Date   

Re: Styrene Tank Car candidate (and a resin nomination)

Bill Welch
 

Thank you to both Steve & David for straightening me out on the Type V and X cars. Maybe the editors of RP CYC can be convinced to do an article or articles on the UTLX Tank car fleet so that we can all be up to speed on this fleet.

Bill Welch

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

The Van Dyke (V cars) were the ones with no center sill, or sills of any
kind, for that matter that had bolsters and draft gear mounted to a heavy
bottom sheet of the tank. The X cars were also designed by Van Dyke and
featured the center anchor attaching the tank to the center sill. The
running boards were attached to the tank, as they were on the V cars.
Construction of the V and X cars overlapped considerably up into 1916, when
the X-3 design took over to correspond to the MCB Class III standards that
went into effect in 1917.



Smaller size (6500 gallons) of both X and V cars were converted for use on
the D&RGW narrow gauge, but the X cars were the ones that got new and unique
underframes, while the V cars were mostly a truck conversion. I am
currently chasing a few small X-3 cars that were constructed for use on
Eastern (W&W and OR&W) and Midwestern (CMStP&P) narrow gauge.



Hope this is useful.



Steve Hile



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
David
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:30 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Styrene Tank Car candidate (and a resin nomination)





--- In STMFC@... , "lnbill"
wrote:
For resin I nominate the UTLX "X" type. I hope I have the nomenclature
correct, these were the cars built without an u/f, but then have a heavy
center sill added, correct?

X was the design which succeeded the frameless Van Dyke tanks, not
conversions of them. One or the other of the famous narrow-gauge tanks can
be converted back to a standard gauge X without too much trouble.

David Thompson





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


Re: AAR flatcars

Scott H. Haycock
 

There's something wrong with that link. Try this and scroll to bottom: http://www.intermountain-railway.com/ho/hoflatcar.htm


Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent

----- Original Message -----





For those who are interested, it turns out that Intermountain is taking reservations for this car! http://www.intermountain-railway.com/ho/html/48752.htm. The bulkheads match the protoype photo referenced below.
Drats! I was so looking forward to finding more pictures, finding correct trucks, piecing together decals from 5-10 sets, painting, oh, and saving $4.00 to boot! Maybe the trucks will be wrong! Just kidding.
Sometimes RTR IS the only reasonable way to go. Bye... I have reservation to make.

Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent


Re: AAR flatcars

Scott H. Haycock
 

For those who are interested, it turns out that Intermountain is taking reservations for this car! http://www.intermountain-railway.com/ho/html/48752.htm. The bulkheads match the protoype photo referenced below.
Drats! I was so looking forward to finding more pictures, finding correct trucks, piecing together decals from 5-10 sets, painting, oh, and saving $4.00 to boot! Maybe the trucks will be wrong! Just kidding.
Sometimes RTR IS the only reasonable way to go. Bye... I have reservation to make.


Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent

----- Original Message -----





I've been looking at your article and I have TSC #17 which reprints photos and plans of the Erie car. In Morning Sun's NYC color guide #2, PG. 82, there is a photo of NYC #481134 (series 481100-481134), a car converted to a bulkhead car from an AAR 70t car. Does anyone have any photos of one of these cars? A better view of the bulkhead structure would go a long way toward building one of these cars. Now to find a model...


Re: The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar

Scott H. Haycock
 

Over on the HO list there is a current thread about code 100 rail, mixing eras, etc. Old fashion playing with trains sort of stuff and they are wondering why some hobbyists take it to such extremes!
I'm curious Dennis. How large a share of the hobby market, and dollars spent, are the 2 ends of the spectrum? Has the industry any statistics?


Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent

----- Original Message -----








....... Neither are most of the other practitioners in model
railroading, so we manufacturers have to provide what the market dictates. Those
of you that want to go Proto scale, have at it.

Dennis




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


Re: ADMIN: Please note. Was: Re: Re: How far do we go?

Greg Martin
 

Okay Boss,

I know you might think a low of 59º is cold but that is higher than our
high up here in the Willamette Valley today. They are talking freezing FOG
over night this weekend. I never heard of Freezing Fog or Sun Breaks until I
moved to Oregon...

But I have to agree the NMRA stuff is old news and the NMRA vs Prototype
really had nothing to do with Scott Haycock's original message.

Take it from a guy who thinks that SHAKE_N_TAKE is a good thing, even if
the completed model isn't always P:87.1 to the letter it sure feels like
good old fashioned modeling.

So, if I had another Revell Flat around I would likely SHAKE_N_TAKE it to
the next level just because I owned it. As a matter of fact there are a
couple of us who are talking about using the SHAKE_N_TAKE group or perhaps
another to SHAKE_N_TAKE the heck out of a few WALTHERS nee-Train Miniature PRR
X29's just for the fact we seem to all own a couple or more and what does
a modeler need worst than more PRR X29's??? Archer Rivets are wonderful
things...

Greg Martin

PS Scott email me off line I have a couple of must do's to the Revell flat
that I need to share with you and I have a photo I took in 1991 in Denver
of a D&RGW car in the Denver yard I will share with you...

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


The Big Boss, Head Judge and Sheriff writes:

"



Since this subject can be a bit controversial and at times some of the
members tend to be...shall we say emotional regarding the subject of the NMRA
and its standards...I will caution the members to be aware of one of the key
rules of the STMFC. You may criticize OR praise a product [ including the
NMRA standards ] FREE from criticism from other members. That does not mean
you have to agree with someone's position.

The Moderate Jail is awfully cold this time of year.

Thanks,
Mike Brock
Head Judge and Sheriff of the STMFC








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


Re: Styrene Tank Car candidate (and a resin nomination)

Steve and Barb Hile
 

The Van Dyke (V cars) were the ones with no center sill, or sills of any
kind, for that matter that had bolsters and draft gear mounted to a heavy
bottom sheet of the tank. The X cars were also designed by Van Dyke and
featured the center anchor attaching the tank to the center sill. The
running boards were attached to the tank, as they were on the V cars.
Construction of the V and X cars overlapped considerably up into 1916, when
the X-3 design took over to correspond to the MCB Class III standards that
went into effect in 1917.



Smaller size (6500 gallons) of both X and V cars were converted for use on
the D&RGW narrow gauge, but the X cars were the ones that got new and unique
underframes, while the V cars were mostly a truck conversion. I am
currently chasing a few small X-3 cars that were constructed for use on
Eastern (W&W and OR&W) and Midwestern (CMStP&P) narrow gauge.



Hope this is useful.



Steve Hile



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
David
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:30 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Styrene Tank Car candidate (and a resin nomination)





--- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "lnbill"
wrote:
For resin I nominate the UTLX "X" type. I hope I have the nomenclature
correct, these were the cars built without an u/f, but then have a heavy
center sill added, correct?

X was the design which succeeded the frameless Van Dyke tanks, not
conversions of them. One or the other of the famous narrow-gauge tanks can
be converted back to a standard gauge X without too much trouble.

David Thompson


Re: Styrene Tank Car candidate (and a resin nomination)

David
 

--- In STMFC@..., "lnbill" wrote:
For resin I nominate the UTLX "X" type. I hope I have the nomenclature correct, these were the cars built without an u/f, but then have a heavy center sill added, correct?
X was the design which succeeded the frameless Van Dyke tanks, not conversions of them. One or the other of the famous narrow-gauge tanks can be converted back to a standard gauge X without too much trouble.

David Thompson


ADMIN: Please note. Was: Re: Re: How far do we go?

Mikebrock
 

Since this subject can be a bit controversial and at times some of the members tend to be...shall we say emotional regarding the subject of the NMRA and its standards...I will caution the members to be aware of one of the key rules of the STMFC. You may criticize OR praise a product [ including the NMRA standards ] FREE from criticism from other members. That does not mean you have to agree with someone's position.

The Moderate Jail is awfully cold this time of year.

Thanks,
Mike Brock
Head Judge and Sheriff of the STMFC


Styrene Tank Car candidate (and a resin nomination)

Bill Welch
 

I really hate interrupting the Revell flat car thread...

I was intrigued to hear the rumors of a UTLX tank car in styrene, even though the size or capacity is not mentioned. I thought I would mention a second design I would think would have considerable appeal, namely the General American Type 30. I am aware of photos of the 8,000 gallon capacity for several different lessors, plus GATX of course. Hopefully a styrene manufacturer has been apprised of its potential also.

For resin I nominate the UTLX "X" type. I hope I have the nomenclature correct, these were the cars built without an u/f, but then have a heavy center sill added, correct?

Bill Welch


The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "David" wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., "Arved" wrote:
Do the wheels on your model have NMRA RP25 contours? Those "Code 110" wheels mandated by NMRA standard S4.2 have a tread width that's more accurate for S scale, than HO.
Code 110 wheelsets are sold as "scale" (versus Flyer barrels) in S. I find it amusing that P:64 wheels are code 87, while P:87 wheels are code 64. The true scale wheels do look much better, but then you have to fill in the backs of the truck sideframes.

David Thompson
So, what's a "Code 88 wheel"? Just another in a long line of halfway measures.
If you guys want true fidelity to scale, go to P:87, as expressed in NMRA S-4.1
Wheels, Proto&Fine Scales. What's the matter? Don't like being limited to 60"
minimum radius? Neither are most of the other practitioners in model
railroading, so we manufacturers have to provide what the market dictates. Those
of you that want to go Proto scale, have at it.

Dennis


The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar

Andy Carlson
 

Facing the risk of being accused of sending the plow down the same furrow twice, I wish to note that a "semi-scale" code 88 wheel's tread width is only about .004" (four thousandth of an inch) wider than a P:87 wheel. The flange, however, is noticeably wider to conform to the compromise RP25 wheel flange width. That feature is what allows semi-scale wheel sets to perform somewhat satisfactorily on commercial track.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

--- On Tue, 2/5/13, David <jaydeet2001@...> wrote:

From: David <jaydeet2001@...>
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar
To: STMFC@...
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013, 1:09 PM








 









--- In STMFC@..., "Arved" wrote:

Do the wheels on your model have NMRA RP25 contours? Those "Code 110" wheels mandated by NMRA standard S4.2 have a tread width that's more accurate for S scale, than HO.


Code 110 wheelsets are sold as "scale" (versus Flyer barrels) in S. I find it amusing that P:64 wheels are code 87, while P:87 wheels are code 64. The true scale wheels do look much better, but then you have to fill in the backs of the truck sideframes.



David Thompson






















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


The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar

David
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Arved" wrote:
Do the wheels on your model have NMRA RP25 contours? Those "Code 110" wheels mandated by NMRA standard S4.2 have a tread width that's more accurate for S scale, than HO.
Code 110 wheelsets are sold as "scale" (versus Flyer barrels) in S. I find it amusing that P:64 wheels are code 87, while P:87 wheels are code 64. The true scale wheels do look much better, but then you have to fill in the backs of the truck sideframes.

David Thompson


Re: How far do we go? Was:Revell Flatcar

Tim O'Connor
 

Sorry, but I missed who posted this. I'm pretty sure none of the current .088 tread wheel sets on the
HO market fully conform to any NMRA standard or recommendation -- they're an adaptation to outdated
standards/RPs, and I think most of the vendors are compatible with one another for these wheels.

NWSL makes a Proto:HO wheel with an .063 tread width but with RP-25/88 flanges and the "standard "
back-to-back distance, so the wheels will operate on high quality NMRA standard track (but not many
brands of mass produced switches). NWSL also used to make an .074 tread width wheel with RP-25
flanges. I ran a car with these wheels for many years on a large club layout with hand laid track, and it
never once derailed anywhere.

Tim O'Connor

----- Original Message -----

Ahh but, Without the NMRA we wouldn't have compatability among manufacturers, a VERY important factor in everything about our hobby!


Re: How far do we go?

BRIAN PAUL EHNI <behni@...>
 

I was going to go for the Windows Command Prompt reference, but thought
better of it.

Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni

From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:31 PM
To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: How far do we go?







Bolero!!

Oh, nevermind, wrong composer.

From: "soolinehistory" destorzek@... <mailto:destorzek%40mchsi.com> >
To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 2:23:52 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: How far do we go?

--- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , Bill Daniels
wrote:

...Why don't they rectify this? Even the old S-4 wheelsets will track through a
switch built to these standards....

Backward compatibility, so those Revel flatcars can still be run.

Dennis

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









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


Re: How far do we go?

Tim O'Connor
 

Bolero!!

Oh, nevermind, wrong composer.


From: "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 2:23:52 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: How far do we go?

--- In STMFC@..., Bill Daniels wrote:

...Why don't they rectify this? Even the old S-4 wheelsets will track through a switch built to these standards....
Backward compatibility, so those Revel flatcars can still be run.

Dennis


Re: How far do we go?

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Bill Daniels wrote:

...Why don't they rectify this? Even the old S-4 wheelsets will track through a switch built to these standards....
Backward compatibility, so those Revel flatcars can still be run.

Dennis


Re: Revell Flatcar

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
But Tony, they are still made of phosphor-bronze. They're only stained black. And you evaded Arved's question. ;-)
See Bill Daniels' reply, which I think answers it eloquently.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: How far do we go?

Benjamin Hom
 

Tim O'Connor asked:
"...what NMRA standard for wheel profiles? I've only heard about a
recommendation."

Wheel standards as follows:
http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/S-4_1ProtoWheels.html
http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-4.2%202010.02.24.pdf 

Contour is still an RP:
http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25%202009.07.pdf


Ben Hom


Re: How far do we go?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Bill Daniels wrote:
But, on the other hand, I do think that the NMRA has really dropped the ball over the last 50 or so years. They still have a standard for wheels that NOBODY has made for the last quarter century. And the track standards are even worse... my club (Napa, CA in case you are curious) will not certify cars with "code 88" wheelsets to operate on the layout unless they have been pushed out to the absolute wide limit... otherwise they tend to fall in between the points of the turnouts (built to NMRA standards), which scale out to a foot or more between the point and the stock rail. A real railroad turnout is, what, 2 to 3 inches at best? Why don't they rectify this? Even the old S-4 wheelsets will track through a switch built to these standards. Is the NMRA afraid of alienating the switch manufacturers like Atlas, Peco and Shinohara? One wonders why... after all, as I mentioned above, nobody makes wheels to the old S-4 standard, and hasn't for the last quarter
century. Some manufacturers turnouts haven't changed since the 1950s. In fact, I don't think that the NMRA has done much at all over the past 50 years in advancing the hobby (don't get me started on DCC... Lenz developed the system that the NMRA merely adopted, much to the chagrin of other manufacturers and consumers at the time. There were better systems out there, and they now have been Betamaxxed.)
Well said, Bill. The NMRA cannot contain itself, patting itself on the back for "compatibility standards" which were promulgated over 50 years ago. Fine, but as we ask many public figures, what have you done for me lately? The LAST fifty years have pretty much been a vacuum for standards, partly because at least one manufacturer threatened to sue if "denied" an NMRA conformance warrant. And Bill is also exactly on target regarding DCC. Lenz's representative, who I won't name, simply pushed the committee to adopt a single approach. There is NOT an NMRA standard which the NMRA itself developed. But that said, everyone else DID fall into line, and today we have decent inter-operability, absent a few folks like MTH. But that's not really a freight car issue.
It's possible the NMRA believes that "all the necessary standards already exist," and as Bill points out, wheels are just one of the areas in which one might suggest further work. A few things HAVE been refined, such as G-scale standards and a few others, but by and large the NMRA's favorite claim, to have created the standards for the hobby, has a lot of cobwebs on it, if you look at specifics.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: How far do we go?

Tim O'Connor
 

Richard, what NMRA standard for wheel profiles? I've only heard about a recommendation.

Don't you recall when Athearn tried putting .088 wheels on their Genesis freight cars? They
came under heavy fire from the hoi polloi. So back to fat wheels on Genesis models. Ugh and
double Ugh. Imagine how nice those Genesis Mt's would look with .088 drivers....

I think most of the rest of the world hasn't caught up yet with NMRA #1. They're definitely not
ready for NMRA #2.

Tim O'Connor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Brennan" <brennan8@...>

Standards (should) evolve... and those changes help carry the
industry forward. IMHO... it is time for NMRA2.
We already have some parts of it in the "Fine" and "Proto" standards
and recommendations. The rest need to be agreed and "packaged" for
commercial use.

81561 - 81580 of 195377