I'm considering adding a Sunshine X-3 tank car to my roster, and have
a few questions. There are a few different styles/sizes offered, what
was the approximate percentages of each in the late 30's?
I know that this probably shouldn't be included in the criteria, but
which would be appear (to the uneducated) least like the Proto or
Intermountain tank cars? Perhaps I should ask "Is there any that
could be mistaken for a more common plastic/RTR tank car?"

Dean Payne

--- In STMFC@..., "adrian hundhausen" <dnaldimodaroloc@...>
wrote:

If your non-functional detailing is so good that it makes
your OPERATING bits look more clumsy than they otherwise would, you
have to start wondering what you've gained. (And yes I suppose there
are finer-looking, closer-to-scale couplers out there.)

In general a consistent approach to the details will provide a better
overall picture than a mix of different standards- imagine a
superdetailed collection of resin freightcars pulled by a loco built
from an unimproved Bowser or MDC kit.

It's easier to accept the scene as real when there are no large
inconsistencies but any incremental improvement will tend to reveal
deficiences in other areas. The risk is that changing standards will
not only empahsise clunkiness in other detaisl in the same car but
instantly make every car on the layout that doesn't have the new grabs
look outdated

I hit this when upgrading to near scale couplers - I now have to do the
whole roster since the old #5s really jump out as just far too big. If
I change the standard for hand holds do I risk another retrofit program
on every car? How many more years of life do I have to accomplish this?

Aidrian

Larry,

Thanks for all of your research and for sharing the results. I enjoyed looking at the file and will keep it handy for reference.

Larry Kline
Pittsburgh, PA

Larry Ostresh wrote:
I just uploaded a summary of the DS/SS/Steel splits for box, auto, and ventilator cars from 1938 to 1950 to the files section of this list.
The file summarizes the splits for the U.S., the eight ICC regions, and about 70 railroads. The file is called:
"DS-SS-Steel Split 1938 to 1950 Summary.xls"

It has been brought to my attention that there is a possible "hoax" involving Yahoogroups called "Grouply".

An email organization known as "Grouply" asks that you join, and use
then their service to better track all your various YahooGroups
memberships.

To join Grouply, you register with them by giving them your Yahoo ID
and password. Bad idea. Once they have your ID and password, they can
hijack your account and send emails to your groups asking more folks
to join Grouply. For a moderator of a list, they could conceivably
take control of your list and do with it as they will.

Messages from members associated with Grouply will result in the member being REMOVED from the group.

DO NOT REPLY ABOUT THIS MESSAGE ON THE STMFC. If you have questions or the need for discussion, send them to me offline.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner

Forwarded from the ALPS list moderator. Sounds like the ³Plaxo Virus² all
over again.
--
Thanks!

Brian Ehni

------ Forwarded Message

From: Mike Brown <mike_brown@...>
Reply-To: "alpsdecal@..." <alpsdecal@...>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:31:02 -0000
To: "alpsdecal@..." <alpsdecal@...>
Subject: [alpsdecal] Moderator Note

I have been alerted to a problem that so far has eluded us, but has been seen
on other
YahooGroups.

An email organization known as "Grouply" asks that you join, and use then
their service to
better track all your various YahooGroups memberships - like an RSS fed thing
I presume.

To join Grouply, you register with them by giving them your Yahoo ID and
password. Bad
idea. Once they have your ID and password, they hijack your account and send
emails to your
groups asking more folks to join Grouply. For a moderator of a list, they
could conceivably
take control of your list and do with it as they will.

Any sign of 'grouply" activity on these lists will be dealt with by immediate
banning of the
poster, since their account will already have been compromised.

Mike Brown

------ End of Forwarded Message

On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Paul Catapano wrote:

Richard,

Would it be "reasonable", do you think, to see a ATSF caswell gon
on a distant road, on any given day? If it happened, but was
"generally considered" to be a rare event, then I would probably
not run one. I try to eliminate the unusual one-sies and two-sies,
and focus on the normal run of the mill consists and road names.

Paul, bear in mind that the Santa Fe owned almost 10,000 Caswell
gondolas. Even granting that many of them were used mainly in on-
line coal and other mineral service, that suggests that their
appearance on what you describe as a "distant railroad" wouldn't have
been a rare event, though - as usual - it would depend on the
railroad and what kind of traffic it generally carried. On an N&W
branch in Appalachian coal country? Probably not. Carrying Potash
on the Rutland? We know that happened. I'd say that, if you're
modeling a main line railroad almost anywhere in the country, running
a Santa Caswell gon shouldn't raise any eyebrows.

Richard Hendrickson

Hi Paul,

One reason I appreciate the book, "The Postwar Freight Car Fleet," by Larry Kline and Ted
Cullota, published by the NMRA in 2006 and still available (now in its 3rd printing) at
www.nmra.org, is the way it answers a number of questions like yours. In this particular case,
the book includes a photo of a Caswell taken at the Reading Co's. Rutherford Yard in
Harrisburg, Pa., on June 19, 1947. I think you'd have to agree that's pretty far offline for a
Santa Fe drop-door gon.

So long,

Andy

BLMA has .008" diameter grab irons, both straight and drop style I
think they are called. They are a big improvement visually over
even .012 diameter grab irons, and in HO, .008 is getting pretty close
to prototype diameter. But the problem is that they make the NBWs next
to them look pretty chunky, and if you put the .008 grab irons on the
end of your car, then your 'air hose' on your coupler (if you use
Kadees) is about 4 to 5 times wider than your grab irons (my rough
estimate). If your non-functional detailing is so good that it makes
your OPERATING bits look more clumsy than they otherwise would, you
have to start wondering what you've gained. (And yes I suppose there
are finer-looking, closer-to-scale couplers out there.)
Just a thought.
Adrian Hundhausen

Excellent work.  This really clearly shows the splits between types of cars.

However, remember on the graphsfor each railraod that the scale on the left varies from railroad to railroad.

Cyril Durrenberger

Richard,

Would it be "reasonable", do you think, to see a ATSF caswell gon on a distant road, on any given day? If it happened, but was "generally considered" to be a rare event, then I would probably not run one. I try to eliminate the unusual one-sies and two-sies, and focus on the normal run of the mill consists and road names.


Paul Catapano
Littlerock Subdivision
Atlantic Inland Railway Co.

"All it takes to start an insane asylum
is a big room and the right kind of people"

Good points Steve. Years ago Front Range had narrow wheelset which looked like 88. I had a set and gauged them out and they ran excellently.
This was over code 100-55 and Atlas - Shin turnouts!
I prefer the 88 wheels and #58 kadees.

Sincerely, Mark Morgan

As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if the solution to the wheelset
insertion issue in trucks modelled with full journal box depth may be
in having a notch moulded in the bottom of the journal box to allow
the axle tip to be inserted. It'd certainly be a tight fit in any
case. But I think that the acetal plastics used today would allow
the sideframe to be flexed enough to allow the appropriate wheelsets
to be inserted, especially with a notch moulded in the bottom of the
journal box. Alternatively, would it be possible to remove one
sideframe on the truck for wheelset insertion?

As for reliability of Code 88 wheelsets, was this not proven by years
of use in HOn3 before we "standard gauge" folks started using them?
If there are issues with these wheelsets derailing on turnout frogs,
I would immediately check with an NMRA gauge both the wheelsets'
gauge, and the check gauge (perhaps THE most important turnout
measurement) of the turnout involved.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
wrote:

Andy Carlson writes-

Our former STMFC member Byron Rose has long complained that HO
trucks lack the inside-of-the-side-frame portion of the journal

box.

He has threatened to create a pattern to retrofit to some HO

trucks,

and I don't doubt that some day he will do so.

Well, Byron is not the only one who has been hung up on this issue.

However, one has to be careful what is being wished for. If

indeed

the correct bearing box protrusion is modeled inside the frame,

there

arises the very high likelihood that no wheel sets on the market

today

would fit! The narrowest sets, Reboxx 0.950" (less .004"),

already

have axle length in excess of what is required to replace wheel

sets

in quite a few brass trucks, and imported plastic trucks. When the
axle lengths get even more narrow, then the potential problem

also

arises as to exactly how, in practicality, one can physically

insert

the wheel set.

Also, I seem to recall a past discussion about the inability of

semi-

scale wheel sets (Code 88) to traverse the #10 and larger switch
frogs. I suppose then that the better Samhongsa and Boo Rim
locomotives must derail like crazy, for both builders have gone

to

near semi-scale wheel profiles for decades now....

A false issue, firmly retired years ago; and also firmly attested

to

by years of contrary experience. RIP.

Denny



Denny S. Anspach MD
Okoboji, IA







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

Brian--

Good point about the scale grabirons and draft gear. The draft gear
issue is being dealt with by various manufacturers, but will someone
come out with scale diameter grab-irons?

As for the back of journal boxes, we get into other issues in a
hurry. Such as overall length of journal box, and axle length, which
of course differs according to bearing size/nominal (truck)
capacity. My suspicion is that the centre line through the truck
sideframe casting (on cast truck sideframes) is centred over the
centre of the journal.

If this is the case, then a couple of quick calculations from the
table on page 826 in the Jan., 1953 ORER suggest different truck
sideframe widths, centreline of sideframe casting to centreline of
sideframe casting--

B) 30 ton nominal capacity, 4 1/4" x 8" journal size--6'-3
5/8'==.868" in HO scale.

E) 70 ton nominal capacity, 6" x 11" journal size--6'-6 7/8"==.906"
in HO scale.

From these calculations, the difference in truck width would be .038"
in HO, a maybe noticable difference. I wonder if the difference
would be concealed by the 70 ton truck sideframe being thicker in
cross-section than the 30-ton.

But here's a more noticeable dimension--axle length bewteen these 30-
and 70-ton truck wheelsets differs by 6 1/2" ==.075" in HO. This
makes itself known when modelling a car with stirrups close to truck
sideframes and running that car on typical model layout radii (note--
the PRR used 175' radius, 24" in HO).

The long and short (pun intended) of it? I'd buy trucks that were of
proper overall width for the relevant journal size with back of
journal box detail. And this would mean that these trucks could only
take Code 88/scale wheelsets. But I'm not the guy paying to have the
dies cut. I'm not sure that the market is ready for this amount of
conformity at this time.

Steve Lucas.
- In STMFC@..., "Brian J Carlson"
<brian@...> wrote:

Steve Lucas wrote:

With the use of Code 88 and scale wheels, etc., the space

between

wheel face and truck sideframe looks so empty.

Tony added:
Yup, that's where the "back" of the journal box ought to

project.

I am converting my fleet tocode 88 wheels, since they look better

than code

110 and roll better. However, I have to ask, other than on tank

cars,

hoppers and cabin cars, how often would this be noticed on an

operating

layout. At my club we run 20-30 car trains and 5-10 car locals.

Even the

guys on the locals and in the yards are too busy getting trains

over the

road that we don't have must time to admire the hidden in shadows

portions

of our freight cars. Scale width draft gear is more obvious than

the back

side of journal boxes, but even draft gear is something we live

with as a

trade off for operation.

Now I suppose if you are building models for display that won't

turn a wheel

in revenue service, I could see a point adding the detail. IMHO,

scale grab

size, and draft gear width are ahead of the backside of journal

boxes.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY

Ben,

I even have a few in my heep of files in the closet! Thanks,

Al kresse

Al Kresse asked:
"What journal or magazine is TSC #9 pg 986-987."

TSC = Train Shed Cyclopedia, which are excerpts of various Locomotive
and Car Builders cyclopedias reprinted by Newton K. Gregg. These are
generally 80-page paperback books. Though nowhere near as useful as
having the full original CBC volume, they're much easier to find and
are a lower cost alternative if a given TSC has what you need.
Here's a list from railroadtreasures.com:
http://railroadtreasures.com/TrainSheds/Train%20Shed%20Cyclopedias.txt


"Where does one buy it, or get a publishable copy of, etc."

On the whole, these are very common (though some idvidual volumes are
difficult to find) wherever you find railroad paper on sale,
especially at shows as Timonium or Gaithersburg, or from railroad
book dealers.


Ben Hom

Andy Carlson writes-

Our former STMFC member Byron Rose has long complained that HO
trucks lack the inside-of-the-side-frame portion of the journal box.
He has threatened to create a pattern to retrofit to some HO trucks,
and I don't doubt that some day he will do so.

Well, Byron is not the only one who has been hung up on this issue.

However, one has to be careful what is being wished for. If indeed
the correct bearing box protrusion is modeled inside the frame, there
arises the very high likelihood that no wheel sets on the market today
would fit! The narrowest sets, Reboxx 0.950" (less .004"), already
have axle length in excess of what is required to replace wheel sets
in quite a few brass trucks, and imported plastic trucks. When the
axle lengths get even more narrow, then the potential problem also
arises as to exactly how, in practicality, one can physically insert
the wheel set.

Also, I seem to recall a past discussion about the inability of semi-
scale wheel sets (Code 88) to traverse the #10 and larger switch
frogs. I suppose then that the better Samhongsa and Boo Rim
locomotives must derail like crazy, for both builders have gone to
near semi-scale wheel profiles for decades now....

A false issue, firmly retired years ago; and also firmly attested to
by years of contrary experience. RIP.

Denny



Denny S. Anspach MD
Okoboji, IA

Did anyone ever find out the split in products carried in simple boxes, ventiltor boxes or refrig boxes in this time frame?

Al Kresse

Thank You, Larry.
 
Sincerely, Mark Morgan

Hi Folks

I just uploaded a summary of the DS/SS/Steel splits for box, auto, and
ventilator cars from 1938 to 1950 to the files section of this list.
The file summarizes the splits for the U.S., the eight ICC regions, and
about 70 railroads. The file is called:
"DS-SS-Steel Split 1938 to 1950 Summary.xls"

Best wishes,
Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the STMFC
group.

File : /DS-SS-Steel Split 1938 to 1950 Summary.xls
Uploaded by : laramielarry <ostresh@...>
Description : This file summarizes the number of double sheathed, single sheathed, and steel sheathed box, auto, ventilated, and furniture cars for selected U.S. railroads from 1938 to 1950.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/DS-SS-Steel%20Split%201938%20to%201950%20Summary.xls

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

laramielarry <ostresh@...>