Date   

Re: Central Valley 5' Arch Bar trucks.

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

Tim,

What sort of grade is your inclined track?

I have about 18 feet of track on an incline of approximately 1 1/2%.
If I let a car go on that grade it is going fast enough to knock the
coupler off for sure and maybe do even more damage. Of course, having
the track end at a solid wall may contribute to the damage.

My point really is that a 1 1/2% grade is way too steep for any meanful
test unless there was a really long - 100 feet? - level track for the
car to coast to a stop.

Another party to this discussion made the point that testing the truck
alone and testing trucks with a car might yield different results.

Gene Green


Re: Prototype Rails-2009 - "Shake and Take"

jerryglow2
 

There were still seats available the morning of the clinic. We had a
freind come down for the day who wasn't aware of the clinic. I asked
Mike Brock if any were available and he said yes and to get together
with Armand to get set up.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Brennan <brennan8@...> wrote:

At 09:56 AM 1/12/2009, Clark Propst wrote:
<snip>
I do have a problem with the "Shake and Take" clinic. Greg Martin
along with Jim Singer, John Greedy and Doc Denny (and maybe others)
spend a great deal of time and their own money to put out a fine
unique kit. They allow for 25-30 participants, yet each year only
to
have just a hand full of completed models brought back each year
for
display. I would be discouraged with the meager results, but to
those
guys's credit they are very upbeat and are busy planning next
year's
model.
This should be -easy- to fix:
Require 2009 attendees registering for the 2010 "Shake and Take" to
submit a photo of / and bring their 2009 clinic model.
My guess is that some additional seats would open-up...

For those trying to game the system... the best they could do would
be every-other year's clinic.
Just a thought...


--------------------
Richard Brennan - San Leandro CA (far... far... -away from Cocoa
Beach)
--------------------


Re: X43C side sills

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Andy;



I am sure you are right, but I did not go into some of the issues I do not
have good enough info on. I do not know if the cross-bearers were beefed up
on the 8-foot door cars, or not (I suspect not), but the introduction of door
gussets, beefed-up side sills, and introduction of newer, heavier designs was
clearly a response to the perceived inadequacies of some of the lightweight
designs and other designs adopted earlier for use by the PRR. If most of
their box cars had spent their time hauling grain, these fixes may not have
ever been necessary.



Elden Gatwood



________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Andy
Miller
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:46 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] X43C side sills



I suspect the X43C's were also the worst because they had the widest doors (8
ft) and therefore the least longitudinal strength.

regards,

Andy Miller

----- Original Message -----
From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD
To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] X43C side sills

. . .

The X43 classes (X43 through X43C) were a disappointment to the PRR. They
rapidly exhibited sagging and cracking problems, necessitating these fixes.
The X43C was the worst, since they were often diverted into coil service and
other uses involving forklifts, that contributed to the problem.

. . .
Elden Gatwood
Recent Activity
a.. 3New Members
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News
Odd News

You won't believe

it, but it's true

Sitebuilder
Build a web site

quickly & easily

with Sitebuilder.

Group Charity
i-SAFE

Keep your kids

safer online
.


NEED CAR COUNTS FROM 1916 AND 1917

Dick
 

I am looking for car counts from any 1916 and or 1917 ORER. If you
have a 1916 or 1917 ORER please contact me off list.

Thanks.

Dick
wb2raj@...


Re: Central Valley 5' Arch Bar trucks.

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Tim O' C. writes-

The problem with the "roll tester" is that it can't measure
how the trucks perform with a car on them.

On my workbench I have an incline and just let the car roll
as far as it can freely -- typically 5 to 7 feet for a good
free roller, 10 feet for an exceptional roller, and lesser
distances mean that it needs work.

What did you lube them with?
I am certain that Tim's solution works just fine, but it is more
cumbersome IMHO (I used the same method before purchasing the
Rolltester) . In my experience, the rolltester results are pretty
reproducible and track well enough to real operations, and the tester
itself is pretty compact. On occasion I also test trucks with attached
lead weight. I am surprised that only on occasion will the presence
or absence of weight make any significant difference.

I use LaBelle 108 as lubricant.

Denny


Re: X43C side sills

mopacfirst
 

Thanks, this is what I needed. I have the culprit (Branchline) half-
built and I realized all the photos I saw were the modified cars with
plain keystone. For the early 60s era, then, I'm in the clear.

Thanks also to the PRR truck list that shows ASF A-3 for these cars.

Ron Merrick


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

Ron;

Were the PRR X43C built with side sill tabs
Yes, just like other "standard" AAR '44 design cars.

and modified later to side sills that spanned from bolster to
bolster?

Yes, but there was also an intermediate fix that just spanned the
doorway
area fitted to some X43 cars

If so, roughly when did that program start and end.

From photos it appears that the full bolster-to-bolster side sill
reinforcement program began in very late '66 or early '67 (I do not
have my
photos here to check), and also involved removal of running boards
and some
ladder cut-downs. Cars were repainted into the then-current "Plain
Keystone"
scheme.

Were all the cars upgraded,

I do not know if the program was all-encompassing, but it sure
appeared to me
that the majority of X43 class cars got this fix. No, I do not
remember it
going into PC days, so the program may have only run through '67.

and were different styles of side sill reinforcement applied?

Yes, there was an intermediate fix applied that featured a
trapezoidal shape
reinforcement, but I will have to find a photo. I think there is a
photo in
one of the Morning Sun books.

For a car painted Shadow Keystone, which style would be most likely?

They may have applied the earlier fix to a car in SK lettering, but
I have
never seen one. All of the later fixes I have seen were repainted
in PK
lettering, since SK repaints ended in Dec of '61.

The X43 classes (X43 through X43C) were a disappointment to the
PRR. They
rapidly exhibited sagging and cracking problems, necessitating
these fixes.
The X43C was the worst, since they were often diverted into coil
service and
other uses involving forklifts, that contributed to the problem.
The PRR,
just a few years after buying all those X43 cars, decided to design
their own
class to follow, the X46, which featured a full-length side sill
made of
shallow channel, doorway stiffeners, and an extra side post above
the
bolster. These latter cars lasted until CR, while the X43 were
sold off,
some to companies like USRE, who refurbished them and sold/leased
them to
other RRs.

Elden Gatwood


Re: X43C side sills

Andy Miller <aslmmiller@...>
 

I suspect the X43C's were also the worst because they had the widest doors (8 ft) and therefore the least longitudinal strength.

regards,

Andy Miller

----- Original Message -----
From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] X43C side sills


. . .

The X43 classes (X43 through X43C) were a disappointment to the PRR. They
rapidly exhibited sagging and cracking problems, necessitating these fixes.
The X43C was the worst, since they were often diverted into coil service and
other uses involving forklifts, that contributed to the problem.

. . .
Elden Gatwood
Recent Activity
a.. 3New Members
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News
Odd News

You won't believe

it, but it's true

Sitebuilder
Build a web site

quickly & easily

with Sitebuilder.

Group Charity
i-SAFE

Keep your kids

safer online
.


Re: Bruce Smith's boiler load

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Bruce Smith writes:

"I have posted a photo of the boiler load to the STMFC photos section
which Mike should approve pretty fast, since it is my photo <G>. It
will be in a folder called "Bruce Smith's album"."

Yep, done. Reckon that would make it through Hermosa Tunnel? 'Course, one might ask, "What's it doing out in Wyoming?" so maybe we don't need to find out.

Mike Brock


Bruce Smith's boiler load

Bruce Smith
 

Folks,

A correction on the boiler load. It was pointed out to me off line
that these boilers are not from Victory or Liberty ships, but from
British Empire class ships, at least 30 of which were built in 2 US
yards (one on each coast). At least I had the fact that three
boilers were used for each ship correct <VBG>

I have posted a photo of the boiler load to the STMFC photos section
which Mike should approve pretty fast, since it is my photo <G>. It
will be in a folder called "Bruce Smith's album".

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


Re: X43C side sills

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Ron;

Were the PRR X43C built with side sill tabs
Yes, just like other "standard" AAR '44 design cars.

and modified later to side sills that spanned from bolster to bolster?

Yes, but there was also an intermediate fix that just spanned the doorway
area fitted to some X43 cars

If so, roughly when did that program start and end.

From photos it appears that the full bolster-to-bolster side sill
reinforcement program began in very late '66 or early '67 (I do not have my
photos here to check), and also involved removal of running boards and some
ladder cut-downs. Cars were repainted into the then-current "Plain Keystone"
scheme.

Were all the cars upgraded,

I do not know if the program was all-encompassing, but it sure appeared to me
that the majority of X43 class cars got this fix. No, I do not remember it
going into PC days, so the program may have only run through '67.

and were different styles of side sill reinforcement applied?

Yes, there was an intermediate fix applied that featured a trapezoidal shape
reinforcement, but I will have to find a photo. I think there is a photo in
one of the Morning Sun books.

For a car painted Shadow Keystone, which style would be most likely?

They may have applied the earlier fix to a car in SK lettering, but I have
never seen one. All of the later fixes I have seen were repainted in PK
lettering, since SK repaints ended in Dec of '61.

The X43 classes (X43 through X43C) were a disappointment to the PRR. They
rapidly exhibited sagging and cracking problems, necessitating these fixes.
The X43C was the worst, since they were often diverted into coil service and
other uses involving forklifts, that contributed to the problem. The PRR,
just a few years after buying all those X43 cars, decided to design their own
class to follow, the X46, which featured a full-length side sill made of
shallow channel, doorway stiffeners, and an extra side post above the
bolster. These latter cars lasted until CR, while the X43 were sold off,
some to companies like USRE, who refurbished them and sold/leased them to
other RRs.

Elden Gatwood


X43C side sills

mopacfirst
 

Were the PRR X43C built with side sill tabs and modified later to side
sills that spanned from bolster to bolster? If so, roughly when did
that program start and end. Were all the cars upgraded, and were
different styles of side sill reinforcement applied?

For a car painted Shadow Keystone, which style would be most likely?

Ron Merrick


Re: Prototype Rails-2009 - "Shake and Take"

Jim and Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

If I could make it to Florida, I could bring several "Shake and Take" cars. Of course none of them are quite finished, but I'm willing to display them as is. Since I can't make it to Prototype Rails, maybe I should bring them to Naperville this year. And maybe I'll have at least one finished.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon


Re: Prototype Rails-2009-Shake and Take Clinic

Bruce Smith
 

On Mon, January 12, 2009 4:45 pm, Jared Harper wrote:
I would like to participate in this one. However, I model May 1943
so the models produced in this clinic so far are too late for me.
Could we do one matching my era?
Jared,

Two out of the last three have matched your era (sort of at least)! The
Kahn's reefer project was in reality an FGE reefer bash for the 1921/22
cars. I did one Kahn's car, which admittedly is a 1953 car, and am using
the clinic to also do an NX and an FGE car, circa 1944. This year's car,
the UP stock car, was converted from UP boxcars in 1934 and autocars in
1938.

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn AL


Re: Rail Road Progress

Mark
 

Thank You, Ben

Sincerely, Mark

--- On Mon, 1/12/09, benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...> wrote:
From: benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Rail Road Progress
To: STMFC@...
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 4:36 PM











Mark Morgan wrote:

"I searched the site for the Rail Road Progress company. How are there

[sic] kits?"



c. 1970s-1980s "scratchbuilding projects in a box" consisting of

precut styrene sheet and strip along with Plastruct structural

shapes. Despite the lack of rivet detail, these built into

surprisingly decent models of their prototypes. These came out at a

time when the general consensus in the hobby was that "all hopper

cars looked the same", and the individual responsibile for these kits

also self published "Common Hopper Cars of the Northeast" which was

one of the first enthusiast works that showed that this was not the

case. Many of the Rail Road Progress kits have been superceded by

later models, but a few of them still are the only models available

for some prototypes.



See Jim Six's "Modeling Norfolk & Western's H10 coal hopper" in the

August and September 1989 issues of Model RailroaDing and

Teichmoeller' s PRR hopper book for more information.



Ben Hom


Re: Prototype Rails-2009 - "Shake and Take"

Schuyler Larrabee
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Brennan

This should be -easy- to fix:
Require 2009 attendees registering for the 2010 "Shake and Take" to
submit a photo of / and bring their 2009 clinic model.
My guess is that some additional seats would open-up...
Quite a few, I'd say. I was underwhelmed with the results. I had an unlettered one, because I had
a paint mishap, which will be fixed.

I'm hoping the Shake'n'Take crowd will be doing some checking in during the year to promote progress
on the kits. The '09 kit offers a lot of variations in paint and details, so it will be interesting
to see who does what.

I also liked Mont Switzer's coining of "Cocoakit" for these kits. But this is Greg's show, and
Shake'n'Take it is.

SGL


Re: General American Tank Car Journeys

Charles Dean
 

The 1920/1921 "All About Tank Cars" was a book that I searched for with great anticipation over a few years. It was a major disappointment. I still have a couple of copies of it. The 1920 "Tank Car Journeys" book has brief chapters about the various commodities carried in tank cars... from various acids to whale oil, linseed oil, petroleum products, etc. It is deficient in tank car photos and it mostly decorated with small artist's illustrations. The 1931 edition is similar in format-- detailing many more products carried by tank cars-- and has photographs of many of the appropriate tank cars. The 1931 edition typically sells for around a $100 (depending on condition), the earlier 1920 edition runs about half that price. The "All About Tank Cars" can be found for around $35.

Best regards,

Charlie

Charles Dean
Shelbyville, Kentucky

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Green
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 2:49 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: General American Tank Car Journeys


I have the 1920 version of "Standard Tank Car Journeys." I am curious
what improvements are in the 1931 edition.

Standard Tank Car Company also put out a book "All About Tank Cars."
My edition is 1921. Could this title be the 'subsequent volume?'

Gene Green


Re: Atlas '32 AAR Box - trucks

Eric Hansmann
 

I had some time to check the truck situation on the new HO scale
Atlas 1932 ARA box cars. I had changed the couplers to Kadee #58 on
some cars as one step in an upgrade process. I replaced the trucks on
one car with a pair of the 50-ton Buckeye trucks from Tahoe Model
Works. They seemed to fit fine and the couplers looked to check
against a height gauge properly. But something seemed odd. The
replacement trucks could shift a bit on the mounting screw, where the
Atlas trucks only pivoted and did not shift. The Tahoe trucks seemed
to wobble on the attachment point. I removed a Tahoe truck for a
closer inspection.

Atlas uses a shouldered screw to mount their trucks with the shoulder
depth the same as the thickness of the plastic in the Atlas truck
bolster. The hole in the Atlas truck bolster is also smaller than
that in the Tahoe truck. There is a slight depression or chamfer in
the top of the Atlas truck bolster for the car kingpin to sit in.
Atlas has also designed a stabilizing system on one end of the car
that has two fingers on the car bolster on either side of the
kingpin. These point downward and seem to strike the truck bolster to
prevent too much rocking.

I installed both Atlas trucks and checked the coupler height again.
At first glance it seems fine, but upon closer inspection the car
sits just a little low. The top of the car coupler was just below the
top of the coupler in the Kadee coupler height gauge. I did not have
anything to measure this difference, but it seemed to be about the
width of fine brass wire, maybe 0.015" or 0.020". I removed the Atlas
trucks and reinstalled the Tahoe trucks for another comparison.
Paying more attention this time I noted the top of the car coupler
was just a touch higher than the top of the coupler in the Kadee
coupler height gauge. Again, it was slight and a similar amount of
difference higher as it was lower with the Atlas trucks. I then set
the car with the Tahoe trucks beside another similar car with the
Atlas trucks. The box car with the Tahoe trucks was noticeably higher
as it sat next to the same Atlas box car with Atlas trucks.

I had a set of Accurail AAR trucks nearby, so I ran the same tests
the Atlas 1932 ARA box car. The coupler and car height
characteristics were similar as to when the Tahoe trucks were
installed.

There were a couple of other points I found. Many modelers here use
the center ring of a Kadee coupler box to use when attaching trucks
to a freight car. This piece fits like a sleeve over a 2-56 screw and
it fits inside the truck bolster hole of many typical HO scale model
trucks. This sleeve tends to reduce the amount of play the truck has
on the mounting screw and limit how far the screw can be tightened.
The Atlas truck screw does not fit into this sleeve, nor does the
sleeve fit inside the Atlas truck bolster hole. Additionally, the
shoulder on the screw Atlas uses to mount the trucks is deeper than
the thickness of the plastic in the truck bolster of the Tahoe and
Accurail trucks. The screw supplied with these Atlas cars will not
hold a replacement Tahoe or Accurail truck snugly to the car.

How to fix this? I did not have enough time this evening to do
intensive work on an Atlas 1932 ARA box car. It seems a portion of
the kingpin on the car bolster needs to be removed so a replacement
truck can sit at the right height. That height difference noted at
the coupler check using the Tahoe or Accurail trucks would be the
amount to remove. Secondly, a new hole would need to be drilled and
tapped to accept a 2-56 screw to fasten the replacement trucks. The
underframe of these cars are metal, at least it is metal at the car
bolster.

Of course, this is only needed if you need to change out the trucks.

Has anyone else made any notes, or have any suggestions, to ease
truck replacement on these cars?

Eric Hansmann
Morgantown, W. Va.


Re: Atlas '32 AAR Box - trucks

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

Recent discussion noted an odd situation on
Atlas HO scale freight cars in regard to the bolster height.<
As I fitted my second car with .088 wheels I saw that the above is correct. The Atlas truck actually fits on top of the booster pin. I suspect that the TMW hole could be enlarged and fitted over the pin. If then too low washers could be used. Or the pin could be removed and washers used to shim up the body without any reaming of the truck.
I did no measuring at all and the above is just SWAGing.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Re: Bruce Smith's boiler - was Prototype Rails 2009 -- my opinions

krlpeters
 

Dear Mr. Smith:
 
Would it be possible to post a copy of the photo you mentioned?
 
According to the sources I have available, the "Victory" class vessels used two water-tubed boilers, not three.
 
If your model is based on the Chooch load, the boiler type is of a Scotch fire-tube boiler.
Normaly, two would be used in a freighter [like our Great Lakes bulk carriers] but a passenger vessel may have three or more.
 
Karl Peters

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


Re: Central Valley 5' Arch Bar trucks.

Tim O'Connor
 

Denny

The problem with the "roll tester" is that it can't measure
how the trucks perform with a car on them.

On my workbench I have an incline and just let the car roll
as far as it can freely -- typically 5 to 7 feet for a good
free roller, 10 feet for an exceptional roller, and lesser
distances mean that it needs work.

What did you lube them with?

Tim O'Connor

I unearthed my cache of these handsome trucks and tested their
rollability on the Reboxx Rolltester as follows:

(0-5 Not Acceptable. 6-10 Poor. Good/Acceptable 11-15. Very Good
16-20. Superior 21 and up).

OEM wheels: 6/7/6: Borderline unacceptable/poor.
Reboxx 1.025" wheels: 10/11/10: just barely above the poor, but in
the /goodacceptable range.
Reboxx 1.030" wheels: 9/9/10: Almost acceptable, but still poor.
Minimal sideplay, however.

Lubrication caused no improvement in rollability.

The appearance of these trucks with their new narrow wheels was
improved to an exponential degree.

With their projecting exposed narrow wheels , these are the trucks I
will use on Al Westerfield' s fine new Summers Ore cars until
something better comes along. Now, if I can only adapt the Kadee brake
gear to fit these 5' trucks....

BTW, if one was to stock up on only one length of Reboxx wheels,
1.025" would seem to a worthy bet, with some 1.020" and 1.015" axle
sets on the side. These (1.025") are the consistent best for the
popular Accurail AAR trucks (maximum rollability combined with minimum
axle sideplay. Ditto with Branchline trucks).

Brian Leppart's fine Tahoe trucks are sized to best use the the Reboxx
or Intermountain nominal 1.015" axle lengths (but the current new IM
production of 1.007" axle sets introduce excessive axle sideplay).

Denny

115161 - 115180 of 193481