Date   

Re: Old school vs. new school toolmaking.

midrly <midrly@...>
 

Dennis--

Thank you for posting your story. It's a very interesting and educational read.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...> wrote:


--- In , Andy Carlson <midcentury@> wrote:


Dennis,
I always enjoy reading your posts, especially where it concerns
manufacturing. I have been given a short description of how you
tooled the Accurail Canadin 40' SS car. Can I request that you
share the unique technique you utilized, as I think it is a fascinating story.
Regards,
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA
Andy asked this about a week ago, and I finally have a chance to peck
out a reply, which is likely to be rather long. I think it ties in
well with the current discussion of the Shapeways / rapid prototyping
parts, as it is basically the story of my own quest for the Holy Grail.

Those of you who have been active in this hobby for a few decades
will remember that during the mid eighties I produced a line of resin
freightcar kits. After a couple of years, I was becoming dissatisfied
with the sales potential of resin... it was taking all my spare time,
but held no promise of the volume ever growing to become a full time
jig that could support my family. At the time resin kits were being
produced in brittle and dimensionally unstable polyester resin, or
tough-as-nails aluminum filled epoxy, which quickly tore the heck out
of the molds.I had it in mind that if I could produce the same style
kit in easy to build styrene, sales would increase, production rate
would improve, and all would be good in the world. Unfortunately,
while I knew something about injection molding, I didn't know very
much about tool making, other than it was boocoo expensive.Together
with a couple friends from my railway museum days, who were producing
a line of white metal detail parts under the Walker Model Service
name, we set out to investigate "alternative" methods of producing
injection molds.

We investigated pressure cast aluminum tooling. Don Stromberg used
this for his Cary line of locomotives... but if you remember the Cary
SW-1500 body kit for the Athearn switcher, you'll remember that the
surface detail was somewhat lacking. These mold cavities had to be
cast around a steel master, which itself was technically a tool making job

We investigated cast beryllium-copper tooling, which is what Bob and
Lynn Lunde were turning to for their better selling Magnuson Models
buildings.The problems here were wildly unpredictable shrinkage, and
the vendor's insistence on a HUGE amount of draft angle, which is the
reason the walls never fit on the building kits without a LOT of filing.

We looked at cast epoxy tooling. This one seem to hold a lot of
promise, and I even actually completed a mold for a car side, which I
was able to run on a small antique molding press. The problem was
that the release agent I used to get the patten out of the epoxy
cavity left a poor surface finish in the cavity (kind of like a
Shapeways part) and the pattern was still damaged. About this time I
was informed that the other components I was going to use in the kit
were no longer available, so this project languished. Funny thing
is, when I sold that molding press ten years later, that mold was
still mounted in it, so I started it up and started running parts to
demonstrate the press to the buyer. I must have run a couple hundred
more parts, and the mold was holding up just fine. But at the time,
this was just another dead end.

Meanwhile, we formed Accurate Finishing, Inc., to capitalize on the
after market decorating niche. If you'll recall, during this time
business capital was costing about 18% interest, and there was NO new
product coming on the market, so there was a bunch of after market
printers putting different paint schemes on Athearn and MDC models.
However, expanding into molding our own product was always part of
the plan, even if we didn't quite know how it would be accomplished.
AFI, as we refered to ourselves, had the feelers out, looking for used tooling.

We were able to buy the body inserts for Bill McKeen's 40' double
door car. These inserts had been designed to run in the Train
Miniature mold base, and were orphaned when the TM tooling went to
Walthers. While we didn't have a mold base, either (or a molding
press, for that matter) we realized that this sort of work was the
bread and butter of independent tool shops; it's precise work, but
there are no fine details. Bob had some contact with a toolmaker who
ran a one man shop, Paul Redmond, and Paul's quote was good. He was
also willing to work backwards from the existing inserts to design a
mold base with the required four side actions. It was when we were
discussing the mold for the floor, running board, and details that
Paul made a statement that was to have a profound effect on the
future of our business... He said, "Use Tartan Tool."

Now, I was vaguely aware of the 3M Tartan Tool sintered metal
process, but they always advertised that if you built one steel
cavity, they could make you sixty four more. My problem was that I
didn't need sixty four cavities, I needed that first one. But Paul
was adamant that they didn't need a cavity, they could work from a
part, and he didn't think the part needed to be metal, either. We
made an appointment with the 3M sales rep. Yes, they could work from
a model that was opposite of the cavity, and no, the model did not
need to be steel, or even metal. Effectively, the patterns I had been
making for my resin kits could be usable. HOWEVER... The model
needed more attention to flatness and undercuts than my patterns to
date had. It needed a shrinkage factor applied; the master would have
to be oversize. Even with that taken into account. Paul warned us
that they rarely actually hit their advertised number. And, the
maximum sized component that could produce was only half the size of
an HO scale freightcar model. The last two were combined to work to
our advantage; I would build one master for half the floor and have
it replicated twice, Paul would grind the center edges to adjust the
final length of the floor. It actually worked quite well, for the
floor. The brake details, not so much, and if anyone remembers the
original set that packed with the kit, you'll know why we had to
re-do them within the first couple years. But we were learning.

Which brings us finally, to the Accurail 4000 series single sheathed
boxcar kit. This was going to be the showcase of the tooling the
Tartan process made possible; the easy assembly resin style kit. It
was going to be a nine panel car because there were a couple seven
panel car models out there already; both Train Miniature and MDC had
them in their line. It was going to have Z bar framing, because word
was Tichy was doing the USRA car. It became a CN car simply because I
had done a slightly older CN car in resin at Stafford Swain's urging,
and I knew the Canadian Railway Historical Association had a whole
pile of 1" scale drawings from the National Car Co., and Ken Gosslett
was willing to turn the stack and find me what I needed. Remember
what I've said about when you have nothing, anything is an
improvement? If this worked as well as anticipated, we'd have plenty
of time to go back and do all those other prototypes.

So, what happened? Well, the reality of the situation set in. The
Tartan process wasn't very well suited to making long parts that had
to fit, like roofs, so those needed to be done by conventional
methods. And the sintered cavity blocks had a habit of not turning
out flat, and were usually bowed or twisted. The toolmaker would
spend hours doing a survey under a microscope to find out where
everything really was, and more hours shimming the things on the
grinder to bring the edges square with the cavity detail. This is
bass ackwards for a toolmaker; they usually start with square edges
and put the cavity where they want it. When everything was said and
done, while the resulting model was very nice, the tool hadn't cost
appreciably less than if it had been done via conventional methods.
So much for doing another whole tool for every prototype variation.

I also learned a lot about the conventional techniques. Building
actual size masters is hard, and traditional tool making is all about
techniques to turn gross hand motions into tiny controlled movements
that make what you want with much better precision. For instance, the
corrugated ends for that variant of the model are steel, not
sintered. And, they didn't make use of an oversize pattern and a
pantograph, either. The cross section of the corrugation was simply
dressed into a grinding wheel, that wheel used to grind the profile
on a series of graphite electrodes, and those electrodes used to sink
that shape into hardened tool steel. When we considered what a CNC
mill would do if added to that process, we decided that the future
lay in a different direction.

Which leaves our model of the CN single sheathed car kind of like
"Lonesome George", the Galapagos tortoise who was the last of his
kind, a evolutionary dead end.

Enough of this, the CNC just shut down, having drilled 7,766 holes
for a Morton style running board while I was typing this.

Dennis



Dennis Storzek


Re: California Roadbed

John Degnan <Scaler164@...>
 

Forever? So... you're saying you haven't gotten the first order yet? :) (Just kidding)

I have not ordered much from them, but what little I have ordered came in a respectable time. And what I ordered was S scale, which you would think would take longer since, being S, it is likely made-to-order...


John Degnan
Scaler164@...
Scaler187@...

----- Original Message -----
From: mopacfirst
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 08:59 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: California Roadbed


I placed two orders with them last year -- the first one took forever, the second one took only a couple of weeks.

Ron Merrick


Re: Tank car builders-reweighs? was UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Bill Daniels <billinsf@...>
 

Bruce,

I think you really need a homebrew...


 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: Bruce F. Smith <smithbf@...>
To: "STMFC@..." <STMFC@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:01 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Tank car builders-reweighs? was UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways


 
Steve talks about the builders of these cars. Over the years I have acquired photos of type X and V cars. I thought that information was on the right end of the tank along with the ARA type and built date. In looking at these pictures, I observe the following:

Here is the classic arrangement:
UTLX 17891, 10,000 gal type X, Reweigh MILT 2 45. On the right it says ARA II SSC Co 8 15, tested ?-??-46, BUILT 8 15.
So, this is a Standard Steel Co built car (1915), reweighed at Milton (AC&F?) in 1945, tank retested in 1946 (AB brakes, Sulfuric Acid Only stencil)

Now I start to get confused
UTLX 16285, 8,000 gal type X, Reweigh UTC Co 9-37. On the right is says ARA III, PRR, 11 15, some data, TESTED 1 4 52 (at Ex xxxxx CALF?), BUILT 11 15
OK, so the photo is 1952 at least, the car has AB brakes, was last reweighed by UTC in 1937 and was built in 1915 by... um... the Pennsylvania Railroad? Oh, and the car has single rivet rows- shouldn't it be an ARA type II?

Another one:
UTLX 15371, 6,000 gal type V, Reweigh NEW 4 12. On the right end it shows ARA II, PRR, 4 12. No other stencil data is legible on the right end.

Then I see:
UTLX 15487, 6,000 gal type V, Reweigh NEW 4-12. On the right end it shows ARA II, KCS RR, 11 2 25. The test date isn't clear but the repack is 2 xx 40, UTC CO and BUILT 4 (obscured)
Seriously? Ok, so the photo is 1940 at least, the car was built in 1912 and has not been reweighed since, but KCS somehow got their name on the tank?

I'm clearly incorrect in thinking that the name on the right end is the builder. What is the name and date associated with the ARA designation, the company that measured the volume?

I need a beer
Regards
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
From: STMFC@... [STMFC@...] on behalf of Steve and Barb Hile [shile@...]
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:12 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Here is some general information about UTLX X series tank cars. Although
there were some built earlier, details of those are currently unknown.
Between 1906 and 1916, more than 7400 X cars were built with about 1500 of
10,000 gallon capacity, 2400 with 8000 gallon capacity and 3500 with 6500
gallon, and lower, capacity. Of these last 3500, about 3000 were built in
1915 and 1916 by Standard Steel Car in number series 11250-12749,
16000-16999 and 18000-18499. While cars were refitted, repurposed and
renumbered over time, these should give some general ranges. The most
common renumbering was for the addition of internal heater coils which would
put cars into 5xxxx numbers.

For the 8000 gallon cars, ACF built 2000 - 6400-7399 in 1914 and 21300-22299
in 1916.

Hope this helps. I've really got to think about writing this stuff up more
formally!

Regards,

Steve Hile

_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:03 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Dave Evans devans1@...
wrote:
All,

I have sifted through multiple recent threads concerning the type X
underframe upgrade to the MDC old time tank car kit.

A tremendous amount of information and good modeling info.

One thing I could not find in the various postings/threads was just how
man type X cars were built? And how long did most of them last?
If I spent some time (which, at the moment, I don't have) with my '52 UTL
roster, I could give you an exact number. In any case, I can assure you that
several thousand were built and that most of them remained in service
through WW II and into the '50s. For that matter, I have several photos of
them still in service in the mid-'60s. So it's definitely a car that almost
any STFMC modeler should have.

Richard Hendrickson

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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links




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


Re: Tank car builders-reweighs? was UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Steve and Barb Hile
 

Sounds like a good plan, Bruce.



Before Tony chimes in, I think the issue is that tank cars were not
reweighed per se, since customers were charged by volume and not weight, but
that safety regulations required periodic pressure testing of the tank,
which, as it appears could be done my a manufacturer or, apparently, a
railroad. I have puzzled over some photos of a very early UTLX car with
external heating pipes and covering jacket, which is also stenciled PRR and
the date on the freshly painted car.



I am sure the regulations are buried in my pile of papers downstairs. I
will try to post something more tomorrow, unless it is already available.



Regards,

Steve Hile



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Bruce F. Smith
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:01 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Tank car builders-reweighs? was UTLX tank car parts from
Model Shapeways





Steve talks about the builders of these cars. Over the years I have acquired
photos of type X and V cars. I thought that information was on the right end
of the tank along with the ARA type and built date. In looking at these
pictures, I observe the following:

Here is the classic arrangement:
UTLX 17891, 10,000 gal type X, Reweigh MILT 2 45. On the right it says ARA
II SSC Co 8 15, tested ?-??-46, BUILT 8 15.
So, this is a Standard Steel Co built car (1915), reweighed at Milton
(AC&F?) in 1945, tank retested in 1946 (AB brakes, Sulfuric Acid Only
stencil)

Now I start to get confused
UTLX 16285, 8,000 gal type X, Reweigh UTC Co 9-37. On the right is says ARA
III, PRR, 11 15, some data, TESTED 1 4 52 (at Ex xxxxx CALF?), BUILT 11 15
OK, so the photo is 1952 at least, the car has AB brakes, was last reweighed
by UTC in 1937 and was built in 1915 by... um... the Pennsylvania Railroad?
Oh, and the car has single rivet rows- shouldn't it be an ARA type II?

Another one:
UTLX 15371, 6,000 gal type V, Reweigh NEW 4 12. On the right end it shows
ARA II, PRR, 4 12. No other stencil data is legible on the right end.

Then I see:
UTLX 15487, 6,000 gal type V, Reweigh NEW 4-12. On the right end it shows
ARA II, KCS RR, 11 2 25. The test date isn't clear but the repack is 2 xx
40, UTC CO and BUILT 4 (obscured)
Seriously? Ok, so the photo is 1940 at least, the car was built in 1912 and
has not been reweighed since, but KCS somehow got their name on the tank?

I'm clearly incorrect in thinking that the name on the right end is the
builder. What is the name and date associated with the ARA designation, the
company that measured the volume?

I need a beer
Regards
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Bruce Smith
 

Dave,

Um, two issues. First, the MDC tank is SHORTER than the PSC tank <G>. It is supposed to be a 6,500 gallon tank, although it could be a 6K tank... The model Tom was working on for Martin is an 8K. Second, you may be overestimating the contribution of the type X cars to the fleet. Sizeable numbers of tank cars were retired in the 1930s. While many that were mothballed were reactivated during WWII, I'm guessing the total was (substantially) less than 7,000. Note as well that the bulk of these cars are ARA II cars which makes them less desirable than ARA III cars. That said I too plan to have a few of these cars, and hopefully of different sizes.

Regards
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
From: STMFC@... [STMFC@...] on behalf of Dave Evans [devans1@...]
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:19 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Steve & Richard,

These numbers are good enough for my purposes (a generally representative fleet.)

During WWII, with the tank car fleet a little over 152k (from my incomplete tally of the '43 ORER), this would suggest that 1 out of every 21 tank cars would be the type X. I would like to model some of the massive WWII tank train traffic towards the east coast (often 10-12 EB trains per day over the PRR at Gallitzin during WWII), so clearly several of these are in order. And with a UTLX fleet total just under 39,000, that means the type X would be one out of every 5.5 UTLX tank cars.

What would be fun is if the shapeways modeler who has created this design would do the appropriate frame lengths for the different tank sizes. (As Bruce has requested)

Looking through Speedwitch's tank car reference, only three and five course versions are shown. Perhaps the three course is the 6,500 gallon tank (which I think is the PSC capacity), and the five course (MDC) is 8,000 gallon? What about the 10,000 gallon? I thought someone wrote that the X series tanks were all the same diameter - just different lengths?

Many thanks for the fleet size info,
Dave Evans



--- In STMFC@..., "Steve and Barb Hile" <shile@...> wrote:

Here is some general information about UTLX X series tank cars. Although
there were some built earlier, details of those are currently unknown.
Between 1906 and 1916, more than 7400 X cars were built with about 1500 of
10,000 gallon capacity, 2400 with 8000 gallon capacity and 3500 with 6500
gallon, and lower, capacity. Of these last 3500, about 3000 were built in
1915 and 1916 by Standard Steel Car in number series 11250-12749,
16000-16999 and 18000-18499. While cars were refitted, repurposed and
renumbered over time, these should give some general ranges. The most
common renumbering was for the addition of internal heater coils which would
put cars into 5xxxx numbers.



For the 8000 gallon cars, ACF built 2000 - 6400-7399 in 1914 and 21300-22299
in 1916.



Hope this helps. I've really got to think about writing this stuff up more
formally!



Regards,

Steve Hile



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:03 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways





On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Dave Evans devans1@...
<mailto:devans1%40erols.com> > wrote:
All,

I have sifted through multiple recent threads concerning the type X
underframe upgrade to the MDC old time tank car kit.

A tremendous amount of information and good modeling info.

One thing I could not find in the various postings/threads was just how
man type X cars were built? And how long did most of them last?
If I spent some time (which, at the moment, I don't have) with my '52 UTL
roster, I could give you an exact number. In any case, I can assure you that
several thousand were built and that most of them remained in service
through WW II and into the '50s. For that matter, I have several photos of
them still in service in the mid-'60s. So it's definitely a car that almost
any STFMC modeler should have.

Richard Hendrickson











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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

devansprr
 

Steve & Richard,

These numbers are good enough for my purposes (a generally representative fleet.)

During WWII, with the tank car fleet a little over 152k (from my incomplete tally of the '43 ORER), this would suggest that 1 out of every 21 tank cars would be the type X. I would like to model some of the massive WWII tank train traffic towards the east coast (often 10-12 EB trains per day over the PRR at Gallitzin during WWII), so clearly several of these are in order. And with a UTLX fleet total just under 39,000, that means the type X would be one out of every 5.5 UTLX tank cars.

What would be fun is if the shapeways modeler who has created this design would do the appropriate frame lengths for the different tank sizes. (As Bruce has requested)

Looking through Speedwitch's tank car reference, only three and five course versions are shown. Perhaps the three course is the 6,500 gallon tank (which I think is the PSC capacity), and the five course (MDC) is 8,000 gallon? What about the 10,000 gallon? I thought someone wrote that the X series tanks were all the same diameter - just different lengths?

Many thanks for the fleet size info,
Dave Evans

--- In STMFC@..., "Steve and Barb Hile" <shile@...> wrote:

Here is some general information about UTLX X series tank cars. Although
there were some built earlier, details of those are currently unknown.
Between 1906 and 1916, more than 7400 X cars were built with about 1500 of
10,000 gallon capacity, 2400 with 8000 gallon capacity and 3500 with 6500
gallon, and lower, capacity. Of these last 3500, about 3000 were built in
1915 and 1916 by Standard Steel Car in number series 11250-12749,
16000-16999 and 18000-18499. While cars were refitted, repurposed and
renumbered over time, these should give some general ranges. The most
common renumbering was for the addition of internal heater coils which would
put cars into 5xxxx numbers.



For the 8000 gallon cars, ACF built 2000 - 6400-7399 in 1914 and 21300-22299
in 1916.



Hope this helps. I've really got to think about writing this stuff up more
formally!



Regards,

Steve Hile



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:03 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways





On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Dave Evans devans1@...
<mailto:devans1%40erols.com> > wrote:
All,

I have sifted through multiple recent threads concerning the type X
underframe upgrade to the MDC old time tank car kit.

A tremendous amount of information and good modeling info.

One thing I could not find in the various postings/threads was just how
man type X cars were built? And how long did most of them last?
If I spent some time (which, at the moment, I don't have) with my '52 UTL
roster, I could give you an exact number. In any case, I can assure you that
several thousand were built and that most of them remained in service
through WW II and into the '50s. For that matter, I have several photos of
them still in service in the mid-'60s. So it's definitely a car that almost
any STFMC modeler should have.

Richard Hendrickson

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





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


Re: 2 bay covered hoppers & auto and DD boxcars in grain service

caboose9792@...
 

A few more thoughts...
The IC/ICG was so chronically short of grain hoppers in the late 60's
they had the new hoppers fitted with removable "hopper toppers" for grain
service during the grain season.

The turning point for bulk grain shipments in hoppers was the ICC case with
the "big John" covered hoppers settled in 1965. Before that there was no
advantage over using a boxcar and the Hopper was more expensive. The Big
John case opened the floodgates on high capacity covered hoppers in grain
service.

Some if not all DD composite boxcars on the granger lines I have seen had
wooden post on the second door and showed evidence of being equipped with
grain doors.

Mark Rickert

In a message dated 2/21/2013 10:06:10 A.M. Central Standard Time,
benjaminscanlon@... writes:

thank you for all the handy information, gentlemen.


Tank car builders-reweighs? was UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Bruce Smith
 

Steve talks about the builders of these cars. Over the years I have acquired photos of type X and V cars. I thought that information was on the right end of the tank along with the ARA type and built date. In looking at these pictures, I observe the following:

Here is the classic arrangement:
UTLX 17891, 10,000 gal type X, Reweigh MILT 2 45. On the right it says ARA II SSC Co 8 15, tested ?-??-46, BUILT 8 15.
So, this is a Standard Steel Co built car (1915), reweighed at Milton (AC&F?) in 1945, tank retested in 1946 (AB brakes, Sulfuric Acid Only stencil)

Now I start to get confused
UTLX 16285, 8,000 gal type X, Reweigh UTC Co 9-37. On the right is says ARA III, PRR, 11 15, some data, TESTED 1 4 52 (at Ex xxxxx CALF?), BUILT 11 15
OK, so the photo is 1952 at least, the car has AB brakes, was last reweighed by UTC in 1937 and was built in 1915 by... um... the Pennsylvania Railroad? Oh, and the car has single rivet rows- shouldn't it be an ARA type II?

Another one:
UTLX 15371, 6,000 gal type V, Reweigh NEW 4 12. On the right end it shows ARA II, PRR, 4 12. No other stencil data is legible on the right end.

Then I see:
UTLX 15487, 6,000 gal type V, Reweigh NEW 4-12. On the right end it shows ARA II, KCS RR, 11 2 25. The test date isn't clear but the repack is 2 xx 40, UTC CO and BUILT 4 (obscured)
Seriously? Ok, so the photo is 1940 at least, the car was built in 1912 and has not been reweighed since, but KCS somehow got their name on the tank?

I'm clearly incorrect in thinking that the name on the right end is the builder. What is the name and date associated with the ARA designation, the company that measured the volume?

I need a beer
Regards
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
From: STMFC@... [STMFC@...] on behalf of Steve and Barb Hile [shile@...]
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:12 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Here is some general information about UTLX X series tank cars. Although
there were some built earlier, details of those are currently unknown.
Between 1906 and 1916, more than 7400 X cars were built with about 1500 of
10,000 gallon capacity, 2400 with 8000 gallon capacity and 3500 with 6500
gallon, and lower, capacity. Of these last 3500, about 3000 were built in
1915 and 1916 by Standard Steel Car in number series 11250-12749,
16000-16999 and 18000-18499. While cars were refitted, repurposed and
renumbered over time, these should give some general ranges. The most
common renumbering was for the addition of internal heater coils which would
put cars into 5xxxx numbers.



For the 8000 gallon cars, ACF built 2000 - 6400-7399 in 1914 and 21300-22299
in 1916.



Hope this helps. I've really got to think about writing this stuff up more
formally!



Regards,

Steve Hile



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:03 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways





On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Dave Evans devans1@...
<mailto:devans1%40erols.com> > wrote:
All,

I have sifted through multiple recent threads concerning the type X
underframe upgrade to the MDC old time tank car kit.

A tremendous amount of information and good modeling info.

One thing I could not find in the various postings/threads was just how
man type X cars were built? And how long did most of them last?
If I spent some time (which, at the moment, I don't have) with my '52 UTL
roster, I could give you an exact number. In any case, I can assure you that
several thousand were built and that most of them remained in service
through WW II and into the '50s. For that matter, I have several photos of
them still in service in the mid-'60s. So it's definitely a car that almost
any STFMC modeler should have.

Richard Hendrickson







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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: California Roadbed

mopacfirst
 

I placed two orders with them last year -- the first one took forever, the second one took only a couple of weeks.

Ron Merrick

--- In STMFC@..., tgregmrtn@... wrote:

Jim,

They still have a website up. Here's a link:

_http://www.homabed.com/_ (http://www.homabed.com/)


Is your Local hobby shop still purchasing Homasote Road bed or just ready
to run kits ... 3^)

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean


In a message dated 2/23/2013 9:54:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jhunter@... writes:




Does anybody know the status of the California Roadbed Company? Are
they still in business? I've used their Homasote roadbed before and
liked it, but a local dealer told me he hadn't heard anything from them
for a year. The California Roadbed web site is still up. Thanks.

Jim Hunter







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


Re: California Roadbed

Richard Bale
 

California Roadbed is definitively still in business. Earlier this week I
spoke with owner Richard Jayne who said he is working as fast as possible
to clear the backlog of orders for Homosote® roadbed that piled up during
his illness last year. California Roadbed can ship most N and O scale items
from stock but HO products continue to be back ordered. Jayne is still not
able to put in a full 40 hour week and asks that modelers be patient as he
is preparing roadbed and filling orders as quickly as possible...

Richard Bale
Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine.
(http://www.model-railroad-hobbyist.com/)

In a message dated 2/23/2013 4:48:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
tgregmrtn@... writes:




Jim,

They still have a website up. Here's a link:

_




_http://www.homabed.com/__ (http://www.homabed.com/_) _ (_
(http://www.model-railroad-hobbyist.com/) _http://www.homabed.com/_
(http://www.homabed.com/) _)


Is your Local hobby shop still purchasing Homasote Road bed or just ready
to run kits ... 3^)

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean

In a message dated 2/23/2013 9:54:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
_ (http://www.model-railroad-hobbyist.com/) _jhunter@...
(mailto:jhunter@...) _ writes:

Does anybody know the status of the California Roadbed Company? Are
they still in business? I've used their Homasote roadbed before and
liked it, but a local dealer told me he hadn't heard anything from them
for a year. The California Roadbed web site is still up. Thanks.

Jim Hunter

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

_ (http://www.model-railroad-hobbyist.com/)


Re: UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Bruce Smith
 

Rob, Folks,

I have already sent a message to the designer describing what we would need <G>. That would be the addition of 3 feet to the under frame between the bolsters. Since the tank anchor need to remain in the center, 1.5 feet must be added on each side of the anchors. The bolsters need to remain the same distance from the ends to preserve the 5' striker to center distance.

Regards
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
From: STMFC@... [STMFC@...] on behalf of Rob Kirkham [rdkirkham@...]
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:15 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Changing the version of this model which members of this list have purchased
isn't a matter of asking Shapeways. What was purchased is a printed version
of another modeller's 3D drawing. Shapeways supports this transaction as
the printer, not the designer. If you want the design altered (example,
longer frame), you either persuade the originator of the design to upload a
modified version at Shapeways, or draw a modified part yourself and do a
kitbash. I have not looked the part over in detail, but it is probably not
that difficult to modify the design my adding length between the bolsters.
Whether that is a prototypically accurate change - I have no idea. Whether
the designer is interested in making that modification - is up to him.

The alternative is to create a centre sill drawing, upload it at Shapeways,
print it, and do the kitbash, adding your own centre sill to the other
designer's parts. My guess is that the hard part would be designing the new
sill to be cut into the original designer's parts without losing too much of
the strength of the original. Maybe drilling a 1/16" hole lengthwise in the
original bolsters and the new sill would allow insertion of a rod that would
restore the integrity.

Rob Kirkham

--------------------------------------------------
From: <caboose9792@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:02 PM
To: <STMFC@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

With over 1500 messages in just this email "in" box currently going back
and finding the original comment in the thread would be tedious as it
could
be in the"old" box too.

So my question is....

Since Shapeways does custom work, could the under frame length be
customized for whatever length of tank you need? I am not sure how the
marketplace
works with them but it should not be an insurmountable hurdle to get
whatever length you need from a technical standpoint.

Is there someone who could shed some light on the matter?

Mark Rickert





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

Yahoo! Groups Links




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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: California Roadbed

Greg Martin
 

Jim,

They still have a website up. Here's a link:

_http://www.homabed.com/_ (http://www.homabed.com/)


Is your Local hobby shop still purchasing Homasote Road bed or just ready
to run kits ... 3^)

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean

In a message dated 2/23/2013 9:54:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jhunter@... writes:




Does anybody know the status of the California Roadbed Company? Are
they still in business? I've used their Homasote roadbed before and
liked it, but a local dealer told me he hadn't heard anything from them
for a year. The California Roadbed web site is still up. Thanks.

Jim Hunter







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


Re: War emergency composite hoppers

Greg Martin
 

Dave,

What railroad do you model, you could do them in CB&Q.

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean

In a message dated 2/23/2013 9:50:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
davelawler@... writes:




Thanks Bruce,
I'll quit trying to match up the P2K hoppers with the Pennsy and look to
other roads for reletering projects.
Dave Lawler
Avon Lake, OH

--- In _STMFC@... (mailto:STMFC@...) , "Bruce F.
Smith" wrote:

Dave,

First, there were two subclasses of composite hopper built by the PRR
during WWII. Neither is really modeled by the P2K hopper.
The first, H31a was a single car. The second, H31b consisted of 500
cars. Both were 32'9" over the strikers. The H31a was 10'8" above the rail
while the H31b as 10'3". The H31a had 9 boards on the side, the H31b had 8. The
vertical ends on at least the H31b were steel, not wood, as shown in a
photo in the Teichmoeller book. Note that the diagrams are on-line at Rob
Schoenberger's site at:
_http://prr.railfan.net/freight/classpage.html?class=H31_
(http://prr.railfan.net/freight/classpage.html?class=H31)

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
From: _STMFC@... (mailto:STMFC@...)
[_STMFC@... (mailto:STMFC@...) ] on behalf of dvdlwlr
[davelawler@...]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:36 PM
To: _STMFC@... (mailto:STMFC@...)
Subject: [STMFC] Re: War emergency composite hoppers

Thanks Bill,
As it turns out I may not even need to borrow the book. I've been
digging a little more and find that the Pennsy composite hoppers were quite a bit
different than the Proto 2000 models.
Here's what I found and maybe a PRR guy can tell me if it's correct or
not:
A. PRR cars were almost two feet shorter, difficult to correct but could
be ignored.
B. The side trusses had gussets at the top to strengthen the connection,
not too difficult to correct.
C. The ends above the slope sheets were wood also, very difficult to
correct.
Dave Lawler
Avon Lake, OH






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


Re: Why This Load For This Car ?

Greg Martin
 

Flour has other uses than making bread or food. There are non-food grade
flour uses as well like the use of flour for mixing with other chemicals to
make glue for plywood. However; I have not seen it shipped in bulk, it could
have been, never say never.

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean

In a message dated 2/23/2013 8:15:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
stvvallee@... writes:




Dear Group...

Several weeks ago, I picked up a back issue of the December, 2009 MODEL
RAILROADER. In it, there was an article called "Modeler's Guide To
Transition-Era Gondolas." On page 55 there is a list of "Typical gondola loads." At
the bottom of the list is this oddity:

W&LE #74740-----AAR CLASS "GB"------LADING....FLOUR

Flour ? FLOUR ??? Why would anyone ship flour in a open gondola ? What
would happen if it rained in transit ??

Can anyone out there shed some light on this odd load for a gondola ??

Thanks in advance
Steve Vallee



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







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


Re: Flat finish...solved by not explained...

Greg Martin
 

In a message dated 2/23/2013 7:50:36 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, take from
a message of _timboconnor@... (mailto:timboconnor@...)
Jack writes:
I have used Badger airbrushes for decades, most recently an Anthem model.
However, a few years ago, I purchased an Iwata double-action, gravity-feed
airbrush which I really love. Since then, I noticed that using the
original Floquil paints (the Dio Sol version) has many times resulted in a
semi-gloss finish even though Floquil paints are designed to produce a completely
flat finish. I have no idea why this happens...maybe the Iwata results in a
finer finish which translates to a semi-gloss finish. But, I'm a civil
engineer and not a chemist.<


Jack,

I have noticed this as well, Floquil I thought should dry as flat dried
with a sheen, not high gloss, just a semi gloss. The two colors that I have
experienced it with is Red Oxide and Boxcar Red. It was a pleasant but
unexpected surprise.

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean


Re: Flat finish...solved by not explained...

Greg Martin
 

Tim,

He was shooting blanks here.

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean

In a message dated 2/23/2013 7:50:36 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
timboconnor@... writes:





I don't know why anyone would have problems with Jack's email. They are
all in plain text format (no HTML, unusual MIME version, or other stuff).

Tim O'Connor

At 2/22/2013 09:14 PM Friday, you wrote:
John Riddell suggested:

So...I purchased some Scalecoat Flat Glaze yesterday and airbrushed a
coat of it onto a spare/test tank I had previously painted and decaled.
Unfortunately, as I was airbrushing on that coat of Flat Glaze, I wasn't very
encouraged. In fact, it actually resulted in a initial gloss finish and I
wasn't convinced it was going to result in a completely flat finish. I was
therefore not surprised when I looked at it this morning...this was actually
more glossy than the coat of Future that I had applied to it in order to
decal this test tank.

Fortunately, as I was waiting for the Flat Glaze to dry flat yesterday
after I airbrushed it onto the tank, I had a memory of a similar problem I've
been having recently. (Obviously, I didn't make that connection a few days
ago.)

I have used Badger airbrushes for decades, most recently an Anthem model.
However, a few years ago, I purchased an Iwata double-action, gravity-feed
airbrush which I really love. Since then, I noticed that using the
original Floquil paints (the DioSol version) has many times resulted in a
semi-gloss finish even though Floquil paints are designed to produce a completely
flat finish. I have no idea why this happens...maybe the Iwata results in a
finer finish which translates to a semi-gloss finish. But, I'm a civil
engineer and not a chemist.

So, this afternoon, I decided to test my conclusions. I used by older
Badger airbrush with my old favorite Dullcoat to overspray my test tank (with
the semi-gloss finish from the Scalecoat Flat Glaze) and the result was a
COMPLETELY FLAT FINISH (sorry for the yelling out load). So, my problem has
been solved but not explained.

If anyone can explain why an Iwata airbrush can result in a semi-gloss
finish, I would like to hear it. Or, if you have experienced the same
problem, let me know.

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Re: UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Robert kirkham
 

Changing the version of this model which members of this list have purchased isn't a matter of asking Shapeways. What was purchased is a printed version of another modeller's 3D drawing. Shapeways supports this transaction as the printer, not the designer. If you want the design altered (example, longer frame), you either persuade the originator of the design to upload a modified version at Shapeways, or draw a modified part yourself and do a kitbash. I have not looked the part over in detail, but it is probably not that difficult to modify the design my adding length between the bolsters. Whether that is a prototypically accurate change - I have no idea. Whether the designer is interested in making that modification - is up to him.

The alternative is to create a centre sill drawing, upload it at Shapeways, print it, and do the kitbash, adding your own centre sill to the other designer's parts. My guess is that the hard part would be designing the new sill to be cut into the original designer's parts without losing too much of the strength of the original. Maybe drilling a 1/16" hole lengthwise in the original bolsters and the new sill would allow insertion of a rod that would restore the integrity.

Rob Kirkham

--------------------------------------------------
From: <caboose9792@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:02 PM
To: <STMFC@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

With over 1500 messages in just this email "in" box currently going back
and finding the original comment in the thread would be tedious as it could
be in the"old" box too.

So my question is....

Since Shapeways does custom work, could the under frame length be
customized for whatever length of tank you need? I am not sure how the marketplace
works with them but it should not be an insurmountable hurdle to get
whatever length you need from a technical standpoint.

Is there someone who could shed some light on the matter?

Mark Rickert




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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

Jason Hill
 

Greetings Mark and List,
I've done a few models for customers on my Shapeways account, mostly I'm using it for prototyping future CAD-injection molded parts. From what I recall when I uploaded "publicly purchasable" files, they make you agree to possible future changes the file if a customer requests it. I don't think they mean turn your tank car frame into a boxcar, but changing the length might be easily done from the master file. Also, I don't think that Shapeways themselves are allowed to change an artist's files for a 3rd party's request, Copyrights rules, etc. Best to try to contact the person that designed the file and ask them to do a variation.

Jason Hill
Owl Mountain Models.
www.owlmtmodels.com

--- In STMFC@..., caboose9792@... wrote:

So my question is....

Since Shapeways does custom work, could the under frame length be
customized for whatever length of tank you need? I am not sure how the marketplace
works with them but it should not be an insurmountable hurdle to get
whatever length you need from a technical standpoint.

Is there someone who could shed some light on the matter?

Mark Rickert

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


Re: Why This Load For This Car ?

caboose9792@...
 

Only other thing I could thing of would be a "correction" from fluorspar
and I would think the W&LE and many other roads around the country would
have handled it. The usual loading method would have been in plain or drop
bottom gondolas and traffic declined once bulk imports were allowed into the
countryy in the 1950s. Usual processes were metal processing were it was a
fluxing agent. White and Purple seemed to be the common colors I see in
local samples (from West Kentucky).

I could see finely ground fluorspar being mistaken for flour by someone
quickly glancing at a waybill and or a gondola load.

Mark Rickert

In a message dated 2/23/2013 10:15:52 A.M. Central Standard Time,
stvvallee@... writes:

Dear Group...

Several weeks ago, I picked up a back issue of the December, 2009 MODEL
RAILROADER. In it, there was an article called "Modeler's Guide To
Transition-Era Gondolas." On page 55 there is a list of "Typical gondola loads." At
the bottom of the list is this oddity:

W&LE #74740-----AAR CLASS "GB"------LADING....FLOUR

Flour ? FLOUR ??? Why would anyone ship flour in a open gondola ? What
would happen if it rained in transit ??

Can anyone out there shed some light on this odd load for a gondola ??

Thanks in advance
Steve Vallee


Re: UTLX tank car parts from Model Shapeways

caboose9792@...
 

With over 1500 messages in just this email "in" box currently going back
and finding the original comment in the thread would be tedious as it could
be in the"old" box too.

So my question is....

Since Shapeways does custom work, could the under frame length be
customized for whatever length of tank you need? I am not sure how the marketplace
works with them but it should not be an insurmountable hurdle to get
whatever length you need from a technical standpoint.

Is there someone who could shed some light on the matter?

Mark Rickert

80961 - 80980 of 195394