Date   

Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

seaboard_1966
 

Guys, we at WrightTRAK are always looking for new adventures. This discussion about the Kato and to lesser extent, the Bowser covered hoppers has led Gary and I to have another discussion
about the merits of WrightTRAK producing roofs with evenly spaced hatches. We could do this for any model that has the roof done as a separate piece and this includes the various 2 and 3 bay cars that are on the market at this time. Unfortunately the Kato car has the roof cast as part of the body so that car is really not an option for most folks.

If you are interested please let me know at dblake7@columbus.rr.com If we can scare up enough interest we may do them. I need to know which car you are interested in having them done for. We have several projects in the works right now and this includes a couple of new projects for Naperville. As such we will have to fit something like the roof(s) into the schedule of our pattern maker. At this time there are no guarantees of the project being done or a time frame. We are just trying to gauge interest in such a project.

Denis Blake
WrightTRAK Railroad Models, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "jdziedzic08802" <jerdz@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:18 PM
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers



I'm certain Clark and Ed are referring to the 1958 cu ft design. Can't add any other examples of evenly-spaced hatches to Ed's list without referring to my files.

If we consider the 1790 cu ft design, all the 10-hatch versions had evenly spaced hatches. CNJ 59100-59149 were evenly-spaced 8-hatch cars. I may be able to find other examples when I catch up with my files.

And's long's I'm at it, we cement heads have usually referred to the 1790 cu ft design as "drop-frame" or "bent-frame". I propose that we adhere to convention and call them fishbelly cars. Can't explain why I never thought of this before. Objections?

Jerry Dziedzic
Pattenburg, NJ

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:


On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:30 AM, rockroll50401 wrote:

Jerry touched on hatch spacing. How many customers bought cars with
evenly spaced hatches? (Not the normal center two together)
Clark Propst
Clark,
The following cars had evenly-spaced hatches. They were built between
Jan. 1947 and Sept. 1950. It's possible there were others, but this is
the list of cars that I'm aware of.

GM&O 80000-80049 (Pullman-Standard), 80500-80649 (ACF, two groups)
M&StL 70101-70199 odd (Pulman-Standard)
MILW 99325-99574 (Milw. Rd. shops)
SHPX 25478-25480 (leased to Westvaco Chemical) (ACF)
SI 4003-4025 (13 cars sold to NP 75130-75142 ca. 1955) (ACF)

Regards,
Ed Hawkins





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 14:32:00


Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

Jerry Dziedzic
 

I'm certain Clark and Ed are referring to the 1958 cu ft design. Can't add any other examples of evenly-spaced hatches to Ed's list without referring to my files.

If we consider the 1790 cu ft design, all the 10-hatch versions had evenly spaced hatches. CNJ 59100-59149 were evenly-spaced 8-hatch cars. I may be able to find other examples when I catch up with my files.

And's long's I'm at it, we cement heads have usually referred to the 1790 cu ft design as "drop-frame" or "bent-frame". I propose that we adhere to convention and call them fishbelly cars. Can't explain why I never thought of this before. Objections?

Jerry Dziedzic
Pattenburg, NJ

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:


On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:30 AM, rockroll50401 wrote:

Jerry touched on hatch spacing. How many customers bought cars with
evenly spaced hatches? (Not the normal center two together)
Clark Propst
Clark,
The following cars had evenly-spaced hatches. They were built between
Jan. 1947 and Sept. 1950. It's possible there were others, but this is
the list of cars that I'm aware of.

GM&O 80000-80049 (Pullman-Standard), 80500-80649 (ACF, two groups)
M&StL 70101-70199 odd (Pulman-Standard)
MILW 99325-99574 (Milw. Rd. shops)
SHPX 25478-25480 (leased to Westvaco Chemical) (ACF)
SI 4003-4025 (13 cars sold to NP 75130-75142 ca. 1955) (ACF)

Regards,
Ed Hawkins




Models for sale

Clark Propst
 

I have several operational resin freight cars for sale.

If you'd like a list, photos, price.

Please contact me off list at: cepropst@q.com
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Re: ACF post-war box cars

Tim O'Connor
 

Richard, this is from my own notes on that article that I wrote
down more than 10 years ago --

MM 9/1990 pp.24-27 photo 1938 prototype ACFX #30000, drawings for 1948
standard design car, text, many photos ACL/ATSF/DT&I/C&EI/ERIE/CMO/ITC/
DL&W/NKP/RI/SERX/NJI&I/RDG/MKT -- but only the NKP & DT&I cars are
clearly of the standard design! Others follow AAR standard design
practices

But I don't know who is to blame -- the author, or the editor/publisher?
Certainly in 1990 I could barely tell one box car from another, so I know
I've learned a lot in the last 20 years!

Tim O'Connor

At 4/9/2010 12:22 PM Friday, you wrote:
No, I don't have any evidence to the contrary. The only evidence I have is that the series should not have been included among those described in the article. That is true of almost all the cars shown in the article. Apparently we've gotten a little smarter and better informed in the last 20 years.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon


Re: ACF post-war box cars

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Thanks, Richard!

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
richtownsend@netscape.net
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:22 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] ACF post-war box cars



No, I don't have any evidence to the contrary. The only evidence I have is
that the series should not have been included among those described in the
article. That is true of almost all the cars shown in the article. Apparently
we've gotten a little smarter and better informed in the last 20 years.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@usace.army.mil
<mailto:elden.j.gatwood%40usace.army.mil> >
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 9, 2010 6:34 am
Subject: RE: [STMFC] ACF post-war box cars

Could you please clarify what you are discussing RE the PRR 600000 series? I
was not aware these had anything other than the standard SREM diagonal panel
roof and R/3/4 rolling pin ends. Do you have other evidence? I would love to
see that!

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
Donald Ford
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:53 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] ACF post-war box cars

Richard
I got out that article and went into my files and the only car that seems to
be close to the ACF car is the Nickel Plate car as it has the same side lill
with no tabs and the same ends. Looking at the end of the roof it seams to
have diffenent seam where the end and the roof meet. thsi could be the "split
panel" roof. All the other cars are not close. The one series called out of
the PRR cars is a riveted car ( 600000-601999).
None of the pictures show enough of the roof to make a judgement. I may be
wrong in my guess about the roof on the NKP car as where the end and roof
meet on the drawing with the "split panel" roof showes a riveted seam. Of all
the pictures where you can see the ends only the NKP and DT&I cars have the
same ends like the ACF car.
Anyway confussing!
Don Ford
Kanab UT

________________________________
From: "richtownsend@netscape.net <mailto:richtownsend%40netscape.net>
<mailto:richtownsend%40netscape.net> "
<richtownsend@netscape.net <mailto:richtownsend%40netscape.net>
<mailto:richtownsend%40netscape.net> >
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 1:36:29 PM
Subject: [STMFC] ACF post-war box cars

There was a Todd Sullivan article in the Sept. 90 MM on ACF 1948 design box
cars. It talks about ACF using a "split panel" roof (as opposed to a
rectangular or diagonal panel -- similar to the "Despatch" roof) and
"dartnaught" ends on certain cars. The article specifically calls out DT&I
14000-14299 and 14300-14549, MKT 97001-97300 and 97301-97800, and Reading
107500-107999 and 10800 (sic) -108499. It includes plans for MKT 92548 (which
is not among those called as being of this particular design). The photos in
this article are confusing to say the least. The title illustration has
nothing to do with the subject of the article, being ACFX 30000 a 1938 welded
demonstrator car (I think). I can accept that since I have no intention of
modeling that car. But also included in the photos are the following:

ACL 24000-24999
ATSF 33500-33999
C&EI 66300-64299 (did they count backwards?) Erie 90500-91199 CMO 38300-39098
ITC 5700-5709 DL&W 54000-54999 RI 23000-23999 and 24000-24999 NKP 20200-20499
PRR 600000-601999 and 602000-603499 Reading ? (showing 109300) SERX 976-1027
NJI&I 100-199 MKT 91500-92000 (again outside the series called out in the
article)

Based on the photos in the article, the DL&W, NKP, SERX, and NJI&I are not
among the cars with the dartnaught ends and split panel roof. Looking at Ed
Hawkins's article in the 11/90 RMJ, it appears that the Erie cars are out,
too, as are the PRR 602000-603499. Another Ed Hawkins article, from the 10/90
RMJ, seems to rule out others (ATSF, C&EI, ITC, and RI 24000 series) since he
says they had rectangular panel or diagonal panel roofs.

So here is my question. What 40' box cars did have the combination of split
panel roofs and dartnaught ends? I would be pleased to learn that the RI
23000 series cars are among these.

I am contemplating building an example of these cars using Branchline
dartnaught ends and a cut-down Despatch roof from a Branchline 50' box car
kit.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon

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

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

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


Re: ACF post-war box cars

Richard Townsend
 

No, I don't have any evidence to the contrary. The only evidence I have is that the series should not have been included among those described in the article. That is true of almost all the cars shown in the article. Apparently we've gotten a little smarter and better informed in the last 20 years.


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@usace.army.mil>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 9, 2010 6:34 am
Subject: RE: [STMFC] ACF post-war box cars




Could you please clarify what you are discussing RE the PRR 600000 series? I
was not aware these had anything other than the standard SREM diagonal panel
roof and R/3/4 rolling pin ends. Do you have other evidence? I would love
to see that!

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Donald Ford
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:53 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] ACF post-war box cars



Richard
I got out that article and went into my files and the only car that seems to
be close to the ACF car is the Nickel Plate car as it has the same side lill
with no tabs and the same ends. Looking at the end of the roof it seams to
have diffenent seam where the end and the roof meet. thsi could be the
"split panel" roof. All the other cars are not close. The one series called
out of the PRR cars is a riveted car ( 600000-601999).
None of the pictures show enough of the roof to make a judgement. I may be
wrong in my guess about the roof on the NKP car as where the end and roof
meet on the drawing with the "split panel" roof showes a riveted seam. Of
all the pictures where you can see the ends only the NKP and DT&I cars have
the same ends like the ACF car.
Anyway confussing!
Don Ford
Kanab UT

________________________________
From: "richtownsend@netscape.net <mailto:richtownsend%40netscape.net> "
<richtownsend@netscape.net <mailto:richtownsend%40netscape.net> >
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 1:36:29 PM
Subject: [STMFC] ACF post-war box cars



There was a Todd Sullivan article in the Sept. 90 MM on ACF 1948 design box
cars. It talks about ACF using a "split panel" roof (as opposed to a
rectangular or diagonal panel -- similar to the "Despatch" roof) and
"dartnaught" ends on certain cars. The article specifically calls out DT&I
14000-14299 and 14300-14549, MKT 97001-97300 and 97301-97800, and Reading
107500-107999 and 10800 (sic) -108499. It includes plans for MKT 92548 (which
is not among those called as being of this particular design). The photos in
this article are confusing to say the least. The title illustration has
nothing to do with the subject of the article, being ACFX 30000 a 1938 welded
demonstrator car (I think). I can accept that since I have no intention of
modeling that car. But also included in the photos are the following:

ACL 24000-24999
ATSF 33500-33999
C&EI 66300-64299 (did they count backwards?) Erie 90500-91199 CMO 38300-39098
ITC 5700-5709 DL&W 54000-54999 RI 23000-23999 and 24000-24999 NKP 20200-20499
PRR 600000-601999 and 602000-603499 Reading ? (showing 109300) SERX 976-1027
NJI&I 100-199 MKT 91500-92000 (again outside the series called out in the
article)

Based on the photos in the article, the DL&W, NKP, SERX, and NJI&I are not
among the cars with the dartnaught ends and split panel roof. Looking at Ed
Hawkins's article in the 11/90 RMJ, it appears that the Erie cars are out,
too, as are the PRR 602000-603499. Another Ed Hawkins article, from the 10/90
RMJ, seems to rule out others (ATSF, C&EI, ITC, and RI 24000 series) since he
says they had rectangular panel or diagonal panel roofs.

So here is my question. What 40' box cars did have the combination of split
panel roofs and dartnaught ends? I would be pleased to learn that the RI
23000 series cars are among these.

I am contemplating building an example of these cars using Branchline
dartnaught ends and a cut-down Despatch roof from a Branchline 50' box car
kit.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon

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

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










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


Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

StephenK
 

The 3-car set was what kept me from buying them until now. I now have two weathered cars that came out nice, and 4 unbuilt cars in a state of flux.

Steve "Cleveland" Kay

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

IIRC the KATO HO and N ACF Covered Hopper colors were researched with the assistance of Ed Hawkins. Craig Holmberg was doing the HO R&D at the time, just before and after I joined Kato, I believe the prototype drawings used were an ACF car. Not to say the interpretation of the colors by the factory was perfect..... there wasn't very much in the way of a sample / approval process and it is a wonder that things turned out as well as they did.

I do recall Craig having battles with the factory regarding their "pran" to tool the car as a three-car kit, making it impossible to offer singles. I cannot recall any accuracy issues but that doesn't mean there were none. It is a shame that the cars (because of the price point and HO 3-pack kit / N 2-pack and Kato's inability to supply smaller production lots with more roadnames and roadnumbers) turned out to be dogs in the marketplace. The N Scale version sold poorly and had bum couplers to add insult to injury...so never made it to the planned second production of "peek-a-boo" version with the cutouts to the slide sheets. Hopefully Inter-Mountain will see fit to offer their cars in N soon.

Charlie Vlk

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


Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

StephenK
 

Thanks for the comments. I am enjoying this thread in a major way. I like my cars to be accurate but I am not going to worry about what I consider minor inaccuracies. On the other hand, precast ladder rings are not usually acceptable to me if the color of the car is light (in this case gray). But those rungs on darker, i.e. Black or Mineral Red cars look fine to me and I will be going in that direction. The fact that Pollyscale paint will stay on the car is good news to me.

Thanks for all the input!

Steve "Cleveland" Kay

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "jdziedzic08802" <jerdz@...> wrote:



My, my. This is the most traffic I remember a covered hopper post ever generating. And there's lots of interesting info, from painting tips for flexible parts to the origins of Kato's SSW paint color.

I agree with Ben: LNE ceased operations, but did not go through bankruptcy proceedings.

I agree with Tim: the LNE cars that found their way to UP were the Greenville cars, not the "Kato/ACF/GATC/Ralston" design. In my opinion, L&NE's Greenville cars were very similar to PS-2's in appearance.

On the other hand, Tim, forgive me a mild challenge. I'm not certain that P-S ever delivered CH's to L&NE. I'd have to go back to my files to back up this challenge. I don't mind you setting the record straight before I actually get to my files.

Scott, it's nice to hear from you. Been many years. Forgive me another challenge: I regard hatches and hatch locking devices as optional appliances, not as distinguishing design features. ACF cars delivered to major "anthracite road" cement carriers varied in hatch design, configuration (not just 8 or 10-hatch versions, but the longitudinal spacing of the hatches along the roof) and locking devices.

Cleveland Kay, I enjoy debating details like this with other listers. But this may be more information than you asked for. Decide if you want scale models exact in every detail or some degree of "close enough." I think the Kato cars are good models, and I have several examples running on my layout. Get some prototype photos, model away, and enjoy.

Finally, Mr. Moderator, please don't jail me for the advice to Cleveland Kay, though it runs a little astray of the STMFC mission. This is fun for all of us, each in his own way.


Jerry Dziedzic
Pattenburg, NJ


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

Steve,

I didn't see any other responses to your query. Since you model the UP, why not model a UP car? Assuming these are the 2-bay covered hoppers, the open-side kit is suitable for UP CH-70-1, and the closed-side kit is suitable for the UP CH-70-2 and CH-70-3.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of StephenK
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:24 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers



Actually I'm the Steve Kay from Cleveland, Ohio, and I model UP. Most of the western roads that had these cars painted them gray, and the Kato model have a lot of flexible plastic parts, so painting them could be a problem. I am looking at alternatives, but leaving all the cars in their factory paint jobs is another alternative....

SKay

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>, "jdziedzic08802" <jerdz@> wrote:

I have no opinion of the Kato couplers. I'd take advantage of experience and use the couplers you're most familiar with -- Accumates.

If you're the Steve Kay from NJ, L&NE would be a natural choice for a third road name. I believe that Champ still offers decals in L&NE's billboard scheme. They're intended for a different prototype than this car, but they have enough material to select from to letter this car.

N&B would be another selection. Herald King had decals. Don't know whether they remain available.

There are probably minor differences in detail between the Kato version and the prototypes I suggested. One I'd want to check is whether or not the prototype has the triangular cut out in the sides at the center of the car. I don't remember whether the Kato car has this feature or not.

I can suggest L&NE and N&B number series to you, but this will have to wait until mid-April because I'm away from my files right now. Let me know if you'd like this.


Jerry Dziedzic
Pattenburg, NJ

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>, "StephenK" <thekays100@> wrote:

Last weekend I picked up two sets of Kato covered hopper kits at a local trainshow for very little $$$. One is Wabash and one is Erie. I searched the group but was unable to get answers to two questions. First, are the Kato couplers worth using, or should I used the Accumates that I generally use? Also, since I really don't need three of each of these(which is why I never bought these before--at the regular price), I am looking for other prototypes/decals to paint these. I found some nice sets from Prime Mover Decals for EL, but would like a few other alternatives. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance,

Steve Kay


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


Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

Ed Hawkins
 

On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:30 AM, rockroll50401 wrote:

Jerry touched on hatch spacing. How many customers bought cars with
evenly spaced hatches? (Not the normal center two together)
Clark Propst
Clark,
The following cars had evenly-spaced hatches. They were built between
Jan. 1947 and Sept. 1950. It's possible there were others, but this is
the list of cars that I'm aware of.

GM&O 80000-80049 (Pullman-Standard), 80500-80649 (ACF, two groups)
M&StL 70101-70199 odd (Pulman-Standard)
MILW 99325-99574 (Milw. Rd. shops)
SHPX 25478-25480 (leased to Westvaco Chemical) (ACF)
SI 4003-4025 (13 cars sold to NP 75130-75142 ca. 1955) (ACF)

Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: ACF post-war box cars

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Could you please clarify what you are discussing RE the PRR 600000 series? I
was not aware these had anything other than the standard SREM diagonal panel
roof and R/3/4 rolling pin ends. Do you have other evidence? I would love
to see that!

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Donald Ford
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:53 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] ACF post-war box cars



Richard
I got out that article and went into my files and the only car that seems to
be close to the ACF car is the Nickel Plate car as it has the same side lill
with no tabs and the same ends. Looking at the end of the roof it seams to
have diffenent seam where the end and the roof meet. thsi could be the
"split panel" roof. All the other cars are not close. The one series called
out of the PRR cars is a riveted car ( 600000-601999).
None of the pictures show enough of the roof to make a judgement. I may be
wrong in my guess about the roof on the NKP car as where the end and roof
meet on the drawing with the "split panel" roof showes a riveted seam. Of
all the pictures where you can see the ends only the NKP and DT&I cars have
the same ends like the ACF car.
Anyway confussing!
Don Ford
Kanab UT

________________________________
From: "richtownsend@netscape.net <mailto:richtownsend%40netscape.net> "
<richtownsend@netscape.net <mailto:richtownsend%40netscape.net> >
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 1:36:29 PM
Subject: [STMFC] ACF post-war box cars



There was a Todd Sullivan article in the Sept. 90 MM on ACF 1948 design box
cars. It talks about ACF using a "split panel" roof (as opposed to a
rectangular or diagonal panel -- similar to the "Despatch" roof) and
"dartnaught" ends on certain cars. The article specifically calls out DT&I
14000-14299 and 14300-14549, MKT 97001-97300 and 97301-97800, and Reading
107500-107999 and 10800 (sic) -108499. It includes plans for MKT 92548 (which
is not among those called as being of this particular design). The photos in
this article are confusing to say the least. The title illustration has
nothing to do with the subject of the article, being ACFX 30000 a 1938 welded
demonstrator car (I think). I can accept that since I have no intention of
modeling that car. But also included in the photos are the following:

ACL 24000-24999
ATSF 33500-33999
C&EI 66300-64299 (did they count backwards?) Erie 90500-91199 CMO 38300-39098
ITC 5700-5709 DL&W 54000-54999 RI 23000-23999 and 24000-24999 NKP 20200-20499
PRR 600000-601999 and 602000-603499 Reading ? (showing 109300) SERX 976-1027
NJI&I 100-199 MKT 91500-92000 (again outside the series called out in the
article)

Based on the photos in the article, the DL&W, NKP, SERX, and NJI&I are not
among the cars with the dartnaught ends and split panel roof. Looking at Ed
Hawkins's article in the 11/90 RMJ, it appears that the Erie cars are out,
too, as are the PRR 602000-603499. Another Ed Hawkins article, from the 10/90
RMJ, seems to rule out others (ATSF, C&EI, ITC, and RI 24000 series) since he
says they had rectangular panel or diagonal panel roofs.

So here is my question. What 40' box cars did have the combination of split
panel roofs and dartnaught ends? I would be pleased to learn that the RI
23000 series cars are among these.

I am contemplating building an example of these cars using Branchline
dartnaught ends and a cut-down Despatch roof from a Branchline 50' box car
kit.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon

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

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


Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

Clark Propst
 

Jerry touched on hatch spacing. How many customers bought cars with evenly spaced hatches? (Not the normal center two together)
Clark Propst


Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jerry Dziedzic2 wrote:
Scott, it's nice to hear from you. Been many years. Forgive me another challenge: I regard hatches and hatch locking devices as optional appliances, not as distinguishing design features. ACF cars delivered to major "anthracite road" cement carriers varied in hatch design, configuration (not just 8 or 10-hatch versions, but the longitudinal spacing of the hatches along the roof) and locking devices.
That's my take on it too, Jerry. I think lots of photos back up the idea that the hatch locking equipment is NOT a builder spotting feature.

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


Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

Jerry Dziedzic
 

My, my. This is the most traffic I remember a covered hopper post ever generating. And there's lots of interesting info, from painting tips for flexible parts to the origins of Kato's SSW paint color.

I agree with Ben: LNE ceased operations, but did not go through bankruptcy proceedings.

I agree with Tim: the LNE cars that found their way to UP were the Greenville cars, not the "Kato/ACF/GATC/Ralston" design. In my opinion, L&NE's Greenville cars were very similar to PS-2's in appearance.

On the other hand, Tim, forgive me a mild challenge. I'm not certain that P-S ever delivered CH's to L&NE. I'd have to go back to my files to back up this challenge. I don't mind you setting the record straight before I actually get to my files.

Scott, it's nice to hear from you. Been many years. Forgive me another challenge: I regard hatches and hatch locking devices as optional appliances, not as distinguishing design features. ACF cars delivered to major "anthracite road" cement carriers varied in hatch design, configuration (not just 8 or 10-hatch versions, but the longitudinal spacing of the hatches along the roof) and locking devices.

Cleveland Kay, I enjoy debating details like this with other listers. But this may be more information than you asked for. Decide if you want scale models exact in every detail or some degree of "close enough." I think the Kato cars are good models, and I have several examples running on my layout. Get some prototype photos, model away, and enjoy.

Finally, Mr. Moderator, please don't jail me for the advice to Cleveland Kay, though it runs a little astray of the STMFC mission. This is fun for all of us, each in his own way.


Jerry Dziedzic
Pattenburg, NJ

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

Steve,

I didn't see any other responses to your query. Since you model the UP, why not model a UP car? Assuming these are the 2-bay covered hoppers, the open-side kit is suitable for UP CH-70-1, and the closed-side kit is suitable for the UP CH-70-2 and CH-70-3.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of StephenK
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:24 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers



Actually I'm the Steve Kay from Cleveland, Ohio, and I model UP. Most of the western roads that had these cars painted them gray, and the Kato model have a lot of flexible plastic parts, so painting them could be a problem. I am looking at alternatives, but leaving all the cars in their factory paint jobs is another alternative....

SKay

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>, "jdziedzic08802" <jerdz@> wrote:

I have no opinion of the Kato couplers. I'd take advantage of experience and use the couplers you're most familiar with -- Accumates.

If you're the Steve Kay from NJ, L&NE would be a natural choice for a third road name. I believe that Champ still offers decals in L&NE's billboard scheme. They're intended for a different prototype than this car, but they have enough material to select from to letter this car.

N&B would be another selection. Herald King had decals. Don't know whether they remain available.

There are probably minor differences in detail between the Kato version and the prototypes I suggested. One I'd want to check is whether or not the prototype has the triangular cut out in the sides at the center of the car. I don't remember whether the Kato car has this feature or not.

I can suggest L&NE and N&B number series to you, but this will have to wait until mid-April because I'm away from my files right now. Let me know if you'd like this.


Jerry Dziedzic
Pattenburg, NJ

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>, "StephenK" <thekays100@> wrote:

Last weekend I picked up two sets of Kato covered hopper kits at a local trainshow for very little $$$. One is Wabash and one is Erie. I searched the group but was unable to get answers to two questions. First, are the Kato couplers worth using, or should I used the Accumates that I generally use? Also, since I really don't need three of each of these(which is why I never bought these before--at the regular price), I am looking for other prototypes/decals to paint these. I found some nice sets from Prime Mover Decals for EL, but would like a few other alternatives. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance,

Steve Kay


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


Nickel Plate video

gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

Group,
I thought I would post this video I found on YouTube, with some fairly interesting and varied freight car shots, including "in action" footage of meat reefers heading to Buffalo on the NKP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcQ19n5kKXg

For those also on the Proto Layout group, I apologize for the cross post.

Sincerely,
Bob Heninger
Iowa City, IA


Re: A scale draft gear test

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jim Betz wrote:
The real reason I made the post was to indicate that if you go to more prototypical king pin position and more prototypical width coupler boxes ... "that you may be chewing off more accuracy than your -layout- can deal with".
No argument, Jim, I just wanted to point out the coupling aspect, about which I have heard complaints also.

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


Re: A scale draft gear test

Jim Betz
 

Tony - and every one else,

Yes, I acknowledge that prototype couplers require the same
kinds of "nudges" (or butt pushes or what ever). I think I
acknowledged that many, many layouts / modelers have decided
that the improved appearance is worth it. That wasn't really
why I made my post.

The real reason I made the post was to indicate that if you
go to more prototypical king pin position and more prototypical
width coupler boxes ... "that you may be chewing off more
accuracy than your -layout- can deal with". We tend to forget
how significant "selective compression" affects our track work.
Even a "perfectly laid #8" turnout -often- has track on all
sides of it with much more curvature than is 'typical' (common?)
on the prototype. And the length of the sidings themselves are
also compressed.

Soooo - in my mind at least - actual testing of whatever
car geometry you are going to use is necessary.

It is my belief that testing of the Kadee semi-scale couplers
and 'standard' coupler boxes set a 'standard' king pin
positions (in both cases 'standard' = what we have been using
all these many years) is ... not ... required. That we
already know enough about that combination that we know that
it works.

However - if you are going to change the king pin position
and/or the width of the coupler box ... then I think you have
to test. It is even very likely that if you 'only' change
the king pin and/or the width of the coupler box as much as
"just half the measurement from where they are now to actual
prototype position" that you might introduce problems.

You might even come out of the testing with the knowledge
that you -can- change the king pin and/or the box width and
possibly even both ... but without the kind of testing I
proposed previously you can't know that with the kind of
certainty that makes it possible for a layout owner to say
"let's do this".
- Jim

P.S. Even the best of layouts that I've ever seen have
turnouts and curvatures that are significantly more
'aggressive' (i.e. 'tighter') than even most prototype
industrial areas. Yes, there are many ... I should say
"MANY" ... prototype examples of tight radius curves and
low number turnouts - but it certainly isn't "common" and
all of those locations have "local restrictions" that
are in effect ("no/only 6-axle power", speed restrictions,
etc.).

P.P.S. Please note - none of what I'm saying should be
in any way construed to mean "Kadee #5's are the
only thing we should be running". I'm merely
pointing out the "gotchas" that can and do come
into play if you start changing key geometries.

And that testing is the only way to know ...


Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

Tim O'Connor
 

Tony

I knew we'd had this conversation before -- I've dug out my
builder photos of SSW 77009 (first batch) and 77050 (second
batch) and neither one looks anywhere near as dark as the Kato
model -- 77050 in particular looks positively "white", the
contrast to the black lettering is so stark.

Until someone produces a color photo I remain skeptical. It's
like the old debate about SSW F units -- gray, or light blue?
Documentation says "Confederate Gray" but no color photos have
ever been found of the F units. (Color photos exist of the Baldwins,
and they do look tantalizingly blue.) So, the quest continues...

Tim O'Connor

On the other hand, Kato really screwed the pooch with those GREEN
Cotton Belt cars! Woof!
If by "woof" you mean "what an ugly color," I'll agree with
you. If you mean "bogus Cotton Belt color," I'd urge you to read Ed
Hawkins' posts more carefully.

Tony Thompson


Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

Tim O'Connor
 

Thanks Ed. There is a builder photo of SSW 77050 in Railmodel Journal,
October 1991, but it is black & white. I think after seeing that photo
(which looks like a gray car) I had doubts about Kato's paint color.
So all I have to do now is renumber the Kato model.

Tim O'Connor

I can see there's some misinformation about this. In the mid-1990s
I furnished Kato an ACF paint sample for a SSW 1,958 cu.ft. covered
hopper car, and they matched the color perfectly. The sample is very
much a shade of gray and olive green. However, Kato made an error by
applying this color to the wrong series of SSW cars. I didn't know
about the error until after the models were produced.

The ACF paint sample I provided Kato was from ACF lot no. 3376, built
10-49, series 77000-77049. ACF built one other order of 1958 cu. ft.
cars for SSW in 8-51, lot 3547, series 76050-76074. There was no paint
sample for the second order, so I don't know if the color was the same
as the 1949-built cars. Kato chose to model cars from the second
series, but to be more accurate they should have used the first series.

Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Kato ACF Covered Hoppers

Charlie Vlk
 

IIRC the KATO HO and N ACF Covered Hopper colors were researched with the assistance of Ed Hawkins. Craig Holmberg was doing the HO R&D at the time, just before and after I joined Kato, I believe the prototype drawings used were an ACF car. Not to say the interpretation of the colors by the factory was perfect..... there wasn't very much in the way of a sample / approval process and it is a wonder that things turned out as well as they did.

I do recall Craig having battles with the factory regarding their "pran" to tool the car as a three-car kit, making it impossible to offer singles. I cannot recall any accuracy issues but that doesn't mean there were none. It is a shame that the cars (because of the price point and HO 3-pack kit / N 2-pack and Kato's inability to supply smaller production lots with more roadnames and roadnumbers) turned out to be dogs in the marketplace. The N Scale version sold poorly and had bum couplers to add insult to injury...so never made it to the planned second production of "peek-a-boo" version with the cutouts to the slide sheets. Hopefully Inter-Mountain will see fit to offer their cars in N soon.

Charlie Vlk


Re: interchange (Meat from CGW)

cef39us <cfrench@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Baker <bakert@...> wrote:


Brian,

I don't know about where the bulk of meat refrigerator cars off the IC Iowa Division went, but someone on the CGW list may. In fact, I am just starting to learn about CGW's favored connections.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com on behalf of cornbeltroute
Sent: Wed 4/7/2010 2:47 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: interchange (Meat from CGW)

I don't doubt that some meat went to the NYC, but according to my source, the CGW preferred to deal with the NKP when it came to meat. -Tom <
Tom, hi,

I wasn't being contrarian, just incomplete. (grin)

As far as I know, that's the only CGW meat reefer ever to make it to Boston. Just wanted to mention that it was neat to see the photos of the CGW reefer trailer being lifted off the car by a PiggyPacker with the Boston skyline as a backdrop.

The Erie is one of my faves. And, the NKP is growing on me the more I learn about it. Glad to learn these were key connections for the CGW.

Hmmm. So, considering the Illinois Central's Iowa Division daily hot meat trains back in the day, what were the IC's ranking connections in Chicago? Much of that meat head south from Chicago on the Mainline of Mid-America?

Tom and Brian,

A large amount of the meat traffic (PHP - packing house products) from the IC Iowa Div. was interchanged to the IHB at Broadview for movement to eastern connections. The CGW also delivered the same type traffic to the IHB at Bellwood, which was about two miles north
of Broadview. The IHB delivered much of the PHP to the NKP at Osborn, IN and the NYC at Gibson yard near Hammond, IN. Some of the traffic moved on NYC eastward trains out of IHB's Blue Island yard.
The bigger share of the PHP traffic off the IC's Iowa line went to eastern connections.

Chet French
Dixon, IL

100361 - 100380 of 189830