Date   

Re: Atlas 1932 ARA boxcar photos

golden1014
 

You know, at first glance they don't look too bad. Really. In
particular, the Central of Georgia car looks very nice--I think the
car color is dead-on.

John Golden
Bloomington, IN

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

Atlas has posted photos of the decorated models on their web site:

http://www.atlasrr.com/HOFreight/ho1932boxcar.htm#

Marty McGuirk


MP Rebuilt Steel Boxcar Railroad Auction this Sat.

Andy Carlson
 

This Saturday in Kansas an estate auction will feature
a real Missouri Pacific rebuilt steel boxcar, complete
and in MP paint. Scroll down to the bottom to see the
MP boxcar, and also an MP wooden train station.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA
http://kansasauctions.net/kurtz/07/26.php


Re: Atlas 1932 ARA boxcar photos

Jon Grant <jonagrant@...>
 

Sweet!!

Jon

----- Original Message -----
From: cvsne
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:57 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Atlas 1932 ARA boxcar photos


Atlas has posted photos of the decorated models on their web site:

http://www.atlasrr.com/HOFreight/ho1932boxcar.htm#

Marty McGuirk


Re: Markers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dennis Storzek wrote:
Irregardless of what Tony says, most railroad rulebooks were modeled on the Standard Code of Operating Rules throughout the period covered by this list, and so where pretty much the same from road to road.
Hmm. I didn't say anything to contradict the statement that "most railroad rulebooks were modeled on the Standard Code of Operating Rules," so am not sure of the "irregardless" comment. (Railroads obviously did feel free to adopt their own details in a number of places.) Amusingly, Dennis then goes to give numerous examples, relating exactly to the topic we are discussing, which verify the statements I DID make. Hmmm.

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: Markers

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "armprem1" <armprem@...> wrote:

While this may be marginally within scope of this list,what was the
rule for displaying markers and who determined the colors of the lenses
of marker lights?Was there a standard?Armand Premo
Irregardless of what Tony says, most railroad rulebooks were modeled
on the Standard Code of Operating Rules throughout the period covered
by this list, and so where pretty much the same from road to road. The
biggest noticeable difference was that while most roads used RED
lenses to the rear and GREEN lenses to the sides and front, the PRR
and possibly some other associated roads used YELLOW to the sides and
front. The side that faced the carbody did not have a lens.

Rules for display were pretty standard, also. Keep in mind that nearly
all rulebooks define a "train" as: "Engines or engines coupled with or
without cars, DISPLAYING MARKERS" (emphasis mine). Therefore, a
consist assembled in the yard didn't become a train until the markers
were hung. Likewise, if one was waiting in the clear for a train to
pass and a locomotive and cars went by but no markers, the train
wasn't past. What had gone by might have been the train in the act of
switching, or the front half of a train doubling a hill, but the train
hadn't passed until the markers went by.

Some rulebooks provided for using a red flag on the last car in lieu
of markers during the day. If the last car wasn't equipped with flag
brackets, this was often stuck in the coupler.

Rule 17, the same rule that requires a train standing clear of the
main to dim it's headlight, also required that the rear of a train in
the clear "turn" its markers to display green (or yellow) to the rear.
This was a safety procedure; if a train on the mainline was coming up
on another train and the markers still showed red, it meant the train
wasn't clear. With the old style oil lamps, this was accomplished by
actually swiveling the lamps in their bases so that the red lens faced
the caboose wall.

There were also some variants in this rule that pertained to trains
running the same direction on multiple tracks that I don't remember
well enough to cite.

Dennis


Re: Markers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Armand Premo wrote:
While this may be marginally within scope of this list,what was the rule for displaying markers and who determined the colors of the lenses of marker lights? Was there a standard?
Before the days when most if not all railroads adopted the "Uniform Code of Rules," these matters were spelled out in each railroad's own rule book. So I would answer that in the era of this list, there is no simple answer.

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: F&C

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

ed_mines wrote:
$32 is a little expensive for a car originally done by West Shore or Yankee Clipper 15-20 years ago.
I may be remembering this wrong, but shouldn't this read "done FOR West Shore," etc.? The sellers of the kits may have been pickier than Steve was at that stage as to acceptable moldings, so an apparent better quality could have merely been quality 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


Markers

armprem
 

While this may be marginally within scope of this list,what was the
rule for displaying markers and who determined the colors of the lenses
of marker lights?Was there a standard?Armand Premo


Atlas 1932 ARA boxcar photos

cvsne <cvsne@...>
 

Atlas has posted photos of the decorated models on their web site:

http://www.atlasrr.com/HOFreight/ho1932boxcar.htm#

Marty McGuirk


Re: HO Truck Bolster Clearance Hole

John F. Cizmar
 

Denny,
Consider making some "bushings" with the proper o.d. rather than drilling out the bolsters.  This is a quick and dirty method to resolve the disparity between the screw o.d. and the truck i.d.
John F. Cizmar

--- On Wed, 7/23/08, Denny Anspach <danspach@...> wrote:

From: Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Re:HO Truck Bolster Clearance Hole
To: STMFC@...
Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 1:50 PM






I am responding to an older post (16 June) that addresses a common
problem: the commonly-wide truck bolster holes that are designed to
fit over the shouldered body bolsters common to to almost all
production styrene models, but are far larger than the diameter of the
common 2-56 screws that most use for truck mounting on those cars
without the 'shoulders'.

Tahoe truck bolsters are drilled out to 0.120", while Accurail's are
drilled out to 0.125" (1/8").

Even with the pan-head 2-56 screws, these trucks too often still have
markedly excessive side play, which can and do play havoc with good
reliable centered coupling, particularly with the "scale" couplers
with their smaller gathering faces. This is despite taking every
other known precaution with accurate wheel sets, careful coupler
installs, etc. Very frustrating at times-

One solution is to drill out the body bolsters to first inset and then
cement in place a small piece of 1/8" styrene tubing to form a new
'shoulder', which then can be tapped for 2-56.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


















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


Re: HO Truck Bolster Clearance Hole

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

I am responding to an older post (16 June) that addresses a common problem: the commonly-wide truck bolster holes that are designed to fit over the shouldered body bolsters common to to almost all production styrene models, but are far larger than the diameter of the common 2-56 screws that most use for truck mounting on those cars without the 'shoulders'.

Tahoe truck bolsters are drilled out to 0.120", while Accurail's are drilled out to 0.125" (1/8").

Even with the pan-head 2-56 screws, these trucks too often still have markedly excessive side play, which can and do play havoc with good reliable centered coupling, particularly with the "scale" couplers with their smaller gathering faces. This is despite taking every other known precaution with accurate wheel sets, careful coupler installs, etc. Very frustrating at times-

One solution is to drill out the body bolsters to first inset and then cement in place a small piece of 1/8" styrene tubing to form a new 'shoulder', which then can be tapped for 2-56.

Denny








Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: F&C

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

All, disregard my last. It should have gone directly to Elden.
Apologies for the wasted bandwidth.


Ben Hom


Re: F&C

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

Do you need any more prototype photo coverage for the article? I can
check to see what I've got and get the scans doen this week.

Ben

--- In STMFC@..., "Gatwood, Elden J SAD "
<elden.j.gatwood@...> wrote:

Walt;


I just mentioned this, but I am in process on one, and also
completed an article on the X26C (prototype) and Sunshine kit for
the upcoming TKM (will do a follow-up on this kit), but yes, it is
a one-piece body, very nice casting, good detail, and easy to
build. One of the easiest to build resin kits I have run across,
in my opinion. F&C makes the kit for the early (first 2000) and
Superior-door (next 1000) versions, also.



Elden Gatwood



________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On
Behalf Of
mcindoefalls
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:19 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: F&C



What's the consensus on the quality/accuracy of the X26C? It was
hard
to tell from the posted pix, but it's apparently a one-piece body.

Walt Lankenau







Re: Markers

Charles Hladik
 

Armand,
If you are inquiring about the Rutland, I asked that question at this
years convention.
Someone, I think Phil Jordan, had a rules book, and IIRC, the Rutland
used yellow, yellow and red.
I didn't right it down at the time but I think Rome Romano did.


Chuck Hladik
Rutland Railroad
Virginia Division
NMRA L5756



**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)


Re: F&C

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Ed;



The F&C X26C is a better kit than the Sunshine X26C. Sure, we all love
Sunshine kits, but some of them have problems, too. I just finished the
Sunshine, and am finishing my F&C X26C. The Sunshine kit has a few problems,
the F&C kit has none. I can go into more detail if you are interested, but
blanket statements are not valid.



Elden Gatwood



________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
ed_mines
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:55 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: F&C



--- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , Bruce Smith
<smithbf@...> wrote:
I don't know... original early Sunshine kits fetch closer to $75-100
and most of the F&C kits are "improved" over the originals. In
addition, as folks have been saying in this thread, nobody should
actually PAY $32 for an F&C kit. More like $16.
Bruce- I bought many of those kits when issued from Yankee Clipper,
West Shore......The few F&C kits I bought of the same cars were of
lesser quality, especially the instructions.

The Sunshine kits are collectables of discontinued items. Sunshine
appears to keep their original prices of older kits until the kit is
discontinued.

There isn't much comparason between the 2 manufacturers as far as I'm
concerned.

Ed


Re: F&C

Richard Brennan <brennan8@...>
 

Maybe I'm just not following this... but what difference does the source/age of the masters make?

F&C's current prices should be almost entirely related to their variable costs, i.e. labor and materials...
Which are priced in today's very weak US dollars...

IMHO... even $32 for a hand-cast low production steam-era car is a -much- better bargain than
$32 for an injected styrene RTR generic model built by the thousands offshore.

--------------------
Richard Brennan - San Leandro CA
--------------------

At 07:43 AM 7/23/2008, Bruce Smith wrote:
On Jul 23, 2008, at 9:26 AM, ed_mines wrote:

Thanks to all who answered.

It looks like their prices went up in the last year. $32 is a little
expensive for a car originally done by West Shore or Yankee Clipper
15-20 years ago.

Ed
Ed,

I don't know... original early Sunshine kits fetch closer to $75-100
and most of the F&C kits are "improved" over the originals. In
addition, as folks have been saying in this thread, nobody should
actually PAY $32 for an F&C kit. More like $16.

Regards
Bruce


Re: F&C

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Walt;



I just mentioned this, but I am in process on one, and also completed an
article on the X26C (prototype) and Sunshine kit for the upcoming TKM (will
do a follow-up on this kit), but yes, it is a one-piece body, very nice
casting, good detail, and easy to build. One of the easiest to build resin
kits I have run across, in my opinion. F&C makes the kit for the early
(first 2000) and Superior-door (next 1000) versions, also.



Elden Gatwood



________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
mcindoefalls
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:19 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: F&C



What's the consensus on the quality/accuracy of the X26C? It was hard
to tell from the posted pix, but it's apparently a one-piece body.

Walt Lankenau


Re: F&C

ed_mines
 

--- In STMFC@..., Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:
I don't know... original early Sunshine kits fetch closer to $75-100
and most of the F&C kits are "improved" over the originals. In
addition, as folks have been saying in this thread, nobody should
actually PAY $32 for an F&C kit. More like $16.
Bruce- I bought many of those kits when issued from Yankee Clipper,
West Shore......The few F&C kits I bought of the same cars were of
lesser quality, especially the instructions.

The Sunshine kits are collectables of discontinued items. Sunshine
appears to keep their original prices of older kits until the kit is
discontinued.

There isn't much comparason between the 2 manufacturers as far as I'm
concerned.

Ed


Re: F&C

Michael Aufderheide
 

All,
 
I have posted a PDF of a flyer from F&C enclosed with and order I received last May.  I have been getting flyers via my SASEs and noticed that the bagged kit list does not change much at all from flyer to flyer. From my midwestern standpoint their line is more limited than other resin manufacturers and I can't see myself ordering too much more from them, but I did get a great deal on their bagged kits:  5 for $71 which included a buy one boxed kit get one free.
 
The bagged kits come with everything but the box, including instructions (such as they are.)
 
BTW-I remember someone on the list saying that the C&O auto car model that F&C offers is the wrong height.  I have checked the archive and have not found the post.  Does someone else remember this?
 
Regards,
 
Mike Aufderheide


New file uploaded to STMFC

STMFC@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the STMFC
group.

File : /F&C_May2008.pdf
Uploaded by : mononinmonon <mononinmonon@...>
Description : Funaro & Camerlengo Flyer

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/F%26C_May2008.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

mononinmonon <mononinmonon@...>

121421 - 121440 of 195694