A glance at the other model building fields would show that in car, ship and airplane modeling, for the most part, the models produced are much more accurate than the railroad models. Why can't we have the same standard of excellence and care in this field?<

Because if those models were wrong the manufactures would sell zero or close to it. For some reason yet to be explained model railroaders are different. Maybe it's because most started with tinplate and just never got out of the mold!

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

OK, I have been reading the threads relating to the lack of fidelity to prototype when various manufacturers issue new or revised production runs. If it is true (and I have some questions about this), that it would not cost much more, if anything, to do it right, why do the manufacturers persist in their illogical behavior? I think it is correct that the average model railroader wound not know the difference, and would purchase the better made model if it were price. Is there such a disconnect between modelers who could and do supply the correct information and the manufacturers, what can be done to close the gap? If it would take the same effort and capital to produce an accurate model, what is the problem?

A glance at the other model building fields would show that in car, ship and airplane modeling, for the most part, the models produced are much more accurate than the railroad models. Why can't we have the same standard of excellence and care in this field?

Just wondering.

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA

To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
From: b.hom@worldnet.att.net
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:13:05 +0000
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 40' USRA rebuild


























Tim O'Connor wrote:

"any particular prototype?"

http://www.pbase.com/tom_murray/image/114848321



No. This is the same abortion as the earlier S Helper Service, Atlas O, and Atlas N scale models now in HO that doesn't model anything. See my post #23214 from 2003 for detailed discussion about this model.



"i'm guessing this is the CMO/RI car..."



You're guessing wrong. Wrong roof, wrong ends, wrong height.



Ben Hom

Tim O'Connor wrote:
"any particular prototype?"
http://www.pbase.com/tom_murray/image/114848321

No. This is the same abortion as the earlier S Helper Service, Atlas O, and Atlas N scale models now in HO that doesn't model anything. See my post #23214 from 2003 for detailed discussion about this model.


"i'm guessing this is the CMO/RI car..."

You're guessing wrong. Wrong roof, wrong ends, wrong height.


Ben Hom

I looked more carefully at a sidelong photo of a CMO car. The
side sill is deeply inset, and the brackets are actually triangular
castings of some kind. They are open not solid - you can see light
showing through them in the photo. I don't think Sunshine did those
exactly right either... :-&#92;

Tim O'Connor

Tim: From Ben Hom on the PRR Modeling list today and this list back in 2003.
The question asked if the cars could model the PRR X26C.

Dave, I recommend you go back to the pubs and reconsider. The Atlas O and N
scale USRA rebuilt boxcar models are hermaphrodites that don't model ANY
prototype, much less the PRR Class X26C rebuilt USRA SS boxcars. The
following is from my post on STMFC in 2003 (Message 23214) about the O scale
model (and the S Helper Service S scale model that it was copied from) when
it was first introduced:


First, some quick notes on rebuilt boxcars:
Even though Youngstown marketed kits to the railroads during the
1930s to rebuild single- and double-sheathed boxcars, each individual
railroad approached rebuilding cars in a different manner, with some
roads simply replacing the sides while retaining the original roof
and ends; others replacing the sides and roof while retaining the
ends, and one (KCS) doing a USRA DS rebuild in 1949 by fitting a
modern boxcar body, ends and all on top of the old underframe. Almost
all rebuilds increased the height of the car, and railroads took
different approaches to making the ends taller, with some adding a
blank panel and others splicing in sections of Murphy ends. The cars
were also widened - a reliable spotting feature shared by almost all
rebuilt SS or DS boxcars is an indented side sill with trapezoidal or
triangular brackets supporting the new steel sides. The wider cars
required end modifications as well - most railroads simply used an
angle to join the ends to the side creating an indent there, but
some roads [such as the PRR] used sheet metal to widen the ends
creating a more familiar square corner. The original trucks were
almost always reused; the underframe was always reused, though at
least two roads rebuilt these cars a second time in the late '50s-
early 60s with new underframes (some WAB cars with gon underframes,
PRR X26C ->X26F). The net result is that rebuilt boxcars were unique
to each railroad. For a more detailed account of USRA DS rebuilds,
see "Steel Side USRA Rebuilds," Parts 1 and 2 by Martin Lofton
in the September and October 1989 Railroad Model Craftsman.

The Models: Both models has some serious problems with the sides. The
model has eight-panel steel sides, which is correct for many of the
rebuilds except those who used ten-panel sides (ATSF, PRR). However,
the sides have two problems. First, the side sills are incorrect
for the vast majority of SS or DS rebuilds - there is no noticeable
inset, and the brackets are actually closer to those used on Pennsy
Class X29 rebuilds. Most SS or DS rebuilds used triangular or
trapezoidal brackets. Without this inset, the car is too narrow and
fails to capture the look of a wider new carbody fitted to a narrow
older underframe. In fact, these models retain the "sunken cheek"
look of a SS boxcar (the effect is worse on the S Helper Service car).

Both model share the same details:
Roof: Original USRA steel sheathed roof.
Ends: Unmodified 5/5/5 Murphy ends.
Sides: Eight-panel sides. No distinct inset side sill. T-section
support brackets.
Underframe: USRA SS car (some S Helper Service roadnames have the
fishbelly underframe)

This model is closest to the ACL 46000-46949, C&WC 8000-8299, and SL-
SF 127000-130499 USRA DS rebuilds; however, the side sills are wrong
and the model lacks the heavy fishbelly underframe of the DS
rebuilds. (Both model's roofs are correct for these rebuilds, as they
reused the original roof; however, all other road's rebuilds replaced
the roof with all-steel types.)

These models are incorrect for all of the other paint schemes
offered, differing mainly in roof, ends, underframe, and in the case
of the PRR and ATSF cars, car sides.

The bottom line:
- Neither model out of the box is an exact match for any prototype.
- Neither model really captures the "wider body on an narrow
underframe look." I've uploaded a side-by-side comparison of the
closest prototypes and both models in the STMFC files section.


Since I posted this e-mail, Larry Kline modified an Atlas O scale model with
new side sills to more closely match the ACL/C&WC and SL-SF "basic"
rebuilds; however, if you're looking for an injection-molded styrene RTR
Class X26C boxcar, this ain't going to answer the mail.


Brian J. Carlson, P.E.
Cheektowaga NY

The CPR in Eastern Quebec got coal in B&O hoppers, as some Richard
Hastings photos show.

Quite a bit of soft coal was mined on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia,
served by its own pretty heavy duty coal road, the Sydney & Louisburg
RR. I have no idea where it was principally used, but inasmuch as the
only railroad connecting road was the CN, I would presume that they
would likely have been a major customer.

BTW, the S&L was one of the last holdouts in steam, making do well
into the '60s with a variety of second hand locomotives, primarily C&O
and some NYC, if I recall correctly. I have no idea whether that coal
was shipped out in CN or S&L hoppers.

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento

any particular prototype?
http://www.pbase.com/tom_murray/image/114848321
i'm guessing this is the CMO/RI car...

Tim O'Connor

The coal we burned was anthracite most of the
time. My assumption is that the coal would have traveled via NYC hoppers
to a dealer in Chelsea or Everett.


The iconic "Anthony's Pier 4 Restaurant" is actually located
on what was formerly "NYNH&H Coal Pier 4." The New Haven
had a connection to Maybrook, across the Pooghkepsie Bridge,
and could've handled Erie or L&NE originated anthracite, but the
most common source of hard coal in the Boston area was
D&H branded Anthracite (shipped and delivered complete
with "Hudson Coal Company" orange cardboard discs
[similar to beer coasters] as re-order advertising).

Dickson & Eddy had a coal pier in Boston Harbor as well, and that
firm handled NYO&W anthracite.......some of it barged all the way from
NYO&W piers in New York Harbor, or up on the Hudson at Cornwall.

Mal Houck
**************Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on
tour at TourTracker.com.
(http://www.tourtracker.com/?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000006)

We also heated by soft coal in the early 50s, then we switched to coke. This was Everett Mass., and the coke was from Glendale Coal and Coke located at the EG&F Coke Works in Everett. Solid coke trains shipped out every day from the "Works" on both the B&A (25-40 cars), and the B&M (20-25 cars) to local New England coke merchants.
Norm Larkin

Being a western railroad buff, hoppers have not been on my radar as far as
leaning anything but the threads these past few days have convinved me that
perhaps that filtering was unwise... not because hoppers came to the west
coast in numbers worth mentioning, but that a well rounded knowledge of
steam era freight cars dictates at least a conversational level of knowledge
of these criters (n.b., the same logic applies to you eastern rr buffs who
have distained GS gons).

So, having revealed my ignorance... The question:

What are the various designs of hopper models, available in HO scale, that
are both reasonably accurate and of sufficient numbers ca. 1950 that I
should know? And perhaps the same question for ca. 1940.

Dave Nelson

Steve,

         The blue spray was an identifier for the coal co. It has been printed
that the blue was a way to note pilferage, not a dust covering. In fact,
most times it was blue dots, not an overall paint job of the load. Blue
Coal was a trade name, so they made sure it looked blue when delivered.

Fred Freitas




________________________________
From: Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@yahoo.ca>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 1:15:30 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Coal for home heating?





Would the blue paint/dye spray on top of carloads of coal from certain distributors have served to bind the top of a load of coal and lessen dust production while in transit?

Steve Lucas.

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

I'm surprised if very fine coal was shipped in hoppers. I
can imagine some moisture (rain or snow) followed by a hard
freeze would turn that entire load into a solid block of
ice! (Larger size coal was far less likely to freeze solid
because of the air spaces between the chunks.)

Tim O'Connor



At 7/10/2009 01:03 PM Friday, you wrote:

Al Kresse:

Nobody has mentioned "stokers" for their furnaces. The 1935 "Stoker Coal, C&O Lines" booklet I was referencing showed home furnaces with a box on the side of of the furnace that automatically feed the furnace . . . . and with the entire family playing in the basement around the clean furnace.

We had a stoker on our coal furnace. Our house was completed in the summer of 1942 so the furnace dated from that time. IIRC the stoker was mounted on the side of and open to the coal bin. It was gravity fed, so the only time you had to actually shovel coal was when the level got way down in the bin. Since my dad was the coal dealer, and the shoveler if it came to that, he made sure the bin was always full. I don't think nut coal (the largest we carried) would work in household stokers. I think we burned rice. In any event, I shouldn't think sizes smaller than nut (the previously mentioned pea, rice and buckwheat) would heap well in a hopper, so a load of such coal might appear flatter and have a much finer texture than what we modelers are used to seeing.

Tom Madden

Alan Palmer wrote:

Anything I have dealt with, if we offered to kick over 20 or 25 copies of th publication, the fee would be waved. Without the SLHS photos we could proceed on the book so it was cancelled. The publisher told me several explitives for the fee per photo.

It's true that some archives will accept copies instead of a fee, but major ones DO tend to have a fee, and it's rarely waived. However, they usually offer a reduced fee for non-profit publication (Signature Press is not intentionally a non-profit), and many also will negotiate a "volume discount," lower cost per photo as the total number of photos used gets larger.

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

Brian Chapman wrote:

Say that a small-business manufacturer has 3D art, or better yet, a pre-production model of a steam-era freight car. Would those here with specific knowledge be willing to critique the model for accuracy if artwork were uploaded to the Photos / Files sections?

Well, Brian, what would immediately happen, if the model really has much commercial viability, is that Walthers or equivalent would rush out a clunky, cast-on details version. Then the small guy is out of luck and the rest of us have a marginal model. Winner? Walthers, who probably sells a ton of them, even if not to members of 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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

Anything I have dealt with, if we offered to kick over 20 or 25 copies of th publication, the fee would be waved. Without the SLHS photos we could proceed on the book so it was cancelled. The publisher told me several explitives for the fee per photo.

Alan

--
Alan Palmer
Ottawa, Ontario
rrgeekdev@gmail.com

Sent from my TelusMobility wireless device.

Also, as modelers get pickier, the market shrinks, thus making it less attractive for a manufacturer to invest in tooling for a given model. <

I think many of us don't believe this. It's been said for a long time the cost to make a model right is the same as making it wrong. "Pickier" might refer to details but in most cases it cost the same to cut the molds. <<

So, what are the best ways available for manufacturers to "get it right"?

Assuming that a manufacturer (I'm imagining a small, cottage-type business with a limited R&D budget) has done a fine job collecting published data and documentation, it seems nevertheless that accuracy errors are inevitable (particularly if real life examples of the subject matter aren't available for inspection).

Do such manufacturers attempt to plug into the expertise residing on sites such as this one (and the MFCL and modelintermodal lists, as further examples)? Could not the STMFC and similar sites populated with highly knowledgeable modelers and railroad historians have an enormous impact on the hobby's models?

Say that a small-business manufacturer has 3D art, or better yet, a pre-production model of a steam-era freight car. Would those here with specific knowledge be willing to critique the model for accuracy if artwork were uploaded to the Photos / Files sections?

Rather than make it a hit-or-miss affair, might there be a way to formalize such critiquing work? Such as a certain type of message subject header to create a unified thread, for example: PROJECT EVALUATION: NYC's offset twin hopper

Sanction by and support of the list owner and the moderators, it seems to me, would be crucial to making this a successful process.

The bottomline, it seems to me, is to find the best route possible to correct profound freight car errors before they reach production, avoiding much of the meltdown that so often occurs after the release of a model (see: MFCL discussion of recent ExactRail covered hopper release).

Some manufacturers will not reveal project information in advance of production. Others, though, might be willing to give critiquing a try -- at least on a one-time basis to test the process, particularly if the design work on a model is so far advanced that the company will reach production before it can be overtaken by a competitor's product.

So, is their a way to tap into modeler expertise, and to do it in a way that's methodical and accepted?

-Brian

Brian Chapman
Evansdale, Iowa

Would the blue paint/dye spray on top of carloads of coal from certain distributors have served to bind the top of a load of coal and lessen dust production while in transit?

Steve Lucas.

The CPR in Eastern Quebec got coal in B&O hoppers, as some Richard Hastings photos show.

Steve Lucas.

One name says it all--Disney.

And those interested in publishing historical photos and other works have been caught up in the maelstrom created by bad legislation.

Canadian photo copyright has 1 January, 1948 as the defining date--for now.

Steve Lucas.

Alan Palmer wrote:

I looked into using some images from the St. Lawrence County Historical Society for a book and they wanted $200 per image. If I gave them 500 books to sell themselves they were going to charge me $150 per. Needless to say I did not proceed. And this group complains that noone knows the history of the area or uses their resources.

That's a new high price for me, Alan. I was upset when the San Francisco Chronicle wanted $125 each for photos from their morgue, long-ago news photos. We used the absolute MINIMUM we needed, I can tell you.

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

Amand's description of the metal chutes on these specialized coal delivery trucks best fits the description in the Anthracite belt coal dealers. These chutes had enough curveable joints in so they could reach almost any basement window -- it was always in the homeowner's interest to arrange the basement and coal bunker for easy access to a coal truck.

In 1990 I was driving between Scranton and nearby Taylor Yard and saw one of the old scissors dump trucks that had stopped traffic and had backed into someone's front yard. His bed was up, and he manipulated the chute which curved and telescoped as needed, then lifted the slide and the coal slid freely. The whole process was over before I could get close with a camera, but I did get a couple of pictures of the truck and the house from a distance. It was news to me that homes were still coal fired at that time. And it turns out that homes can still be coal fired. Some modern stoves have automatic firing, stoking and ash removal.

The Whippany Railroad Museum in New Jersey has a coal truck from a local coal dealer who actually received hopper cars in Denville into the 1960s and was a long-time Blue Coal (DL&W trademark) dealer. A link is at:

http://www.whippanyrailwaymuseum.net/eq_coaltruck.html

....Mike Del Vecchio