Date   

Re: Wrecked box cars in Virginia, 1926

Frank Greene
 

John Stokes wrote:
There are a number of new photos on Shorpy worth checking out. A companion of the one here from a different angle is next to this one, click on "Railroads" in the list on the right of the photo from the link. Shows an interesting movable louvered vent on the end of a car, perhaps the ACL car
Isn't that the car laying on its side between the ACL and GM&N car in the 1st photo? It also appears to be an ACL car and shows the dark on light paint ACL monogram.

--

Frank Greene
Memphis, TN


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Charlie Vlk
 

When I was at Kato I was tasked with providing the dimensions for a coupler pocket that would work with a Kadee #5.
The NMRA "Standard" was designed for the Baker, Devoe and Mantua couplers. Now wasn't THAT useful!!!!
Charlie Vlk


Yes, I have seen those pockets before. The problem is that
Kadee's invention made the standard obsolete. Now that Kadee
is the 'standard', the NMRA could update that RP!

>There is also an RP for a "Universal Coupler Pocket" which is 50 years old!
>http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp22.html
>Any manufacturer actually follow either of them?
>Pieter Roos

.


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Tim O'Connor
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
It would be lovely to have a standard draft gear box and coupler shank
design to fit it, such that every coupler would sit properly in the
box and not droop! But even as practical as that would be for
virtually ALL modelers, what are the chances of getting such a
standard accepted?
If you don't write that standard, the chances are zero.
Tony Thompson

I hope that you meant the collective "you" and not me personally.
I certainly do not believe that I am the first person to think of
it, nor does the hobby lack the talent to produce such standards.
And as Pieter pointed out, there's an existing RP -- it just needs
to be brought up to date!

Tim


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Tim O'Connor
 

Yes, I have seen those pockets before. The problem is that
Kadee's invention made the standard obsolete. Now that Kadee
is the 'standard', the NMRA could update that RP!

There is also an RP for a "Universal Coupler Pocket" which is 50 years old!
http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp22.html
Any manufacturer actually follow either of them?
Pieter Roos


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Charlie Vlk
 

The NMRA is currently revising the Standards but IMHO is still missing the boat.
I think it would be extremely valuable if, instead of worrying about standardizing formulae for establishing vertical curves (the transition between flat and grade in track) and other esoterica (should they establish standards for O-27 or OO Scale???) the NMRA should concern itself with providing information about real world problems that most Model Railroaders face.
It seems to me that the downfall of the NMRA started when they developed the X2f coupler and then steadfastly refused to recognize the Defacto Standard of the Kadee coupler in HO (and then later the Micro-Trains in N).
I understand the excuse that they didn't want to bless a commercial product as "standard".... but it sure would have been helpful for them to, either with the cooperation of Kadee and Micro-Trains or simply by measuring them, establish complete, uniform measurements of the couplers and draft gear so that modelers and manufacturers could have single dimensions to work with when they have to interface with the defacto standard. Instead, because of the head-in-the-sand approach, every coupler and rolling stock manufacturer has to make their own measurements with the result that interchange is no longer insured.
The same holds true for rails, wheels, trucks, bolster heights, etc... A catalog of uniformly presented measurements of products in use would be much more useful than "standards". Right now the NMRA is developing new standards or reworking the old ones.... without the input of the Model Railroad Industry or the vast majority of Model Railroaders (who are not NMRA members).
I think that if products were presented in a format that would allow side-by-side comparison it would press for evolution to a standard.... or at least be a valuable reference for both modeler and manufacturer. The marketplace where everyone gets to vote with their dollars is a better developer of standards than a group of volunteers.
I don't believe the NMRA would be inclined to do something like this..... it doesn't allow creation of a "standard" to enforce and issue or deny certifications around to establish control. Perhaps a Wikopedia of Model Railroad Product Measurements would be a way of accomplishing this......
Charlie Vlk


Re: Erie Reverse Buckeye boxcar ends

ed_mines
 

--- In STMFC@..., "leakinmywaders" <leakinmywaders@...>
wrote:

I am wrong and you are right. Can you believe I missed that photo?

Maybe you could use one of the existing Buckeye castings to make
depressions for a reverse Buckeye casting end in a soft material like
plastic wood. I've thought about making ends this way for the 75,500
series of cars which had what I thought (until now) were the only
reverse Buckeye ends. It's not inconceivable that they were used on
50 ft. double door cars or double door cars with end doors (97,100
series?).

It's hard to find photos of all these different Erie cars. (Look at
how many different car pages there are in the Erie diagram book on
the fallen flags site!). Fortunately Dan Biernacki rescued a lot of
company negatives from a dumpster.

Erie is one of the few roads to have a lot of steam era freight car
photos on the fallen flags web site.

Ed


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
It would be lovely to have a standard draft gear box and coupler shank design to fit it, such that every coupler would sit properly in the box and not droop! But even as practical as that would be for virtually ALL modelers, what are the chances of getting such a standard accepted?
If you don't write that standard, the chances are zero.

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: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Greg Martin
 

Larry is absolutely correct. His own accomplishements are to be commended and one of the best IMHO was his CORRECT RS2 in the Life Like PK1000 line. He did what KAto couldn't seem to do... Seeing a thing and having the vision to doing it better is a challenge often overlooked by some in the industry.

Greg Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 6:15 am
Subject: Re: [STMFC] New Standards for Freight Cars Models






Kurt,
It is wrong to belittle the significant contributions of those on this list who have been instrumental in raising the quality standards of prototypical freight car models and pretend they are simply having fun and taking the easy way out. Expressing their frustration with the existing standards & the difficulty of updating those standards is not carping.
Rather than suggest that those who are already making a large contribution must do even more, you should ask yourself what you will do to contribute to the effort to improve freight car models.

Larry Grubb

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...> wrote:


Unfortunately, none of this is as easy or fun as carping about how nothing
good ever happens anymore . . ..

KL


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

David North wrote:
Given the above definition of bureaucratic, as a past NMRA board member I thank you for your compliment.
This ain't exactly the list topic, David, but I'm sure you know perfectly well that a widely used ADDITIONAL definition of "bureaucratic" is "government officialism or inflexible routine; see red tape." I leave it to you to figure out which definition I had in mind.

Seriously, what do people expect the NMRA to do when a manufacturer doesn't comply?
That's a different question that the one we've been considering: "what do people expect of manufacturers when the NMRA doesn't revise old standards and create new ones, despite a need for same?"

I personally feel there is a pressing need for a coupler/coupler box standard.
I agree, and for a time tried to work on the NMRA Coupler committee. The reasons aren't important in this forum (I can share them with you off-list if you like), but I have given up on that activity.

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: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

W. Lindsay Smith <wlindsays2000@...>
 

New Standards are new products! I would expect the new products will
not fully comply with new standards. Horizon/Athern claims
compatibility with Kadii products at the coupler face yet they make
it hard to use a sompetative product. Let the buyer beware!
Couplers were never successfully standardized by NMRA because buyers
did not demand compliance; in fact, we bought the best product and it
became a de facto "standard."
Freedom is wonderful; the free have responsibility!
Lndsay Smith

--- In STMFC@..., "David North" <davenorth@...> wrote:
BIG SNIP> Hi Tony

Given the above definition of bureaucratic, as a past NMRA board
member I
thank you for your compliment.



And I reckon both you and Richard are older than me (and I wasn't
the
youngest Director), so that hardening of the arteries chip might be
misdirected (VBG)



As to "quite political"? Yep, that's true.



And you can "do standards yourself". Just might mean that no-one
else agrees
or adheres to them.

Establishing industry standards is a different thing.

And then having some way to motivate everyone to comply is another
level
altogether.



Seriously, what do people expect the NMRA to do when a manufacturer
doesn't
comply?

We don't issue a C&I Certificate. Someone recently suggested
elsewhere that
manufacturer be verbally abused.

He needs to get a reality check. This is a business relationship.

Most manufacturers see the advantage to them of using the standards

a) They don't have to reinvent the wheel - the standard is
there to
use cost free

b) Their products will interchange with others - which should
make
them more attractive to consumers



But no one can MAKE them use the standards. It's their prerogative
to build
things as they wish.

What I believe will provide the best result is for modelers to
contact the
manufacturer and voice their discomfort.



I personally feel there is a pressing need for a coupler/coupler box
standard. I recently bought some new Athearn RTR, and found while
fitting
KDs that the post inside the box was a bigger diameter than the
traditional
size. So I had to shave down the diameter. Didn't take long, but I
really
shouldn't have to do it.

What leaves me confused is why some designer at Athearn decided to
change
what Athearn have used for the last 40? years at least.

What chance have we as hobbyists got, when a company doesn't comply
with ITS
OWN standards?

Cheers

Dave North



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


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Pieter Roos
 

Hi Tim;

Sure, but if we were ignoring the other shortcomings of an Athearn
bluebox car, did we care that it sat .010" or .015" too high?

BTW, it appears there already is an RP on covering truck bolsters:

http://test.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp-23.html

There is also an RP for a "Universal Coupler Pocket" which is 50 years
old!

http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp22.html

Any manufacturer actually follow either of them?

Pieter Roos

--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@... wrote:

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "pieter_roos" <pieter_roos@...>
In fact, for many years the Athearn/MDC and Kadee truck designs served
as somewhat defacto standards, although most of us became accustomed
to adding washers raise the car floor even on Athearn cars with
Athearn trucks to meet the standard coupler height.
Pieter,

Which in most cases, is actually the wrong solution! :-) If you do
that, then the
Athearn car sits too high.

And recently, Athearn modified their bolsters on new cars so if you
take old
Athearn trucks and put them under new cars, or put new trucks under
older
Athearn cars, you'll immediately have problems!

I really don't think there is any compelling case for creating a
"standard" that
anyone will follow, in the particular case of bolster heights.

It would be lovely to have a standard draft gear box and coupler
shank design
to fit it, such that every coupler would sit properly in the box and
not droop! But
even as practical as that would be for virtually ALL modelers, what
are the
chances of getting such a standard accepted?

Tim


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Tim O'Connor
 

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "pieter_roos" <pieter_roos@...>
In fact, for many years the Athearn/MDC and Kadee truck designs served
as somewhat defacto standards, although most of us became accustomed
to adding washers raise the car floor even on Athearn cars with
Athearn trucks to meet the standard coupler height.
Pieter,

Which in most cases, is actually the wrong solution! :-) If you do that, then the
Athearn car sits too high.

And recently, Athearn modified their bolsters on new cars so if you take old
Athearn trucks and put them under new cars, or put new trucks under older
Athearn cars, you'll immediately have problems!

I really don't think there is any compelling case for creating a "standard" that
anyone will follow, in the particular case of bolster heights.

It would be lovely to have a standard draft gear box and coupler shank design
to fit it, such that every coupler would sit properly in the box and not droop! But
even as practical as that would be for virtually ALL modelers, what are the
chances of getting such a standard accepted?

Tim


Re: Wrecked box cars in Virginia, 1926

rfederle@...
 

I wouldn't know why....the railroad has already done most of the unpacking.

Robert Federle
---- rockroll50401 <cepropst@...> wrote:

Looks like somebody's no going to be too happy with their new Sears
home!
Clark Propst


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...>
 

Pieter,
Points well taken. As I said, this is not a reason not to proceed, just realize setting the standard is only part of the battle. I am curious if Sam Clarke would put aside his usual good judgement by giving some hypothetical answers to some hypothetical questions:
If the new standard was different from Kadee's existing standard, would you revise all your products to meet it? Would you warehouse all the old product in sufficient quantity for the need for spare parts for the old designs? How much fun would this be?
Larry Grubb

pieter_roos <pieter_roos@...> wrote:
Hi Larry;

Granted, some thought should be given to possible adaptation. Your
example, however, is just one possible case. In the current "open
market" case, how does someone like Tahoe Model Works who plans to
design a truck that could run under a number of manufacturers cars
decide on the bolster height? Or if the same resin manufacturer
designs a car and there are two or more trucks that are appropriate,
but each was designed with a different height? For that matter, the
same manufacturer today may choose to match his car to the best
available truck, only to have a better but incompatible truck offered
shortly after his kit is released! Is that really a better situation?

In fact, for many years the Athearn/MDC and Kadee truck designs served
as somewhat defacto standards, although most of us became accustomed
to adding washers raise the car floor even on Athearn cars with
Athearn trucks to meet the standard coupler height. Surely working
with the current mixture of components is no worse than trying to deal
with standard and legacy non-standard components? At least a standard
gives reason to hope the situation will eventually clear up.

Pieter

--- In STMFC@..., Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...> wrote:

Mike,
I'm not kidding, but I guess I'm not explaining myself well.
By implementation I am not referring to the policing of the
standard, I'm referring to the difficulty of making the transition in
real time. Here's an example:
A resin kit manufacturer wants to produce a kit with bolster
height & details that conform to the new standard. But he knows the
best available trucks to use for this model do not conform to the
standard. Does he violate the standard so the car sits at the correct
height above the rail when using the best available trucks? Does he
comply with the standard knowing that no accurate models of the
correct truck exist that will allow the modeler to build the kit to
the proper height above the rail?
I certainly am not trying to discourage anyone from working on new
standards, what I am trying to do is show that developing the standard
is only phase one of the process, and if you have not also worked on a
plan for phase two, you may find all of your good work was for nothing.
Larry Grubb


Mike Brock <brockm@...> wrote:

"I understand the desire for these kinds of standards, and how much
they
would simplify both designing products and the modeler's ability to
kit-bash
easily. What prevents them from becoming reality is not coming up
with a
good standard, it is the complexity of implementing the standard."

I'm not so sure. Who decides what the standard is? Implementing it?
You're
kidding...right?

Mike Brock









Re: Wrecked box cars in Virginia, 1926

Stokes John
 

There are a number of new photos on Shorpy worth checking out. A companion of the one here from a different angle is next to this one, click on "Railroads" in the list on the right of the photo from the link. Shows an interesting movable louvered vent on the end of a car, perhaps the ACL car.

Also check out the one named Chicago 1943, great shot of a NYC NW1? switcher and a full side of an MDT yellow wood reefer. South Water Street 1943 shows a Milw 50' OSB box.

Second page see Derailed 1922, interesting detail, Bensenville 1943, great color and many shades of "box car red." On page 3 see Spa Treatment 1942 for cars being rebuilt, and a really great photo of the inside of the North Proviso Yardmaster's office of the C&NW, titled Serve in Silence 1942. There are several pages following but seem to be photos that have been on Shorpy for a while. Good to check back on this page every few months for new photos.
John Stokes
Bellevue, WA


To: STMFC@...: water.kresse@...: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:40:04 +0000Subject: Re: [STMFC] Wrecked box cars in Virginia, 1926

Wow Scott,I wonder whose house didn't get built? Good find!Al Kresse-------------- Original message -------------- From: "Scott Pitzer" <scottp459@...> Including CCC&StL steel (roof view), GM&N single-sheathed, and ACL ventilator in dark-on-light paint scheme.http://www.shorpy.com/node/3424?size=_originalScott Pitzer


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Pieter Roos
 

Hi Larry;

Granted, some thought should be given to possible adaptation. Your
example, however, is just one possible case. In the current "open
market" case, how does someone like Tahoe Model Works who plans to
design a truck that could run under a number of manufacturers cars
decide on the bolster height? Or if the same resin manufacturer
designs a car and there are two or more trucks that are appropriate,
but each was designed with a different height? For that matter, the
same manufacturer today may choose to match his car to the best
available truck, only to have a better but incompatible truck offered
shortly after his kit is released! Is that really a better situation?

In fact, for many years the Athearn/MDC and Kadee truck designs served
as somewhat defacto standards, although most of us became accustomed
to adding washers raise the car floor even on Athearn cars with
Athearn trucks to meet the standard coupler height. Surely working
with the current mixture of components is no worse than trying to deal
with standard and legacy non-standard components? At least a standard
gives reason to hope the situation will eventually clear up.

Pieter

--- In STMFC@..., Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...> wrote:

Mike,
I'm not kidding, but I guess I'm not explaining myself well.
By implementation I am not referring to the policing of the
standard, I'm referring to the difficulty of making the transition in
real time. Here's an example:
A resin kit manufacturer wants to produce a kit with bolster
height & details that conform to the new standard. But he knows the
best available trucks to use for this model do not conform to the
standard. Does he violate the standard so the car sits at the correct
height above the rail when using the best available trucks? Does he
comply with the standard knowing that no accurate models of the
correct truck exist that will allow the modeler to build the kit to
the proper height above the rail?
I certainly am not trying to discourage anyone from working on new
standards, what I am trying to do is show that developing the standard
is only phase one of the process, and if you have not also worked on a
plan for phase two, you may find all of your good work was for nothing.
Larry Grubb


Mike Brock <brockm@...> wrote:

"I understand the desire for these kinds of standards, and how much
they
would simplify both designing products and the modeler's ability to
kit-bash
easily. What prevents them from becoming reality is not coming up
with a
good standard, it is the complexity of implementing the standard."

I'm not so sure. Who decides what the standard is? Implementing it?
You're
kidding...right?

Mike Brock







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


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...>
 

Mike,
I'm not kidding, but I guess I'm not explaining myself well.
By implementation I am not referring to the policing of the standard, I'm referring to the difficulty of making the transition in real time. Here's an example:
A resin kit manufacturer wants to produce a kit with bolster height & details that conform to the new standard. But he knows the best available trucks to use for this model do not conform to the standard. Does he violate the standard so the car sits at the correct height above the rail when using the best available trucks? Does he comply with the standard knowing that no accurate models of the correct truck exist that will allow the modeler to build the kit to the proper height above the rail?
I certainly am not trying to discourage anyone from working on new standards, what I am trying to do is show that developing the standard is only phase one of the process, and if you have not also worked on a plan for phase two, you may find all of your good work was for nothing.
Larry Grubb


Mike Brock <brockm@...> wrote:

"I understand the desire for these kinds of standards, and how much they
would simplify both designing products and the modeler's ability to kit-bash
easily. What prevents them from becoming reality is not coming up with a
good standard, it is the complexity of implementing the standard."

I'm not so sure. Who decides what the standard is? Implementing it? You're
kidding...right?

Mike Brock


Re: Wrecked box cars in Virginia, 1926

rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

Looks like somebody's no going to be too happy with their new Sears
home!
Clark Propst


Re: Wrecked box cars in Virginia, 1926

water.kresse@...
 

Wow Scott,

I wonder whose house didn't get built? Good find!

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Scott Pitzer" <scottp459@...>
Including CCC&StL steel (roof view), GM&N single-sheathed, and ACL
ventilator in dark-on-light paint scheme.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/3424?size=_original

Scott Pitzer


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Pieter Roos
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Mike Brock" <brockm@...> wrote:
<SNIP>
Hmmm. Lessee. You're saying that IF the new accurate standard O
scale gage
is 4'8.5" between the rails instead of the current 5' gage that the new
products...lets say...oh...maybe 100 brass steam locos yearly...will
soon
outnumber the 12,000 brass steam engines currently in use? Do you
really
think that current owners of layouts using track and wheel profiles
associated with RP-25 Code 110 are going to throw away all their
stuff in
order to use more accurate wheel and track [ frog ] dimensions? Need a
bridge? Cheap?

Obviously it depends upon what the standard is. Kadee #5 couplers do
work
with their "scale" couplers so applying scale couplers to a fleet of
#5's is
not a problem.

Exactly Mike, the proposals for standard truck dimensions and coupler
box/draft gear sizes would have no effect on existing models and
layouts, nor on the 99% of modelers who would never think of changing
out a truck on a freight car unless it's broken. Trying to force
everyone to adopt Proto 87 standards would undoubtedly be a losing
proposition, yet the standard DOES exist. BTW, if I'm not mistaken
there are a reasonable number of O Scalers who do use the correct
track gauge, and have products available to them that meet that
standard(although most commercial models do require modification).

Thirty years ago the members of the National Association of S Gaugers
decided the existing NMRA track and wheel standards for S scale were
too coarse and established a new standard which was, in fact,
incompatible with all existing equipment. About two years ago NMRA
officially adopted the NASG standards, recognizing that nothing had
been manufactured to the old NMRA standard in about twenty years.
Granted, the installed base was tiny compared to HO or even O scale,
but such a major change can and did happen.


"Certainly all the manufacturers COULD decide that they want to stick
with their own dimensions to avoid tooling a new truck to go on that
new car kit. If all of them persist, the standard goes nowhere. If the
major players adopt the standard, the smaller manufacturers will more
or less have to follow."

Not really. 99% of the buyers won't know or care. IMO.
Also true, but why should a manufacturer like LL Canada invent a new
bolster height for their Fowler cars if a recognized standard exists?
While we are at it, how many of those 99% really care about the
accuracy of models. Yet the manufacturers HAVE responded to those who
do and improved the accuracy of their models.


"Is it fair? Not entirely, but that's business."

Correct. A manufacturer is going to respond to his market. I can see
the
manufacturer accepting a standard that 100% of his market can use. I
don't
think he'll respond to one that 3% of his market can use.

Mike Brock
Yep, standards for the sake of standards will not work. Standards that
render new models incompatible in operation with a large installed
base probably won't fly unless there is a very clear advantage to the
new standard. I don't know if the bolster height, axle length and
draft gear standards would be economically persuasive. On the other
hand, the position that such standards shouldn't be considered because
manufacturers might actually have to change something is a call for no
standards or improvements.

Pieter Roos

124241 - 124260 of 196852