Date   

Re: Norwest Scale Models

Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Ben,
I approached Brian Pate about buying his patterns and was flatly refused.
The line is dead, as far as I'm concerned.
Was there something in particular you were interested in?
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@..., "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@...> wrote:

Anyone know the status of the Norwest resin line? Found a thread back
in 2010 regarding possibilities of who some of the kits may go to but
nothing since. Thanks in advance!

Ben Hom


Norwest Scale Models

Benjamin Hom
 

Anyone know the status of the Norwest resin line? Found a thread back
in 2010 regarding possibilities of who some of the kits may go to but
nothing since. Thanks in advance!

Ben Hom


Re: Rocket Express kits (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

So, from "Rocket Express" it took 11 months...

I guess my order from "Slow as a Turtle" may take even longer?

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Claus Schlund
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:06 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Rocket Express kits



Hi Jan and List Members,

A few years back I ordered some items from him. I mailed him a check. After about 6 months the check got submitted for payment. Then about 5 months later I got my items. Total: 11 months.

He did come thru, but you should expect the need to be patient!

Claus Schlund







Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Louisville & Wadley Boxcar(s).

BRIAN <briantovey123@...>
 

Thanks Al,

I dont think it came from the CofG,as the only info i have is in the STMFC reference manual,and it only list`s 300 cars(#3000-3299)with Dreadnaught ends/H,Radial roof.

I had thought that it might have escaped from the Georgia & Florida though,as i have pictures of similar cars at Douglas in 55' on the RIP tracks.

Brian Tovey,UK.

--- In STMFC@..., "al_brown03" <abrown@...> wrote:

In the 1/43 ORER, L&W box 110 (L&W's only boxcar) is listed as *passenger* equipment. (Did they maybe use it for LCL on their mixed train?) Equipment owned by the Wrightsville & Tennille group of railroads (including L&W and Wadley Southern) wasn't used in interchange. The 1/53 ORER doesn't show any L&W boxcars.

The sides are Howe truss all right; the end looks to me like an *inverse* Murphy. I can't tell what the roof is from that angle, would defer to better roof spotters than I. Since these roads were controlled by the Central of Georgia (Drury, "Historical Guide", p 359), might L&W 110 have come from the CofG?

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.






--- In STMFC@..., "BRIAN" <briantovey123@> wrote:

Hi Group,

I`ve put a photo of L&W boxcar #110 in a photo folder entitled 'BT`s Pic`s'.
Can anyone tell me if this was the part of a group of cars the Louisville & Wadley railway had,and if so is were they used in interchange service or for on line use only.
And am i correct in that it is an Alternate ARA car with Murphy ends and a Hutchins Dry lading roof?.

Thanks in advance,

Brian T.


A New Photo

Paul Hillman
 

I saw a photo posted to this group by csxt5555 of a diesel horn and I don't see a message about it. Was this 3D copy made, what scale & who made it? I need some small detail parts made and maybe this person(s) could make them?

Paul Hillman


ADMIN: Re: Re: Ping: Jerry Glow

Mikebrock
 

Guys,
Note that messages criticizing the business practices of a manufacturer are prohibited on the STMFC. At first glance this might seem unproductive but let me assure you that the rule is well founded.

I can understand the concern a member might have with slow responses by a manufacturer including responses to inquiries. And, the STMFC management has permitted from time to time a few messages regarding this. A deluge of such messages, however, is not going to be permitted. And, I don't think such a deluge is going to help. Therefore the thread about Gerry Glow is now terminated.

Given all that, and while the STMFC management believes that what happens outside the STMFC should stay outside the STMFC, if a manufacturer advertises on the STMFC, they are then inside the STMFC and the STMFC then has some obligation to inquire to the manufacturer as to their situation. The STMFC management has done that. The STMFC management will report when it receives any information. In the meantime...

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Re: Ping: Jerry Glow

Craig Zeni
 

On May 15, 2013, at 8:19 AM, STMFC@... wrote:

Likewise... I have a decal order with Jerry outstanding from Feb 2012 and am getting no replies to direct emails, so I too beg the lists' forgiveness in attempting contact via this route.

Alan Monk
London, UK
And I as well, back to July of last year...

Craig Zeni
Cary NC


Re: Rocket Express kits

 

In other words, not much different from other resin kit makers.

Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni

From: Claus Schlund <claus@...>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:05 AM
To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Rocket Express kits






Hi Jan and List Members,

A few years back I ordered some items from him. I mailed him a check. After
about 6 months the check got submitted for payment. Then about 5 months
later I got my items. Total: 11 months.

He did come thru, but you should expect the need to be patient!

Claus Schlund


Re: Rocket Express kits

Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;)
 

Hi Jan and List Members,

A few years back I ordered some items from him. I mailed him a check. After about 6 months the check got submitted for payment. Then about 5 months later I got my items. Total: 11 months.

He did come thru, but you should expect the need to be patient!

Claus Schlund


Re: Ping: Jerry Glow

George Corral <g.corral@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...> wrote:

Same here, nothing from my November order.


Likewise... I have a decal order with Jerry outstanding from Feb 2012 and am getting no replies to direct emails, so I too beg the lists' forgiveness in attempting contact via this route.

Alan Monk
London, UK

Oops! I sent in an order 3 weeks ago. Did I make a mistake? Paging Mr. Glow. Paging Mr. Glow. Mr. Glow.

George Corral
La Grange, KY


Re: Red Caboose HO 38545-03 1937 AAR Double Door Box Car, Southern Pacific (Sans Serif) #63971

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Robert Kirkham <rdkirkham@...> wrote:

An interesting discussion of interior height.

The thing about this issue that I usually find a bit confusing is that the
height dimension discussed is interior height, isn't it? And with different
floor designs and interior equipment from car series to car series, the
difference of inches can get a bit hard to convert into exterior dimensions.
As I see it, this height issue isn't really the height of the side sill
above the rails, nor rail to eave or rail to running board height (though
these relationships matter) - these changed when trucks were swapped and
depending whether a car is loaded or unloaded (not something I model - does
anyone? seems impractical given our limited fleets on an operating layout
doesn't it?).
Except, most of those things you mention were pretty standard, Rob. ALL of the AAR boxcar deigns used the same floor / underframe construction, and almost all used the same roof construction, so the IH is a viable comparison between different cars built to this common design between 1932 and say, 1960.

Pre 1932 cars become a little more imprecise, but still, for all cars that used 12" channel center sills, or fishbelly sills with 12" draft sills, the thickness of the flooring was standard within an inch, and almost all cars used either 7" or 9" side sills, so again there was not that much dimensional variation, and that takes us back to the USRA designs of 1918. Changing trucks did not typically change the floor height, because the coupler height was set by the sills, and any change of centerplate height had to be accompanied by enough re-building to keep the sills at the same height. Since the standard centerplate height became lower over time, this normally entailed shimming the centerplate down on older cars to match the new trucks.

I'll admit, as one gets into the pre-WWI "experimental" period, the IH doesn't tell us much about the overall height of the car, but by the WWII era it does.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Ping: Jerry Glow

gary laakso
 

Same here, nothing from my November order.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock

From: Monk Alan
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:20 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Ping: Jerry Glow


Likewise... I have a decal order with Jerry outstanding from Feb 2012 and am getting no replies to direct emails, so I too beg the lists' forgiveness in attempting contact via this route.

Alan Monk
London, UK

***********************************************************************************
The contents of this e-mail and any attached files are confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately at mailto:postmaster%40tfl.gov.uk and remove it from your system. If received in error, please do not use, disseminate, forward, print or copy this email or its content. Transport for London excludes any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached files.

Transport for London is a statutory corporation whose principal office is at Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0TL. Further information about Transport for London’s subsidiary companies can be found on the following link: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/4510.aspx

Although TfL have scanned this email (including attachments) for viruses, recipients are advised to carry out their own virus check before opening any attachments, as TfL accepts no liability for any loss, or damage which may be caused by viruses.
***********************************************************************************







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


Re: Ping: Jerry Glow

Monk Alan <Alan.Monk@...>
 

Likewise... I have a decal order with Jerry outstanding from Feb 2012 and am getting no replies to direct emails, so I too beg the lists' forgiveness in attempting contact via this route.

Alan Monk
London, UK






***********************************************************************************
The contents of this e-mail and any attached files are confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately at postmaster@... and remove it from your system. If received in error, please do not use, disseminate, forward, print or copy this email or its content. Transport for London excludes any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached files.

Transport for London is a statutory corporation whose principal office is at Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0TL. Further information about Transport for London’s subsidiary companies can be found on the following link: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/4510.aspx

Although TfL have scanned this email (including attachments) for viruses, recipients are advised to carry out their own virus check before opening any attachments, as TfL accepts no liability for any loss, or damage which may be caused by viruses.
***********************************************************************************



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


Red Caboose HO 38545-03 1937 AAR Double Door Box Car, Southern Pacific (Sans Serif) #63971

Robert kirkham
 

An interesting discussion of interior height.

The thing about this issue that I usually find a bit confusing is that the height dimension discussed is interior height, isn't it? And with different floor designs and interior equipment from car series to car series, the difference of inches can get a bit hard to convert into exterior dimensions. As I see it, this height issue isn't really the height of the side sill above the rails, nor rail to eave or rail to running board height (though these relationships matter) - these changed when trucks were swapped and depending whether a car is loaded or unloaded (not something I model - does anyone? seems impractical given our limited fleets on an operating layout doesn't it?).

Of course the varied height of cars is a signature look in late steam era trains, and if you know that one car is supposed to be taller than another, running them in a train with wrong heights might be visually distracting. But you'll need to be watching very carefully. Honestly, I'm not sure how significant having one rare car that is not bang on correct height will be for the impact of the overall train. (in Vancouver in 1946 an SP automobile car is rare).

Besides the varied height effect, I think looking at a model one at a time its more about proportions - width of side panels to height proportions; door width to height proportions; number of door corrugations; rivet patterns; etc.

Anyhow - does anyone know the sill to eave height of these Southern Pacific automobile boxcars?

Rob Kirkham

-----Original Message-----
From: rreed_eagle
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:08 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Red Caboose HO 38545-03 1937 AAR Double Door Box Car, Southern Pacific (Sans Serif) #63971

Your call as to whether the 4 inches is unacceptable.
When it comes to roof height, it's always been a standing rule with me that one inch off prototype is generally okay. Two inches, it depends on the car but it's probably not going to be okay. And three inches off of prototype is too much and needs to be either fixed or never built.

My three cent nickel,,

Ryan Reed



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Louisville & Wadley Boxcar(s).

al_brown03
 

In the 1/43 ORER, L&W box 110 (L&W's only boxcar) is listed as *passenger* equipment. (Did they maybe use it for LCL on their mixed train?) Equipment owned by the Wrightsville & Tennille group of railroads (including L&W and Wadley Southern) wasn't used in interchange. The 1/53 ORER doesn't show any L&W boxcars.

The sides are Howe truss all right; the end looks to me like an *inverse* Murphy. I can't tell what the roof is from that angle, would defer to better roof spotters than I. Since these roads were controlled by the Central of Georgia (Drury, "Historical Guide", p 359), might L&W 110 have come from the CofG?

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@..., "BRIAN" <briantovey123@...> wrote:

Hi Group,

I`ve put a photo of L&W boxcar #110 in a photo folder entitled 'BT`s Pic`s'.
Can anyone tell me if this was the part of a group of cars the Louisville & Wadley railway had,and if so is were they used in interchange service or for on line use only.
And am i correct in that it is an Alternate ARA car with Murphy ends and a Hutchins Dry lading roof?.

Thanks in advance,

Brian T.


Rocket Express kits

needles_sub <needles_sub@...>
 

Can anyone tell me if what is the normal time frame for receiving Ron's kits? I ordered two kits last year, received a email from Ron on March 24, this year, telling me he was finishing them up. Since then, no replies to any emails.
Any insights would be helpful.
Thanks

Jan Podganski Jr


Louisville & Wadley Boxcar(s).

BRIAN <briantovey123@...>
 

Hi Group,

I`ve put a photo of L&W boxcar #110 in a photo folder entitled 'BT`s Pic`s'.
Can anyone tell me if this was the part of a group of cars the Louisville & Wadley railway had,and if so is were they used in interchange service or for on line use only.
And am i correct in that it is an Alternate ARA car with Murphy ends and a Hutchins Dry lading roof?.

Thanks in advance,

Brian T.


Re: Red Caboose HO 38545-03 1937 AAR Double Door Box Car, Southern Pacific (Sans Serif) #63971

Ryan Reed
 

Your call as to whether the 4 inches is unacceptable.
When it comes to roof height, it's always been a standing rule with me that one inch off prototype is generally okay. Two inches, it depends on the car but it's probably not going to be okay. And three inches off of prototype is too much and needs to be either fixed or never built.

My three cent nickel,,

Ryan Reed


Re: Red Caboose HO 38545-03 1937 AAR Double Door Box Car, Southern Pacific (Sans Serif) #63971

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
Tony, try to pay attention .. The Red Caboose MODEL is 10'0" IH and is therefore not correct for this SP car.
Tim, try to read what I wrote. Yes, the MODEL is wrong, but by 4 inches, not 6 inches as YOU said. YES, it's not correct. Please note that I said:

Your call as to whether the 4 inches is unacceptable.
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: Red Caboose HO 38545-03 1937 AAR Double Door Box Car, Southern Pacific (Sans Serif) #63971

Tim O'Connor
 

Tony, try to pay attention .. The Red Caboose MODEL is 10'0" IH and is therefore not correct for this SP car.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Thompson" <thompson@...>


Tim's comment about car height does present another challenge I hadn't anticipated, so maybe I need to change starting points. That and find suitable doors. For clarity, are you saying the 2 doors total an extra 1', or each door adds an extra 1' (total 2')?
I will send a photo off-list. The door opening was 14 feet, thus two 7-foot doors. Tim is wrong about the height, the IH was 10' 4". Your call as to whether the 4 inches is unacceptable.

Tony Thompson