I have posted a photo showing a CB&Q tank car oiling tracks west of Chicago to keep down the dust. The photo has been copied from the Railway Age Gazette of September 1911.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/photos/album/2022239872/pic/list

A horizontal perforated pipe has been attached to the bottom outlet of the car to distribute the oil "which is heated by steam from the engine", but with baffles to prevent it being sprayed on the rail, and the flow rate is controlled by a lever attached to the outlet valve.

Can anyone give me some clues about the car?

Thanks

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ

Andy Harman wrote:

I have used Reboxx wheel sets successfully in Kadee trucks. Be aware they are insulated on only one side so you will need to make sure both axles are oriented the same direction.

Actually, Andy, they make both one-side and two-side axle insulations. You choose when you buy.

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

At 10:19 PM 4/13/2011 -0700, you wrote:

Has any one found a non-Kadee wheelset that works well
in a Kadee truck?

I have used Reboxx wheel sets successfully in Kadee trucks. Be aware they
are insulated on only one side so you will need to make sure both axles are
oriented the same direction. I just measured a Kadee axle at about 1.015"
so a Reboxx axle of about that length should work nicely. I haven't had a
lot of trouble with Kadee axles wearing out, but I have replaced them in
open ended cars (tank cars, hoppers, etc) with code 88 wheels for better
appearance, hence the Reboxx.

Andy

- Tired of changing out worn out nylon axles - the point
wears out and you have to change out the entire axle
including the wheels
... Jim

________________________________________________________________________
8a. Kadee Trucks
Posted by: "Richard Hendrickson" rhendrickson@opendoor.com n1605g
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:16 pm ((PDT))

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

Snip

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.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Jim Betz wrote:

Has any one found a non-Kadee wheelset that works well in a Kadee truck?

I have put Reboxx 0.088 wheelsets in a couple pairs of Kadees and it works fine so far.

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

Hi,

As long as we are talking about Kadee trucks ...

Has any one found a non-Kadee wheelset that works well
in a Kadee truck?

- Tired of changing out worn out nylon axles - the point
wears out and you have to change out the entire axle
including the wheels
... Jim

I've been reading through this thread - resin kits, necessary cars, etc. It makes me wonder about the breakdown of a manufacturer's costs. For a manufacturer of injection molded styrene cars, how much is spent developing CAD drawings in HO scale - would a manufacturer be appreciative of well done drawings if a hobbyist generated them and handed them over gratis?

While I'm not claiming the ability to create such drawings, I wonder what it would take to be able to produce something useful?

For a few months I've been messing around with scale 3D drawings of prototype cars I've measured. I've sent the drawings to Shapeways to generate HO parts. I'm not really keen on what I get back - still too course resolution for a lot of modelling needs, although there is potential. But it makes me wonder - if I have fun creating drawings for that limited purpose, would they be of value to a manufacturer? Or puting it another way - where would they have to be different to be useful to a manufacturer? For example, if I knew more about draft angles, I could build them in. I'm sure there are other technical requirements I've no competence to even assess.

But it makes me wonder - would useful CAD drawings substantially reduce a manufacturer's costs and make some projects more viable?
Rob Kirkham



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Anthony Thompson" <thompson@signaturepress.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:45 PM
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Necessary Freight cars

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

At 11:20 AM 4/13/2011 -0400, you wrote:

Roughly when were the H10 hoppers built?

1956 (single prototype), production 1957 thru the unmentionable next zero-year.

Total cars built = 8000. Less than I thought, but still a sizeable hunk of the fleet.

N&W was still mostly a steam railroad at the time, so they qualify as steam era cars by any criteria, even though many were still in service by the time the space shuttle was flying.

Andy

At 10:53 PM 4/13/2011 -0500, you wrote:

A solid data package will go a long way to advance the possibility of a model being produced.

No doubt, but not all of us are employed in model RR R&D, nor retired and mobile to go travel to Roanoke and pull erection drawings, or chase down survivors in museums and measure them and photograph every detail. Suffice it to say, if I had such a data package on the N&W H10 hopper, I would have already scratchbuilt one. With the quality of materials and parts available today, this kind of data is the only thing that stops me. A car like I'm asking for shouldn't be that hard to chase down, but unless we want to wait another 20 years until I retire assuming I do and assuming I'm still able, somebody else is going to need to come up with it.

Because that someone isn't me shouldn't prohibit me from requesting a model of this car. It probably isn't #1 on anybody's to-do list, but it does have some basic things going for it - it's a transition era car, built in large quantities, operated over a wide area, and it's not a particularly exotic car that will require new ground to be broken in the realm of tooling.

If I were to assemble such a data package, I'd first build one car for myself, then build a second one to fix all the mistakes I made on the first one, and then perhaps pitch it to one of the good guys. I've already talk to Exactrail and Tangent, they didn't seem to be very interested. The larger manufacturers like Athearn, Walthers, Atlas, already have a lot of coal hoppers in their lines already... ditto Bowser. Intermountain I haven't talked to about it, oddly enough, it's kind of up their alley - they have done a bunch of covered hoppers (albeit only one steam/transition era), and not a single coal hopper.

At any rate, I'm glad I brought the topic up even if it brings out the same old posturing about how we ought to think, act, and talk. I found out at least that there may be one coming in resin in the not too distant future, which means that someone may already have a data package, or a good start on it.

Andy

Thanks Brian, I will now be forever confused as to weather I need a Proto 2000 Type B, or a Kadee Type B-1 under my models requiring that type truck!!
Paul Lyons

Jacl. Richard, and Tony hit the nail on the head......

I just had similar comments in an editoria in the latest issue of N Scale Railroading. A solid data package will go a long way to advance the possibility of a model being produced.

Most good projects happen because somebody has collected original railroad/builder drawings (general arrangement, detail and lettering & painting), detailed roster data, as-built photographs, detail photos of components, and in-service photos of all possible paint and lettering schemes. Often field measurements are made of surviving equipment and new hand drawn or CAD drawings are created. Sometimes it is the in-house R&D staff that has the material (often in their own personal collection) and sometimes it is aquired from one of a network of subject matter experts.

Real railroad equipment drawings often are lacking as documentation for tooling people, who are not familiar with the prototype, to design models. "General Arrangement" drawings are often literally referred to as "cartoons" (in the original sense of basic unsophisticated sketches) that are more of a graphic index of reference drawing numbers to innumerable detail drawings of descrete parts. Some drawings are silent on major components because they were so commonly used that they required no further description (an example I am familiar with is Budd passenger car corrugated panels.... I imagine that details of stamped roof panels and ends are equally difficult to find drawings with detailed dimensions sufficient to tool from).

Today we are even beginning to see research packages including drawings of equipment rendered in 3D CAD (Solidworks, etc..) and presented to manufacturers in very complete form ready to turn over to final design.....by Importer R&D Staff and by individuals interested in having specific favorite equipment made in production models.

Charlie Vlk

Thanks Richard, Paul Lyons

I saw this a few years ago... it is incredible!

Folks, if you have not seen this video, you need to see it!


John Degnan
Scaler164@comcast.net

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