Date   

Re: Necessary Freight cars (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

George;

It may be reality, or just blather.

I know modelers and layout builders that have HUNDREDS of hoppers, all less
than state-of-the-art, and ALL of them tell me they'd buy dozens of RTR cars,
IF they were offered. Yes, they each have good numbers of Kadee twins (which
we all LOVE), but honestly, if you're not modeling the RDG (or C&I, GA etc.),
just how many do you need? Most coal road modelers are ACHING for their pet
hopper to be made in RTR plastic. Trouble is, most of them are one-road
cars, or small road cars.

When Bowser came out with the PRR H21A, in singles, six-packs and 12-packs,
they couldn't keep them on the shelf. Now they've reached saturation. Folks
just don't need them with all they currently own.

Could someone produce an RTR H21A/E with state-of-the-art details, and would
it sell well enough to re-coup? Absolutely. Do manufacturers believe this?
Those we've spoken with say no. I say they are missing a big opportunity.

One of these days one of them will bite, and off to the races.

It'd be the same with a GLA, an X31A, and several other PRR freight cars.
Each road has its examples.

I also believe an alternate standard offset twin would sell, and yet we don't
even have a resin kit....but we do for a chisel-side IC offset twin?

C'mon....

Elden Gatwood

P.S. There is one resin manufacturer doing EXTREMELY well off a niche
market. Anyone want to guess who that is?

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gsc3
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:26 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Necessary Freight cars (UNCLASSIFIED)



Sheer puzzlement about hoppers being slow sellers. As a coal road modeler I
can see that most modelers would only buy one road's hoppers. But they are
slightly more than half of all the cars on my layout. Should be more, but I
can't resist the occasional oddball boxcar you know.

George Courtney

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "armprem2"
<armprem2@...> wrote:

Hear hear.Well put.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: Gatwood, Elden SAW
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:57 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Necessary Freight cars (UNCLASSIFIED)



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Andy;

A solid data package will go a long way to advance the possibility
of a model being produced.
No doubt, but ........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.

You bring up another good point, and I have talked to a number of
manufacturers about it; what type of cars sell best and get the most
interest.

This is the inevitable answer:

Box cars, box cars, box cars;

Covered hoppers

Gondolas and flat cars

Open hoppers bringing up the rear.

There is a lot of speculation on why, including: RTR open hoppers are
extremely costly to assemble, don't sell as well as other car types,
and have big differences between RRs that render them applicable to
only a handful of roads. Open hopper kits are "hard to assemble", and other
reasons above.

So, the answer we get, repeatedly, on the "why don't we have an
alternate standard twin offset hopper" is: a) many detail differences
between RRs, b) not enough major roads for one version to warrant
doing one, c) people don't really buy a lot of open hoppers compared
to other projects we could do that would do better, and d)... Richard
Hendrickson won't buy any of them.

I don't buy all of this, even the part about Richard, and will
continue to work with open-minded manufacturers on ANY project that
might benefit us. I also have hope we will see an alternate standard
twin offset hopper in HO, just probably not RTR.

Elden Gatwood

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE




__________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4da6ff6a6b4ae70810st04duc






Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Necessary Freight cars (UNCLASSIFIED)

George Courtney
 

Sheer puzzlement about hoppers being slow sellers. As a coal road modeler I can see that most modelers would only buy one road's hoppers. But they are slightly more than half of all the cars on my layout. Should be more, but I can't resist the occasional oddball boxcar you know.

George Courtney

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "armprem2" <armprem2@...> wrote:

Hear hear.Well put.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: Gatwood, Elden SAW
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:57 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Necessary Freight cars (UNCLASSIFIED)



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Andy;

> A solid data package will go a long way to advance the possibility of
> a model being produced.
>>No doubt, but ........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.

You bring up another good point, and I have talked to a number of
manufacturers about it; what type of cars sell best and get the most
interest.

This is the inevitable answer:

Box cars, box cars, box cars;

Covered hoppers

Gondolas and flat cars

Open hoppers bringing up the rear.

There is a lot of speculation on why, including: RTR open hoppers are
extremely costly to assemble, don't sell as well as other car types, and have
big differences between RRs that render them applicable to only a handful of
roads. Open hopper kits are "hard to assemble", and other reasons above.

So, the answer we get, repeatedly, on the "why don't we have an alternate
standard twin offset hopper" is: a) many detail differences between RRs, b)
not enough major roads for one version to warrant doing one, c) people don't
really buy a lot of open hoppers compared to other projects we could do that
would do better, and d)... Richard Hendrickson won't buy any of them.

I don't buy all of this, even the part about Richard, and will continue to
work with open-minded manufacturers on ANY project that might benefit us. I
also have hope we will see an alternate standard twin offset hopper in HO,
just probably not RTR.

Elden Gatwood

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE




____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4da6ff6a6b4ae70810st04duc

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


Re: Kadee Trucks

Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

I've tried a couple pair of the recent Kadee trucks, and I like them as much as Richard does. I've replaced the wheelsets, however, because I prefer a combination of metal axles and "code 88" wheels. - Andy

Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@mrmag.com
262-796-8776, ext. 461
FAX 262-796-1142


Re: Necessary Freight cars (UNCLASSIFIED)

armprem2 <armprem2@...>
 

Hear hear.Well put.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Gatwood, Elden SAW
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:57 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Necessary Freight cars (UNCLASSIFIED)



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Andy;

> A solid data package will go a long way to advance the possibility of
> a model being produced.
>>No doubt, but ........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.

You bring up another good point, and I have talked to a number of
manufacturers about it; what type of cars sell best and get the most
interest.

This is the inevitable answer:

Box cars, box cars, box cars;

Covered hoppers

Gondolas and flat cars

Open hoppers bringing up the rear.

There is a lot of speculation on why, including: RTR open hoppers are
extremely costly to assemble, don't sell as well as other car types, and have
big differences between RRs that render them applicable to only a handful of
roads. Open hopper kits are "hard to assemble", and other reasons above.

So, the answer we get, repeatedly, on the "why don't we have an alternate
standard twin offset hopper" is: a) many detail differences between RRs, b)
not enough major roads for one version to warrant doing one, c) people don't
really buy a lot of open hoppers compared to other projects we could do that
would do better, and d)... Richard Hendrickson won't buy any of them.

I don't buy all of this, even the part about Richard, and will continue to
work with open-minded manufacturers on ANY project that might benefit us. I
also have hope we will see an alternate standard twin offset hopper in HO,
just probably not RTR.

Elden Gatwood

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE




____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4da6ff6a6b4ae70810st04duc


Re: Branchline kit 1500 or equvilant

Larry Sexton
 

Does anyone have a Branchline 40' Postwar AAR boxcar kit with an 8' door
they are willing to sell or have an idea where I might locate one? There may
be a similar decorated BL kit with an 8' door that will work as well for
creating the EJ&E 1941 10'06 boxcar if someone has a suggestion. The 8' door
appears to be the key restriction.



Larry Sexton



From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:29 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Kadee Trucks






I usually use .088 Reboxx as well. But one thing I've noticed with
Kadee/Proto/Branchline wheels is that they do not perform equally. I
usually get better rolling performance with P2K wheels than with Kadee.
The axles are not made exactly alike and may use different material.

Kinda moot now... the HGC trucks are just so much better, than I hope
I can eventually trade up to those and sell the metal Kadee trucks on
Ebay.

Tim O'

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


Re: Necessary Freight cars

Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Andy Harman wrote:

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.
And yet, somehow, some of us still manage to put together information
for manufacturers, review their drawings and test shots AND get some
modeling of our done too... It is, in reality, a matter of
priorities that you set for yourself, and the efficient use of your
time.

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


Re: Kadee Trucks

Rossiter, Mark W <Mark.Rossiter@...>
 

Reboxx wheelsets are by far the best I have used, in any type of
sideframe. I suspect that part of the reason for their success is the
needle point axle has a much, much smaller surface area than a Kadee
axle, meaning less opportunity for friction (resistance), as minute as
it might be. I replaced the caboose trucks on a few of my older brass
models with the swing-motion trucks Kadee now offers in their HCG
material. I was concerned about using double insulated axles versus
single-insulated axles, but it turns out I had nothing to worry about.
The new HCG material is not conductive like Kadee's traditional metal
sideframe trucks are. Single insulated axles work just fine.



- - Mark


Re: Necessary Freight cars (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Andy;

A solid data package will go a long way to advance the possibility of
a model being produced.
No doubt, but ........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.

You bring up another good point, and I have talked to a number of
manufacturers about it; what type of cars sell best and get the most
interest.

This is the inevitable answer:

Box cars, box cars, box cars;

Covered hoppers

Gondolas and flat cars

Open hoppers bringing up the rear.

There is a lot of speculation on why, including: RTR open hoppers are
extremely costly to assemble, don't sell as well as other car types, and have
big differences between RRs that render them applicable to only a handful of
roads. Open hopper kits are "hard to assemble", and other reasons above.

So, the answer we get, repeatedly, on the "why don't we have an alternate
standard twin offset hopper" is: a) many detail differences between RRs, b)
not enough major roads for one version to warrant doing one, c) people don't
really buy a lot of open hoppers compared to other projects we could do that
would do better, and d)... Richard Hendrickson won't buy any of them.

I don't buy all of this, even the part about Richard, and will continue to
work with open-minded manufacturers on ANY project that might benefit us. I
also have hope we will see an alternate standard twin offset hopper in HO,
just probably not RTR.

Elden Gatwood

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Necessary Freight cars (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Rob;

I can tell you about a recent experience, but not who.

A manufacturer told me that they had exceeded the 100k mark at the "draft
final" stage of CADD development, and that was with largely gratis research
on the unit and RR differences and details over time and such.

The CADD had a lot of things incorporated to allow the parts to be assembled
assembly-line fashion, so it was not a matter of doing general arrangement
drawings, but an almost step-by-step guide from part to final assembly.

Jack and Richard are absolutely correct; The best that I, a non-manufacturer
can do, to encourage a product (and I have encouraged a lot of them), is
supply the manufacturer with data on where to get plans (or provide them),
details, appearance over time, painting and lettering diagrams, photos, RR
usage, advice on detail parts, and all that stuff. Their level of knowledge
is so far beyond mine from that point forth, it takes folks trained in CADD,
kit manufacture and many other skills to realize the product.

The hard part is convincing them to do it....

Elden Gatwood

P.S. Be on the lookout for some new HO-scale kits you will like!



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
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:45 PM
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.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
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Kadee Trucks

Tim O'Connor
 

I usually use .088 Reboxx as well. But one thing I've noticed with
Kadee/Proto/Branchline wheels is that they do not perform equally. I
usually get better rolling performance with P2K wheels than with Kadee.
The axles are not made exactly alike and may use different material.

Kinda moot now... the HGC trucks are just so much better, than I hope
I can eventually trade up to those and sell the metal Kadee trucks on
Ebay.

Tim O'

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


CB&Q tank car

Rupert & Maureen <gamlenz@...>
 

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


Re: Kadee Trucks

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

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


Re: Kadee Trucks

Andy Harman
 

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



Re: Kadee Trucks

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

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


Re: Kadee Trucks

Jim Betz
 

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

________________________________________________________________________
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.


Re: Necessary Freight cars

Robert kirkham
 

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


Re: N&W H10 hopper kit .. it's coming

Andy Harman
 

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


Re: Necessary Freight cars

Andy Harman
 

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


Re: Kadee Trucks

Paul Lyons
 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: brianleppert@att.net <brianleppert@att.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 13, 2011 5:27 pm
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kadee Trucks






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, cobrapsl@... 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






-----




Re: Necessary Freight cars

Charlie Vlk
 

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

82021 - 82040 of 181042