Date   

Re: Couplers for Sunshine type 30 tank car

Jim Hayes
 

Accurail Proto:HO The lid and the post positioning are direct copies from
the Proto:HO box.

The post in mine is a little large but I think it expanded when I drilled
for a screw.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon
www.sunshinekits.com

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Pierre <pierre.oliver@...> wrote:



Can someone tell me what coupler the draft gear box is meant for in the
Sunshine Type 30 tank car kits?
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver



Maxend Hoppers

Gene <mopac1@...>
 

Folks,

Can anyone point me to some information about "maxend" for hoppers? I've done several on-line searches and on various groups with no real results.

Thanx,

Gene


Re: Atlas 1932 boxcar...

David Sieber
 

Eric, et al,
Regarding brake component placement as an easy aspect to improve upon, Atlas modeled the latest and most common layout of the major brake components, which F&C/Yankee Clipper termed "type 3" - brake cylinder roughly centered between the crossbearers, with the AB triple valve and reservoir one space over, between the crossbearer and next crosstie toward the A end of the car. This general arrangement was found on BAR, CG, CRR, D&H, MEC, MP(MI,I-GN), NS, NC&stL, SAL, SOO, and UP cars. The exact placement of the three major components and the locations of the live and dead levers varied somewhat between prototype cars (possibly by car manufacturer?), thus also may vary from the Atlas models though the main parts are generally in the right places for these roads.
However, a number of 1932 standard cars had the "type 2" brake layout - brake cylinder, AB valve, and reservoir all between the crossbearer, those all appearing right under the door in a side view. This was the arrangement on CGW, C&O 7000-series, CP, ERIE and NKP cars. Again, exact placement of major components and brake levers may have varied slightly, though there wasn't much space for variation between the crossbearers.
The five ARA test cars, later sold to the C&O (3 cars), NYC and PRR, are shown as having the "type 1" brake layout with the AB valve and reservoir between the crossbearers (under the door from the side) and the brake cylinder one space over, between the crossbearer and next crosstie toward the B end of the car. However, a photo of an ARA test car shows the original welded brake reservoir beyond the crosstie, to the left of the door, with all brake components located on the same (left) side of the car, so "type 1" may be the layout after the early welded reservoir was replaced with the later version.
The above is based on the extensive Yankee Clipper(F&C) instructions; regretably, I couldn't verify it with Ted Culotta's excellent book on the 1932 boxcars since I still haven't found it among the many still-unpacked moving boxes in my garage ...
BTW, while I agree that Atlas's door has its problems, I commend them for also tooling doors with Union-Duplex door fixtures as found on many of Mopac Lines cars. Also, Atlas tooled what Sunshine terms "narrow" lateral wood roofwalks, with the metal support straps completely under the laterals. However, many '32 cars had the "wide" laterals with the metal straps showing at the sides of the wood laterals and wide corner grab attached to those metal straps, as seen on IMWX, Red Caboose and InterMountain '37 standard boxcars.
Hope this helps,
Dave Sieber, Reno NV

--- In STMFC@..., "Eric" <eric@...> wrote:
"The underframes lack depth of detail and some brake component placement may not relect specific prototype practices ... For the most part, many of us here would find some aspect to improve on these cars."


Re: Red Caboose 103W welded tankcar

Tim O'Connor
 

Richard

Although one builder photo I have clearly shows the dome step as
an open grid (APEX) style, the long running boards are not clearly
open grid -- for example, they could easily be a solid metal style
with raised tread, bent over at the edges for added stiffness. I
have a couple dozen builder photos from the post war era but none
of them shows the walkways from above. Do you have any images that
clearly show open grid on the USAX cars?

Tim O'Connor

Tony is correct, and the builder's photos (as has already been
pointed out by Chris Frissell) clearly show steel grid running boards.
Richard Hendrickson


Re: Gordon Varney

Tim O'Connor
 

I don't think anyone was trying to criticize Gordon Varney for the
choices he made over 50-60 years ago. I have a soft spot for Varney
and other pioneers, and I was "imprinted" at an early age with those
wonderful Varney ads that featured John Allen's photography on his
tiny Gorre & Daphetid layout. Those are the trains I grew up with and
I can still recognize most of them easily.

But now in model building, I want to get as close to the real thing
as I practically can. I doff my cap to Gordon and Irv and all the
other pioneers. They are part of my railroad hobby DNA.

Tim O'Connor

While manufacturing technology was a limiting factor in the 30s, 40s, and 50s some of the models made were excellent even from today's vantage point.

One advantage that Newton, Varney, Athearn, Walthers, and Donnelly (the manufacturer/modelers who ran some of the key companies) and others had was that they could either run out and photograph the equipment (steam and steam/diesel transition equipment was still running!!) or could count on friendly railroads to provide source documents and photos upon which to base their artwork. Another was that most of them, although good businessmen, also had a passion for the Hobby that was their business.

The sophistication of the knowledge base has grown over the years and perhaps we "know" more about freight cars than they did (perhaps being too close to them as ordinary parts of their environment at the time) but many models were accurate representations of their prototypes given the limitations of the media available to build them.

This is the Golden Age of Model Railroading as we have the knowledge (and will) and the means to get accurate models. Look at the level of some of the mistakes and shortfalls we carp about when a model comes out.... as J.P. reminds us, there was a time (and not too long ago) when just keeping the darn things coupled and on the track was considered a real accomplishment!!!

Charlie Vlk


Re: Couplers for Sunshine type 30 tank car

Dennis Williams
 

Pierre.
 I ground down a #5 and worked very well but you cannot use the spring.  Not much room for travel, anyway. That is a nice kit. Dennis

--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Pierre <pierre.oliver@...> wrote:


From: Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Couplers for Sunshine type 30 tank car
To: STMFC@...
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 11:08 AM


 



Can someone tell me what coupler the draft gear box is meant for in the Sunshine Type 30 tank car kits?
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver


Re: Gordon Varney

Tim O'Connor
 

Moreover, an SLR is not inherently better than other cameras. There
were many very good "rangefinder" camera models with excellent optics
and manual controls (f-stop/exposure) after WWII. My Dad took hundreds
of railroad pictures with his Brownie and quite a few of them are very
sharp and reasonably well exposed! All of these digital pictures were
taken with a rangefinger http://www.pbase.com/timboconnor/naperville_2007

Tim O'Connor

At 7/8/2010 02:05 PM Thursday, you wrote:
I don't mean to take anything away from JP's comprehensive post, and I am certainly not qualified to
comment on the main subject of Varney models, but in the spirit of historical accuracy that drives
the list, I couldn't let the following statement (which might be just a typo) pass unremarked:

"It was 1969 before the first good SLR cameras appeared."

I well remember the Exacta (or Exakta) in use long before 1969. It was a high-quality German 35 mm
SLR camera first produced in the mid 1930s. By the 1950s the Japanese were producing usable versions
of now-familiar SLR brands such as Pentax. By the time of the introduction of the Nikon F system
camera in 1959 (which may have been the date JP meant to type?) it would be very hard to argue that
"good" 35 mm SLR cameras were not generally available.

Again, not to take away from JP's main points about modeling history in his note, but a
clarification related to camera history.

Doug Rhodes


Re: Couplers for Sunshine type 30 tank car

Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...>
 

Pierre,

            The Kadee assembled 'scale coupler' fits well when trimmed
of the rear lug.

Fred Freitas




________________________________
From: Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thu, July 8, 2010 2:08:41 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Couplers for Sunshine type 30 tank car

 
Can someone tell me what coupler the draft gear box is meant for in the Sunshine
Type 30 tank car kits?
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver




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


Re: UTLX Type V

Jack Burgess <jack@...>
 

To further expand the discussion of kits vs. RTR, Blackstone Models
(Soundtraxx) has announced the future release of HOn3 RTR models of the Type
V UTLX cars which need, basically, standard gauge trucks and couplers to
convert them back to their standard gauge relatives. Richard's article in
the December 1995 issue of RMC covers some other changes needed but they
might make easy "good enough" conversions for these tank cars (I've already
built 6 of the Precision Scale kits)...


Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Re: UP boxcars with overland shields

Tim O'Connor
 

Brian

Marklin/Trix also offered this paint scheme on their UP B-50-24/B-50-27
box car. I believe this was not "experimental" but rather was to protect
UP's trademark rights. UP has continued to apply trademarks of its own
design to more modern freight cars, and now also does this with some of
its "fallen flag" trademarks (e.g. see UP Color Guide Volume 2, page 8)

The C&BT Shops car is 10'6" while the B-50-24/-27 cars were 10'0". The
cars shown in Terry Metcalfe's book are a B-50-39 (AAR) and B-50-40 (PS-1).
What is the car number and class of your Evergreen Roundhouse kit? I've
found most of the ER models to be accurate (to the extent that a model
exists for that prototype).

Tim O'Connor

Brian,

Years ago when the C&BT Shops kits were still in production a company called Evergreen Roundhouse (and Richard will recall this one) actually offered this car (and I still have one un-built and have every intention of building it) was on the market with the proper doors from Westrails. Some complain about the quality of the C&BT rivets on the side of the car and to me they are no all that objectionable, but yes the Branchline are much nicer. The car was painted in this scheme and the paint and lettering was extremely well done. I hope to have mine complete for Rails by the River in August. But I will replace the running boards and as many details as I can with current production parts. Still the car is very nicely done even in today's modeling world and the only way that I know fo to capture this car.

Perhaps Richard or Tony can detail what I have heard this scheme to have been referred to as the "Ghost herald" as it did show up in later years on UPRR boxcars as recent as the late 1990s with the repainting of some of the WP's FMC cars.

Greg Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian J Carlson <prrk41361@...>

I was flipping through the Metcalfe UP Freight car book today and noticed a
few boxcars with a yellow UP Overland Shield applied in 1954. The book says
these were experimental. Does anyone know how many cars were done? A B-50-39
and B-50-40 are shown in the book on pages 114 and 118 respectively. This
is one of those unique schemes I expect someone to slap on an Athearn boxcar
and sell as close enough but I can't recall ever seeing it in model form.

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.


Couplers for Sunshine type 30 tank car

Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Can someone tell me what coupler the draft gear box is meant for in the Sunshine Type 30 tank car kits?
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver


Re: Gordon Varney

Doug Rhodes
 

I don't mean to take anything away from JP's comprehensive post, and I am certainly not qualified to
comment on the main subject of Varney models, but in the spirit of historical accuracy that drives
the list, I couldn't let the following statement (which might be just a typo) pass unremarked:

"It was 1969 before the first good SLR cameras appeared."

I well remember the Exacta (or Exakta) in use long before 1969. It was a high-quality German 35 mm
SLR camera first produced in the mid 1930s. By the 1950s the Japanese were producing usable versions
of now-familiar SLR brands such as Pentax. By the time of the introduction of the Nikon F system
camera in 1959 (which may have been the date JP meant to type?) it would be very hard to argue that
"good" 35 mm SLR cameras were not generally available.

Again, not to take away from JP's main points about modeling history in his note, but a
clarification related to camera history.

Doug Rhodes

----- Original Message -----
From: JP Barger
To: STMFC@yahoo
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:03 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Gordon Varney





First, this submission relates to the ongoing discussion of the Rock Island
aluminum box cars and the Varney models of same.
Some of the words used by recent contributors to the RI thread would seem to
indicate that Gordon wore a green eyeshade, had garters on his shirt sleeves
and personally stayed up late doing art work for his carsides. But, the
nature of Varney's businesses indicates that Varney was first and foremost a
businessman, who had both employees and vendors who not only did all the
work but submitted proposals and samples in order to create product or gain
business. Like most business-oriented management-type folks, Varney
delegated most details to others, unlike many or most of HO's smaller
manufacturers. One reason for Varney's great success in HO was his ability
to work with others, which gave him a team to work with in the business.
Therefore, it should be no surprise that in the post WWII period, Varney was
number one among HO manufacturers.
Now, this is NOT to say that the responsibility, or even blame, should rest
on anyone else's shoulders if something in a product didn't measure up. It
was Varney's company, and, therefore, he would be the responsible person,
whether the news was good or bad.
In judging Varney's output of freight cars, I'm afraid that today we tend to
use a current value judgment system where every detail of construction,
color or lettering/decoration must match a prototype. Nothing between the
value system of the late 40's and the system of today (at least the STMFC
system) is common. In 1946, we were overjoyed if a freight car looked
anything like the prototype, and stayed coupled and on the track at least
once around a loop. There were no electronic picture libraries with easy
access. There was nothing easy about collecting prototype information,
unless one lived next door to whatever he was modeling. Good, accurate
cameras were limited to press models. Very few people had one. It was 1969
before the first good SLR cameras appeared.
One example of useful production of freight cars in HO directly from
photographs are the cars among Varney B-1 to B-11 which were created
directly from 2 color separations of negatives of actual box cars (photos
probably in the Los Angeles area). These freight cars were unique in that
the paper sides were red, but with black shading. This method was
particularly effective for outside braced cars. Unfortunately for
collectors, few were produced and sold, and worse, few of us were smart
enough to put the Mucilage glue of the time on the paper instead of on the
card backing. The result was a disaster: one ended up with a wrinkled mess,
which makes me think that most of these cars ended up in file 13.
One possibility in future discussions about models matching prototypes is
that occasionally owners creating PR material don't want pictures or artwork
for what they actually have, but rather something more exciting. And, thus
another version is created, leading us moderns to wonder and argue over
which one is the REAL one. I have no idea if that's what is going on with
the RI herald. Was it outlined or solid on these particular cars? I don't
have a clue.I do have examples of Varney's model version. I also have a
Silver Streak BAR potato reefer model with a black, not red, potato.See what
I mean?
You probably all know that sometimes a car or loco manufacturer (ALCO, for
example) would create artwork depicting different paint and lettering
schemes in order to find something pleasing to the intended customer.
Variations in the physical makeup of the product would have to be included,
as well. Sometimes, modelers and manufacturers are uncertain over such
matters. Two examples: Pullman Standard had a 24 room roomette in its
catalog after WWII. P-S never made any, as they never received any orders
for that version; but that didn't stop Carmine Webster of Rail Chief models
from making one in HO. 2nd example: EMD offered in its catalog in the late
60's and early 70's, a DD40AX/DD35A lookalike that was also never ordered or
manufactured, but that didn't stop Athearn from making an HO model of it.
Collecting and understanding prototype information is fascinatingly complex;
that's partly why we're still hashing and rehashing the available material,
and looking for more, besides.
Please don't be too hard on Gordon Varney, for all the above reasons, and
others.
JP






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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2988 - Release Date: 07/07/10 11:38:00


Re: UP boxcars with overland shields

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:18 AM, tgregmrtn@... wrote:

Perhaps Richard or Tony can detail what I have heard this scheme to
have been referred to as the "Ghost herald" as it did show up in
later years on UPRR boxcars as recent as the late 1990s with the
repainting of some of the WP's FMC cars.
The conventional wisdom I've heard from UP historians is that the
heralds were applied to a few cars (but only a few) from time to time
to keep the copyright on the shield heralds current. However, I've
never seen any documentation for this. Tony Dick Harley, Jeff Aley,
et. al. may know more.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: UTLX Type X

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jul 8, 2010, at 6:03 AM, John wrote:

Gentlemen,

Does anyone know if UTLX Type X cars were still around in 1950? If
so, would you also happen to know what type brakes, trucks, etc. I
have a PSC model I assembled 20 years ago and would like to rebuild
it if it fits my era. Thanks!
John, the Type V (Van Dyke) frameless cars were all gone by 1953,
owing to the difficulty of equipping them with AB brakes, but
hundreds of the Type X cars were still in revenue service in 1950.
In fact many of them survived as late as the mid-1960s. By 1950,
some would have had AB air brakes but many still had their original
KC brakes. I have photos if those would be useful.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Red Caboose 103W welded tankcar

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:58 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:

Brian Carlson wrote:
A photo of one of the tanks in the 1980's shows metal walkways along
the side but this may have been a later addition after the wood
rotted . . .
From 1944 onward, running boards had to be "other than wood."
These cars were built later than that and I very much doubt they
originally had wood running boards. The Red Caboose model has the lame
"indented plastic" representation of metal grid, which at least is
trying to show the right thing. Only way I can see an exception here
is if the Federals exempted themselves from the rules for the USQX
cars. Not sure why they would do so.
Tony is correct, and the builder's photos (as has already been
pointed out by Chris Frissell) clearly show steel grid running boards.

Richard Hendrickson


UTLX Type V...was UTLX Type X

golden1014
 

Sorry guys, I goofed on my initial question. The corrected question is "Can anyone tell me if UTLX Type V cars were still around in 1950?" I found that UTLX type Vs were still being built as late as 1945, but my model is a Type V, not X.

Thanks,
John

John Golden
Bloomington, IN

--- In STMFC@..., "John" <golden1014@...> wrote:

Gentlemen,

Does anyone know if UTLX Type X cars were still around in 1950? If so, would you also happen to know what type brakes, trucks, etc. I have a PSC model I assembled 20 years ago and would like to rebuild it if it fits my era. Thanks!

John Golden
Bloomington, IN


Re: Atlas 1932 boxcar...

golden1014
 

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the message. I like your approach to the coupler box problem. I would probably build up more of the Atlas cars if it weren't for that and the doors, and--of course--finding the time to do the job.

I painted my car with Scalecoat BC Red (#1) and masked off the black later. I'm not the world's most patient masker, so I just get it close and touch up any overspray later. I normally use regular masking tape, but I just me some of that Tamiya masking tape and I'm eager to try it out.

John

John Golden
Bloomington, IN

--- In STMFC@..., "thiggins_rochester" <earthman92853@...> wrote:

I am building an undec Atlas car for SAL using John's article in SBCL Modeler as reference. I agree that the doors are funky, but like John, I could not find an acceptable substitute. I did replace the oversize tack board with a spare Sunshine one.
One issue I handled differently was the coupler mounting: John recommends grinding off the whole coupler box but I think this is unwarranted since the inside dimensions are close enough to a Kadee coupler box except for the undersize diameter of the pivot boss. This creates imprecision in the coupler centering, so I drilled it off and replaced it with the top of a Kadee coupler box mounted upside down.

One thing John did not mention and I'd like to know is how he got the nice black roof and BCR body since they are cast together. John, did you paint the black first and mask it for the BCR or vice-versa?

Tony Higgins


--- In STMFC@..., "John" <golden1014@> wrote:

Hi Steve,

The Seaboard car, body style 2, is pretty well done. I think the factory paint is excellent. I have an Atlas car and three Sunshine cars and the Atlas model is better in many categories. I plan on buying a NS model when they come out.

Like all models, however, the Atlas car has some problems. I think the biggest problem with the Atlas car is the door--I think it's awful.

John Golden
Bloomington, IN


--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@> wrote:

A quick question---which versions of this car are actually correct for which roads? I get the impression that this model is accurate for very few roads.

Thanks in advance,

Steve Lucas.


Re: Gordon Varney

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

JP Barger wrote:
Some of the words used by recent contributors to the RI thread would seem to indicate that Gordon wore a green eyeshade, had garters on his shirt sleeves and personally stayed up late doing art work for his carsides. But, the nature of Varney's businesses indicates that Varney was first and foremost a businessman, who had both employees and vendors who not only did all the work but submitted proposals and samples in order to create product or gain business.
Around 20 years ago I corresponded with one of the people who did those artwork proposals for Varney. We were discussing the car- length "wing" scheme for the SP Overnight cars (which at SP never progressed beyond an artist's conception). The individual I spoke to said that he warned Gordon that the scheme was never put onto a car, but that Gordon replied "I like it, so we're going to do it." There may have been no green eyeshade involved, but let's not pretend that some of these choices were not Gordon's.

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: Gordon Varney

Charlie Vlk
 

While manufacturing technology was a limiting factor in the 30s, 40s, and 50s some of the models made were excellent even from today's vantage point.

One advantage that Newton, Varney, Athearn, Walthers, and Donnelly (the manufacturer/modelers who ran some of the key companies) and others had was that they could either run out and photograph the equipment (steam and steam/diesel transition equipment was still running!!) or could count on friendly railroads to provide source documents and photos upon which to base their artwork. Another was that most of them, although good businessmen, also had a passion for the Hobby that was their business.

The sophistication of the knowledge base has grown over the years and perhaps we "know" more about freight cars than they did (perhaps being too close to them as ordinary parts of their environment at the time) but many models were accurate representations of their prototypes given the limitations of the media available to build them.

This is the Golden Age of Model Railroading as we have the knowledge (and will) and the means to get accurate models. Look at the level of some of the mistakes and shortfalls we carp about when a model comes out.... as J.P. reminds us, there was a time (and not too long ago) when just keeping the darn things coupled and on the track was considered a real accomplishment!!!

Charlie Vlk


Re: RDG/B&O "expert"

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Ed;

Were RDG hoppers ever used to ship bituminous coal shipped from the B&O?
Are you asking if reading hoppers even got routed onto the B&O and were
loaded at a mine served by the B&O? If so, of course. I saw many RDG
hoppers on both B&O and PRR.

Any off road hoppers?
You could have seen just about anything, but of course, nearby roads were
best represented.

How does "HO" scaled bituminous coal differ in appearance from "HO" scale
anthracite? I'd expect the later to be very shiny (glossy) - even to the
extent of using actual anthracite.

Yes, bituminous is fairly dusty looking, and chunks of anthracite could tend
to be shinier. There are model loads that represent both well.

Elden Gatwood

103301 - 103320 of 194656