Date   

Re: Proto A 50-17 Union Pacific

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 21, 2010, at 2:52 PM, bnonut wrote:

Bought one of these on eBay, minus steps! Were these still in the
scheme that proto applied during the fifties?

Any suggestions on the trucks, roofwalk, brakes, etc.
Mark, according to the UP equipment diagram, these cars had Barber
trucks (Branchline in HO) and Equipco hand brakes. Running boards
were wood. As for paint and lettering, "the fifties" was a long
period of time. Some cars would have survived with original P/L into
the early 1950s, hardly any by the mid-1950s, and almost none by the
late 1950s. UP went from white lettering with yellow slogans, as on
the model, to all yellow lettering and slogans in mid-1947. "Be
Specific" replaced "Served All the West" in 1951, and "Automobile"
was deleted from auto cars beginning in 1952. Various other
modifications were made to the lettering through the 1950s, as
detailed in Terry Metcalfe's Union Pacific Freight Cars 1936-51, now,
regrettably, long out of print. You can solve the problem of the
missing steps with A-Line metal steps (with which many of us replace
plastic steps before a model leaves the workbench).

Richard Hendrickson


Proto A 50-17 Union Pacific

Mark
 

Bought one of these on eBay, minus steps! Were these still in the scheme that proto applied during the fifties?

Any suggestions on the trucks, roofwalk, brakes, etc.

Thank You, Mark Morgan


Haskell & Barker 1913 Gondola

Paul Hillman
 

The Chicago & Western Indiana RR had several Haskell & Barker, 40 ft, Wood Side-Dump gondolas. Some were still in use in 1960.

#1185, built in 1913, was at the Illinois Railway Museum the last I saw. (Poor condition)

Does any company make, at least a close HO model of these cars. Can't find any yet in my searching.

Thanks, Paul Hillman


Re: SANTA FE REFER BLOCKS

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 21, 2010, at 10:18 AM, WILLIAM PARDIE wrote:

I have seen many photos of solid trains of Santa Fe 40 ft. refers
(GFX Designation). I also have a photo of what seems to be a solid
train of 50 ft Santa Fe refers.
I believe that the 50 ft cars wee primarily for frozen foods. Was it
common for these cars to be mixed in a solid refer block?
Yes, there are numerous photos of the 50' cars mixed in with 40' cars
in reefer blocks. The photo you cite of a solid block of 50' reefers
may be a publicity shot of new cars being delivered, however. Though
it wasn't unusual for several 50' cars to be operated in the same
train, remember that there weren't very many 50' reefers by
comparison with 40' SFRD cars, so long strings of 50' cars were rare
to the point of being non-existent in routine operations.

Richard Hendrickson


SANTA FE REFER BLOCKS

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

I have seen many photos of solid trains of Santa Fe 40 ft. refers (GFX Designation). I also have a photo of what seems to be a solid train of 50 ft Santa Fe refers.
I believe that the 50 ft cars wee primarily for frozen foods. Was it common for these cars to be mixed in a solid refer block?

Thanks in advance.

Bill Pardie


Re: New Haven boxcars

chrislantz@att.net
 

Peter,

You pretty much answered all my questions. Thank you for the help.


Chris

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, tgregmrtn@... wrote:

Which Paint Scheme? Warm Orange.

Greg Martin


In a message dated 2/20/2010 1:02:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
chrislantz@... writes:




I'm having a little trouble trying to get the correct color for New Haven
boxcars in the mid 50's. Can anyone help?

CML







Re: Seaboard 1958 cuft hoppers

Ed Hawkins
 

On Feb 20, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Ed Hawkins wrote:

Eric,
The cars in the 7600-8649 range were built in 5 different groups by 3
different builders covering a 13-year span of time 1940 to 1952.
And on Feb 21, 2010, at 5:08 AM, al_brown03 wrote:

According to Goolsby's article, SAL 7600-8649 were built in six
groups by three builders, between 1940 and 1953. They weren't
identical: for example, SAL 7622, 7823, 8049, and 8453 (built by P-S)
and 8050 (Greenville, '42) had straight side sills, while SAL 8250 and
8449 (Greenville, '49) had fishbelly side sills. The cars listed cover
all the P-S and Greenville groups: I haven't seen a photo of series
8100-8249 (Bethlehem, '47). I'm also not familiar with the IM model,
so don't know what it reproduces. Seaboard called these cars "cement
hoppers" as opposed to their many "phosphate" hoppers of a very
different design.
Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla
Eric,
Al Brown is totally correct about the 6 groups (vs. my count of 5) as I
excluded the 8250-8449 fish-belly side series built by Greenville in
1949 (per my article in RP CYC Vol. 15). Consequently I should have
also excluded the 8250-8449 series in the overall number range. To
better define the cars that could be modeled using the IM model with
reasonable accuracy, they are as follows. Build dates are the earliest
I've documented from photos.

7600-7999, Pullman-Standard lot 8079, built 12-52
8000-8049, Pullman-Standard lot 5626B, built 9-40
8050-8099, Greenville Steel O.O. 337, built 5-42
8100-8249, Bethlehem Steel DF 101, built 2-47
8450-8649, Pullman-Standard lot 5957B, built 2-51

Cars 7600-8099 and 8450-8649 had "open sides" and 8100-8249 had "closed
sides." All but 8450-8649 require changing the hatch configuration
versus that used by IM on the model. All cars require changing the
locking bar. Specialty items such as hand brakes, running boards, and
trucks varied from order to order.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Seaboard 1958 cuft hoppers

al_brown03
 

Larry Goolsby's article in Lines South 4th/98, pp 18-23, contains photos of SAL 7622 and 8449 (the latter in sand service), as well as several cars outside your stated number series.

A photo of SAL 7823 (in fishmeal service) appears in the Morning Sun SAL color guide, p 69.

A builder's photo of SAL 8049 and a publicity shot of SAL 8453 appear in Griffin, "Seaboard: The Route of Courteous Service", p 196.

A builder's photo of SAL 8050, from the '43 CBC, appears in TS CYC 75 on the front cover and p 346.

Two builder's photos of SAL 8250 appear in RP CYC 15, p 104.

According to Goolsby's article, SAL 7600-8649 were built in six groups by three builders, between 1940 and 1953. They weren't identical: for example, SAL 7622, 7823, 8049, and 8453 (built by P-S) and 8050 (Greenville, '42) had straight side sills, while SAL 8250 and 8449 (Greenville, '49) had fishbelly side sills. The cars listed cover all the P-S and Greenville groups: I haven't seen a photo of series 8100-8249 (Bethlehem, '47). I'm also not familiar with the IM model, so don't know what it reproduces. Seaboard called these cars "cement hoppers" as opposed to their many "phosphate" hoppers of a very different design.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "mumpseee" <eric.mumper@...> wrote:

Group,

Does anyone have pictures of Seaboard Air Line 1958 cuft covered hoppers in the 7600 to 8649 range? I would like to see if they are close to the new Intermountain car to see if they can be convinced to do that paint scheme (plus ACL if they are close as well) since these cars got all over the place hauling phosphate rock for the fertilizer industry. If possible, I would also like to use a picture in a clinic I am preparing on the industries of Streator, Illinois. The Smith-Douglass plant commonly received these cars and it would be nice to show what they looked like to the audience. Many thanks.

Eric Mumper


Re: Seaboard 1958 cuft hoppers

Ed Hawkins
 

On Feb 20, 2010, at 7:56 PM, mumpseee wrote:

Does anyone have pictures of Seaboard Air Line 1958 cuft covered
hoppers in the 7600 to 8649 range? I would like to see if they are
close to the new Intermountain car to see if they can be convinced to
do that paint scheme (plus ACL if they are close as well) since these
cars got all over the place hauling phosphate rock for the fertilizer
industry. If possible, I would also like to use a picture in a clinic
I am preparing on the industries of Streator, Illinois. The
Smith-Douglass plant commonly received these cars and it would be nice
to show what they looked like to the audience. Many thanks.
Eric,
The cars in the 7600-8649 range were built in 5 different groups by 3
different builders covering a 13-year span of time 1940 to 1952. Bob's
Photo has in-service photos from each of the 5 groups except one
8000-8049 (at least I haven't found one from this series yet). Photos
of specific car numbers include 7821, 8065, 8240, 8244, 8490, and 8556.
There may be others I'm not aware of.

All but the last series (8450-8649) have a hatch arrangement different
than the InterMountain model. Cars in series 7600-8449 have hatches
with hinges oriented so that they open onto the adjacent space on the
roof (rather than opening towards the running board).

The last series 8450-8649 (Pullman-Standard lot 5979B, built 2-51)
closely fits the IM model having "open sides" and hatches with hinges
next to the running board. Pullman's locking bar was different than the
ACF-type used on the model. Otherwise the only other main differences
are specialty items such as Champion-Peacock hand brakes, U.S. Gypsum
running boards, and 70-ton A-3 Ride-Control trucks.

Pullman builder's photos from series 7600-7999, 8000-8049, and
8450-8649 are available from the Smithsonian Institution Haskell &
Barker Car Company Collection. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: New Haven boxcars

Greg Martin
 

Which Paint Scheme? Warm Orange.

Greg Martin

In a message dated 2/20/2010 1:02:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
chrislantz@att.net writes:




I'm having a little trouble trying to get the correct color for New Haven
boxcars in the mid 50's. Can anyone help?

CML





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


Seaboard 1958 cuft hoppers

Eric Mumper
 

Group,

Does anyone have pictures of Seaboard Air Line 1958 cuft covered hoppers in the 7600 to 8649 range? I would like to see if they are close to the new Intermountain car to see if they can be convinced to do that paint scheme (plus ACL if they are close as well) since these cars got all over the place hauling phosphate rock for the fertilizer industry. If possible, I would also like to use a picture in a clinic I am preparing on the industries of Streator, Illinois. The Smith-Douglass plant commonly received these cars and it would be nice to show what they looked like to the audience. Many thanks.

Eric Mumper


Re: New Haven boxcars

Peter Ness
 

Hi Chris,

The precise answer is, "it depends"...

If you are modeling before 1955 everything except the 1953 PC&F-built,
plug door-equipped AAR Class XIH (heated, insulated) 45000-45099 was
freight car red (brown) top, sides and ends. The 45009-45099 cars were
painted in the "State of Maine" scheme similar to BAR cars produced
during the same run.

Beginning in the middle of 1955 and continuing into 1956, many of the
10'IH 1937 AAR-type 30000-30999 were re-painted and refurbished (steel
running boards replaced wood, steel floor plates installed between
bolsters) into the new 36000-36999 series and many were adorned with a
variety of paint schemes developed by Herbert Matter as the "New Image"
but commonly reffered to as "McGinnis" schemes.

The schemes included several major variations - solid red-orange car,
black with red-orange door and "standard size" block NH herald, and
black with red-orange door and safety appliances with very large "NH"
herald are the more common variations.

Keep in mind that when the repainting and refurbishing of the
30000-series cars into the new 36000-series began, the familiar script
herald on freight car brown was the original scheme. The "McGinnis"
scheme variations were applied to some 10'IH 1937 AAR boxcars up to
including the 1944-built 32500-32999 series cars while many up to that
series remained freight car brown with script heralds - always best to
work from photos.

The later NH boxcars including the postwar 10'IH AAR 33000-33499 series
and all the PS-1 10' and 10'6"IH variations remained mostly in freight
car brown and script herald into the very late '50's.

There are photos showing many NH steel boxcars delivered with black
doors. With exception of the last PS-1's delivered in 1948, most boxcar
doors were the same brown color as the car sides when the cars were
repainted. There are photos from 1952-3 that show this clearly in some
cases.

Lastly, the 40500-40514 50' PS-1's arrived in 1956 and were delivered in
the red-orange McGinnis scheme similar to some of the repainted
36000-series. These cars appear to have been delivered with black side
sills.

I think that covers the mid-50's. Hope it helps.

Regards,

Peter


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

I'm having a little trouble trying to get the correct color for New
Haven boxcars in the mid 50's. Can anyone help?

CML


Re: New Haven boxcars

Marty McGuirk
 

Which paint scheme? Depending on when in the "mid 50s" the colors
could vary considerably.

Marty

On Feb 20, 2010, at 4:01 PM, chrislantz@att.net wrote:

I'm having a little trouble trying to get the correct color for New
Haven boxcars in the mid 50's. Can anyone help?

CML



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


Re: Bowser PRR X31b 61321

John Hile
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@...> wrote:


I suspect that Bowser, to make different car numbers
available, pulled car numbers from the 61102-62799 series without
checking the notes section of the ORER for cars assigned to auto
parts service. To be fair, most folks wouldn't notice unless they
went through the notes section of the ORER. John, if this really
bothers you, you can always paint out the "Return When Empty"
lettering after you weather the model to represent a car reassigned
to general service.




Thanks All.

I was leaning toward painting out the "Return When Empty" lettering to model a XM car as Ben suggested. I too was under the impression Bowser grabbed it from a photo of another car or perhaps this car in an earlier era.

-John Hile


New Haven boxcars

chrislantz@att.net
 

I'm having a little trouble trying to get the correct color for New Haven boxcars in the mid 50's. Can anyone help?

CML


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

railwayman <stevelucas3@...>
 

I think that it's time that we had a look at prototype couplers, in keeping with the STMFC list's mandate.

My 1995 AAR Field Manual gives coupler dimensions for Type E couplers. Rule 16, paragraph 8 gives a distance of 21" (.241" in HO) from back of the head to the end of the shank on a BE60AHT coupler, as well as several other Type E's. My belief is that this is a standard coupler length found on STMFC's. Here's a sketch of a Type E coupler--

http://www.greatlakesrailcar.com/Couplers/AAR%20typeE.jpg

This coupler is condemned if the back of the draft keyslot is less than 3 3/4" from the end of the shank. This gives a rear key slot distance of 17 1/4" (.198" in HO) from the rear of the coupler head. An AAR standard draft key is 6" long on its flat side. Assuming a keyslot of the same length on a Type E coupler, we deduce a length of 11 1/4" (.129" in HO) from front of keyslot to the back of the coupler head.

So in draft, the radius that determines coupler swing on a car with a standard length Type E coupler is 17 1/4, and in buff, 11 1/4".

Think about how much swing a prototype coupler can achieve on an 11 1/4" radius for a moment. It becomes clear that a standard Type E coupler is very tolerant of sharp track radii. Such as here, on the Bronx Terminal--

http://members.trainweb.com/bedt/indloco/crrnjbxtphoto2.jpg

http://members.trainweb.com/bedt/indloco/crrnj10009.jpg

Notice the boxcar on a less than 100' radius curve next to the curved freight shed in both photos.

Tim Warris of FastTracks (http://www.handlaidtrack.com/index-2.php) is building an excellent model of the Bronx Terminal in HO, using cars fitted with what appear to be standard NMRA draft gear on curves of about 12" radius--

http://www.bronx-terminal.com/

And here is where I think that we get tripped up in modelling scale draft gear boxes--NMRA RP-22 (original Ken Mortimer drawing date of August, 1958) gives a distance of .265" in HO from the centre of a .060" diameter coupler pivot to the face of the cover plate (ie. where the head of the coupler is shoved against in buff).

http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-22.pdf

A Kadee standard coupler pocket, #232, used on many of their couplers, including likely the most popular HO couplers used by STMFC modellers, #'s 5 and 58, (yes, I know that many on this board are using Sergent couplers now) has a measurement of .254" (maybe my measurements are a bit off--I'm thinking that this is a nominal 1/4" actual distance) from end of cover plate to centre of coupler pivot stem (which the coupler pivots on).

http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/page232.htm

With a Kadee #5 or #58 coupler's depth from back of coupler head to centre of pivot being about .270", we have about twice the distance between pivot point and back of coupler head on the Kadee coupler compared with the Type E's HO scale measurement of .129" in buff between pivot (the front of the draft key) and the back of the coupler head.

So the Kadee coupler box HAS to be wider than scale to accommodate "sharp model radii"--but remember the real Bronx Terminal? They were able to take 40' and longer cars with standard AAR draft gear around curves of less than 100' radius--less than 14" radius HO curves. And their train crews were able to couple and uncouple cars on these curves.

The culprit is the distance between coupler head and pivot point (or if you want to be even more accurate, the distance between pulling face of coupler and pivot point) on the model couplers that we use now. Shorten it, and we can have scale width coupler boxes. But then of course, we "need" those coupler centreing spring that mostly weren't used on STMFC's, barring Cardwell draft gear...

But it'll take some subtle or not-so-subtle pressure on the major manufacturers to have working scale width draft gear in something other than a niche product. It CAN perform well on those "sharp model railroad curves".

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Jim Betz <jimbetz@...> wrote:

Denny, et al,

While I agree that the standard length of the shanks on
the Kadee product line (and all other mfgrs as well - with the
possible exception of the Sergents) is longer than it should be -
it does mean that we can operate our model trains on track with
significantly more curvature than the prototype. The same can
be said of the width of the coupler box - and that measurement
is directly related to the same thing.

I have never seen a layout that has truly prototypical
curvature standards. And even those that have truly generous
standards (such as "nothing smaller than 36" on the mainline")
still have several areas on the layout that have smaller
curves and lower numbered turnouts. If I remember correctly
a #10 turnout -approaches- the typical smallest radius of the
prototype (and I'm not talking about mainline). Yes, of course,
these are generalizations/standard practices and you can go
out and find examples where the real RRs had more curvature
than these statements. But they are pretty close to what
the real RRs use as their standards (which they may or may
not break depending upon the situation).
On our layouts we 'fudge' even our own standards - not once
in a while but often/always. The phrase "I can make it fit if
I use a #4 turnout here for this industry track" is one I hear
a lot. The other thing you hear are statements such as "we
have 30-inch radius every where on our mainline - except for
the areas at _____ and _____" ... and those statements are made
proudly/as a brag about how generous that particular layout is.
And there is a real reason why the time-saver is based upon
all #4 turnouts.
If I remember correctly I think that an HO layout would
have to adopt s curvature standard of something approaching
that used on O-scale in order to be in the same ball park as
the real RRs.
I can't remember ever seeing a commercially available
turnout number larger than a #10. Even Fast Tracks only
goes up to a #12 (and I'll predict that they don't sell very
many of them!) - in HO and N ... and they only go up to a #6
in O-scale.

If you can get Kadee (or any other coupler mfgr) to answer
you I'm certain that you will find that the size of the coupler
box and the length of the shank has been chosen in order to
provide for operation of normal length equipment on tight
radius curves (where tight is defined as 22" or larger - at
least). The other thing that you will be told is that they
are using the sizes/measurements they are using due to the
NMRA standards/RPs.

Until we start to have layouts that do not compromise on
the curvature and turnout numbers in use I'm afraid we are
going to have to compromise on the coupler boxes and shanks.
I don't see any way around it.
I'll even go further and state that due to the sheer
number of layouts and existing model trains that are
already out there already you are going to be hard pressed
to figure out how to influence/change this reality. We may
be 'committed' to this state "for ever". *Sigh*
On the other side - I'm not sure any of us would ever
attempt to build a layout based upon true prototype
curvature standards ... we just don't have the space.

One last thing - all of the above relates directly to
the operational characteristics of our 'typical' trains and
is equally applicable to all scales and eras. If your layout
is early enough in the STMFC era that you have only 40'
or shorter freight cars then you might be able to use
smaller boxes and shorter shafts. Even a train of all
50' cars, going around a 40" radius curve - will look 'funny'
when compared to the real RRs. By 'funny' I mean that the
cars will be hanging out over the rail in the middle of the
car further than you will see them do on a real RR.
- Jim

P.S. It certainly -seems- to be true that having a coupler
box available that has a 'built-in shim' across the
opening to prevent coupler droop would be a good idea.
But I highly doubt we'll ever see it from Kadee - if
for no other reason than that it would prevent that
box from being used for a #5 with the existing copper
centering spring.
A good argument can be made for the idea that a
coupler "needs" to be able to 'droop' during certain
loading situations. I have certainly seen couplers
between two cars that were "pulled down" from the
normal orientation when going thru a vertical curve.
Less possible movement in that direction under these
conditions would translate into more frequent break-in-
twos (but eliminate others).
And I'm sure that Kadee will tell you that if your
couplers are drooping that you need to look at how
they are installed and fix the problem that way. And
their argument is technically correct. However, it is
also true that installing a shim may be a much quicker
and easier way to fix the problem on a particular
installation.
One thing that I've seen done (and done myself) is
to reverse the copper spring in the box - to put the
'face' of it below instead of above the coupler. This
is one "quick and dirty" way to correct droop.


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 : /Chooch Bx-56.JPG
Uploaded by : losgatos48 <losgatos48@comcast.net>
Description : Chooch Enterprises will be releasing a new kit in O scale for the ATSF Bx-56 boxcar. The production kit will include custom decals with artwork by Pat Duffin. The kit is composed of urethane castings, styrene strips and castings. The pilot model was built by Jim Zwernemann.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/Chooch%20Bx-56.JPG

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

Regards,

losgatos48 <losgatos48@comcast.net>


Re: Sunshine GN box car kits, # 18.4, 18.5 availability?

charles slater
 

Someday is here Craig, get buisy.

Charlie



To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
From: cmfoster90@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:10:51 -0800
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Sunshine GN box car kits, # 18.4, 18.5 availability?





Hi Aaron,
I will check my supply of 'gonna-build-someday' Sunshine kits. I think 18.4 and maybe 18.5 are in the basement. Shoot me an email off line and we'll see what we can do.
Craig FosterThornton, Colorado

--- On Fri, 2/19/10, Aaron Gjermundson <npin53@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Aaron Gjermundson <npin53@hotmail.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Sunshine GN box car kits, # 18.4, 18.5 availability?
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 2:56 PM



Sorry, wounldn't want to be impolite.

Aaron Gjermundson







_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsofts powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/

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


Re: Sunshine GN box car kits, # 18.4, 18.5 availability?

Craig Foster
 

Hi Aaron, 
I will check my supply of 'gonna-build-someday' Sunshine kits. I think 18.4 and maybe 18.5 are in the basement. Shoot me an email off line and we'll see what we can do.
Craig FosterThornton, Colorado

--- On Fri, 2/19/10, Aaron Gjermundson <npin53@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Aaron Gjermundson <npin53@hotmail.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Sunshine GN box car kits, # 18.4, 18.5 availability?
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 2:56 PM
















 









Sorry, wounldn't want to be impolite.



Aaron Gjermundson






























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


Re: Sunshine GN box car kits, # 18.4, 18.5 availability?

Schuyler Larrabee
 

And by the way, A.W.G., who are you? It's polite to use a first and last
name.

Jim Hayes
Not just polite, required by list rules.

SGL (whose name is in the reply address).





E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14390
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

98941 - 98960 of 187384