Date   

Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

Didn't one of the really old Kadee couplers use
this technique -- a #4 perhaps? I'm pretty sure
one of them used a coil centering spring.<

Yes, I forget the number.

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: Kadee minimum body box widths

Richard Townsend
 

Is that why Magor went out of business? They were having coupler
problems?<G>

Richard Townsend

--- In STMFC@..., Karl Peters <krlpeters@...> wrote:

Currently, the bulk of the running fleet is 24' iron ore cars. The
rest is mostly 40', with a few 50'. With small steam {MA&PA sized} I
have not have any magor problems running


Re: Single-sheathed box cars

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jeff Aley wrote:
Do you do your drilling w/ a pin vice . . .
Um, let's not get into vices on this list.

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: Single-sheathed box cars

pierreoliver2003 <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Jeff,
I'm going to jump in here and mention that for all of the holes I
drill in resin , I use a Dremel Mini-Mite. A battery powered moto-tool.
If you're careful and use the right feed rate and speed you can also
successfully use this tool for styrene as well.
Drilling 36 holes becomes a job of mere minutes.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@..., "Aley, Jeff A" <Jeff.A.Aley@...> wrote:

Clark,

Do you do your drilling w/ a pin vice, or do you have
some other technique to quickly drill those 36 holes?

Regards,

-Jeff


________________________________


Mianline Modeler back issues source

Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;)
 

Hi List Members,

A while back, I inquired about obtaining back issues of mainline Modeler magazine.

I got lots of good suggestions, and even an offer for a photocopy if I were unsuccessful in my search. I'd like to thank everyone who replied.

In the end, I went with the place at the url below. I found them to give efficient service. No connection, other than as a satisfied customer.

http://www.metaldetector.org.uk/MAGAZINE.htm

I know the url looks kinda funny, but it is a domestic business in the USA and I got my back issue quite quickly via online order and PayPal pmt. The mag was in like-new condition.

- Claus Schlund


Re: Single-sheathed box cars

Aley, Jeff A
 

Clark,

Do you do your drilling w/ a pin vice, or do you have some other technique to quickly drill those 36 holes?

Regards,

-Jeff


________________________________
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of rockroll50401
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:41 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Single-sheathed box cars


Gene, I've built the Tichy kits and resin kits by most makers. The
Tichy cars take just as long to asemble as a resin kit. I built and
painted a Westerfield 29000 series M&StL kit today in about 5 hours.
(36 holes to drill) Beatiful model.
I'm not bragging or trying to give the impression that anyone should
built that fast. I'm just saying guys shouldn't just rule out resin
kits.
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Re: Texas Natural Gasoline Corp Tank Cars

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 25, 2009, at 1:22 AM, matthewjstrickland wrote:
Can anyone tell me if the "Texas Natural Gasoline Corporation" was the
same company as the Texas Company i.e Texaco?

Atlas have a 11,000 Tank Car for this road name, lettered as from
Tulsa, OKLAHOMA.

Is this car protypical?









Matt, the Texas Natural Gas Corporation did have its headquarters in
Tulsa and apparently had no connection with the Texas Co. In 1953
they owned and operated 50 11,000 gal. LPG cars, AAR class TPI, ICC
class ICC-105A-300-W which were numbered TNGX 100-500 in multiples of
ten (i.e., 100, 110, 120, etc.). I have a photo of TNGX 500 and it
was a post-WW-II AC&F car of the design modeled by Atlas, though
whether the model is correct in every detail could only be determined
by comparing it with the photo. In 1958 Texas Natural Gas apparently
bought someone else's tank car fleet, as their roster suddenly
expanded to more than 700 cars. I also have photos of some of those,
but they are of somewhat different design than the AC&F cars modeled
by Atlas.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

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

Denny Anspach wrote

Jon Cagle's tank cars do not use the Kadee "whisker" couplers. They
use a standard #78 centered by a coil spring aligned with the shank
that is inset into a notch in the back end of the shank (this
application is unique (to my knowledge), and is very creative.
Didn't one of the really old Kadee couplers use
this technique -- a #4 perhaps? I'm pretty sure
one of them used a coil centering spring...

Tim O'
The Kadee No.4 used a coil spring in conjunction with a lug cast on
each side of the coupler shank for centering, the same as the 711 "Old
Time" coupler uses a coil spring in conjunction with two little pivot
pins. When the coupler head is swung to the side, it pivots on one or
the other of the lugs, which pulls the tail end of the shank toward
the open end of the box, compressing the spring. The spring trying to
regain its maximum length pushed both lugs against their stops, thus
moving the coupler back on center. It was a very nice system, but it
required features in the box that were different from what was
required for the X2-f horn hook, so it fell out of favor.

Kadee also used this system on their O scale couplers, and back when I
was fooling around with 1/4" AAR Finescale (which ultimately became
PROTO:48) I noticed that the O scale shank was just a bit under 1/4"
wide, so it would fit between scale center sills, although it wouldn't
swing but a degree or two. However, when I realized how oversize the
Kadee coupler head was, I didn't go any further. Years later John
Munson had an article in Mainline Modeler on building patterns for a
1/4" Finescale USRA boxcar and he used the same system. According to
the article, the cars coupled fine, but I have no idea what radius was
required.

Which is why I say that you could just glue the couplers solid in the
cars and they would work, between vars, at least. It's the different
geometry of locomotive coupler mounts that cause the problem.

Dennis


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:

Tim Warris' Bronx Terminal layout (an HO model of the railroad of the
same name) uses Kadee couplers AND approximate 12" radius around the
freight shed--

http://www.bronx-terminal.com/?p=1643

Steve Lucas.
Steve,

All that proves is that STANDARD Kadees in STANDARD width boxes will
work on this radius, SO LONG AS all the equipment has about the same
striker to kingpin dimension, which Tim's equipment does, as did the
prototype.

What the original poster is asking for is how narrow can you make the
box... and the answer is no one has ever done the work required to
survey the situation, because the answer will be different for every
different combination of locomotives and minimum radius.

I personally think the OP should get himself some snap track of known
radius, some shake-the-box cars, and the locos he intends to use, and
do the tests, narrowing the boxes on the cars (and maybe the loco, to)
by cementing blocks of styrene of known thickness into the mouth of
the wide boxes until the cars won't stay on the track any more. The,
he can tell us the answer.

Dennis


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Tim O'Connor
 

Denny Anspach wrote

Jon Cagle's tank cars do not use the Kadee "whisker" couplers. They
use a standard #78 centered by a coil spring aligned with the shank
that is inset into a notch in the back end of the shank (this
application is unique (to my knowledge), and is very creative.
Didn't one of the really old Kadee couplers use
this technique -- a #4 perhaps? I'm pretty sure
one of them used a coil centering spring...

Tim O'


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

I started thinking about this when I noted Jon Cagle's Southern Car &
Foundry Standard tank cars have narrow boxes and use Kadee whiskers.
They probably can be coupled car to car on an 18" radius curve
because the distance from pivot to truck center is relatively short
to - say - a 40' AAR boxcar.

Jon Cagle's tank cars do not use the Kadee "whisker" couplers. They
use a standard #78 centered by a coil spring aligned with the shank
that is inset into a notch in the back end of the shank (this
application is unique (to my knowledge), and is very creative.

A standard "whisker" coupler would not likely fit in the same space
even if the whiskers were removed.

It is very important to recognize that Kadee's wire whiskers are
carefully engineered so as to allow positive centering while at the
same time allowing just enough easy radial movement of the coupler
within the box it was designed to operate in, e.g. the industry
standard Athearn/Kadee variety. If the coupler is jammed into ever
more narrow boxes, the resistance to radial movement is ever
increased to the an end point of no coupler movement at all. How does
one manually center a coupler that is in such a straight jacket?

The same observation can also be made for other makes of couplers with
integral self centering spring features. They are all designed to
operate within certain box widths, and cannot be expected to work as
well otherwise.



Denny


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Tim Warris' Bronx Terminal layout (an HO model of the railroad of the
same name) uses Kadee couplers AND approximate 12" radius around the
freight shed--

http://www.bronx-terminal.com/?p=1643

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., "bnsd45" <bnsd45@...> wrote:

Guys, at risk of annoying the group, I want to reask the question
since the thread veered off topic. I will reword it to make the
intent more clear.

Has anyone on list ever done math to determine the minimum Kadee
coupler box width needed to adhere to 18 - 20 - AND 24" radius curves
yet allow use of Kadee couplers? If our goal is more realism with
our cars, we naturally should want to narrow the coupler boxes on
them which are far too wide (like almost twice as wide as the
prototype). Thanks to the new Kadee #158 "whisker" couplers, coupler
boxes on our models can be more narrow because the centering spring
is no longer necessary for centering operation (let's leave out the
fact that real couplers do not center on their own).

I know there are a series of variables, but an enterprising engineer
could determine, given this series of variables, what an "alternate
standard" box width could be. With Mr Storzek's Accumate research, I
figured he might have done this already?

Variables I can think of:
- what car is coupled to (ie length, distance from coupler face to
truck center, and its associated overhang)
- distance from coupler face to truck center of subject car
- length of Kadee shank (ie they offer multiple length shanks).

Of course, because the coupler pivot point is so far back (ie with a
standard shank), it is impossible to make the boxes as narrow as the
Accurail design. With the shorter shank Kadee offering, the pivot
point could move toward the car ends.

I started thinking about this when I noted Jon Cagle's Southern Car &
Foundry Standard tank cars have narrow boxes and use Kadee whiskers.
They probably can be coupled car to car on an 18" radius curve
because the distance from pivot to truck center is relatively short
to - say - a 40' AAR boxcar.

Any mathmeticians out there? I am wondering what an "alternate
standard" could be.

David Lehlbach


Re: Brake Diagram for WW2 Pullman Troop Sleeper

bnpmodeler
 

Marty and list;

Marty, you're absolutely right on that, and in fact as I went out
yesterday evening I was thinking just that - "You can't do that..."

Oh well, lesson learned, no harm, no foul... Thanks for the gentle
reminder, though!

Jim Harr
Stella Scale Models
www.stellascalemodels.com

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


More bad news Jim, you cannot send a photocopy of the
article/drawings
to someone else. I don't think the police will come knocking, but I
should remind you of that. Photocopies (or perhaps back issues) are
available directly from the nice folks at Kalmbach Publishing.

Marty


Re: Single-sheathed box cars

Ray Breyer
 

Hi Clark,
 
It's still the only way to get one of these cars without scratchbuilding, so don't toss it out. The model represents almost 4700 IC cars running in 1950 (my baseline year) so for Midwestern modelers it's basically a must have. None of our freight car models are 100%, so I'll just live with the F&C model until something better comes along.
 
Regards,
 
Ray Breyer

--- On Wed, 2/25/09, rockroll50401 <cepropst@...> wrote:

From: rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Single-sheathed box cars
To: STMFC@...
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 7:44 AM

 
Chet French just told me that the ONLY truly accurate IC SS box ever
made is the Sunshine car; the F&C car, the next closest and
representative of the single largest group of late steam era IC SS
cars, is too narrow by 6 or 8 inches. Great...
 
Ray Breyer

Great! I plan on building one today...I only have it because of their
marketing.
Clark Propst


Re: Single-sheathed box cars

sparachuk <sparachuk@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "rockroll50401" <cepropst@...> wrote:

I'd like to build a CGW 23 SS car with the radial roof (RP Cyc 18)
based on the F&C BM model with DW ends. Anybody know if an existing
model has that roof?
Clark Propst
Clark: It seems to me that the MDC/Athearn fifty foot SS cars have a
similiar but longer roof. That'd be doing it the hard way though. Lots
of sawing and swearing involved.

Stephan Parachuk
Toronto


Re: Single-sheathed box cars

rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

I'd like to build a CGW 23 SS car with the radial roof (RP Cyc 18)
based on the F&C BM model with DW ends. Anybody know if an existing
model has that roof?
Clark Propst


Re: Single-sheathed box cars

rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

 
Chet French just told me that the ONLY truly accurate IC SS box ever
made is the Sunshine car; the F&C car, the next closest and
representative of the single largest group of late steam era IC SS
cars, is too narrow by 6 or 8 inches. Great...
 
Ray Breyer

Great! I plan on building one today...I only have it because of their
marketing.
Clark Propst


Re: Single-sheathed box cars

rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

I misread Gene's original post. I thought he already had Tichy kits to
build. He was just referring to them as available SS cars.

I like the character of SS cars and have way too many on the layout.
All are resin except for the Tichy.

Tim, many of the resinators give you so much info that I get confused
and end up with the wrong running board or trucks for the particular
number series I've chosen. Let's see...do I remember Athearn....blue
box?? : )
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Re: Single-sheathed box cars

Ray Breyer
 

Hi Tim,

Tim O'Connor wrote:
Why is the uf wrong? My shot of IC 16719 shows a fishbelly.
I've got that same photo: look at the crossmembers; they're
virtually nonexistent on the Accurail model.
That's a minor detail. Obviously they didn't want to tool
a new underframe specifically for this car. They're easy to
scratch.
Quite true, but considering which group we're talking on, I had to mention it as an inaccuracy. And they ARE easy to fix, as are most of the "problems" with using this Accurail model to represent the IC 176000-176999/16000-16975 series cars. You can even "fake" the proper ends if you're willing to move the rivet line joint.

And to be completely prototypical you'll have to add the braces
at the top and bottom corners of the sides.
True for my era, late 50's, but were they always there?
On these specific cars, it looks like it. All of the IC diagrams that I have showing these cars have the braces on them, and in fact, looking through all of my IC SS boxcar photos it appears that ANY SS box built for them after 1924 has them on as original parts. Looking at the pre-1924 cars, I don't see any that had them retrofitted either. I'd need to see more photos of the IC 154701-160000 series cars (the F&C kit), but they all look like they were built with the braces as well (built 1923-1926, so they straddle that semi-arbitrary 1924 line).

Chet French just told me that the ONLY truly accurate IC SS
box ever made is the Sunshine car...
Unless you want to quibble over Sunshine's use of Evergreen
siding for side sheathing. :-)
Sins of our Fathers and all that...EVERYONE was doing that until pretty recently when board by board built resin masters became the norm for SS sides!
 
Regards,
 
Ray Breyer




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


Re: Brake Diagram for WW2 Pullman Troop Sleeper

golden1014
 

Gentlemen,

Thanks for the response. Mike Aufderheide came through immediately
with drawings, and I'm sure I have that issue of MR in case I need
back up.

John

John Golden
Bloomington, IN



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

Wow, good memory - I don't even remember that article and had to
look
it up.

I don't know where Harold got the information for those drawings -
it
was Harold's usual practice to measure an existing prototype if one
could be found - always a dangerous thing since you never know
if/how
completely a car had been "restored" or "preserved.".

--- In STMFC@..., "bnpmodeler" <bnchmark@> wrote:

Hi John and list;

The December 2001 issue of Model Railroader has an article by
Marty
McGuirk entitled "Troop Sleepers" that includes a set of drawings
by
Harold Russell; there are two exceptional underbody views (two
different step treatments = two different views) that ought to
tell
you all you need to know to detail your car. E-mail off-list if
you
would like me to send a photocopy.
More bad news Jim, you cannot send a photocopy of the
article/drawings
to someone else. I don't think the police will come knocking, but I
should remind you of that. Photocopies (or perhaps back issues) are
available directly from the nice folks at Kalmbach Publishing.

Marty



115641 - 115660 of 195395