Date   

Pennsylvania Passenger car identification.

npin53
 

I have uploaded a picture into the "Photos" section called, Mystery passenger Car, and I would like to ask the Pennsylvania gurus, or anybody else, what type of car would it have originally been? The picture is from 1957, on the Midland Continental RR in North Dakota, and it supposedly a second-hand Pennsy car. I have a side view photo, but cannot find it right now. It has the round porthole type windows on the end. It is on my list of possible modeling projects, and I would like to find more information if it is indeed ex-Pennsy equipment.

Aaron


Re: Union Pacific Modeler (magazine)

Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...>
 

Hi Gene,
 
 
               You might try Paul at; www,railpub.com; he always seems to have what I need foir back issues of mags.
 
Fred Freitas

--- On Thu, 2/25/10, Gene <bierglaeser@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Gene <bierglaeser@yahoo.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Union Pacific Modeler (magazine)
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 12:56 PM


 



Am looking for Volumes One, Two and Three of Union Pacific Modeler.

Can anyone offer any suggestions as to how I might find them?

Amazon and eBay haven't worked (yet?). A Google search reveals information about them but not a source from which to buy them.

Was Volume Four the last one or were there more?

Based on Volume Four's excellent articles on Sinclair tank cars and B-50-11 box cars I expect to find really good freight car modeling information in the first three volumes.

(This message was revised to change the subject line to something related to the message content.)

Gene Green


Re: Is Tenax 7R Gone?

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 25, 2010, at 9:34 AM, lnbill wrote:

I have seen some posts on Military Modeling sites alluding to Tenax
7R, which was distributed from Hohenwald, TN disappearing from the
market.
Bill, Micro-Mark sells the same stuff for less under their
"SameStuff" label. And a similar, and equally effective, plastic
adhesive is sold in 1 pint and larger quantities by plastic
fabrication retailers (e.g., TAP Plastics on the west coast) as IPS
Weld-On 3.

(I wonder if I am the only person on this list that has ever been
to Hohenwald?!)
Let's hope so.

Richard Hendrickson


Union Pacific Modeler (magazine)

Gene <bierglaeser@...>
 

Am looking for Volumes One, Two and Three of Union Pacific Modeler.

Can anyone offer any suggestions as to how I might find them?

Amazon and eBay haven't worked (yet?). A Google search reveals information about them but not a source from which to buy them.

Was Volume Four the last one or were there more?

Based on Volume Four's excellent articles on Sinclair tank cars and B-50-11 box cars I expect to find really good freight car modeling information in the first three volumes.

(This message was revised to change the subject line to something related to the message content.)

Gene Green


Is Tenax 7R Gone?

Bill Welch
 

I have seen some posts on Military Modeling sites alluding to Tenax 7R, which was distributed from Hohenwald, TN disappearing from the market.

(I wonder if I am the only person on this list that has ever been to Hohenwald?!)

Bill Welch


Contact

Gene <bierglaeser@...>
 

Am looking for Volumes One, Two and Three of Union Pacific Modeler.

Can anyone offer any suggestions as to how I might find them?

Amazon and eBay haven't worked. A Google search reveals information about them but not a source from which to buy them.

Was Volume Four the last one or were there more?

Based on Volume Four's excellent articles on Sinclair tank cars and B-50-11 box cars I expect to find really good freight car modeling information in the first three volumes.

Gene Green


One More Brake Equipment Question

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

While I am seeking answers on the arrangement of brake components I might as well toss this question out. Does anyone know of a good
photo for a Royal Type F Brake Regulator?

Thanks again in advance:

Bill Pardie


Re: Santa Fe Brake Gear Arrangement

Gene <bierglaeser@...>
 

Bill,
Every part of the air brake system under the car has to be removable. Sometimes a circuitous route is necessary to enable a section of pipe to be removed.

Gene Green

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, WILLIAM PARDIE <PARDIEW001@...> wrote:



I noticed while doing a Santa Fe RR-23 refer that the brake pipe (from
the triple valve to the trainline) did not follow the
"standard" (shortest distance between two points) path.
It rather went through a series of 90 degree bends. The hardware
(Dirt Collector and Valve are mounted on the section parallel to the
triple valve as opposed to right next to the
valve on most applications. I have also noticed this arrangement on
Santa Fe tank cars. Was this common practice for Santa Fe cars?
more specifically was it used on refers with
Duryea underframe and SK-T stockcar?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Bill Pardie


Re: Scale width draft gear?

al_brown03
 

There's a photo and discussion of this operation in Nimke, "Connecticut River Railroads and Connections", vol 3, p 79. Nimke calls the bar a "stiff shackle".

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

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



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

I suspect 50' box cars might have not been able to remain coupled
to one another on those Bronx Terminal 90 foot radius tracks.
On the ex-traction line Claremont & Concord in New Hampshire, in order to deliver a 50-foot car to the Coy Paper Co. in West Claremont, the crew had to remove the knuckles from the locomotive (GE 44-tonner) and the car. A steel bar, a foot or two long, was installed in place of the knuckles. The bar provided enough clearance between the locomotive and car to negotiate the sharp curves.

Of course, having witnessed this procedure, I failed to photograph it. /;-(

Walt Lankenau


Looking for Bill Welch

Bill McCoy
 

Bill,

David Orr has some pictures for you but no current Email address for you. Please let me have your email address so I can pass it on to David.

Thanks,
Bill McCoy
Jax, FL


Re: Scale width draft gear?

Dennis Storzek
 

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


I suspect 50' box cars might have not been able to remain coupled
to one another on those Bronx Terminal 90 foot radius tracks.

The EMD SW1500 switcher will operate on a 70 foot radius -- but only
if uncoupled from anything else. If coupled to another car or loco the
minimum radius becomes 154 feet. (Source: EMD specs in 1970 Car &
Locomotive Cyclopedia.)

Tim O'Connor
Interesting number, Tim. That works out to 21 1/4" radius in HO scale, larger than the 18" that has long been thought to be the minimum for modeling industrial trackage. And that's for just about the smallest locomotive that would be found on a class 1 railroad (OK, except for the SW-1 / SW-600).

Just to continue this thought for a moment, and asking Mr. Brock's indulgence if I use some futuristic power, since only the 1980 Car and Loco Cyc. is close at hand, but the minimum coupled radius for common four axle power, a GP-38-2, is 302', or 42 1/2" radius, and surprisingly the SD-40-2 can negotiate a slightly tighter 262', or 37" in HO. These radii are getting up in the range that's required for reliable operation for P:87, but are still viewed as a space wasting luxury by many modelers.

Dennis


Re: Scale width draft gear?

mcindoefalls
 

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

I suspect 50' box cars might have not been able to remain coupled
to one another on those Bronx Terminal 90 foot radius tracks.
On the ex-traction line Claremont & Concord in New Hampshire, in order to deliver a 50-foot car to the Coy Paper Co. in West Claremont, the crew had to remove the knuckles from the locomotive (GE 44-tonner) and the car. A steel bar, a foot or two long, was installed in place of the knuckles. The bar provided enough clearance between the locomotive and car to negotiate the sharp curves.

Of course, having witnessed this procedure, I failed to photograph it. /;-(

Walt Lankenau


Santa Fe Brake Gear Arrangement

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

I noticed while doing a Santa Fe RR-23 refer that the brake pipe (from the triple valve to the trainline) did not follow the "standard" (shortest distance between two points) path.
It rather went through a series of 90 degree bends. The hardware (Dirt Collector and Valve are mounted on the section parallel to the triple valve as opposed to right next to the
valve on most applications. I have also noticed this arrangement on Santa Fe tank cars. Was this common practice for Santa Fe cars? more specifically was it used on refers with
Duryea underframe and SK-T stockcar?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Bill Pardie


Re: Scale width draft gear?

Tim O'Connor
 

I suspect 50' box cars might have not been able to remain coupled
to one another on those Bronx Terminal 90 foot radius tracks.

The EMD SW1500 switcher will operate on a 70 foot radius -- but only
if uncoupled from anything else. If coupled to another car or loco the
minimum radius becomes 154 feet. (Source: EMD specs in 1970 Car &
Locomotive Cyclopedia.)

Tim O'Connor

The point that I am raising by citing the Bronx Terminal RR. is that prototype cars with conventional draft gear, couplers, and kingpin to pulling face dimensions, could be handled, coupled, and uncoupled, on curves of 90' radius. We consider this curvature to be "toy train" like...
Steve,

I actually agree with you. I suppose I should mention that I'm the guy responsible for the Accumate PROTO:HO coupler, which has the pivot .176" [4.47mm] from the end of the box (striker) and .205", 18 scale inches behind the striker horn of the coupler head. Those dimensions were chosen for a couple of reasons; since the pivot point is also the mounting screw, it needed to be back far enough to engage the car floor, not the edge of the end, and the Kadee 711 "Old Timer" coupler also uses a similar dimension. Frank Sergent then chose to use the same dimension for the narrow shank version of his scale working knuckle. Why Kadee didn't also adopt this dimension is a mystery to me, especially when they already make a product that uses it, but I'm hardly in a position to tell them what to do.

However, I pointed out the limitations of the prototype operating on these tight radii because those who try to do this need to understand those limitations. If one wants to switch freight cars on 90' radius curves, you need to use a short locomotive with a short end overhang, or you need a locomotive equipped with a radial drawbar, or the old hobby standby, the overly wide coupler box. If one builds the Bronx terminal, then decides to switch it with a GP-9, it's just not going to work, not if the GP-9 has scale couplers.

Dennis


Re: Scale width draft gear?

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "railwayman" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:

Dennis--

The point that I am raising by citing the Bronx Terminal RR. is that prototype cars with conventional draft gear, couplers, and kingpin to pulling face dimensions, could be handled, coupled, and uncoupled, on curves of 90' radius. We consider this curvature to be "toy train" like...
Steve,

I actually agree with you. I suppose I should mention that I'm the guy responsible for the Accumate PROTO:HO coupler, which has the pivot .176" [4.47mm] from the end of the box (striker) and .205", 18 scale inches behind the striker horn of the coupler head. Those dimensions were chosen for a couple of reasons; since the pivot point is also the mounting screw, it needed to be back far enough to engage the car floor, not the edge of the end, and the Kadee 711 "Old Timer" coupler also uses a similar dimension. Frank Sergent then chose to use the same dimension for the narrow shank version of his scale working knuckle. Why Kadee didn't also adopt this dimension is a mystery to me, especially when they already make a product that uses it, but I'm hardly in a position to tell them what to do.

However, I pointed out the limitations of the prototype operating on these tight radii because those who try to do this need to understand those limitations. If one wants to switch freight cars on 90' radius curves, you need to use a short locomotive with a short end overhang, or you need a locomotive equipped with a radial drawbar, or the old hobby standby, the overly wide coupler box. If one builds the Bronx terminal, then decides to switch it with a GP-9, it's just not going to work, not if the GP-9 has scale couplers.

Dennis


Scale width draft gear?

railwayman <stevelucas3@...>
 

Dennis--

The point that I am raising by citing the Bronx Terminal RR. is that prototype cars with conventional draft gear, couplers, and kingpin to pulling face dimensions, could be handled, coupled, and uncoupled, on curves of 90' radius. We consider this curvature to be "toy train" like.

Yet, by all accounts, the prototype cars stayed on the rails.

An article on a similar property appears in MRP 2007 on the DL&W's Harlem Transfer Company.

I hold out these properties as proof that scale-width draft gear can work on a model run on even 12 3/4" radius in HO--provided that we pay attention to coupler swing and pivot location. It appears to me that the current defacto standard of 1/4" from the back of an HO coupler head is too long. While on the topic of cause and effect, this width is caused by having the pivot point almost twice as far back from the pulling face of the coupler than on prototype cars.

I blame this on manufacturing tolerances at the time that the 1/4" figure was introduced. Some modellers used wood rulers back then, where 1/16" or maybe 1/32" was a minimum increment of masurement.

I imagine that most, if not all, STMFC modellers on this list have far more accurate tools today--digital Vernier calipers that can measure increments of .001"/.001 mm are very inexpensive now.

Now if we could get some model couplers with scale set-back from pulling face to pivot...


Steve Lucas.

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



--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "railwayman" <stevelucas3@> wrote:

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...
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.

Steve,

Your study of the key slot dimensions of the AAR Type E coupler is interesting. In all my work designing couplers, I have never bothered to calculate the effective pivot location of a prototype coupler... Thanks.

However, your use of the Bronx Terminal as an example is misleading. The main thing that drives the need for wide swinging couplers on our models isn't the length of the coupler shank; that's the effect, not the cause. The main thing that forces us to need wider than prototype swing is our desire to run equipment with different king pin (truck pivot) to striker (or coupler pulling face, take your choice) dimensions, because the longer that dimension, the further from the track centerline the coupler is thrown on curves.

In the case of the Bronx terminal, all the cars had the almost universal standard of either 5'-0" or 5'-6" to striker distance. The only exception was the locomotive, which was somewhat longer, although I can't find a dimension at the moment. Even so, this is a very short locomotive; note there are no steps between the outer axles and the end sill. Even as short as this locomotive is, the CNJ must have found lack of coupler swing troublesome. Note that the locomotive was originally delivered with short swing knuckles, similar to those used on steam locomotive pilots:

http://sbiii.com/jfcageir/ageir5.html

Which the CNJ changed to a short knuckle pinned to a radial drawbar:

http://www.toytrains1.com/images/trains/bo-2002-14.jpg

Your first photo above also shows this arrangement to good advantage.

Unfortunately, these early boxcabs are atypical of later diesels, which have kingpin to striker dimensions in excess of 12'. This throws the coupler so far off track centerline on sharp curves that the coupler on the coupled car actually swings OUTWARD, toward the outside of the curve, in order to remain coupled to the locomotive. If the coupler can't offset a sufficient amount, the car will be dragged off the rails. This is a situation that just doesn't exist on the prototype, for all practical purposes.

The solution to his problem, dating to toy train days, was to fit wide swing couplers to all the equipment, similar to what was done to the prototype CNJ 1000. The solution today, for prototype modelers, should be to simply not try to run trains on curves that the prototype equipment can't deal with, but that only applies to prototype modelers. The bulk of the hobby dollars are still spent by the guys who want to run their SD50MAC's or whatever they are on a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood, and that's the market the manufacturers need to keep foremost in mind.

Dennis


Marion, OH Meet website

seaboard_1966
 

Guys

I have throw together a quick website for the Central Ohio Prototype Modelers Meet. It can be found at http://home.rr.com/salguy

Please make plans to attend.

Denis Blake
Organizer
Central Ohio Prototype Modelers Meet


Short Swing Knuckle. Was: Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

OK, Dennis. I got it.

But.... still a matter of confusing nomenclature (at least to me): wouldn't this be a short-swing coupler "head" rather than just the knuckle alone? (:-)

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Haskell & Barker 1913 Gondola

Paul Hillman
 

I was finally able to upload to the Files. I had a software problem which is now fixed.

The file name is:

Haskell & Barker C&WI Gon

I made this Dwg when I was about 14. I thought it was going to post smaller in size. Got to figure out how to do that better.

Paul Hillman


ADMIN: Re: (unknown)

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Rich Christie says:


"Jeff, My Yahoo got a worm/malware last night. I ran my anti-spyware, that fixed the problem on my end."

OK. Given that the train has already left the station and the station is now closed...supposedly....there seems to be no need to demolish the station now...meaning that Rich is not going to jail. However...

BTW, the offending messages have been deleted from the archives.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner

104201 - 104220 of 192700