Brian Carlson wrote: I don't know the list, but the Soo caboose should be at the top of it. What a perfect model. Nearly enough to convert a person into a Soo Line modeler. Tony Thompson

Speaking of Storzek kits. As someone who was too young when they were issued to appreciate them, is there a list of what was produced? I know about the Soo boxcar and the NYC DS sheathed car. What

I have been searching for this Storzek gem:    1008 DSS&A "Merchandise Service" Wood Box Car (19164B). It was a bright yellow car with Red lettering.   Rich Christie       To:

Bill, I have built many resin kits from many manufacturers. I have to say that the best are without a doubt the kits made by Mr Storzek. Westerfield are a very close second, I just prefer the

I enjoyed the photo story on building up the caboose kit. At the end there are a couple of drawings... are any available from the CNWHS (or magazines)? Dave Nelson

Jerry Glow's recent post about decals for the DSS&A provoked me to look at my stash of Dennis' kits. In addition to two SOO Line kits I am saving to convert to two models of cars owned by two MP

That's my impression, too. The AAR material standards were more so that every RIP track had a good chance of having suitable repair material on hand. If a railroad wanted to specify different material

I would add that the Speedwitch Duryea underframe kit comes with an excellent set of decals for the M-26D/E. Good B&O decals for many projects are annoyingly scarce, but not here. There are two

Tim O'Connor wrote: Someone like Guy Wilber may be able to give an exact answer to this, but it's certainly my impression that AAR construction standards were not REQUIREMENTS, any more than

Dennis But someone cited a 2 3/4" thick deck on a flat car, so if it was a "standard" then it wasn't much of a standard if railroads were allowed not to comply with it. Maybe it was just a

But the AAR did specify standard mill and lumber sections; the 1940 CBC presents the ARA standard adopted in 1930. This included the various car siding sections, 1 1/2" thick shiplap and T&G for

Steve wrote: There was no standard for the thickness of flat car deck boards specified by the AAR. Flat cars built new on and after August 1, 1956 were required to have a uniform distance of 9' 4"

Tim, At least that explains why I have found that I can remove the lettering/numbers so easily just using a toothpick dipped in alcohol. I lay the round toothpick with alcohol on it up against the

A new Modeler is new on the web http://www.cnwhs.org/modeling.htm Ron Christensen

And don't forget that humidity plays a role in this. Sprayed a factory painted Intermountain O scale reefer with Dull Cote so I could weather it (powders) and the paint looked like it had a coat of

I am impressed with your knowledge in the area Tim. This is the kind of information we could can all use at some point I bet. I would nice to have it in the form of a Matrix perhaps. I will never

Here is a link to many freight car images on the Canada Southern Railway website: http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/equip.htm Many of the cars are from the steam era. Bob Chaparro Hemet, CA

I've looked for a CN drawing that is kicking around "Somewhere", but I seem to recall that deck board thickness and width was a specified AAR standard. Steve Lucas.

Jim Betz wrote My experience is that you can paint any type over any other .... But ONLY after the prior coat is fully dry (and cured). Jim A caveat to this is a car painted with Accupaint - like

Hi, My experience is that you can paint any type over any other. I do this regularly. As in even using lacquer washes over acrylics ... or acrylic washes over lacquer (easier?). But ONLY