Date   

Scale Measurements -vs- Details

Jim Betz
 

Hi,

Along the lines of ...

"it is my observation ("opinion"?) that sometimes I loose sight
of my real goals" ... and ... this isn't a "flame" ... nor is
it a ... "you're wrong and I'm right" kind of thing ... but
rather it is:

In the interest of sharing my approaches to this
hobby - and hoping that others will share theirs -
without getting into a round of personal attacks.
And maybe we will both gain something from the
exchange.

******************************************************

Personally - I don't pay a lot of attention to how long/high
an individual model is. I pay a lot more attention to stuff
like the existence/absence of particular details, the quality
and placement of the details, and questions such as "what kind
of roof/doors/ladders/grabs did this car have?". If it is
supposed to have/not have truss rods and it doesn't/does - then
of course that matters. Yes, I try to put the correct trucks
and doors on my models.

Yes, the overall scale dimensions matter - and if you have
a "yard full of cars and they are all the same height" then
you should be using a larger variety of kit manufacturers.
For me the scale measurements are the third or more likely
even the fifth-or-more thing I use to judge a model.

And the quality/accuracy of the paint - especially the
lettering - makes a lot of difference (to me). For instance
if a model should have a black roof and it is silver ... then
that has to be fixed or the model is a candidate for selling
off. Or a model that represents a "solidly steam era car"
that has modern graffiti ... just won't do. Or if it is
supposed to have or not have such-and-such lettering and what
is on the model is not what should or shouldn't be there.

Height problems are more obvious than length. I challenge
any one to look at an HO scale model sitting on a layout and
tell me if it is 39 or 40 or 41 feet long. Even if it is
sitting in front of/behind/next to a model you -know- the
length of ... but isn't lined up with it. A scale foot - in
HO - is about an 1/8th of an inch.
I don't know about you but I can't tell that difference -
unless I am either measuring with a scale ruler or lining two
cars up side by side on parallel tracks and then looking
directly down both ends.

Please don't misunderstand me. If there ever were two models
that were "identical in all other ways" ... but one was the
correct length and the other was not ... I'd probably choose
the correct one. So far I have very rarely been faced with
anything even close to such a decision. But to be honest if
I saw those two models and someone else didn't point out the
difference in the length it's a pretty good bet I wouldn't
even see the difference and therefore would probably choose
on some other basis.
Yes, I value scale accuracy. And strive for it. But it is
unlikely I'll ever accept or reject a model based solely or
even mostly upon whether it is the correct height or length.
In fact I have to admit I probably won't even notice most of
the time ... because I am not in the habit of hauling out
the scale rule and seeing how tall, long, or wide it is.
And I have to admit that you won't find me reworking a
model because it is 3" or even 6" too long or too high.
Adding a "sill detail" is not the same as "changing the
measurements in the interest of scale accuracy. In fact
I can't say I've ever measured my freight cars and compared
the length or heigth against a plan.

****

Sometimes I think I don't 'belong' here on this group ... I'm
more of a "how good does it look from 3 feet away" or an
"I'll compare it to a picture and see how well it represents
the picture" than a "let's get out the scale ruler and see if
it is perfect" kind of guy.
Then someone posts something or other that leads me to
several hours of prototype research ... and I remember
why I think there are so many amazing modelers on this
group. Not so much because they produce "the best models
in the world" but rather because of their individual and
collective knowledge. And so I stay. And most of the time
just read without comment.

****

I'll just slink off into my "that'll do" world and be
quiet now. Does anybody have an Athearn blue box freight
car I can shake the box for instant gratification? *G*
- Jim


Re: Gould 22' wood ore car kits

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 15, 2011, at 9:05 PM, Eric Hiser wrote:

Group:
We have a member who would like to know whether the Gould 22' wood
ore car kit could work or be bashed into a Santa Fe Ga-23 or
Ga-51. Not knowing what the Gould kit looks like (is this the
current Tichy kit?) I thought I'd ask the experts....
Not a chance, Eric. The kit represents a small wooden ore car,
essentially a 19th century design. All of the Santa Fe ore cars
including the Ga-23 and Ga-51 classes, were all steel and much larger.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Latest Im release of their Wood-Sheathed reefer

Bill Welch
 

I was not aware these bodies were a foot too short. I have to admit I am willing to live with this as I think the look of the models captures the look of the cars.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@..., Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:

Bill,

The bodies on the 1922 and 1928 Sunshine kits are a foot too short in
length. And of course while the IM body is the correct length it has
an intermediate height to the eaves of 12'9" (not the 12'11" for the
post war rebuild or the 12'7" for the 1928 design as built). That's
actually good news in a way as it makes it easier to shorten the body
for an accurate 1928 car, if you alter or ignore some other detail
issues... or as Greg has noted previously, you simply can consider it
loaded to capacity, compressing the springs by 2" ;^)

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:59 AM, lnbill wrote:

I am not sure what you are referring to here Greg. Do you you mean
in length or height? I have built all of these kits in multiples
and they appear dimensionally correct to me. Can you say more.

Bill Welch

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

Bill,

Aren't the Sunshine Kits too short?

Greg Martin


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: Latest Im release of their Wood-Sheathed reefer

Bruce Smith
 

Bill,

The bodies on the 1922 and 1928 Sunshine kits are a foot too short in length. And of course while the IM body is the correct length it has an intermediate height to the eaves of 12'9" (not the 12'11" for the post war rebuild or the 12'7" for the 1928 design as built). That's actually good news in a way as it makes it easier to shorten the body for an accurate 1928 car, if you alter or ignore some other detail issues... or as Greg has noted previously, you simply can consider it loaded to capacity, compressing the springs by 2" ;^)

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:59 AM, lnbill wrote:

I am not sure what you are referring to here Greg. Do you you mean in length or height? I have built all of these kits in multiples and they appear dimensionally correct to me. Can you say more.

Bill Welch

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

Bill,

Aren't the Sunshine Kits too short?

Greg Martin





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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: Latest Im release of their Wood-Sheathed reefer

Bill Welch
 

I am not sure what you are referring to here Greg. Do you you mean in length or height? I have built all of these kits in multiples and they appear dimensionally correct to me. Can you say more.

Bill Welch

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

Bill,

Aren't the Sunshine Kits too short?

Greg Martin


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


Re: LRX Image...

A. Premo <armprem2@...>
 

Great shot of LRX 7099 in Kline- Culotta The Postwar Freight Car Fleet on Page104.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: pge253
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:27 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: LRX Image...





The same photograph that Matt has provided a link to is on page 169 of the 1928 "Car Builders' Cyclopedia". Drawings of the car are also included: plan and side elevation on page 168; cross section and end elevation on page 169.

Cheers,
Greg Kennelly
Burnaby, BC

--- In STMFC@..., "Matthew" <mforsyth127@...> wrote:
>
>
> I suppose that anything is possible in the composition of the LRX fleet, especially after transferring the cars to MDT, but here's a builder's shot of DL&W #7000, the flagship (which is in the public domain).
>
> http://mattforsyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/DLW-7000.jpg
>
> It does not have a fishbelly center sill, but rather is straight, and at least to my eye, looks to be of the exact same construction of that of car #7218, that I posted before. If you look closely at #7000 you, can also read the ACF builders and repack data.
>
> Matt Forsyth
>
>






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



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00
____________________________________________________________
Dermatologists Hate Her
Local Mom Reveals $5 Trick to Erase Wrinkles. Shocking Results Exposed
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4d5bc51fe085f39d2b3st01duc


Re: LRX Image...

A. Premo <armprem2@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: pge253
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:27 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: LRX Image...





The same photograph that Matt has provided a link to is on page 169 of the 1928 "Car Builders' Cyclopedia". Drawings of the car are also included: plan and side elevation on page 168; cross section and end elevation on page 169.

Cheers,
Greg Kennelly
Burnaby, BC

--- In STMFC@..., "Matthew" <mforsyth127@...> wrote:
>
>
> I suppose that anything is possible in the composition of the LRX fleet, especially after transferring the cars to MDT, but here's a builder's shot of DL&W #7000, the flagship (which is in the public domain).
>
> http://mattforsyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/DLW-7000.jpg
>
> It does not have a fishbelly center sill, but rather is straight, and at least to my eye, looks to be of the exact same construction of that of car #7218, that I posted before. If you look closely at #7000 you, can also read the ACF builders and repack data.
>
> Matt Forsyth
>
>






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



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00
____________________________________________________________
Dermatologists Hate Her
Local Mom Reveals $5 Trick to Erase Wrinkles. Shocking Results Exposed
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4d5bc42a9a6f63174a1st04duc


Re: Latest Im release of their Wood-Sheathed reefer

Greg Martin
 

Bill,

Not in height but in length. It seems that Bruce Smith uncovered this in
our building of FGE cars on the PRR Pro list some time back.

Greg Martin


Bill replies:




I am not sure what you are referring to here Greg. Do you mean in length or
height? I have built all of these kits in multiples and they appear
dimensionally correct to me. Can you say more.

Bill Welch

--- In _STMFC@... (mailto:STMFC@...) ,
tgregmrtn@... wrote:

Bill,

Aren't the Sunshine Kits too short?

Greg Martin





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


Gould 22' wood ore car kits

Eric Hiser <ehiser@...>
 

Group:
We have a member who would like to know whether the Gould 22' wood ore car kit could work or be bashed into a Santa Fe Ga-23 or Ga-51. Not knowing what the Gould kit looks like (is this the current Tichy kit?) I thought I'd ask the experts....

Thanks!
Eric Hiser
Editor, Running Extra
SFRH&MS Newsletter
ehiser@...


Re: LRX Image...

pge253 <gregkennelly@...>
 

The same photograph that Matt has provided a link to is on page 169 of the 1928 "Car Builders' Cyclopedia". Drawings of the car are also included: plan and side elevation on page 168; cross section and end elevation on page 169.

Cheers,
Greg Kennelly
Burnaby, BC

--- In STMFC@..., "Matthew" <mforsyth127@...> wrote:


I suppose that anything is possible in the composition of the LRX fleet, especially after transferring the cars to MDT, but here's a builder's shot of DL&W #7000, the flagship (which is in the public domain).

http://mattforsyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/DLW-7000.jpg

It does not have a fishbelly center sill, but rather is straight, and at least to my eye, looks to be of the exact same construction of that of car #7218, that I posted before. If you look closely at #7000 you, can also read the ACF builders and repack data.

Matt Forsyth


Re: Latest Im release of their Wood-Sheathed reefer

Greg Martin
 

Bill,

Aren't the Sunshine Kits too short?

Greg Martin


Re: Latest Im release of their Wood-Sheathed reefer

Greg Martin
 

Dr. FGE writes in part:

"Thanks Steve!

WFEX 65359 represents one of the rebuilds outside the 70000 number series,
adding to the confusion. I have built this car using a Sunshine kit. Note
the drop grab above the ladder and all of the busy stuff along the side
sill. Very cool IMO."


Bill and all,


These were upgrades to this car were along the timeline of improvements
made to these cars and were also found on the National Car Company cars and
an example was on display in the poster sized photos at Cocoa Brach. As a
student of Bill's I have learned what, where, and when to look for the subtle
differences. Represented was the Needham Packing/ Sioux City Dressed Beef
car in both photo and model form. This article is very inspiring.

Greg Martin


Re: LRX Image...

lrkdbn
 

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:

On Feb 14, 2011, at 8:59 AM, MDelvec952@... wrote:

The DL&W added truss rods to some of this batch of reefers to
stiffen the sills, and this is clearly seen in the photo
Plausible but untrue, Mike. The cars were built by MDT at a time
when both MDT reefers and New York Central box cars were equipped
with shallow steel center sills to absorb draft and buff forces and
two truss rods under the center sills to support the center of the
car. I have several photos, including builder's shots, of cars with
this odd combination of steel center sills and truss rods.

Richard Hendrickson


That NYC 2-truss rod underframe was an ACF design in 1910-and was not the same as the DL&W car. Westerfield's ACF photo disk has a
picture of such an underframe. I might add I've seen pictures of NYC
early-design (PSC)steel flat cars that had truss rods added later their lives evidently to reinforce them.The PRR did this also,to their early PSC flat cars and this is discussed in the PRRT&HS flat
car book
Larry King


Re: LRX Image...

ROGER HINMAN
 

I got a headache thinking about why these cars would have truss rods. If these were the older MDT cars with the Bettendorf center sill, those cars had Z bar side sills and if a repair were required in the 30s to the center sill, there would be no reason not just to put a standard center sill in its place or make a splice per approved methods. No truss roads would've been required since they are normally used for cars with cars with all wood sills. Thanks to Matt's posting the builder's of the ACF 1925 car confirming it has a straight center sill. The drawings for this car are in the 1928 Car Cyclopedia and they confirm not only the straight center sill but the use of a steel angle side sill. There's also an article on this car in the Jan 26th, 1926 Railway Review written by P Alquist, MCB of the DL&W.

I dug out my file (the ACF car was included in my miscellaneous cars chapter in the book) and I have a shot of DL&W 7026 from Bob's Phtos with the truss rod repair(which reminds me this discussion came up before somewhere). It looks like the reweigh data says KV 8-32, which would indicate this repair/modification was done prior to the car being stencilled for LRX. I also have a xerox someone sent me of LRX07134 which was featured in an O Scale railroading article in the June 1987 issue by Eric Brunger. The car appears to be as built but xerox quality is poor.

This is one of those "is what it is" repairs that probably didn't follow any guidelines. I'm starting to like Matt's proposition that this was a repair to one of the ACF cars. There was a photo back in the Jun 1973 RMC of DL&W 6756 which was one the ex MDT Bettendorf underframe cars in DLW ice service. It cleary has the has the unique Bettendorf center sill, the bolster attach as well as Bettendorf trucks so its unlikely this car was the basis for the repair The posted photo of the LRX car was a bit fuzzy, was it possible to read where the repair/last reweigh was done????

Rpger Hinman

ps
another photo I've seen and can't locate is of car floats in New York harbor unloading a banana boat. One float is MDT cars and the other is a mix of LRX and MDT cars so I presume that float was going tot he DL&W. Keith Sirman sells shots of the LRX car displayed at the World's Fair in 1939.

On Feb 15, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Charles R Yungkurth wrote:

I am positive I have seen a drawing of a LRX car with the two center truss rods
in a publication such as Railway Mech Engr, Railway Gazette, etc. But have
never been able to find it again. There was a cross

section that showed a casting at the center beam where the roads supported the
center beam.

This was a complete drawing, not an article about modifying the cars. Keeping
searching for it. The mystery continues!

For what it is worth, I was a pretty consistent Lackawanna "train watcher" from
about 1938 through WWII and don't ever recall seeing LRX or DL&W
refrigerators in trains except those repainted red and ice in the DL&W's huge
ice business. I think the road's need for refrigerator cars ended aroung 1940.
But I do remember the yellow reefer that waas displayed at the Scranton depot
along with the 4-6-4, a covered happer, and a caboose before going to the "39
World's Fair.

Chuck Yungkurth

Chuck Y
Boulder Co

________________________________
From: MDelvec952 <MDelvec952@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 8:55:58 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: LRX Image...



Lackawanna's big reefers from ACF were distinctive for having the straight
center sill, versus the fishbelly center sill common on ACF reefers of that era.

I have some photos of these in service in the 1930s, '40s and '50s. All of the
1930s in-service photos show cars with no truss rods, including the car numbered
LRX 1939 for display at the New York World's Fair and the LRX 7268 from the 1940
World's Fair (7268 is notable as the only one with an Ajax hand brake). Only
photos from the 1950s show cars with truss rods. The cars with truss rods all
have KV (DL&W's Keyser Valley Shops near Scranton) shop marks, which is
consistent with local railroaders who claimed that Keyser Valley added the truss
rods.

I have DL&W general arrangement drawings for these cars dated 1944 and 1952, and
neither mentions the truss rods though one of the photos is dated 1951.

The three cars pictured during the 1950s were empty when the photo was taken,
though one car is stenciled to be returned to the Nickel Plate Road at
Cleveland. That car has a reweigh date KV 4-40, same as the World's Fair car.
Other reweigh dates are earlier than the 1950s. The addition of truss rods
should require the car to be reweighed, but it's odd that the 1944 or 1952 books
don't mention the truss rods though they mention so many other less significant
components, modifications, etc.

If a concrete reason for the addition off truss rods surfaces, I'd love to hear
it. The downgrading of reefers on the DL&W was to use them in ice service ,which
is more dense than produce. But I have seen writings and waybills that discuss
bananas and potatoes as common lading, the latter moved in the winter with
heater pots in the ice bunkers. It's been my hope to model one or two one day.

Mike Del Vecchio

In a message dated 02/14/11 20:56:43 Eastern Standard Time,
rhendrickson@... writes:

Aha! The plot thickens! DL&W 7000 is yet another reefer design,
also (obviously) by AC&F but with a straight rolled steel center
sill. However, that underframe (especially on a reefer, typically
lightly loaded by comparison to other freight cars) would never have
needed truss rods to support it. We may get some explanation of this
confusion from Roger Hinman, who really is an expert.

Richard Hendrickson

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

__________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

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


Reefer Photo

Mark
 


Re: LRX Image...

A. Premo <armprem2@...>
 

There was a DL&W reefer 7030 on train # 9 in Alburgh,Vt on 12/8/1950.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Charles R Yungkurth
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: LRX Image...



I am positive I have seen a drawing of a LRX car with the two center truss rods
in a publication such as Railway Mech Engr, Railway Gazette, etc. But have
never been able to find it again. There was a cross

section that showed a casting at the center beam where the roads supported the
center beam.

This was a complete drawing, not an article about modifying the cars. Keeping
searching for it. The mystery continues!

For what it is worth, I was a pretty consistent Lackawanna "train watcher" from
about 1938 through WWII and don't ever recall seeing LRX or DL&W
refrigerators in trains except those repainted red and ice in the DL&W's huge
ice business. I think the road's need for refrigerator cars ended aroung 1940.
But I do remember the yellow reefer that waas displayed at the Scranton depot
along with the 4-6-4, a covered happer, and a caboose before going to the "39
World's Fair.

Chuck Yungkurth

Chuck Y
Boulder Co

________________________________
From: MDelvec952 <MDelvec952@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 8:55:58 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: LRX Image...



Lackawanna's big reefers from ACF were distinctive for having the straight
center sill, versus the fishbelly center sill common on ACF reefers of that era.

I have some photos of these in service in the 1930s, '40s and '50s. All of the
1930s in-service photos show cars with no truss rods, including the car numbered
LRX 1939 for display at the New York World's Fair and the LRX 7268 from the 1940
World's Fair (7268 is notable as the only one with an Ajax hand brake). Only
photos from the 1950s show cars with truss rods. The cars with truss rods all
have KV (DL&W's Keyser Valley Shops near Scranton) shop marks, which is
consistent with local railroaders who claimed that Keyser Valley added the truss
rods.

I have DL&W general arrangement drawings for these cars dated 1944 and 1952, and
neither mentions the truss rods though one of the photos is dated 1951.

The three cars pictured during the 1950s were empty when the photo was taken,
though one car is stenciled to be returned to the Nickel Plate Road at
Cleveland. That car has a reweigh date KV 4-40, same as the World's Fair car.
Other reweigh dates are earlier than the 1950s. The addition of truss rods
should require the car to be reweighed, but it's odd that the 1944 or 1952 books
don't mention the truss rods though they mention so many other less significant
components, modifications, etc.

If a concrete reason for the addition off truss rods surfaces, I'd love to hear
it. The downgrading of reefers on the DL&W was to use them in ice service ,which
is more dense than produce. But I have seen writings and waybills that discuss
bananas and potatoes as common lading, the latter moved in the winter with
heater pots in the ice bunkers. It's been my hope to model one or two one day.

Mike Del Vecchio

In a message dated 02/14/11 20:56:43 Eastern Standard Time,
rhendrickson@... writes:

Aha! The plot thickens! DL&W 7000 is yet another reefer design,
also (obviously) by AC&F but with a straight rolled steel center
sill. However, that underframe (especially on a reefer, typically
lightly loaded by comparison to other freight cars) would never have
needed truss rods to support it. We may get some explanation of this
confusion from Roger Hinman, who really is an expert.

Richard Hendrickson

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

__________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL








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



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00
____________________________________________________________
$65/Hr Job - 25 Openings
Part-Time job ($20-$65/hr). Requirements: Home Internet Access
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4d5afb6b715bd3d092ast02vuc


Re: Latest Im release of their Wood-Sheathed reefer

Bill Welch
 

I think all of the Sunshine WFE kits are well done. Their truss rod cars were that companies signature car until the post WWII era. In terms of numbers the 12' 1" followed by the 12' 7" height cars were the most dominant after the TR cars.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

To change the subject slightly, Bill, what WFEX model DO you
recommend?

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: B&O Freight Car Brown

gettheredesigns <rick@...>
 

Hi Tony, notice that I did not state that ferrous oxide is a paint pigment, simply that it is black, and therefore is not the pigment used to make reddish-brown paint. It IS used as a pigment for other purposes. I spent a great deal of time in college attempting to identify various oxides and their hydrates through a petrographic microscope, and it is a complex and fascinating subject.

Every morning I walk my dog through an area that was once a railyard serving an iron mine, and I never cease to be amazed by the variety of colors in the ore that fell off the FREIGHT CARS ;)

I appreciate all the experts that inhabit this forum.

Peace, Rick Aylsworth

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Rick Aylsworth wrote:
Tiny nit, Tony and Jim. Ferrous oxide is black (Fe+2). Ferric oxide
(Fe+3) is the red-brown pigment, and also rust, with Tony's caveats.
Different oxidation state = different crystalline structure =
different color.
True, I mistyped, reversing ferrous vs. ferric. But black
ferrous oxide isn't a paint pigment. What a paint guy might call
ferric oxide probably is a rather more complex material, not the
chemically and structurally pure laboratory compound, nor a pure
mineral.
Natural rust is a mixture of iron oxides, starting with the
first film which is yellowish, followed by the familiar orange-red
color (lots of ferric oxide), then darkening more and more into a
really dark brown. The various iron compounds responsible for all this
(relevant to freight car weathering, especially unpainted interiors of
gondolas and hoppers) are complex and far beyond the scope of this
list. But the color sequence is entirely relevant.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Peacock hand brake... (UNCLASSIFIED)

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

I'm referrring to the handbrake with the long "perforated pump brake handle". This handbrake was also fitted to the blind end of some passenger cars built post-WWII.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., "Gatwood, Elden SAW" <elden.j.gatwood@...> wrote:

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Are you guys talking about the freight car brake with (circular) handbrake
wheel, or the lever brake with the triangular perforated pump brake handle?

Elden Gatwood


-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Steve
Lucas
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:31 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Peacock hand brake...



I'm thinking that the Peacock ratchet handbrake looked somewhat like a
peacock? A small body holding the gearing, and an about two-foot long brake
lever attached to it. This brake is worked by ratcheting the lever
vertically.

I recall that this handbrake was standard on many GM GP-series locomotives.

Steve Lucas.

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

The name Peacock came to the National Brake Co. (now Ellcan-National) with
the Champion brake. I have never been able to find the origin of the use of
Peacock in connection with hand brakes. I thought it might have been an
inventor's name but that doesn't seem to be the case. Does anyone out there
in cyberspace know the answer?

BTW, National put the Champion-Peacock 1148 (trade name Micro-Matic) into a
different housing so this particular hand brake - in terms of appearance - is
pretty much to the period 1937 to 1953.

Gene Green




Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: square brake staffs (was SP F-70-7 FLAT CARS)

brianleppert@att.net
 

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


Should have asked this earlier... What boxcars used square brake staffs? All I've ever seen were round stock.

Dennis

Southern Pacific B-50-13 & 14 40' single sheathed boxcars had square brake staffs.

Brian Leppert
Carson City, NV

99401 - 99420 of 196818