Just noticed in the Scale Rails the new micro-trains 3 dome tank. Do either of the brothers have influence on each other anymore?

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

Whit Towers, who was president of the NMRA during the development of the X2f,
once told me that the project was one of the most frustrating experiences of
his life. He said industry leaders pressed the NMRA for some sort of
standardization and the result was the X2f. But the manufacturers than failed to adhere
to the specs in cutting their tooling. The NMRA conformance inspection
committee called for samples from all the different manufacturers but, according to
Whit, the X2f design was difficult to inspect. In desperation, Whit contacted
a friend at Douglas Aircraft and borrowed an optical comparator. The finding
was that no two manufacturers couplers were alike.

Ed Ravenscroft was an early participant in NMRA affairs, a great promoter of
the organization and a pioneer in realistic operation. As a supporter of NMRA,
Ed wanted to somehow demonstrate that the X2f was capable of supporting
operations. No one volunteered so he stepped up and converted the rolling stock of
his Glencoe Skokie to the new NMRA X2F coupler. For weeks, if not months, he
worked diligently adjusting and fussing with the couplers but they would not
interchange. Finally he ordered a large supply of X2f couplers from a single
manufacturer and he got them to work, i.e., interchange with some reliability.

When anyone confronted Whit and asked why the president of NMRA did not use
the "NMRA" coupler on the Alturas & Lone Pine, Whit told them in no uncertain
terms where they could put the X2f. Whit stayed with Baker couplers which were
reliable but ugly. I was witness to Keith and Dale Edwards - before the split
- offering to supply Whit with enough Kadee's, at no charge, to retrofit the
ALP. He turned them down. It was my understanding that the same standing offer
was made to John Allen, who also used Bakers, and to Cliff Robinson of Dallas
who used the old Mantua loop.

I believe the X2f was of great benefit to model railroaders, although not in
the way you might think. It didn't do much as a working coupler, but
department stores and mass merchandisers felt comfortable carrying train sets that were
touted to feature "NMRA approved, interchangeable couplers that would work
with all HO equipment." Participating successfully in the mass market with train
sets helped manufacturers like Athearn, MDC, Bachmann, Life Like and Tyco
survive during some very difficult years.

Richard Bale
Carlsbad, CA


**************
Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
Music.

(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548)

Richard,
I would also like to see these images of your stock car weathering. Any chance you could put them in the files section?
Charlie

Dennis and others interested,

The (rather unwieldy) title in 1899 was "CODE OF RULES GOVERNING THE
CONDITION OF, AND REPAIRS TO, FREIGHT CARS FOR THE INTERCHANGE OF
TRAFFIC ADOPTED BY THE MASTER CAR BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION."

In 1919 the last four words were replaced with "American Railroad
Association" but the title was otherwise unchanged.

In 1920 "American Railroad Association" was replaced by "American
Railway Association."

In 1935 "American Railway Association" was changed to "Association of
American Railroads."

Through 1958 there was nothing on the cover except the year of
revision and the effective date.

From 1959 through 1969 inclusive the words "INTERCHANGE RULES"
appreared on the cover.

In 1970 the title changed to "FIELD MANUAL OF THE INTERCHANGE RULES
ADOPTED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS." The words "FIELD
MANUAL" began appearing on the cover.

As one might suspect the booklet has gotten ever larger over the
years. Dennis, I suspect your "AAR Field Manual of Car Repair" would
refer to any volume after 1969.

These volumes do contain some drawings and, in later years, a few
poorly reproduced black & white photographs. (If you think the Car
Builders' Cyc's photo reproduction was bad, you should see these.)
These drawings and photos mostly relate to acceptable repairs, worn
conditions, standards gauges and the like. Not really much there in
the way of drawings to help us modelers.

Where the interchange rules shine for modelers is they tell us, if we
are willing to really dig, when certain appliances, etc. were first
authorized for use or no longer permitted. As an example, after
metal running boards (aka roof walks) were authorized there is a list
each year of those approved and permitted. Ditto for hand brakes (my
area of interest and reason for acquireing all these volumes) after
1940 or so.

The AAR Operations and Maintenance Department, Mechanical Division,
also published a "MANUAL OF STANDARD and RECOMMENDED PRACTICE." I
have one from 1942. It probably weighs 8 or 10 pounds.

When I bought this gem on eBay (for a sum that has been concealed
from the little woman) I was full of high hopes that I had a treasure
trove of useful modeling information. What a disappointment! Most
of the drawings repeat those in the interchange rules. About the
only thing I find useful are the stencilling diagrams and these are
pretty much repeats of the CBCs.

Dennis and others, all I set out to do was answer the question 'what
is the title.' Sorry I got so long-winded. If anyone is still awake
will you please turn on the lights and wake the others.

Gene Green

Right. Well worth repeating (so I did :-)

I was just unsure if the AAR publications were ever originally
copyright, as all I had ever seen were re-printed material, which
could have been used with permission.

What exactly did the AAR publish, other than the

various "proceedings"

of the Mechanical Committee? Gene has mentioned the books on
interchange requirements. I was told the car drawing copies I was
given were out of the "AAR Field Manual of Car Repair" (not sure of
the exact title.) It was my impression that this book described
standard procedures, and standard charges, so a repair made at any
foreign road RIP track would be done to the same specifications as

the

home road would use, but I've never looked into the issue any

further.

If so, then this book may be an even better source of modeling data
than the interchange rules.

Dennis

On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:27 PM, djm1141 wrote:

Hello All,
I have enjoyed the discussion on weathering the cars. One group of
cars that has been missed is the stock cars (sorry if I missed it).
Anyone that has done some and may like to share ideas and techniques?
A picture or two would be great too. I have 36 stock cars and want to
get started. Thanks much, Dave Mueller

Stock car weathering has been discussed here before, but it's worth
talking about it again because of the widespread misunderstandings
about it. Back in the last century, model railroaders often assumed
that stock cars were typically filthy dirty. In fact, decrepit, crappy
looking stock car models were virtually a cliché at NMRA contests. One
contest entrant even contrived to have his model smell like steer dung.
Some modelers still adhere to this error, but the fact is that stock
cars were among the cleanest freight cars on the railroads because
shippers, concerned about contaminating the health of their stock,
refused to accept dirty cars. Of course, stock cars got a bit cruddy
en route when loaded. But once they were unloaded, the bedding in the
floors (either straw or, especially on southwestern RRs, sand) was
cleaned out and the interiors and car bodies steam cleaned. Roofs
certainly got grimy, as on other house cars, as well as underframes and
running gear, but sides, ands, and doors were generally quite clean.
The paint faded, of course, some individual boards shed paint and
weathered, and lettering got chalky and often picked up some slight
coloration from the mineral red paint on the sides and letterboards.
But stock car bodies never had a chance to get really dirty. I've
recently weathered some stock car models I'm fairly pleased with, using
a combination of air-brushed grime on the roofs and underbodies and
Bragdon chalks and Prismacolor colored pencils on the sides and ends.
I'll send you a couple of images off line.

Richard Hendrickson


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

Al Westerfield wrote:

I knew Paul pretty well. We served together on the board of the Garden State Division of the NMRA. In fact, the first division meeting I ever attended had Paul giving his bridge clinic. . . The hobby misses him.

I still think his bridge book is by far the best publication on the subject. Carstens unfortunately has not always done a good job with the successive reprints, but if you get a version with good reproduction of the drawings, you have something you can trust and use. Mallery would be a giant of our hobby in my eyes even if he had done nothing but that book.

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

On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:

cj riley wrote:
> As is often the case, I beg to differ with Tony, but there is
> considerable work being done now by Di Voss and his committee
> regarding standards and RPs.

So we are often told, but I distinguish between doing
"considerable work" and being "serious about accomplishing something."
I remain to be convinced that anything will actually happen.

Having expressed myself vigorously on this subject in the past, I've
tried to remain silent this time. However....

I've been hearing for going on twenty years about how the latest NMRA
standards committee chair and his committee are doing "considerable
work" on standards and RPs. As the French say, it is to laugh. With
the possible exception of DCC standards, a confusing can of worms which
seems to grow larger with the passage of time, that "considerable work"
has produced absolutely zero results. As a result of all the cheap
talk with no action, many of those best qualified to assist in
upgrading and updating the standards won't go anywhere near the NMRA's
clumsy and ineffectual efforts to drag itself into the twenty-first
century. In any case, at the rate the NMRA's membership continues to
decline along with its reputation and relevancy, I think it's doubtful
that revised standards and RPs would have much influence even if they
were actually achieved. De facto, standards in the hobby are now set
by the most accomplished and experienced modelers and the more
prototypically oriented manufacturers. That's far from an ideal
situation, but it's preferable to having a dying organization trying to
impose standards that are half a century out of date, or trying to
re-establish itself as the setter of standards when it has dwindled
away to the point where it's little better than a bad joke.

Richard Hendrickson

Ted,
I would be interested.

With access to such drawings and access to even a poor photo one
could tell, in most cases, if the car in question conformed or not.

Gene Green

--- In STMFC@..., "Ted Anderson" <tedander@...> wrote:

We have in the Pullman Library at IRM a number of full-size

(20"x30")

ARA drawings from the early 20's, that include recommended

lettering

locations and size. My understanding is that individual railroads

did

not always follow the standards of the USRA after WWI. I do not

know

if this applied to lettering as well. Since these printed drawings
would be in the public domain, what would be the interest in our
scanning all the material and making it available at reasonable

cost?

Would there be any caveats in making this material printed or on CD
available for a fee?
With my concerns for the public interest and for our continued
contributions to railroad history and modeling, Ted Anderson

I knew Paul pretty well. We served together on the board of the Garden State Division of the NMRA. In fact, the first division meeting I ever attended had Paul giving his bridge clinic. I brought a model of the Quebec cantilever (at 10' long pretty impressive but still considerably shortened). He said a nice thing about it during his talk and I was hooked.

Although we can disbarage the X2f, it was cheap and worked. It standardized train sets and brought many of us into model railroading. I remember having a conglomeration of Mantua, Roundhouse and other couplers. As a teenager I couldn't afford Kadees so I went with Rail Line horn hooks.

Few have done more for the hobby than Paul. Yet he was child-like and lacked social skills. We were on the committee for a regional convention, inspecting what would become the host hotel. There was a fancy dress ball going on. He commented how strange the women looked. We explained they were transvestites. Then we had to explain what transvestites were.

When London was chosen over Newark to host a national he dropped out of the NMRA in a snit. He turned his energies to The Model Railroad Club, once again setting a standard for others to follow.

I was lucky to see him twice after he retired. The first time was in London of all places for a regional convention, the first he had attended in about 20 years. We spent a lot of time talking. The second was another regional in Phoenix, near where he retired. Again we had a good talk. The hobby misses him. - Al Westerfield

Hello All,
I have enjoyed the discussion on weathering the cars. One group of
cars that has been missed is the stock cars (sorry if I missed it).
Anyone that has done some and may like to share ideas and techniques?
A picture or two would be great too. I have 36 stock cars and want to
get started. Thanks much, Dave Mueller

Thanks for the history Tom. I recall when I joined TMRC in 1955 being greatful for the X2F because it gave us the automatic coupling/uncoupling and its appearance was much less bad than the only really automatic coupler of the time, the Mantua. Tony, are you sure about what you said ? i thought the X2f was an RP.

Tom mentioned Varney, Globe and Mantua. No Silver Streak ?! I'm still running some of my Varney and Silver Streak cars and a Thomas six dome Roma Wine tank car on our club layout. When anyone criticizes their lack of the level of detail of current models, I just remind them that my cars have completely prototypical materials - can't think of any plastic on the prototype in the steam era. And besides I built them between 1949 and 1959.


Malcolm Laughlin, Editor 617-489-4383
New England Rail Shipper Directories
19 Holden Road, Belmont, MA 02478

In the interest of accuracy,

In re-reading the forward to the 1971 Field Manual, it references the August 1970 Interchange Rules Field Manual, so that would be the transition date.

Thus, prior to 1970, it was the "Code of Rules Governing the Condition of, and Repairs to, Freight and Passenger Cars for the Interchange of Traffic." After that, it became the "Field Manual of the A.A.R. Interchange Rules."

Bob

Interesting! Do you know the date of the replacement, Bob? I
have an AAR "Interchange Rules" book from 1965, so it may be that the
"Field Manual . . ." postdates the period of this list.

I have the Interchange Rules for 1969 and the Field Manual for 1971. The introduction to the 1971 Field Manual references the Interchange Rules for 1970. (Yes, off list.)

If anyone needs a reference, I have the interchange rules complete from 1888 to 1969.

Bob

The Champ decals are the wrong font, slightly oversize and, perhaps
most noticeable non B&O folks, the 13 Great States medallian is
incorrect. The shape of the Capitol Dome on the Champ set reminds me
more of the beehive on Utah state highway signs.

John King



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

What's wrong with the Champ B&O BRH (or SHS?) decals? Inquiring
minds would like to know.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Gatwood, Elden J SAD " <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>

Jim;



I have looked into doing an N-41 from the Kadee car, also. I

also came to

the conclusion that the lack of decals is a BIG problem. I agree

that the

Champ, or other options, will not really work well enough to use.



Jim and John;



The photos Ed referred to are very good in determining what the

end detail

differences are.



Ed;



Thanks for the resource ID.



All;



In looking at the Kadee car, and the photos of the N-41 (and the

P&LE cars),

you could shave off the end supports, and graft on new end

supports made from

1x3's mated into an angle. You would need to add the thin flange

on the end

sheet, probably from .005" sheet cut into a strip, with rivets

either

embossed or grafted on. Since this variation looks like it

created support

from its attachment to the end sheet, rather than simply

supporting from

underneath, you could then graft the angle onto the flange, and

then create

its attachment point to the end sill. There are additional

little

structural shapes that would need to be added, and of course, the

brake wheel

housing and eqpt need to be removed before the surgery, and then

replaced

afterward.



After figuring out that the lack of decals would stymie me, I did

not look

further into dimensional differences, but to my eye, the Kadee

car appears

close enough that if you did the ends, you would be close

enough. I could be

very, VERY wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time.



Elden Gatwood

Tom Madden wrote (in concluding):

Maybe it's past time, at least for us prototype modelers, to just let that history go. Let the X2f sit on the same shelf with 6 volt power supplies, selenium rectifiers, paper sides and Bakelite wheels. Their exisistence shows how far we've come, and we don't need to abuse them to make that point.

Very well said, Tom. I'm afraid I react strongly when the name X2f has "NMRA" attached to it, particularly if an NMRA Standard or RP is implied.

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

Bob Karig wrote:

The AAR Field Manual of Car Repair replaced the "Code of Rules for the Interchange of Traffic..." They serve the same purpose.

Interesting! Do you know the date of the replacement, Bob? I have an AAR "Interchange Rules" book from 1965, so it may be that the "Field Manual . . ." postdates the period of this list.

I will add that the AAR has been generous with me in allowing me to republish their drawings, etc. in my books.

Given that many if not all are in the public domain, I would hope they would be generous <g>.

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

Makes perfect sense that they are not copyrighted. The ARA and AAR were in the business of compliance with set standards (which would be furthered by less hindrances on publication and distribution) versus profit.

CJM

Al Westerfield wrote:

I was a member of the West Essex (NJ) club in 1965-68. One of
the older members told of the time that Paul Mallery brough the
X2f down to the club for evaluation. He told Paul that there
were only 2 things wrong with it: it didn't look like a coupler
and it didn't act like a coupler.

And Tony Thompson responded:

He certainly nailed the description! There are those who maintain
that Mallery overrode most of the committee even to choose to
RECOMMEND the X2f design.

I got to know Paul reasonably well during the ten years (1960-1970) our
careers overlapped at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, NJ. We never became
what you'd call close because of our divergent views on the purpose of
the hobby, but at least once a month I'd drop into his office, or he'd
stop by my lab, and we'd spend some time chatting. Paul was insistent
that the hobby was model RAILROADING, and that everything, even
appearance, was secondary to operation. At the same time, he was very
proud to have been the first winner of MODEL RAILROADER's Model of the
Month award for a beautiful, completely scratch-built (including
wheels) HO Morristown & Erie handcar. Built, as he told me, "just to
show that I still could". I was a lot younger, had ditched my 10-year
accumulation of Globe, Varney, Mantua, etc. models, was in the early
stages of my HOn3 modeling period where I was scratchbuilding
everything and was, I must admit, rather full of myself about my
modeling abilities. (No comments, please!) I was insistent that the
hobby was MODEL railroading, so Paul and I would engage in these
friendly, monthly head-butting contests.

We talked about the X2f only once, but I remember it well. Paul was in
a reflective mood, and he admitted that the whole X2f fiasco pained him
on several levels. First, he thought he had done what the NMRA had
asked him to do (develop a free, non-proprietary coupler design that
operated reliably, without worrying about appearance). Second, each
manufacturer tweaked the design for their particular manufacturing
process (fatten up a cross-section here, change a radius there), and
the promised interoperability went by the boards. Third, Paul received
a lot of personal abuse, both direct and indirect, for all of the
shortcomings of the X2f, even the manufacturing ones. Yes, he had a
forceful personality; yes, he had great confidence in his opinions. But
I would never accuse him (and no one in this thread has done so) of
operating in bad faith. Bad timing, yes. Kadee came along with their
first ramp-operated coupler and the hobby's operators flocked to it in
droves.

Paul continued to call several times a year after I transferred to Bell
Labs here in Denver, but I lost contact with him some time after he
retired. He died just over four years ago.

In that long-ago conversation Paul said he sometimes wished the X2f had
never happened. Maybe it's past time, at least for us prototype
modelers, to just let that history go. Let the X2f sit on the same
shelf with 6 volt power supplies, selenium rectifiers, paper sides and
Bakelite wheels. Their exisistence shows how far we've come, and we
don't need to abuse them to make that point.

Soapbox mode <OFF>

Tom Madden

What exactly did the AAR publish, other than the various "proceedings"
of the Mechanical Committee? Gene has mentioned the books on
interchange requirements. I was told the car drawing copies I was
given were out of the "AAR Field Manual of Car Repair" (not sure of
the exact title.) It was my impression that this book described
standard procedures, and standard charges, so a repair made at any
foreign road RIP track would be done to the same specifications as the
home road would use, but I've never looked into the issue any further.
If so, then this book may be an even better source of modeling data
than the interchange rules.

The AAR Field Manual of Car Repair replaced the "Code of Rules for the Interchange of Traffic..." They serve the same purpose.

I will add that the AAR has been generous with me in allowing me to republish their drawings, etc. in my books.

Bob

Dennis Storzek wrote:

What exactly did the AAR publish, other than the various "proceedings" of the Mechanical Committee? Gene has mentioned the books on interchange requirements. I was told the car drawing copies I was given were out of the "AAR Field Manual of Car Repair" (not sure of the exact title.)

The "Interchange Rules" and the "Loading Rules" books are among the publications I have from both ARA and AAR. None contain copyright notices. I have never seen the "Field Manual of Car Repair" or anything with similar title.

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