, either limits (ex. .500 - .510) or MAX or MIN values (whose opposite limits are 0 and infinity, respectively).

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

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

For Each Scale . . .


Re: Erie Reverse Buckeye boxcar ends

leakinmywaders
 

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

Chris- These cars had "Buckeye steel ends" when built, not reverse
Buckeye. You can check the diagrams on the fallen flags site (these
were originally double door box cars). As to the ends being available
in HO you are in luck. Sunshine had them (or a similiar, shortened
version) in their models of 78,000-78,499 box cars.
Ed: hi. Whatever they be called, I think we need to distinguish
between this "Buckeye steel end" from the Erie 78000 series


http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie78249adb.jpg


and the one I previously posted from the Erie 96700 series,

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie96700adb.jpg


The Sunshine Erie boxcar kit is for the 78000 series, and has the
former ends, at least the example in my possession does. The latter
end is the end I am currently wrestling with.

I'm willing to settle on which is the "original" Buckeye end and which
the "reversed" (it seems both series were built in summer of 1936),
but can't see my way clear to calling them the same, even if Erie
might have on diagram sheets.

The NP leased second-hand cars from both these ex-Erie series, with
original ends, (mostly) original roofs and (some) original doors. Best,

Chris Frissell
Polson, MT


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Pieter Roos writes:

"The way such a standard would be implemented is in the way I expect
99% of all non-safety related standards take hold. The standard
becomes expected on new products, old products make up a slowly
shrinking pool until they are phased out or re-tooled for other
reasons; or because the pre-standard pool is now so small that
maintaining the old tooling is no longer economical."

Hmmm. Lessee. You're saying that IF the new accurate standard O scale gage is 4'8.5" between the rails instead of the current 5' gage that the new products...lets say...oh...maybe 100 brass steam locos yearly...will soon outnumber the 12,000 brass steam engines currently in use? Do you really think that current owners of layouts using track and wheel profiles associated with RP-25 Code 110 are going to throw away all their stuff in order to use more accurate wheel and track [ frog ] dimensions? Need a bridge? Cheap?

Obviously it depends upon what the standard is. Kadee #5 couplers do work with their "scale" couplers so applying scale couplers to a fleet of #5's is not a problem.

"Certainly all the manufacturers COULD decide that they want to stick
with their own dimensions to avoid tooling a new truck to go on that
new car kit. If all of them persist, the standard goes nowhere. If the
major players adopt the standard, the smaller manufacturers will more
or less have to follow."

Not really. 99% of the buyers won't know or care. IMO.

"Is it fair? Not entirely, but that's business."

Correct. A manufacturer is going to respond to his market. I can see the manufacturer accepting a standard that 100% of his market can use. I don't think he'll respond to one that 3% of his market can use.

Mike Brock


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Tim O'Connor writes:

"We on the other hand, can build our own models to our own standards.
Some people detail underframes. Some don't. Some convert everything
to scale size Kadees. Some don't. Some use .088 wheels, and most
don't. From my point of view, we all can CHOSE our own level and what
is wrong with that?"

Nothing at all and that's where we are today. As I have tried to pint out, the NMRA currently has at last 4 different wheel profile standards in place for HO, S and O scale and manufacturers have added one of their own to HO. It is left to the modeler to pick which one he/she prefers to use.

Mike Brock


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Pieter Roos
 

The way such a standard would be implemented is in the way I expect
99% of all non-safety related standards take hold. The standard
becomes expected on new products, old products make up a slowly
shrinking pool until they are phased out or re-tooled for other
reasons; or because the pre-standard pool is now so small that
maintaining the old tooling is no longer economical.

Certainly all the manufacturers COULD decide that they want to stick
with their own dimensions to avoid tooling a new truck to go on that
new car kit. If all of them persist, the standard goes nowhere. If the
major players adopt the standard, the smaller manufacturers will more
or less have to follow.

Is it fair? Not entirely, but that's business. The classic Beta-VHS
fight of the more recent HD standards struggles aren't necessarily
"fair" either. Ask the pre-DCC command control manufacturers how fair
the DCC standard was to them. That doesn't mean that hobby wouldn't be
improved by such standards. It seems that the argument below would
oppose ANY standard promulgated after manufacturers had produced product.

Pieter Roos
Connecticut

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

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


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Kurt Laughlin says:

"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?"

As I mentioned to Larry Grubb...Who decides what the standards are? Who publishes them, who maintains them, who do manufacturers go to to make sure they have the right standard? And, if a manufacturer takes a loss for some reason due to the standard being rejected by buyers or is in error...who does he sue?

Mike Brock


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Larry Grubb writes:

"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."

Larry makes a very good point...one that I allude to when I point out that I must and intend to continue to stay with the Code 110 wheel as defined in RP-25 because I have about 700 locomotive axles with Code 110 wheels on them...the majority on brass steam engines. As I've noted in the past, I'd be glad to promote...even insist that everyone on the STMFC use P87 wheels as soon as someone comes down and installs P87 wheels in all my engines and redoes all 55 of my turnouts during a weekend.

"Retooling existing trucks to meet this standard would be expensive and result in no measurable increase in sales."

Not gonna happen, of course. The only practical option is for new tooling to reflect newly developed dimensions for truck sideframes, etc so that modelers can have more accurate dimensions for such new cars.

"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."

Aint gonna happen.

"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."

I'm not so sure. Who decides what the standard is? Implementing it? You're kidding...right?

Mike Brock


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

cj riley <cjriley42@...>
 

--- On Thu, 5/22/08, rfederle@cox.net <rfederle@cox.net> wrote:

From: rfederle@cox.net <rfederle@cox.net>
I don't 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).
The NMRA standards revolve around dimensions that are required for different manufacturers' products to operate compatibly. "Standards" are critical to compatibility and Recommended Practices (RPs) are more like alternatives or suggestions. I confess to not being an expert here.

Each modeler is free to adopt "quality standards" that suit themselves, and that appears to be what you are referencing.

CJ Riley


Re: Georgia RR cars (was Not boxcar red)

Tim O'Connor
 

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@yahoo.ca>
But, how did you plan to use the foil on the Wabash car? Looks
interesting, and I'm ALWAYS interested in new techniques.
I was thinking of just covering the scribed wood. But the foil may
be too thin for this application. I'm more likely to use aluminum
HVAC tape, which is thicker and has a strong adhesive backing.
I've used it to build very small details like brackets and gussets.

Tim O'


Re: Brake Equipment for SFRD Rr-7 Reefers

Richard Hendrickson
 

On May 22, 2008, at 2:03 PM, John Hile wrote:

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "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.

























All good information, but I can take it just a bit further. I have a
photo from the J. Michael Gruber collection of Rr-7 SFRD 24594 at
Waterford, Ont. Feb. 2, 1949. At that time the car had a Murphy
steel roof, AB air brakes, vertical staff hand brake, and relatively
dirty post-1940 but pre-1944 paint and lettering with periods in the
reporting marks and straight-line map with "Ship." What the photo
doesn't tell us, unfortunately, is what slogan was stenciled on the
opposite side of the car.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: New Standards for turnouts

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

cj riley wrote:
If you have been reading Scale Rails you may have noticed that Di has written about this with turnouts and recent product reviews have regularly (almost always) rejected a compliance warrant for not meeting standards.
So it is happening, but will manufacturers care?
I have indeed noticed that, but it shouldn't require reading between the lines. The NMRA could certainly get publicity for WITHDRAWING certificates, as I said, but I should think they could and should put more emphasis on the failure to ISSUE them. The President's column, or the Editor's column, or even a "news" story, might help publicize that something is being done.
I think the big interest of most people on this list is for standards to be developed for things we don't now have, like a standard scale coupler pocket, or a standard bolster height, etc., but activity in the form of examining products and finding them wanting, particularly trackwork, might be a very beneficial visibility for the NMRA--if it's made visible.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


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

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

Mid-43 was about the time that the Ordnance Department took over
vehicle procurement from the Quartermaster Corps. The QMC was much
more tolerant of that than OCO-D. (QMC era parts manuals were
essentially civilian manuals with new covers while the Ord era manuals
were definitely G.I.)

War Department packaging, however, was pretty non-descript overall from
what I've seen. A brandname marking would be better classified
as "possible", rather than "plausible", in my opinion. In any case I
think the HRPOE photos referenced in other messages show pre-43 packing
and shipping and would be good guides for modeling.

Regarding nameplates, yes they would have the manufacturer's name and
perhaps even logo on them. However, remember that the Navy Department
was not the War Department, so virtually nothing was common between the
two! Even the War Dept. (Army) was splintered, with Army Air Forces
using different procurement practices from the Army Service Forces and
the six supply services within ASF having their own procedures as
well. It's surprising anything got done.

KL


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Schneider" <branchline@...> wrote:

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,


Re: New Standards for turnouts

cj riley <cjriley42@...>
 

--- On Thu, 5/22/08, Anthony Thompson <thompson@signaturepress.com> wrote:

From: Anthony Thompson <thompson@signaturepress.com>
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.
The standards are being modified and they no longer have to go to the entire membership for approval (a very old fashioned concept) that will make implementing changes easier. If you have been reading Scale Rails you may have noticed that Di has written about this with turnouts and recent product reviews have regularly (almost always) rejected a compliance warrant for not meeting standards.

So it is happening, but will manufacturers care?

CJ Riley


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Tim O'Connor
 

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Kurt Laughlin" <fleeta@verizon.net>
Why bother with an organization at all?
I ask myself that after every visit to my train club... but then
I'm reminded of the old joke about the relative who thought
he was a chicken. And people asked his family why they
wouldn't have him put away? And his family said "Because
we need the eggs."

Tim "sunny side up" O'Connor


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Tim O'Connor
 

One must not forget the purpose of standards from a manufacturer's
point of view -- to increase their own sales & profits. I fail to see how any
of your proposals (whatever merit they may have) would benefit any of
the major manufacturers. Just look how long it took for vendors to
adopt Kadee-compatible couplers -- they only did it AFTER the Kadee
patents finally expired and they were able to find far less expensive
sources for compatible parts.

As I pointed out the other day, we only have DCC "standards" (such as
they are) because there was a strong economic case behind them that
benefited the manufacturers. And the features that were not standardized
or even imagined at the time, have become the subject of endless patent
litigation squabbles... We'll be lucky if, in 10-15 years, DCC still exists as
a single standard. (Think Betamax. Think Analog cell phone. Think floppy
disks.)

We on the other hand, can build our own models to our own standards.
Some people detail underframes. Some don't. Some convert everything
to scale size Kadees. Some don't. Some use .088 wheels, and most
don't. From my point of view, we all can CHOSE our own level and what
is wrong with that?

Tim O'Connor

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Jim Betz <jimbetz@jimbetz.com>
I propose the following standards/RPs - which are not currently part of
the specification/designation.

120241 - 120260 of 192829