Date   

Re: Standards disxussion- Charlie hits a home run

Didrik A. Voss <davoss@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Gordon Andrews" <sryn.dump@...> wrote:
Here is Charlie's "elegant" suggestion:
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. The same holds true for rails, wheels, trucks, bolster
heights,

Gordon and Charlie:

Thank you for that suggestion. We are already doing this. The S&C
Dept is currently working on collecting dimensional information on
track and wheels for each scale. A spread sheet comparing the
compatibility of wheels from each manufacturer with all commercial
turnouts on the market is being developed. I will upload a comparison
table in the Files section for Large Scale (G-Scale) wheels and
turnouts. You will notice very few wheels meet all four criteria. In
fact, wheels don't even work for turnouts from the same manufacturer.
All Large Scale manufacturers have been invited to a meeting during
the NMRA Convention in Anaheim this July to discuss these findings. I
am working toward doing the same in other scales.

Would someone in this group like to create a similar table for axle
length, coupler pockets, bolster height. This information is critical
to understanding the status of the different products in the
marketplace. Your help is needed.

Didrik Voss, MMR
Manager, S&C Dept.
NMRA


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Didrik A. Voss <davoss@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

This means, as Denny Anspach pointed out, that if the NMRA's
magazine will not serve us in the area of honest reviews, no one
will.
Oh heck, I forgot, the NMRA now runs plenty of ads in that "revived"
magazine and is probably reclining in the same bed as the rest of the
magazines. This might just mean that Jon Miller's distinction between
commercial and other magazines is no longer valid. <not grinning>
I have been given assurances that loosing advertising will not affect
an honest evaluation of products. The BOD understands that NMRA and
Scale Rails is for the members and not the advertisers. You may have
noticed we are rejecting the issuance of warrants for new products in
almost every issue of Scale Rails. I have personally written articles
that are critical of products: "The Status of Turnouts", Sept 2006; "A
Case for Using High Frequency Filter on a DCC Layout", February 2008.
The last article created quite a controversy with two manufacturers. We
now have a summary table at the end of review articles that list the
passing for failing of a product to meet NMRA Standards.

As announced by Model Railroad News, I am working closely with them to
provide the same, honest, evaluation of new products. Their reviewers,
who are also NMRA members, will be writing the same type of articles as
has Gary Hoover in Scale Rails.

Didrik Voss, MMR
Manager, S&C Dept.
NMRA


Re: Actual roof material for the Accurail 40' SS boxcar?

WaltGCox@...
 

In a message dated 5/24/2008 10:49:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
b.hom@... writes:

Thanks Ben,
It isn't often that things work out so well. I am primarily a CN modeler and
had acquired a few of these Accurail cars to model cars in the CN
503500-513572 series but have decided to use Sylvan models instead. That raised the
question of what to do with the Accurails. The fact that they are models of IC
prototypes works out very well since IC is now a member of the CN family.
Walt Cox
<<Does anyone know if this particular model has an exact prototype?"

_http://www.steamfrehttp://wwhttp://www.sthttp_
(http://www.steamfreightcars.com/modeling/new)
20products/accurail20products/acc20pr

or

_http://tinyurl.http://tin_ (http://tinyurl.com/54w7kk) >>







**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)


Re: Actual roof material for the Accurail 40' SS boxcar?

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

Walter Cox asked:
http://www.accurail.com/accurail/art/7100/7198.jpg

"Does anyone know if this particular model has an exact prototype?"

http://www.steamfreightcars.com/modeling/new%
20products/accurail/accu7000main.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/54w7kk


Ben Hom


Re: Why don't model railroaders have review sites? Was: Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

There already is a site up

http://www.steamfreightcars.com/index.html

that would seem to fit the bill, but it appears moribund. (which is why I didn't say "up and running" . . .)

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Lucas
I don't know of any modeller that could--singlehandedly--produce a
model rail review website comparable to this Australian gent with the
armour modelling site. Perhaps a collaboration would be the way to
do it? I'd be willing to chip in with reviews of models of Canadian
STMFC's. For example, there are three different manufacturers' HO
resin kits for the CN 503500-513499 series 40' steel frame boxcars--
10,000 cars seen all across North America--but they are not equal at
all in detail, ease of assembly, or accuracy.


Re: Actual roof material for the Accurail 40' SS boxcar?

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Walt--

Not sure of the prototype, but the roof seems to be a "Hutchins all-
steel dry lading roof".

Steve Lucas.

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


In a message dated 5/5/2008 7:57:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mileswestern@... writes:

<<What's the real roof material they used on the prototype for the
Accurail single-sheathed 40' boxcar roof? Was it canvas, wood, or
Steel
plate? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Here's a link to the car I mention:
_http://www.accurailhttp://www.acchttp://wwhttp://w_
(http://www.accurail.com/accurail/art/7100/7198.jpg) >>



Does anyone know if this particular model has an exact prototype ?
Walter Cox



**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking
with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?
NCID=aolfod00030000000002)


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


Why don't model railroaders have review sites? Was: Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

All good points, Kurt. And a good website, too. For a long time,
the hobby press has seemed beholden to their advertisers. In fact, I
know one manufacturer that produces some excellent, but not perfect,
models (not STMFC stuff, but FAR superior in quality and detail to
his major competitors in the same field, who have some mags "in their
back pocket"). His firm purchases LARGE ads in certain magazines.
Needless to say, his products have never gotten a bad review in those
mags.

Coincidence? No, that's the way the game seems to be played. And I
can't blame him for buying those ads, either.

I don't know of any modeller that could--singlehandedly--produce a
model rail review website comparable to this Australian gent with the
armour modelling site. Perhaps a collaboration would be the way to
do it? I'd be willing to chip in with reviews of models of Canadian
STMFC's. For example, there are three different manufacturers' HO
resin kits for the CN 503500-513499 series 40' steel frame boxcars--
10,000 cars seen all across North America--but they are not equal at
all in detail, ease of assembly, or accuracy.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., "Kurt Laughlin" <fleeta@...> wrote:

Sounds like model railroaders need something like this website:

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/

The owner is well-known for fair, honest, and comprehensive
reviews. He
gets advertising from hobby shops more so than manufacturers, which
may give
him an extra level of independence. He also buys a good deal of
stuff on
his own. The biggest problem he has run into came in the form of
personal
attacks on the manufacturer's weblog authored by "Blogger Hiroshi",
who was
obviously a pseudonym for the company's marketing department. The
attacks
were so transparent however that they backfired on the company.

There are also three private armor modeling websites that also post
reviews,
and on two of them the reviews are predominately written by the
public, not
"staff". The quality of the reviews can be spotty, but it doesn't
take long
to learn who can be trusted and knows what they are are talking
about and
who has their head up their butt. (If you read the forums, you'll
see that
discussion of business practices is permitted - and without a
devolution
into anarchy. . .) I'd say it's clearly gotten to the point that
armor
modelers expect reviews of new products, and want them to be
impartial.

I've had reviews published that have run the full range
from "wonderful kit"
to "a waste of money". I've never had problems with manufacturers,
even
when meeting them in person. Almost all have told me that they
appreciated
the review. The response of the site owners to comments about
negative
reviews has been: "If companies want better reviews, make better
products."
I've never been pressured by a site owner over a "bad" review.

What explains the difference between armor and railroads, I
wonder? I think
a big part is that armor modelers, as a rule, seem to be more
internet-savvy. (An armor vendor who "doesn't do email" is about
six months
away from being an EX-armor vendor.) They seem more willing to use
the 'net
as a part of their hobby and to create forums that are very
independent of
commercial influence. This may be an age thing. I'm *guessing*
the typical
armor modeler is about 40, the typical model railroader 50 or 60.

Another aspect might be the tendency for many model railroaders to
buy
anything with a keystone or warbonnet (for example) on it, making
actual
determinations of quality, accuracy, or anything else irrelevant.
Despite
the alledged willingness of some to buy models of anything the
Germans
pushed past the "sketch-on-a-cocktail-napkin" stage the reality is
that the
new kits keep coming because they keep getting better - a re-pop of
a 1969 -
or even 1990 - kit would go nowhere except for those buying one for
nostalgic reasons or because of extreme rarity. If a new kit
wasn't an
improvement over what was out there already, the "Why did they
bother?"
posts would appear almost immediately.

I should note that back in the early 90's there was a magazine that
was
dedicated solely to kit reviews. The models were built without
paint or
filler, just normal clean-up and glue. This provided an
opportunity to see
how they went together - very warts-and-all - and the author pulled
no
punches. The advertisers went along with it for awhile but
eventually broke
the guy and the mag folded. This was pre-internet mind you. I
can't see a
website succumbing to the same pressures.

KL


Re: SP&S Boxcars

al_brown03
 

Builders' photos in the MM articles show SP&S 12000 (blt 9/48) with
the arched roadname, 12949 (blt 11/53) with the oval herald. Closer
than that, I don't know.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


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

Thank you Staffan and Al, for the quick responses. One followup
When did
SP&S start using the oval logo in leiu of the spelled out road name?

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY
----- Original Message -----
From: "al_brown03" <abrown@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 8:08 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: SP&S Boxcars


There are numerous published photos of these series:

11111 CLSC FC v7 p61
11130 MM 9/97 pp40-43
11150 MRG 4/89 p45
11242 MRG 7-8/86 p10
11321 RMJ 11/99 p29 (see also RMJ 10/99 p49)
11326 MM 12/97 pp30-35
11433, 12000 MM 9/97 pp40-43
12054 MM 11/97 p86
12071, 12249 MM 12/97 pp30-35
12257, 12263 MM 9/97 pp40-43
12420 Gaertner, "North Bank Road", gallery
12518, 12519 MM 12/97 pp30-35
12527, 12655 MM 9/97 pp40-43
12949 MM 12/97 pp30-35
12972 MM 9/97 pp40-43

They're ten-panel cars. The MM and RMJ articles discuss details.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


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


If I can ask a question not relating to standards. I'm looking
for
a photo
of SP&S 11000-11499 or 12000-12999 (preferred). These cars are
listed as
40'6" 10' 6" height, 6' doors and in July 1957 comprised over
70%
of the
SP&S boxcar fleet. Are these cars 10 panel cars similar to
other
40'
postwar cars or are they 10'-6" 12 panel cars?

The 13000-134999 series of cars were 12 panel 10' height and the
comprised
almost 25% of the fleet so I am concerned that the cars I am
interested in
may also be 12 panel. Also, Branchline doesn't show them in
their
line of
10'-6" 10 panel cars. Unless I am mistaken, there is no HO
model
for a
10-6" 12 panel car.
Thanks for any help.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: SP&S Boxcars

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

Thank you Staffan and Al, for the quick responses. One followup When did
SP&S start using the oval logo in leiu of the spelled out road name?

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY

----- Original Message -----
From: "al_brown03" <abrown@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 8:08 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: SP&S Boxcars


There are numerous published photos of these series:

11111 CLSC FC v7 p61
11130 MM 9/97 pp40-43
11150 MRG 4/89 p45
11242 MRG 7-8/86 p10
11321 RMJ 11/99 p29 (see also RMJ 10/99 p49)
11326 MM 12/97 pp30-35
11433, 12000 MM 9/97 pp40-43
12054 MM 11/97 p86
12071, 12249 MM 12/97 pp30-35
12257, 12263 MM 9/97 pp40-43
12420 Gaertner, "North Bank Road", gallery
12518, 12519 MM 12/97 pp30-35
12527, 12655 MM 9/97 pp40-43
12949 MM 12/97 pp30-35
12972 MM 9/97 pp40-43

They're ten-panel cars. The MM and RMJ articles discuss details.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


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


If I can ask a question not relating to standards. I'm looking for
a photo
of SP&S 11000-11499 or 12000-12999 (preferred). These cars are
listed as
40'6" 10' 6" height, 6' doors and in July 1957 comprised over 70%
of the
SP&S boxcar fleet. Are these cars 10 panel cars similar to other
40'
postwar cars or are they 10'-6" 12 panel cars?

The 13000-134999 series of cars were 12 panel 10' height and the
comprised
almost 25% of the fleet so I am concerned that the cars I am
interested in
may also be 12 panel. Also, Branchline doesn't show them in their
line of
10'-6" 10 panel cars. Unless I am mistaken, there is no HO model
for a
10-6" 12 panel car.
Thanks for any help.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: SP&S Boxcars

al_brown03
 

There are numerous published photos of these series:

11111 CLSC FC v7 p61
11130 MM 9/97 pp40-43
11150 MRG 4/89 p45
11242 MRG 7-8/86 p10
11321 RMJ 11/99 p29 (see also RMJ 10/99 p49)
11326 MM 12/97 pp30-35
11433, 12000 MM 9/97 pp40-43
12054 MM 11/97 p86
12071, 12249 MM 12/97 pp30-35
12257, 12263 MM 9/97 pp40-43
12420 Gaertner, "North Bank Road", gallery
12518, 12519 MM 12/97 pp30-35
12527, 12655 MM 9/97 pp40-43
12949 MM 12/97 pp30-35
12972 MM 9/97 pp40-43

They're ten-panel cars. The MM and RMJ articles discuss details.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


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


If I can ask a question not relating to standards. I'm looking for
a photo
of SP&S 11000-11499 or 12000-12999 (preferred). These cars are
listed as
40'6" 10' 6" height, 6' doors and in July 1957 comprised over 70%
of the
SP&S boxcar fleet. Are these cars 10 panel cars similar to other
40'
postwar cars or are they 10'-6" 12 panel cars?

The 13000-134999 series of cars were 12 panel 10' height and the
comprised
almost 25% of the fleet so I am concerned that the cars I am
interested in
may also be 12 panel. Also, Branchline doesn't show them in their
line of
10'-6" 10 panel cars. Unless I am mistaken, there is no HO model
for a
10-6" 12 panel car.
Thanks for any help.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


Re: Actual roof material for the Accurail 40' SS boxcar?

WaltGCox@...
 

In a message dated 5/5/2008 7:57:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mileswestern@... writes:

<<What's the real roof material they used on the prototype for the
Accurail single-sheathed 40' boxcar roof? Was it canvas, wood, or Steel
plate? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Here's a link to the car I mention:
_http://www.accurailhttp://www.acchttp://wwhttp://w_
(http://www.accurail.com/accurail/art/7100/7198.jpg) >>



Does anyone know if this particular model has an exact prototype ?
Walter Cox



**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)


Re: SP&S Boxcars

SUVCWORR@...
 

In a message dated 5/24/2008 12:41:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
brian@... writes:

Unless I am mistaken, there is no HO model for a
10-6" 12 panel car.



If you can find an original kit (ladders grabs etc not molded on) C&BT shops
did the 12 panel 10'6 "1943 AAR" car.

Rich Orr



**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)


Re: SP&S Boxcars

Staffan Ehnbom <staffan.ehnbom@...>
 

Brian,

The SP&S 11000-11499 is a ten side panel, tab side sills, recessed rectangular roof panel, 4/4 early improved dreadnaught ends, 6´ early 6/7/6 (ribs) Youngstown door.

The 12000-12999 series may have been split in two. The 12000-12499 is a ten side panel, tab side sill car, recessed rectangular roof panel, R+3/4 early improved dreadnaught ends, 6' improved 4/5/5 (only counting ribs in each panel) Youngstown door

The 12500-12999 seems to have been the same ten side panel type but for a straight side sill and a recessed diagonal panel roof. R+3/4 early improved dreadnaught ends, 6' improved 4/5/5 (only counting ribs in each panel) Youngstown door

Staffan Ehnbom

.

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian J Carlson
To: stmfc@...
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 6:39 AM
Subject: [STMFC] SP&S Boxcars



If I can ask a question not relating to standards. I'm looking for a photo
of SP&S 11000-11499 or 12000-12999 (preferred). These cars are listed as
40'6" 10' 6" height, 6' doors and in July 1957 comprised over 70% of the
SP&S boxcar fleet. Are these cars 10 panel cars similar to other 40'
postwar cars or are they 10'-6" 12 panel cars?

The 13000-134999 series of cars were 12 panel 10' height and the comprised
almost 25% of the fleet so I am concerned that the cars I am interested in
may also be 12 panel. Also, Branchline doesn't show them in their line of
10'-6" 10 panel cars. Unless I am mistaken, there is no HO model for a
10-6" 12 panel car.
Thanks for any help.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


SP&S Boxcars

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

If I can ask a question not relating to standards. I'm looking for a photo
of SP&S 11000-11499 or 12000-12999 (preferred). These cars are listed as
40'6" 10' 6" height, 6' doors and in July 1957 comprised over 70% of the
SP&S boxcar fleet. Are these cars 10 panel cars similar to other 40'
postwar cars or are they 10'-6" 12 panel cars?

The 13000-134999 series of cars were 12 panel 10' height and the comprised
almost 25% of the fleet so I am concerned that the cars I am interested in
may also be 12 panel. Also, Branchline doesn't show them in their line of
10'-6" 10 panel cars. Unless I am mistaken, there is no HO model for a
10-6" 12 panel car.
Thanks for any help.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


Re: Why don't model railroaders have review sites? Was: Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Jack Burgess <jack@...>
 

I also subscribe to Fine Scale Modeler and it seems that most of the reviews
in that magazine are not done by staff members. They mention detail errors
in the reviews but fit problems seem to be the biggest issue, which is not
generally an issue for us. The reviews also may mention the level of
experience needed to build the kit (especially multi-media kits), again not
an issue for us.

To a degree, this chat list fulfills much of this need for reviews for
serious freight car modelers....is this new car an accurate model for the
prototype? Is the lettering and paint scheme being offered correct or did
that particular railroad even own these cars? As soon as someone asks the
question, there is generally someone who knows the answer. The problem, of
course, is that the information on a new offering is soon lost unless
someone searches the archives.

This information/question/feedback is important for those who purchase
plastic kits or ready-to-run models. For resin kits, we have come to expect
that the offerings from at least Speedwitch, Sunshine, and Westerfield are
completely accurate (or at least accurate to the information available...I
get the feeling that armor and aircraft kits are manufactured from actual
plans in most if not all cases). The only question then becomes the
lettering/paint scheme and features of particular kits for the time period
being modeled. That information might be mentioned in the instructions or
require more research which isn't all bad...

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Why don't model railroaders have review sites? Was: Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

George Simmons
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Kurt Laughlin" <fleeta@...> wrote:

What explains the difference between armor and railroads, I wonder?
For armor, and other static model venues such as cars and ships, I
believe it is that there is no real need for the models to interact.
With railroads that operate in a semi realistic manner this bring in
the interchangablilty that requires standardization. IF you were to
build a static display of a railroad scene than only a strict
adherence to actual design parameters such as truly having you track
look like a 10 mph branch that hadn't seen a MOW crew in a century.
They also won't use the word "prototype" when refering to the actual
tank, plane, ship or car they are modeling.




I think
a big part is that armor modelers, as a rule, seem to be more
internet-savvy. ... They seem more willing to use the 'net
as a part of their hobby and to create forums that are very
independent of
commercial influence. This may be an age thing.
Probably.


new kits keep coming because they keep getting better -. If a new
kit wasn't an
improvement over what was out there already, the "Why did they
bother?"
posts would appear almost immediately.
I think that is also due to the static nature of the models. If you
want to keep building Panzer IV's, you want to get new challenges, if
you need to get 200+ freight cars ready for an operating railroad you
tend to accept compromise such as car heights being off a couple of
scale inches/feet to get the desired result.

A website devoted to reviewing model railroad kits is an idea that
could do the hobby good. The question is as follows:

Is there someone willing to forgo the time and/or money to
establish such a site?

Without this, the idea will be stillborn. One way to do this might
be with something like a blog where a product could be posted with a
quick review that others could add comments/views.

George Simmons
Dry Prong, LA


Why don't model railroaders have review sites? Was: Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

Sounds like model railroaders need something like this website:

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/

The owner is well-known for fair, honest, and comprehensive reviews. He gets advertising from hobby shops more so than manufacturers, which may give him an extra level of independence. He also buys a good deal of stuff on his own. The biggest problem he has run into came in the form of personal attacks on the manufacturer's weblog authored by "Blogger Hiroshi", who was obviously a pseudonym for the company's marketing department. The attacks were so transparent however that they backfired on the company.

There are also three private armor modeling websites that also post reviews, and on two of them the reviews are predominately written by the public, not "staff". The quality of the reviews can be spotty, but it doesn't take long to learn who can be trusted and knows what they are are talking about and who has their head up their butt. (If you read the forums, you'll see that discussion of business practices is permitted - and without a devolution into anarchy. . .) I'd say it's clearly gotten to the point that armor modelers expect reviews of new products, and want them to be impartial.

I've had reviews published that have run the full range from "wonderful kit" to "a waste of money". I've never had problems with manufacturers, even when meeting them in person. Almost all have told me that they appreciated the review. The response of the site owners to comments about negative reviews has been: "If companies want better reviews, make better products." I've never been pressured by a site owner over a "bad" review.

What explains the difference between armor and railroads, I wonder? I think a big part is that armor modelers, as a rule, seem to be more internet-savvy. (An armor vendor who "doesn't do email" is about six months away from being an EX-armor vendor.) They seem more willing to use the 'net as a part of their hobby and to create forums that are very independent of commercial influence. This may be an age thing. I'm *guessing* the typical armor modeler is about 40, the typical model railroader 50 or 60.

Another aspect might be the tendency for many model railroaders to buy anything with a keystone or warbonnet (for example) on it, making actual determinations of quality, accuracy, or anything else irrelevant. Despite the alledged willingness of some to buy models of anything the Germans pushed past the "sketch-on-a-cocktail-napkin" stage the reality is that the new kits keep coming because they keep getting better - a re-pop of a 1969 - or even 1990 - kit would go nowhere except for those buying one for nostalgic reasons or because of extreme rarity. If a new kit wasn't an improvement over what was out there already, the "Why did they bother?" posts would appear almost immediately.

I should note that back in the early 90's there was a magazine that was dedicated solely to kit reviews. The models were built without paint or filler, just normal clean-up and glue. This provided an opportunity to see how they went together - very warts-and-all - and the author pulled no punches. The advertisers went along with it for awhile but eventually broke the guy and the mag folded. This was pre-internet mind you. I can't see a website succumbing to the same pressures.

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson

The commercial mags won't touch this with a 10 foot pole. Income
involved!
Jon is, of course, right. People I've spoken to over the years at
all the model magazines have admitted (usually in the bar, somewhere
beyond the shank of the evening) that however much it may be denied in
the bright light of day, they do live in fear of the wrath of their
advertisers. Manufacturers understandably do not want to feel like the
very products they advertise in a particular magazine are being trashed
on the editorial side. (Few manufacturers accept the existence of
something called a "neutral review," never mind a critical one.)
This means, as Denny Anspach pointed out, that if the NMRA's
magazine will not serve us in the area of honest reviews, no one will.
Oh heck, I forgot, the NMRA now runs plenty of ads in that "revived"
magazine and is probably reclining in the same bed as the rest of the
magazines. This might just mean that Jon Miller's distinction between
commercial and other magazines is no longer valid. <not grinning>


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

al_brown03
 

Earlier in this thread, there was some discussion of what the NMRA
should do to manufacturers who don't conform to standards. Well, "Scale
Rails" came today, with a review of a freight car, which was beyond the
era of this group. The article started with the names of the
manufacturer and the product. The next sentence, in red letters, was as
follows (upper and lower cases from the original):

"A Conformance Warrant was NOT issued for this product." "NOT" was
underlined, which I can't do in this e-mailer. There's a table at the
end of the article (the rest of which was in black normal-sized type)
which states why they didn't issue a warrant, and there's discussion of
same in between.

I suspect they may treat steam-era freight cars similarly.

-- FWIW --

-- Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Denny Anspach responds to my:

Pseudo Code 88 wheels? Well, they look better when viewed from
their ends but all the
King's Men could not pick out the Pseudo Code 88 wheeled car from 2
feet away during a test conducted during a past Prototype Rails and
such wheels tend to wobble a bit when negotiating frogs built to
Code 110 associated standards.
With:

"Now, now... Mike. Eyes at our ages do tend to see what may not be
there. Perhaps they may need some attention by your friendly
ophthalmologist?"

It was not a fair test, of course, because the car was embedded in a train which only really allowed side views and the wheels in question had Code 110 flanges. Still...

Mike Brock


Standards disxussion- Charlie hits a home run

Gordon Andrews <sryn.dump@...>
 

In one of Charlie's posts on the topic of "New Standards for Freight Cars"
IMHO he hit a home run and this group and others could implement it AND be
the source of information.



It's simple:



Here is Charlie's "elegant" suggestion:
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. 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"
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.
Perhaps a Wikopedia of Model Railroad Product Measurements would be a way of
accomplishing this......

While Wiki is one way of doing it WHY NOT create a spreadsheet
in THIS GROUP (we probably care more than most). And if it catches on it
could be picked up by others. Heck, multiple links to THIS group might spur
folks to actually get excited about some of the more exacting work members
of this group DO.



Gordon Andrews





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1463 - Release Date: 5/23/2008
3:36 PM