Jim, you must run your freight cars a lot more than I do; I've never had a Kadee axle wear out. However, I just put a pair of Northwest Short Line Code 88 wheelsets into one of new Kadee trucks

Sam Clarke e-mailed me this morning to say that Kadee's Code 88 wheelsets, which I knew they were thinking seriously about, already exist and are in the catalog. Stock numbers are: #530 33"

Hope I might acquire insights from the experienced here. I'm working on a couple of TT scale projects for which I wish to learn how some of the parts manufacturers form wire into railings, eye bolts,

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:26:05 -0700, David Sieber wrote Maybe but the stepped bolster tab info is pretty interesting, and I will start looking for it and hopefully use it to at least identify PS built

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:03:14 -0500, cvlk wrote It would be fascinating to see the process of how a 3D CAD drawing of the prototype is turned into the actual tooling specs for the model. I've been

My apologies to all - that last email was intended to go only to Jim King. I'm a very satisfied customer of Smokey Mountain Model Works. Dave Sieber

Jim, Thank God - I was beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory (or both), since I thought the TC boxcar had been built with the Pullman riveted roof (smooth, with overlapping sections above

Rob Kirkham wrote: "But it makes me wonder - would useful CAD drawings substantially reduce a manufacturer's costs and make some projects more viable?" Good question. I am not sure the jury is in

David Orr and Don Strong, please contact me off-list. I need your email address. Jim King Smoky Mountain Model Works, Inc. Ph. (828) 777-5619 <www.smokymountainmodelworks.com>

Here is a good start: http://sunshinekits.com/sunimages/sun52b.pdf - Steve Hedlund, Silver Lake WA To: STMFC@... From: losgatos48@... Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:54:06

So now we have the Proto 2000 Type B and the Kadee Type B-1. Does the Athern truck represent a true B-1? Thanks: Bill Pardie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:08:45 -0400, mike brock wrote Regardless, between the slope sheets and the side profile, it's distinctly different in appearance from the H2/3 and forget kitbashing it. The H10

It was pointed out to me yesterday that terminology I used (as provided to me during the design phase) on the 1941-built Tennessee Central boxcar was incorrect. The design IS correct and, therefore,

Richard, Just teasing my buddy Brian, who has a way of twisting my mind around when it comes to freight car trucks! Paul Lyons

I wrote: And Andy Harman replied: I could not access that address. Of course these are models but prototype photos reveal the same comparison. The You are correct. Photos in Andrew Dow's book

Relax, Paul. Brian is entirely correct, but the differences are very subtle and often impossible to see in prototype photos. Most viewers, even on this list, will never be able to tell whether

I am looking for information on the Cotton Belt rebuilt double sheathed wood boxcars that were in the 36,000 series. The cars had a 10'2" interior height. I am trying to find a car diagram for the

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:05:25 -0000, jaydeet2001 wrote I could certainly get into that. Maybe not quite in the same quantity as the H10 but, I could use quite a few. Andy

Yes. One could oversimplify and call it the AMC version. And then there's the NYC's shorter (lengthwise) version of the AAR standard offset twin. David Thompson

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:11:24 -0400, Gatwood, Elden SAW wrote It wouldn't be the first time manufacturer(s) put up a smoke screen. I don't have a problem with them telling me "no comment" or "none of