Wartime experiments on the best way to wreck a train: http://www.realmilitaryvideos.com/wwii-allies/oss-training-film-derailment/ Not as easy as you might think. - Al Westerfield

Tony, that's good to know -- because sometimes it's better to
know where the OFF switch is located, more than the ON switch.
Now we can steer outcomes where we wants 'em -- data packages
to the good guys, deluges of requests to the bad guys. :-)

Tim

The P2K and Kadee trucks are two different prototypes.

P2K's model represents the National Type B. This was introduced in the early 1930s and produced until about 1940. It was superceded by National's Type B-1.

This change took place about 1940-1942. Santa Fe's Rr-29 reefers were built mid-1940 with B-1s, but I think that there were other cars delivered after that still with plain Type Bs.

The major spotting difference is the bolster end. The later B-1 had the bottom of the bolster end parallel with the top. On the earlier Type B, the sides of the bolster end tapered up towards the top.

Other differences included side frame shape, beading and, on the B-1, "Dual Control" features.

In the CBCs, National calls their newer truck a "B-1", but the raised lettering on the prototype side frames can be "Type B-1".

Athearn made a B-1. Kadee's new truck is the Unit Truck version of the B-1.

So both P2K and Kadee trucks will be usable under the proper cars.

Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
Carson City, NV

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

<snip>

>> When will we judge a models accuracy based on the correct retaining valve?

When someone makes a correct retaining valve?

Tim O'Connor

Thanks, Tim. I laughed out loud at that last one. Great way for me to end my day.
Gene Green

On Apr 13, 2011, at 3:57 PM, cobrapsl@aol.com wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

I was about to put a
pair of Proto 2000 National B-1s on a Monon AAR 1937 spec. box car,
but now that I have them the Kadees are definitely going on this
model.



OK Richard I will bite! Why is the Kadee truck so much nicer than
the Proto 2000 National B-1? Seems like only yesterday that we all
thought we had died and gone to Heaven when Proto 2000 had
introduced that truck!

Paul Lyons

Much sharper and more precise detail on the side frames, Paul, plus
complete brake rigging. The self-equalizing and self-tracking
features are very nice, as well. And you're hearing this from one of
the guys who persuaded Life-Like to do the Proto 2000 National B-1,
which was a very nice truck by the standards of fifteen years ago.
Of course, we now have the Athearn National B-1 as well, which isn't
shabby either. Years ago, I had to solder together my first National
B-1s from old Red Ball parts. In fact, the car I made them for still
has them, though they are scheduled for replacement. I'm going
through all of my older equipment a bit at a time replacing trucks
where appropriate, changing wheelsets to code 88, and changing #5
couplers to #58s. Those who say the hobby is going to hell in a
handcart are clueless; it's just changing, mostly for the better.

Richard Hendrickson

Paul, maybe because the P2K truck is NOT a National B-1, but rather a National
B.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA





Paul Lyons wrote:


OK Richard I will bite! Why is the Kadee truck so much nicer than the Proto 2000
National B-1? Seems like only yesterday that we all thought we had died and gone
to Heaven when Proto 2000 had introduced that truck!

Paul Lyons

.
_,_._,___

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

I was about to put a
pair of Proto 2000 National B-1s on a Monon AAR 1937 spec. box car,
but now that I have them the Kadees are definitely going on this model.



OK Richard I will bite! Why is the Kadee truck so much nicer than the Proto 2000 National B-1? Seems like only yesterday that we all thought we had died and gone to Heaven when Proto 2000 had introduced that truck!

Paul Lyons






-----

Jack Burgess wrote:

But to make our requests more attractive, it might be helpful to provide a background summary on those cars which receive the most votes (how many prototypes were built, how many railroads ran them) and sources of prototype information for them...

Jack (and Richard Hendrickson) make a good point: most manufacturers are far more interested in a good data package than in some poll of self-selected respondents. And repeatedly whining to them about some item you want produced is generally COUNTERproductive, according to people I've talked to.

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

Tim O'Connor wrote:

I think the GATC 6-dome tanks would be good sellers -- they went all over the country, and wore a number of paint schemes.
I'd definitely be interested in several. The brass PSC models usually fetch over $200 on Ebay. Of course, whoever makes them
in plastic would be free to paint them PRR, UP, ATSF, etc. :-)

Don't forget D&RGW which had them as water cars. BTW, Tim, the 2011 NMRA National Convention in Sacramento in July has a couple of "convention" cars, one of which is a Proto2k/Walthers insulated tank car lettered for wine service, CDLX reporting marks. (But no NMRA or convention logo, offered only as a decal in the box)

Tony Thompson
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937;
e-mail: thompson@signaturepress.com

Not for me.Armand Premo

Here's a heads-up on what I regard as an important development.

In exchange for some prototype information I provided, Sam Clarke at
Kadee has very kindly sent me some samples of their newest HGC self-
centering trucks. As many of you know, Kadee is engaged in a
continuing effort to replace their older sprung trucks with new
trucks molded in HGC material with the springs molded integral with
the side frames. The latest results of this effort are: #567 50
ton National B-1 (33" ribbed back wheels), #568 50 ton National B-1
(33" smooth back wheels), #569 100 ton Roller Bearing (36" smooth
back wheels), #570 70 ton Barber S-2 Roller Bearing (33" smooth back
wheels), and #583 Arch Bar Caboose w. Leaf Springs (33" ribbed back
wheels).

These new trucks are all superb representations of the prototype
trucks, with full brake shoes and rigging and Kadee's patented frame
construction, which provides both self-equalization to help keep them
on uneven track and self centering so that the trucks will
automatically line up with the track when car is picked up. The HGC
material is both tough and slippery, and in my informal tests the new
trucks are exceptionally free rolling. Wheel sets are Kadee's
familiar cast metal on nylon axles and the wheels are code 110
profile, but I understand Kadee is thinking seriously about possibly
producing code 88 semi-scale wheel sets as well. Mounting screws are
provided. List price on all of them is $8.95.

For steam era modelers, the National B-1 trucks are especially
appealing, as they are exceptionally well detailed including
"daylight" around the bolster ends and cast-on lettering on the side
frames. Some of us can certainly use the leaf-spring Arch Bar
caboose trucks as well, whose side frames are much thinner and closer
to scale than most other HO scale arch bars. I was about to put a
pair of Proto 2000 National B-1s on a Monon AAR 1937 spec. box car,
but now that I have them the Kadees are definitely going on this model.

Richard Hendrickson

On 13 Apr 2011 at 17:20, Tim O'Connor wrote:

What inherently makes them any "trickier" than the Gould/Tichy
tank car kit? Poor engineering is not a result of the materials.

I do both but fine styrene easier simply because
MEK on a small brush, for me, is an easier glue.


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

On Apr 13, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Jack Burgess wrote:

But to make our requests more attractive, it might be helpful to
provide a
background summary on those cars which receive the most votes (how
many
prototypes were built, how many railroads ran them) and sources of
prototype
information for them...

As I think Jack knows, several of us on this list who have some
credibility as prototype researchers do this as a matter of course if
we think a particular manufacturer might be interested in a specific
project, or - as sometimes happens - if we get a request to suggest
one or more future projects. More often than not, nothing comes of
it. But occasionally a seed takes root and eventually results in a
new model, or series of models. I doubt that the Pennsy Society poll
would, in itself, influence anybody very much, but manufacturers are
very much aware that (1) the PRR is a very popular railroad and also
that (2) a number of PRR Society members like Bruce Smith can be
relied on to back up their preferences with copious prototype
drawings, photos, data, etc. as opposed to the usual modelers' hot
air about "if you did those XYZ box cars, me and my friends would buy
a whole bunch of them." Manufacturers' decisions about what models
to produce are influenced by a vast number of considerations about
tooling and production costs, past experiences with similar models,
marketing (to the entire hobby, not just the prototype freight car
freaks on the STMFC list), and even, in some cases, the decision
makers' personal preferences with regard to era, favorite railroad,
favorite car types. etc. If you want to get a model made, forget
about polling the STMFC list or any other group of modelers, many of
whom don't really know what they want until they see it on the hobby
shop counter or on the internet. Gather a really complete set of
drawings, photos, and other information, figure out which
manufacturer is most likely to be receptive, and send 'em the stuff.
If they say no, try another manufacturer (but whatever you do, don't
send it to several at once; that's the kiss of death, as no one will
risk investing in a project that others may also be working on). In
any case, endless discussions on the STMFC list about "the models we
really need" may provide some ego gratification to the posters but
are likely to produce absolutely zero in the way of results. Want to
do something useful? Go do some serious research that might be
helpful to manufacturers or other serious modelers. Or - now, here's
a novel idea - sit down at your workbench and build some of the many
kits you already have stashed away. Almost everyone on this list
already has most of the freight car fleet they need already on hand
in boxes just waiting to be be built/finished.

Richard Hendrickson

Jim

What inherently makes them any "trickier" than the Gould/Tichy
tank car kit? Poor engineering is not a result of the materials.

I find Intermountain tank cars "tricky" because I have to remove
all of the atrocious cast-on brake details...

Tim O'Connor

Jeff, given a level of equally high accuracy and detail,
I think there is a natural RTR ordering:

type MSRP quantity
------------------------------------------
hand crafted brass $250+ 100-200
molded urethane resin $100+ 300-500
shake-the-box-resin? $ 50+ 500-1000?
injection molded styrene $ 40+ 10000+

Overland imported an X-3 many years ago. I had to modify
mine (with a soldering iron) to change it to AB brakes and
I had to correct the trucks. Sunshine makes an X-3, but it
would definitely end up being priced over $100 if kits are
built in China/Korea/USA/etc.

Anyway, the point is that if there is demand for 10000 models
over some period of time, then the huge up-front investment in
injection molds is justified.

As for "shake-the-box resin" I would include partially-assembled
cars in that category -- like the buyer has to add stirrups, grabs
and brake rods.

Tim O'Connor

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

I apologize for the link. My account got hacked this afternoon and it's now been taken care of.

Best Regards,
John Frantz

York, PA

Crossroads of the Pennsylvania Railroad, Maryland & Pennsylvania and Western Maryland Railroads.

It is messages like this one that prompted me to ask the question
about RTR resin. People want an X-3 (and other cars) IN PLASTIC.
Sunshine already makes a resin kit for the X-3. So why do folks
want it in RTR plastic? Is it because they want the material to be
plastic, in particular? I guess the answer is "no" - personally, I
don't care if the car is made out of bamboo, so long as it is
nicely executed.
So that leaves a few possible reasons: availability
(not a problem w/ other resin mfrs), pre-painting / lettering, or
the fact that the plastic car will be RTR.

Jeff,

I'll take an X-3 KIT in plastic! I have a number of X-3 in resin,
all yet to be built. It takes me about 2 hours to build a P2K Type
21 or IM type 27 kit, I get a fully (or nearly so) detailed car,
already painted and lettered. Even better, I can batch these cars
and get twice as many done in the same amount of time. It takes the
average modeler about 10 hours to build a Sunshine X-3 and doing 2 at
once results in about a 25-50% time savings, since they need the
"fiddly" work that such kits demand. To me its a no brainer -
injection molded kits are far easier and faster to build and since
I'm working on a roster, I vote for plastic whenever possible.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

-----Richard Hendrickson writes-----

The Kaiser steel plant in Fontana, CA, built during World War II, consumed
large quantities of coal. At first, the coal came from Utah, mostly in UP,
D&RGW hoppers, and UCR drop bottom gondolas and UP and D&RGW hoppers; all
are visible in various wartime and postwar yard shots at Barstow and San
Bernardino. There was a Santa Fe Fontana turn that conveyed coal and other
supplies from San Bernardino to the Fontana steel plant 9 miles down the
Second District towards Los Angeles. But that's as far as those cars got,
and they never appeared anywhere else on the Los Angeles Division. Ca.
1950, the coal began coming from a different source (I"m not sure where) in
mostly Missouri Pacific hoppers....


---- I reply --------
Utah coal was poor coking coal and so it needed to be blended with a bit of
something better. The nearest source that fit the bill are the coal fields
in NW Arkansas, an area that does have MP lines. IMO it is very likely the
appearance of MP hoppers in Utah and Southern California is related to the
above facts and given that the need to blend was known before Kaiser opened
up I expect the Arkansas coal may well have been arriving from the start of
operations at Fontana.

FWIW, in one year coal from British Columbia was tried at the blast furnaces
at Geneva and/or Ironton Ut. As it was just the one year I expect it was
either not as suitable as desired or too expensive to obtain because after
that the coal imports to Utah were always from Arkansas.

Dave Nelson

Being a Mopac fan I'm enjoying the discussion on the Mopac hoppers. By chance what road numbers would these cars carry? I model outside the scope of this forum, but greatly enjoy discussions like this one.

Jerry, I have a Mopac specific question reference Mopac hoppers used on my section of the line and would appreicate if you would contact me off list to discuss them. obermeyern AT yahoo.com

Nate

Plus the fact that all the resin tank car kits are tricky to assemble.

Jim


On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Aley, Jeff A <Jeff.A.Aley@intel.com> wrote:

All,

It is messages like this one that prompted me to ask the question about RTR
resin. People want an X-3 (and other cars) IN PLASTIC. Sunshine already
makes a resin kit for the X-3. So why do folks want it in RTR plastic? Is it
because they want the material to be plastic, in particular? I guess the
answer is "no" - personally, I don't care if the car is made out of bamboo,
so long as it is nicely executed.
So that leaves a few possible reasons: availability (not a problem w/ other
resin mfrs), pre-painting / lettering, or the fact that the plastic car will
be RTR.

Regards,

-Jeff

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
ealabhan0
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:56 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Missing Significant Frt Cars

I suggest that the UTLX X-3 tank car would fit perfectly into ExactRail's
Signature Series, next to their MILW ribsides.

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

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