Date   

Re: 3d printing challenges etc.

Scott H. Haycock
 

Can you tell us what the minimum spacing of the two vertices would be to avoid this condition?
Thanks for a good explanation! Y our examples were very clear.


Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent

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





Rob Kirkham wrote:


<edited>

As a method, this should work without a problem. And usually it does.
Where it does haywire is when Sketchup finds two vertices so close together
that it can't treat them as two. It then infers a solution that often
leaves gaps in the skin of the model. Very often the gap is extremely
tiny - less than .001" - so it is not really visible and is hard to detect.

I hope this makes enough sense.

Rob

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dave Nelson" Lake_Muskoka@... >
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:53 AM
To: STMFC@... >
Subject: RE: [STMFC] 3d printing challenges etc.





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


Re: 3d printing challenges etc.

Robert kirkham
 

Having taken a little time to digest this note, I thought I'd try to answer it on list.

So the answer is yes, it will be a problem to export the file for the 3D printer. Shapeways calls this a non-manifold part. Shapeways rules require that the inside of a part be a whole, without vertices, edges or faces inside the midst of the part. I believe this rule is common for all 3d printers, so always draw this way.

But what you are describing is part of the answer I have used many times. I will give an example. Imagine a drawing of a large steel cube. I want to add a row of rivets at a point about 1" from the corner edge. So, in Sketchup, I would do the following:
- draw my rivet.
- make it into a component (so I can move it around on the cube without the two blending together. This allows more precise positioning)
- on the cube I will use the tape measure tool to draw in guide lines that will help place all the rivets in exact locations - i.e. in a row and evenly spaced.
- position the rivet component on the surface of the cube at the guideline spot
- make a copy of the component
- paste each subsequent copy of the rivets in place
- select the face of the cube on which the rivets have been added
- right click to produce a menu that includes the intersect with model command
- delete the surface of the cube under each rivet head
- explode the rivet head components
done.

One can make this a little easier by copying all the rivets into a row first, then positioning, intersection, deleting and exploding.

And for the most part this is quite reliable. Now change the example.

Imagine that you have drawn a wood sheathed boxcar side, with steel hat section bracing. You want to add a door stop that sits over both the wood sheathing and the steel frame. The door stop will have an uneven base. Particularly if rather than sitting on one board of the side sheathing, it straddles the joint between two of them.

In this case, I would draw the door stop normally. Then I would use the pull tool on its base and deepen the base so that it is deeper than any of the undulations in the car side. In this example, full size, you might make the base an inch deeper than it would be in the real thing. Another example: if the door stop is compared to a shoe, the door stop with deeper base is like platform shoes (sorry for the bad memories here).

Anyhow, the same routine is now followed as with the rivet. The door stop is made into a component. Guidelines are added to the car side to help position the door stop exactly. The difference is that when the door stop is positioned, the vertices of the base are "inside" the surface of the model. Not printable!

So one again uses the intersect command to create a nice clean outline where the door stop base and the car side sheathing and steel bracing meet. One deletes the portion of the side sheathing and steel bracing that is hidden back of the door stop - again like with the rivet.

But one also goes inside the model and deleted all of the base that is inside. Only the portion outside the original car is left.

As a method, this should work without a problem. And usually it does. Where it does haywire is when Sketchup finds two vertices so close together that it can't treat them as two. It then infers a solution that often leaves gaps in the skin of the model. Very often the gap is extremely tiny - less than .001" - so it is not really visible and is hard to detect.

I hope this makes enough sense.

Rob

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dave Nelson" <Lake_Muskoka@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:53 AM
To: <STMFC@...>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] 3d printing challenges etc.

Rob, if you draw a face in SU that intersects and passes thru another face
you will have a very smooth "joint" between the two, however the verticies
used by that face are going to be inside the other. Is that going to be a
problem for the export data used by the 3d printer? If not, that trick will
solve most of your leaky joint issues.

Dave Nelson

FWIW, I've been using SU daily for about 7 years.

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

Sketchup can give me real problems at times. Rivets are notable as hard to
add some of the time. Adding them can often take a model that was working
fine and suddenly produce a "leaky" part - for reasons that can take a very
long time to figure out. The other situation I've had a lot of trouble with
is drawing wood side sheathing and steel bracing that doesn't end up "leaky"

or to subtle to notice. I have learned through frustration to be much more
demanding of myself when I draw, aiming at simpler lines and fewer decimal
places in dimensions, so adding detail is not as difficult as it was 2 years
ago. But I still have a few project I'm very keen on that are sidelined
while I dodge my own drawing limitations.

I assume I am not the only one who bumps into these problems from time to
time.

Rob Kirkham



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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: rail sizes (was something else)

devansprr
 

Tim,

As Rich Orr posted earlier, the PRR did deploy a lot of 152/155 pound rail post-war. (The revelation for me is that most was deployed post-war - no code 100 for me) I am not sure it is the weight of the rail as much as the depth of what is effectively an I beam that really counts from a mechanical standpoint. The PRR 152/155 pound rail stood 8 inches tall (the 155 lb rail was 1/16 inch thicker on the vertical web than the 152 pound rail). The PRR's 130 pound rail only stood 6-5/8". Note that modern 136 pound rail stands midway between PRR 130 and 152/155 pound rail - at 7-5/16", it is 11/16" taller than PRR 130 pound, and 11/16 shorter than PRR 152/155 pound rail. The PRR also had 131 pound rail, which was starting to replace the PRR's 130 and 125 pound rail in the mid-to-late 1930's. It was 1/2 inch taller than the older 130 pound rail (6-5/8" vs. 7-1/8" tall).(Code 83 in HO scale is less than 2% from the height of PRR 131 pound and modern 136 pound rail - good match)

The taller the rail, the higher the bending moment of inertia that resists wheel loading, and therefore the lower the bending stresses in the rail for the same loading (this can reduce the shear stresses at the rail head to vertical web juncture - which can be a failure point for rail). Lower stresses do increase fatigue life for any steel.

But I recently read that some railroads with light rail could suffer significant rail damage if steam engines were run at speeds significantly above the speed where the dynamic augment (?term? - on the road - no access to locomotive books) was optimized (I think this is the weight of the rods balanced against the counterweights in the drivers?)

The PRR had a lot of high speed steam in operation on some pretty big locomotives well into the 50's (The I1s was not a speed engine, but the faster M1s and J1s often ran at 50 mph+.) The PRR was experimenting with faster freight operations to reduce freight transit times. Perhaps they were pushing the speeds more than most railroads, and wanted to include some extra margin on the rails so they would not be damaged - plus the 152/155 would last longer, at least to some extent. The "Life of Rail" report has good data to show longer life of 152/155 pound rail over PRR 130 lb rail.

The dimensional differences between PRR 130 pound and modern 136 pound could suggest that the PRR 130 pound rail may have been more subject to damage from steam engines than the more modern designed 136 pound rail, and may help explain why the PRR started deploying PRR 131 pound rail in place of PRR 130 pound rail in many locations before and during WWII, and even moved up to 152/155 pound rail in locations of very heavy use, combined with high speed. I do not think the modern 136 pound rail was in use until after PRR 152 pound rail had been installed (or at least 136 pound had not had much operational experience - yet? PRR 131 and 152 pound rail drawings date back to at least 1930, the PRR 130 pound rail dates back to at least 1916)

Dave Evans

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor wrote:


Dave, from what I have read, after the war the PRR began to replace
its mainline rail with standardized 136 lb rail (as did many railroads)
This is the standard size for heavy rail in the US to this day.

Tim



Getting off the STMFC topic a little, but I did locate at 1943 report titled "The Life of Rail" at the PA state archives last May. It was to inform various wartime regulators of the need to support higher rail replacement rates than was being allocated based on war-time material restrictions.

It includes the following for PRR mainline track:

Total miles of mainline: 15,787
Miles of 152 lb rail: 628
Miles of 131 lb rail: 2,155
Miles of 130 lb rail: 6,336
Miles of 112 lb and lighter: 6,668

So it appears that most of the heavy rail must have been laid post-war, since the PRR was expecting to get only about 50% of the new rail they felt was necessary in 1944 to maintain overall rail conditions.

Dave Evans


Re: New Haven RRHS

ROGER HINMAN
 

The New Haven Society has their archives at UCONN Storrs CT;that library has also accumulated a lot of New Haven collections. I do not know if the Comstock collection is among them but the Curator there is very railroad savvy.

Last contact info I had was laura.katz.smith@...;


Roger Hinman
On Feb 10, 2013, at 9:02 PM, Larry Sexton <SSEXTON9@...> wrote:



Is there anyone on the list that knows of a Peter H. Comstock or his
collection of New Haven Railroad oriented photos? If so, I'm trying to
determine whether he's still around and what may have happened to his photo
collection which contained a number of WWII period freightcars with loads.
Thanks in advance for any help.

Larry Sexton

Crystal River, FL





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


Re: How far do we go?

Didrik Voss <davoss@...>
 

Arved,



You said:



If one wants to run Code 88 wheels, turnouts should be built to the Fine
Scale dimensions in S-3.1.
Perhaps this should be clarified in the Standards and Recommended Practice
literature,



It was. The standard S-3.2 published in July 2009 and updated several times
since, includes a column entitled "Wheel CODE" that links the wheel size to
the turnout.



Now that I know otherwise, I'm even closer to abandoning NMRA standards and
adopting Proto:87. I thought code 88 wheels were an acceptable compromise.
Evidently not. :-(

NMRA publishes Proto:87 dimensions in S-3.1 for turnouts and S-4.1 for
wheels. Fine Scale dimensions are also shown in S-3.1/S-4.1.



I wish Micro Engineering could have made your list.



I will get some Micro Engineering turnouts and let you know the results.



P.S. I was only half joking about the dart board. :-)



I will take my picture off my wife's dart board and send it to you.



Didrik



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Arved
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 7:05 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: How far do we go?







--- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "Didrik
Voss" wrote:

Parden me for not entering this conversation earlier. Since several
messages have been forwarded to me for response, I thought it would be
better for me to sign on to this group and answer in this format. I am the
Manager for the S&C Dept., NMRA.

Ah. You're the one who's picture I want for my dart board! :-)

If one wants to run Code 88 wheels, turnouts should be built to the Fine
Scale dimensions in S-3.1.

Perhaps this should be clarified in the Standards and Recommended Practice
literature, because there are a lot of us who believe that Code 88 wheels
would and should work with "normal" track, such as 50 year old model
railroads. Someone mentioned their club layout is 20 years old - I'm not
picking on them. My "old stomping grounds" was the Golden Gate Model
Railroad club in San Francisco, and some of that layout dates back to the
1960s and earlier.

Now that I know otherwise, I'm even closer to abandoning NMRA standards and
adopting Proto:87. I thought code 88 wheels were an acceptable compromise.
Evidently not. :-(

By the way, in 2006 all commercial turnouts failed to conform to NMRA
standards. I recently checked turnouts from three companies (PECO, Walthers,
Atlas). Only Atlas passed. In 2006 Atlas was the worst offender. They must
have rebuilt their tools.

When did Atlas move production from the US to China? That may explain
things.

I wish Micro Engineering could have made your list. I've also assumed
Shinohara was absorbed fully by Walthers, much the way LifeLike has been?

Warmest regards,
Arved Grass
Fleming Island, Florida

P.S. I was only half joking about the dart board. :-)


Re: Box Car Database

arved_grass
 

--- In STMFC@..., Guy Wilber wrote:
Arved Grass wrote:
"Throw in the Seaboard B-6 class of 1937. The first order, in 1934, did not originally have any advertisement, but the second order of these "1932 ARA Box Cars" had advertisement for the Orange Blossom Special on them. This was later added to the earlier cars:"


I am not sure of your point; but if you are puzzled about The Seaboard decorating its own equipment(?) the 1934 ICC decision regarding Billboard paint schemes did not prevent any railroad from decorating its own equipment regardless of class. The decision was directed at privately owned refrigerator cars.
Thank you, Guy. I'm not that familiar with the decision. I'll have to read up on it.

Off-list, I was chided for using the phrase "pretty unique." While "unique" is listed in authoritative references as a synonym for "unusual," there is difference enough in meaning that the phrase "pretty unusual" would have been better. The word "pretty" modifies "unique" in a way totally outside the definition of "unique." It's the equivalent of saying someone is "a little pregnant." One is either pregnant, or not, and something is either unique, or it is not.

The passage that inspired this is:

"They were the first Seaboard cars to wear a slogan and established Seaboard as an industry leader for using freight cars as rolling advertisements." (The Seaboard-Coast Line Modeler, Vol. 3, No. 1, Mar 2009, p.18)

I'm afraid I don't see this as "industry leading" in the context of the ICC telling private refrigerator car owners to stop doing exactly that.

So, yeah, I should read more, and type less. :-( My apologies on all fronts.

Arved Grass
Fleming Island, Florida


Re: Box Car Database

Guy Wilber
 

Arved Grass wrote:




"Throw in the Seaboard B-6 class of 1937. The first order, in 1934, did not originally have any advertisement, but the second order of these "1932 ARA Box Cars" had advertisement for the Orange Blossom Special on them. This was later added to the earlier cars:"


I am not sure of your point; but if you are puzzled about The Seaboard decorating its own equipment(?) the 1934 ICC decision regarding Billboard paint schemes did not prevent any railroad from decorating its own equipment regardless of class. The decision was directed at privately owned refrigerator cars.

Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada












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


Re: Walthers HO 53' 6" GSC Flatcar capy

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
I believe the operative word is "cigar." Greg said "Close, but no cigars." You, Tony, are going to have to turn in your Prototype Police badge if you keep this up.
Um, not turning in the badge. I agree with Greg, and did not state I had qualified to get my cigar. The discussion had touched on the question of whether GSC had different castings for 50- and 70-ton cars, and I believe that is a "yes," though unrelated to Greg's point.

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: Walthers HO 53'6" GSC Flatcar capy

Greg Martin
 

Tim,

The plans for the F41 were in Model Railroading at one time. I too saw them
lettered for PRR and in service on the SP with lumber loadings.

I just took photos of a TTZX version of the F30D at Perris, CA over
Thanksgiving and I have photos of one in "commuter/excursion" on the Yreka
Western back in the mid-90's painted all baby blue. I took some detail shots of
both.

Greg Martin

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

In a message dated 2/10/2013 9:47:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
timboconnor@... writes:





There were a number of minor variations among GSC 70 ton cast steel
flat cars. I consider the F41 to be one of the variations, and it can
be modeled easily if you start with a Walthers model. The Tichy is
more problematic because it's a 1-piece casting including the deck.
I took photos of F41's in service, lettered Pennsylvania, in 1994.
Many received PC and Conrail paint too.

If you've ever seen an F30 car up close you'd never mistake it for one
of the longer) 53'6" GSC flats. The stake pockets extend way out from
the car body, more than any other flat car I've ever seen. Kinda like
an aircraft carrier. :-)

Tim O'

--------------------------------
Greg Martin wrote

The two cast steel flat car underframes acquired by the PRR from GSC were
as the links show:
Class F30(A,C,D,E subclasses) and is offered by Bowser.
_http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F30a_F30c.gif&sel=fla
t&sz=sm&fr=ge_
(http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F30a_F30c.gif&sel=flat&sz=sm&fr=ge)

Class F41 which is what I would call the "Closest" class to the WKK and
Tichy cars but again no cigars....
_http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F41.gif&sel=flat&sz=s
m&fr=ge_
(http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F41.gif&sel=flat&sz=sm&fr=ge)







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


Re: Walthers HO 53'6" GSC Flatcar capy

Tim O'Connor
 

There were a number of minor variations among GSC 70 ton cast steel
flat cars. I consider the F41 to be one of the variations, and it can
be modeled easily if you start with a Walthers model. The Tichy is
more problematic because it's a 1-piece casting including the deck.
I took photos of F41's in service, lettered Pennsylvania, in 1994.
Many received PC and Conrail paint too.

If you've ever seen an F30 car up close you'd never mistake it for one
of the longer) 53'6" GSC flats. The stake pockets extend way out from
the car body, more than any other flat car I've ever seen. Kinda like
an aircraft carrier. :-)

Tim O'

--------------------------------
Greg Martin wrote

The two cast steel flat car underframes acquired by the PRR from GSC were
as the links show:
Class F30(A,C,D,E subclasses) and is offered by Bowser.
http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F30a_F30c.gif&sel=flat&sz=sm&fr=ge

Class F41 which is what I would call the "Closest" class to the WKK and
Tichy cars but again no cigars....
http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F41.gif&sel=flat&sz=sm&fr=ge


Re: Walthers HO 53' 6" GSC Flatcar capy

Greg Martin
 

Tony and all,

The two cast steel flat car underframes acquired by the PRR from GSC were
as the links show:

Class F30(A,C,D,E subclasses) and is offered by Bowser.

_http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F30a_F30c.gif&sel=fla
t&sz=sm&fr=ge_
(http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F30a_F30c.gif&sel=flat&sz=sm&fr=ge)

Class F41 which is what I would call the "Closest" class to the WKK and
Tichy cars but again no cigars....

_http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F41.gif&sel=flat&sz=s
m&fr=ge_
(http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F41.gif&sel=flat&sz=sm&fr=ge)

The was this variation of cast steel car as well but it ran on 3-axle
trucks, one of my favorite cars but closer to the F30A (Bowser car) than the
later GSC design.

_http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F36.gif&sel=flat&sz=s
m&fr=ge_
(http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=F36.gif&sel=flat&sz=sm&fr=ge)

It is on my "to-do" list but it hasn't made it up the list all that far.

Greg Martin

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

In a message dated 2/10/2013 7:17:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thompson@... writes:




Greg Martin wrote:
I think the important thing to know is that the PRR never bought the GSC
53' 6" flat car in this configuration. Close but no Cigars,

Two points. First, GSC has ads in the 1949-51 and 1953 _Cyc_ for both
50-ton and 70-ton one-piece cast underframes, by which I would conclude that
they are different. Second, the PRR F30-A underframe from GSC is awfully
similar in appearance to the conventional GSC 70-ton underframe, though with 13
instead of 14 stake pockets, and is only 50 feet long, not 53' 6", which
is probably what Greg refers to.

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@...
(mailto:thompson@...)
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Walthers HO 53' 6" GSC Flatcar capy

Schuyler Larrabee
 

I believe the operative word is "cigar." Greg said "Close, but no cigars."
You, Tony, are going to have to turn in your Prototype Police badge if you
keep this up. J





Schuyler



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:18 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Walthers HO 53' 6" GSC Flatcar capy





Greg Martin wrote:
I think the important thing to know is that the PRR never bought the GSC
53' 6" flat car in this configuration. Close but no Cigars,

Two points. First, GSC has ads in the 1949-51 and 1953 _Cyc_ for both 50-ton
and 70-ton one-piece cast underframes, by which I would conclude that they
are different. Second, the PRR F30-A underframe from GSC is awfully similar
in appearance to the conventional GSC 70-ton underframe, though with 13
instead of 14 stake pockets, and is only 50 feet long, not 53' 6", which is
probably what Greg refers to.

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@...
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Walthers HO 53' 6" GSC Flatcar capy

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Greg Martin wrote:
I think the important thing to know is that the PRR never bought the GSC 53' 6" flat car in this configuration. Close but no Cigars,
Two points. First, GSC has ads in the 1949-51 and 1953 _Cyc_ for both 50-ton and 70-ton one-piece cast underframes, by which I would conclude that they are different. Second, the PRR F30-A underframe from GSC is awfully similar in appearance to the conventional GSC 70-ton underframe, though with 13 instead of 14 stake pockets, and is only 50 feet long, not 53' 6", which is probably what Greg refers to.

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: Walthers HO 53' 6" GSC Flatcar capy

Greg Martin
 

I think the important thing to know is that the PRR never bought the GSC
53' 6" flat car in this configuration. Close but no Cigars,

Greg Martin

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

In a message dated 2/10/2013 5:50:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
John.Sykes@... writes:




I think that is a good response. Also, if you have prototype photos, try to
ID the trucks to see what their rating is and also check the LT WT on the
cars. If the LT WT is higher on the 70 ton cars (besides the naturally
heavier 70 ton trucks) the heavier casting theory is probably correct.

-- John

--- In _STMFC@... (mailto:STMFC@...) , Richard
Hendrickson wrote:

On Feb 9, 2013, at 4:07 PM, sshaffer wrote:
Walther HO model 53' 6" GSC flatcar, in PRR paint is a 70 ton car, in
ATSF
paint only a 50 ton car. Is that determined by the trucks it sits on?

Santa Fe's 53'6" GSC flat cars, classes Ft-W, Ft-3, and Ft-5, had
nominal capacities of 50 tons. Santa Fe's one class of 60' GSC flats, class
Ft-7, were of 70 tons nominal capacity. Trucks are certainly an issue in
assigning nominal capacities, but it's also conceivable that GSC had
castings for both 50 and 70 ton cars.

Richard Hendrickson



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






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


Re: Box Car Database

arved_grass
 

Throw in the Seaboard B-6 class of 1937. The first order, in 1934, did not originally have any advertisement, but the second order of these "1932 ARA Box Cars" had advertisement for the Orange Blossom Special on them. This was later added to the earlier cars:

See "SAL B-6 Box Cars" by John Golden & Justin May in S-CL Modeler #7, Vol. 3, No. 1, March 2007

Tony Thompson has a short article on his blog on building his model, including a photo of the prototype:

http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/12/small-modeling-project-1932-ara-box-car.html

When the Orange Blossom Special was discontinued, the cars were relettered for the Silver Meteor.

Two of these cars evidently still exist in Savannah, GA. I found a gold-mine of detail photos here:

http://www.trainweb.org/seaboard/classb6(freight).htm

But yes, one of the things John and Justin mentioned in their article was that these cars were pretty unique in their time for having advertisements.

Respectfully submitted,

Arved Grass
Fleming Island, Florida

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



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

It has always been his intention to make it available for free one way or another. It was through Al Westerfield that I became acquainted with this gentleman. The gentleman's late wife spotted an M&StL box car that had been turned into a billboard. The gentleman contacted Mr. Westerfield who in turn referred him to me as I now recall events.

There are a couple of good stories about the box car mentioned above that should be told sometime.

Say what, Gene????? An M&StL box car turned into a billboard??
But I thought those were outlawed bak in the 1930's!!!! VBG
Ah well, some would call the New Haven and Bangor & Aroostock red, white and blue cars "billboards" as well.

Cordially, Don Valentine


Re: New Haven RRHS

Larry Sexton
 

Is there anyone on the list that knows of a Peter H. Comstock or his
collection of New Haven Railroad oriented photos? If so, I'm trying to
determine whether he's still around and what may have happened to his photo
collection which contained a number of WWII period freightcars with loads.
Thanks in advance for any help.



Larry Sexton

Crystal River, FL


Re: Walthers HO 53' 6" GSC Flatcar capy

John
 

I think that is a good response. Also, if you have prototype photos, try to ID the trucks to see what their rating is and also check the LT WT on the cars. If the LT WT is higher on the 70 ton cars (besides the naturally heavier 70 ton trucks) the heavier casting theory is probably correct.

-- John

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson wrote:

On Feb 9, 2013, at 4:07 PM, sshaffer wrote:
Walther HO model 53' 6" GSC flatcar, in PRR paint is a 70 ton car, in ATSF
paint only a 50 ton car. Is that determined by the trucks it sits on?

Santa Fe's 53'6" GSC flat cars, classes Ft-W, Ft-3, and Ft-5, had nominal capacities of 50 tons. Santa Fe's one class of 60' GSC flats, class
Ft-7, were of 70 tons nominal capacity. Trucks are certainly an issue in assigning nominal capacities, but it's also conceivable that GSC had castings for both 50 and 70 ton cars.

Richard Hendrickson



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


Re: 3d printing challenges etc.

Dave Nelson
 

Rob, if you draw a face in SU that intersects and passes thru another face
you will have a very smooth "joint" between the two, however the verticies
used by that face are going to be inside the other. Is that going to be a
problem for the export data used by the 3d printer? If not, that trick will
solve most of your leaky joint issues.

Dave Nelson

FWIW, I've been using SU daily for about 7 years.

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

Sketchup can give me real problems at times. Rivets are notable as hard to
add some of the time. Adding them can often take a model that was working
fine and suddenly produce a "leaky" part - for reasons that can take a very
long time to figure out. The other situation I've had a lot of trouble with
is drawing wood side sheathing and steel bracing that doesn't end up "leaky"

or to subtle to notice. I have learned through frustration to be much more
demanding of myself when I draw, aiming at simpler lines and fewer decimal
places in dimensions, so adding detail is not as difficult as it was 2 years
ago. But I still have a few project I'm very keen on that are sidelined
while I dodge my own drawing limitations.

I assume I am not the only one who bumps into these problems from time to
time.

Rob Kirkham


Intermountain undec kits:flats hoppers and boxcars

Andy Carlson
 

Hi,
I have the following new Intermountain and Red Caboose undecorated kits in HO being offered for purchase.

INTERMOUNTAIN
2  41099  12 panel box car 10'0" IH  .................................$12.00
8  41299  ACF Typpe 27 10K gallon tank car  ...................$14.00
2  43698 1958 cu ft covered hopper closed side  ...............$16.00
4  43699 1958 cu ft covered hopper open side  ..................$16.00
4  43799 70-ton AAR flat car  ...........................................$16.00
2  43700 70-ton bulkhead AAR flat car  .............................$16.00
1  43499  ART all-steel ice reefer  .....................................$14.00
2  40599  PFE/NP R-40-23 all-steel ice reefer  ...................$12.00
1  42750K Santa Fe stock car w K brakes  ........................$14.00
3  42998   Santa Fe stock car w AB brakes  ......................$14.00
1  41999  PS-1  60' single door boxcar  ..............................$11.00

RED CABOOSE
7  #7003  ARA X29 type steel box car  ..............................$16.00
2  #7002  PRR X29 box car with plate ends 1924 body  ......$16.00
3  #8001  '37 AAR 40' SD box car with square corner  ........$16.00
1  #8026  '37 AAR P&LE SD boxcar decorated kit  ............$16.00

Shipping is $2.95 and up. I accept checks and money orders. I can also accept PayPal with a small fee.

If interested, please contact me off-list at <midcentury@...>

Thanks,
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


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


Re: SP F-70-10

Brian Carlson
 

Yeah, Thanks, I'll wait for the GS F-70-10 kit then. It's not like I have
plenty to build.



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 10:44 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: SP F-70-10





Brian Carlson wrote:
OK, I'll bite on this Tony, were any of these F-70-10 cars provided to
trailer train when SP joined? What likelihood of an F-70-10 appearing on the
Erie in 1957 and what trailer would it be carrying? The photos in Chapt 13
of your SP Freight Cars Vol. 3 seems to indicate mostly online service. I
only see two NP trailers. The text of the book seems to indicate the SP
joined Trailer Train in 1960., is this correct.

Off-line SP piggyback in the 1950s was rare, AFAIK, except for friendly
connections like NP. Until late 1959, SP strongly believed in what is called
"Plan II," the use of all railroad-owned equipment, that is, their own flat
cars and trailers. They did not accept common-carrier trailers, only those
of their own subsidiary Pacific Motor Trucking. I do not believe these would
ever have reached the Erie in 1957. After they began to accept commercial
trailers in late 1959, SP soon threw in the towel in mid-1960 and joined
Trailer Train. They rebuilt or scrapped their special Clejan cars and
returned the conversions like F-70-10 to general service. I do not believe
anyone modeling a non-direct-connection-with-SP road can justify SP
piggyback equipment before 1960. But the F-70-10 in general service went
everywhere, just like any other such flat car.

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@...
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history

82841 - 82860 of 196881