Re: question about weight in HO

Brian Paul Ehni <behni@...>

You can¹t just divide 200,000 by the cube of 87; metals don¹t scale density
when going from real to HO. There¹s no ³formula² that I know of (doesn¹t
mean there isn¹t, either) to do this. I always just get as much weight in
the loco as I can without crippling it¹s performance (I have put so much
lead in a Hallmark U30CG it almost doesn¹t move ­ which reminds me I have to
fix that 8^)).

Don¹t expect an HO loco to always have the same performance as the real
thing. Also, how many of us have a place to pull a scale mile-long rain,
anyway? That also doesn¹t mean you CAN¹T get that performance, either: I
have a Cary lead alloy FT A-B-B-A on Athearn chassis using ³Holland² motors
and dual flywheels. ONE of these locos will pull 161 Athearn 40¹ boxcars
weighted to NMRA practice with metal wheel sets and Kadee couples, plus
caboose, around our local modular layout. But it¹s an exception.

I know a lot of the above isn't STMFC related, but didn't know any other way
to put it.
--
Thanks!

Brian Ehni

From: Bryan <s1bigsix@...>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:10:53 -0000
To: <STMFC@...>
Subject: [STMFC] question about weight in HO

I am an HO modeler. Using a formula written by a frend of mine I have
put in numbers that show a 200,000 pound locomotive should weigh 607
pounds. If you look at an NMRA sheet you get some diffrent answer. I
would like to know if any of you could help me with a proper formula
that I could use to calculate proper weight for cars and engines that
would be scale to do in HO? I think the NMRA is too heavy but I don't
know how tey came to that conclusion for there calculation. It seems to
me that there was a published formula in MR some time ago, but I cannot
seem to find it.

Bryan

Re: The DS/SS split - More results

laramielarry <ostresh@...>

--- In STMFC@..., "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@...> wrote:

Hope this is helpful. I can look up more detail and actual built
dates
on the pre-1909 wood cars if anyone wants it.

Dennis
This is extremely helpful. Thanks! I would like to know the built
dates on the pre-1909 cars; also more detail (but just because I
expect it will be very interesting, rather than for the database).

Here is the summary table for the SOO, with your new data
incorporated:

Soo . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 0.8%. . .71
SS . . . .63.4%. . .5,701
Steel. . .35.8%. . .3,222
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .8,994
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .8,994

That is a BIG proportion of single sheathed cars!

Best wishes,
Larry

Paint Mic for Rock Island SS Boxcars by Rocket Express

gary laakso

I have started the Rocket Express kits for the Rock Island double door 40 and 50 foot SS boxcars and noticed the instructions suggest "boxcar red" for the sides and ends but RP Cyc Vol 3 suggests mixing oxide red and boxcar red. Any thoughts which matches Rock Island red better?

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...

Re: old kits RIP

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>

Andy Miller wrote:
"I have a candidate. It was sooo bad I threw it away and don't even
remember the manufacturer's name. It was a kit (?) for a PRR class
N5c caboose made with blown plastic sides and roof. There were no
PRR cabooses on the market at the time (Sort of dates this kit
doesn't it) except the old Main Line Model N6b, so I gleefully
grabbed this one in hopes that it would be the start of something
wonderful. I did not work on it for long (the best decision I made
with this) and threw it away. I am reasonabl[y] certain that the
basement manufacturer himself never assembled one. I have never
thrown any other kit away."

The manufacturer's name was Casey's Trains. I have one of his PRR
Class N6B kits. The roof floor, and sides of this kit appear to be an
attempt at vacuforming, but the plastic used was far too thick. This
kit is so laughably bad that I keep it around for entertainment value.

Ben Hom

Re: question about weight in HO

Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>

Hi Bryan,

We've published the NMRA's recommended practice for car weight several times
in MODEL RAILROADER. That's what I follow myself and I think it works very
well. I provides sufficient heft to the cars to make coupling more reliable,
to help cars track better, and to make the length of trains or switching
cuts a factor in operation. It's RP-20.1 if you want to look it up at
www.nmra.org, but the formula (for HO scale) is one ounce plus 1/2 ounce per
inch of carbody length. That makes the weight of a 40-foot boxcar about 3.75
ounces. This is not a "scale weight" (which would be a lot heavier) but one
based on practicality and operating reliability.

So long,

Andy

Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
asperandeo@...
262-796-8776, ext. 461
FAX 262-796-1142

Re: The DS/SS split - More results

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>

--- In STMFC@..., "laramielarry" <ostresh@...> wrote:

Here are the remaining SOO unknowns, if you would like to bring us to
the 100% level (currently we are at 96.9%).

Road, AAR, Kind, Series, IL, Door, Capy, Qty
SOO, XM, Box, 28504-28676, 40'4", 10'6", 80000, 17
SOO, XM, Box, 28700-28848, 40'3.375", 12'6", 80000, 53
SOO, XM, Box, 28810-28810, 40'3.375", 14'0", 80000, 1 (same as above)
All derived from SS "sawtooth" frame auto cars built by AC&F in 1915.
The 10'-6" door is the original.

SOO, XM, Box, 76000-76198, 50'0", 12'6", 100000, 68
SOO, XMR, Auto, 76000-76198, 50'0", 15'0", 100000, 30 (same as above)
All Steel, built 1940

SOO, XM, Box, 176500-176598, 50'6", 12'6", 100000, 50
All steel, built 1950

SOO, XM, Box, 108436-108962, 36'0", 6'0", 60000, 2
DS truss rod wood cars predating 1909

SOO, XM, Box, 130136-130982, 40'0", 5'11", 80000, 6
SOO, XM, Box, 130136-130982, 40'4", 5'11", 80000, 1 (same as above)
DS truss rod wood cars predating 1909

SOO, XM, Box, 136200-136298, 50'0", 6'0", 100000, 40
All steel, built 1936. These were the first 50' boxcars on the Soo,
and were numbered in series with the 40' boxcars. Hey, a boxcar is a
boxcar, right? Saner heads prevailed and the next 50' cars started a
new series beginning with 175000.

SOO, XM, Box, 136200-136298, 50'0", 8'0", 100000, 5 (same as above)
Various cars rebuilt from above with wider doors.

SOO, XME, Box, 136200-136298, 50'0", 8'0", 100000, 5 (same as above)
Various cars rebuilt from above with wider doorsand perforated steel
linings.

Hope this is helpful. I can look up more detail and actual built dates
on the pre-1909 wood cars if anyone wants it.

Dennis

Re: old kits RIP

Miller, Andrew S. <asmiller@...>

I have a candidate. It was sooo bad I threw it away and don't even
remember the manufacturer's name. It was a kit (?) for a PRR class N5c
caboose made with blown plastic sides and roof. There were no PRR
cabooses on the market at the time (Sort of dates this kit doesn't it)
except the old Main Line Model N6b, so I gleefully grabbed this one in
hopes that it would be the start of something wonderful. I did not
work on it for long (the best decision I made with this) and threw it
away. I am reasonable certain that the basement manufacturer himself
never assembled one. I have never thrown any other kit away. I have
kept a few for 40 years and still not built them.

regards,

Andy Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
ed_mines
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:42 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] old kits RIP
. . .

I wonder what kit is least likely to ever get built - Ambroid ACF
hoppers?

Ed

Re: question about weight in HO

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>

Bryan (no last name) wrote:
"I am an HO modeler. Using a formula written by a frend of mine I
have put in numbers that show a 200,000 pound locomotive should
weigh 607 pounds. If you look at an NMRA sheet you get some diffrent
answer. I would like to know if any of you could help me with a
proper formula that I could use to calculate proper weight for cars
and engines that would be scale to do in HO? I think the NMRA is too
heavy but I don't know how t[h]ey came to that conclusion for there
[sic] calculation. It seems to me that there was a published formula
in MR some time ago, but I cannot seem to find it."

Bryan, search the group archives for a thread titled "Scale Weights -
Doubt It" for and extensive (and exhaustive) discussion on this
subject.

NMRA RP 20.1:
http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-20_1.html

Ben Hom

Re: question about weight in HO

Miller, Andrew S. <asmiller@...>

HO is 87 times smaller than the prototype. That's a linear dimension,
for weight you need to consider volume. Therefore you need 87 cubed =
658503. Dividing your 200000 pound loco by 658503 = .3 pounds or 4.8
oz. That's much lighter than NMRA specs

regards,

Andy Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Bryan
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:11 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] question about weight in HO

I am an HO modeler. Using a formula written by a frend of mine I have
put in numbers that show a 200,000 pound locomotive should weigh 607
pounds. If you look at an NMRA sheet you get some diffrent answer. I
would like to know if any of you could help me with a proper formula
that I could use to calculate proper weight for cars and engines that
would be scale to do in HO? I think the NMRA is too heavy but I don't
know how tey came to that conclusion for there calculation. It seems to

me that there was a published formula in MR some time ago, but I cannot

seem to find it.

Bryan

Bryan <s1bigsix@...>

I am an HO modeler. Using a formula written by a frend of mine I have
put in numbers that show a 200,000 pound locomotive should weigh 607
pounds. If you look at an NMRA sheet you get some diffrent answer. I
would like to know if any of you could help me with a proper formula
that I could use to calculate proper weight for cars and engines that
would be scale to do in HO? I think the NMRA is too heavy but I don't
know how tey came to that conclusion for there calculation. It seems to
me that there was a published formula in MR some time ago, but I cannot
seem to find it.

Bryan

Re: The DS/SS split - More results

laramielarry <ostresh@...>

When I posted this yesterday, there were a plethora of formatting
difficult. Hopefully, this new list is easier to read. (Yahoo sure
makes it difficult to include tables in posts!)

Hi Folks

Here is a list of the third 20 largest RRs in my database. (The 40
largest were posted earlier.) The database consists of all type X and
V cars, so as to coincide with the recapitulation lists in the ORER.

Also, please note that the list is based on reporting marks as listed
in the July, 1950, ORER; it is not based on ownership. Separate
numbers are given for the MP, SB&M, and I-GN, for example. Thus, it
may not agree with other lists posted by members of this group - even
the order of railroads may differ.

NC&StL..3,451
CMO.....3,392
MEC.....3,269
KCS.....2,920
B&M.....2,695
WLE.....2,600
I-GN....2,575
DT&I....2,481
D&H.....2,299
M&STL...2,285
WM.....,2,143
BAR.....2,018
WP.....,1,991
SB&M....1,901
SPS.....1,776
CNJ.....1,519
ITC.....1,428
EJ&E....1,424
CRP.....1,403
C&EI....1,188
For many of these roads I have enough information so that presenting
a preliminary classification of cars into DS, SS, and steel may be
warranted.

NC&StL . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 4.7%. . .161
SS . . . .16.7%. . .577
Steel. . .78.6%. . .2,713
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .3,451
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .3,451

CMO . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 0.1%. . .2
SS . . . .26.5%. . .899
Steel. . .69.6%. . .2,361
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 96.2%. . .3,262
Unknown. . 3.8%. . .130
Total. . 100.0%. . .3,392

Thanks to Tim Gilbert for identifying a Maine Central series on
my "Nasty Nineteen" list, so as to make the MEC data nearly complete.
MEC . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 0.2%. . .5
SS . . . .25.1%. . .822
Steel. . .74.2%. . .2,427
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 99.5%. . .3,254
Unknown. . 0.5%. . .15
Total. . 100.0%. . .3,269

KCS . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 0.0%. . .0
SS . . . .20.3%. . .594
Steel. . .79.3%. . .2,316
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 99.7%. . .2,910
Unknown. . 0.3%. . .10
Total. . 100.0%. . .2,920

B&M . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 1.9%. . .52
SS . . . .71.4%. . .1,924
Steel. . .26.7%. . .719
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .2,695
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .2,695

W&LE . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 0.0%. . . . 0
SS . . . .1.7%. . . . 44
Steel. . .98.3%. . .2,556
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .2,600
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .2,600

I-GN . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 0.0%. . .0
SS . . . .67.7%. . .1,744
Steel. . .29.8%. . .767
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 97.5%. . .2,511
Unknown. . 2.5%. . .64
Total. . 100.0%. . .2,575

DT&I - Insufficient information.
Here are the missing series for the DT&I:
DT&I, XAP, Box, 27000-27999, 40'6", 7'0", 80000, 30
DT&I, XAP, Auto, 47009-47948, 40'6", 7'0", 80000, 51
DT&I, XAP, Auto, 57007-57976, 40'6", 7'0", 80000, 111

D&H . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 45.4%. . .1,044
SS . . . .24.3%. . .558
Steel. . .30.3%. . .697
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .2,299
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .2,299

M&STL . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 5.6%. . .129
SS . . . .21.5%. . .492
Steel. . .72.4%. . .1,654
Other. . . 0.4%. . .10
Known. . 100.0%. . .2,285
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .2,285

WM . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 0.0%. . .0
SS . . . .0.0%. . .0
Steel. . .100.0%. . .2,143
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .2,143
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .2,143

BAR . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 13.0%. . .262
SS . . . .55.0%. . .1,109
Steel. . .32.1%. . .647
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .2,018
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .2,018

WP - Insufficient information.
Here are the missing series for the WP:
WP, XM, Box, 19001-19050, 40'4", 6'1", 100000, 48
WP, XM, Box, 27001-27600, 40'3", 6'0", 80000, 62
WP, XM, Box, 316001-318500, 40'3", 6'0", 80000, 56

SB&M - Insufficient information.
I don't have much information for the parent company, the MP, either!
This series was on my NEED HELP list and Nasty Nineteen list; it
remains elusive:
SB&M, XM, Box, 20051-20550, 40'0", 6'0", 80000, 384

SPS . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 15.7%. . .279
SS . . . .0.0%. . .0
Steel. . .84.3%. . .1,497
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .1,776
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .1,776

CNJ . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 1.1%. . .17
SS . . . .44.6%. . .678
Steel. . .54.2%. . .824
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .1,519
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .1,519

ITC . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 10.0%. . .143
SS . . . .6.8%. . .97
Steel. . .83.2%. . .1,188
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .1,428
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .1,428

EJ&E . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 0.0%. . .0
SS . . . .0.0%. . .0
Steel. . .100.0%. . .1,424
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .1,424
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .1,424

CRP . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 0.2%. . .3
SS . . . .1.1%. . .16
Steel. . .98.6%. . .1,384
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 100.0%. . .1,403
Unknown. . 0.0%. . .0
Total. . 100.0%. . .1,403

C&EI . . . . %. . .Number
DS . . . . 0.0%. . .0
SS . . . .34.8%. . .412
Steel. . .60.3%. . .713
Other. . . 0.0%. . .0
Known. . 95.1%. . .1,125
Unknown. . 4.9%. . .58
Total. . 100.0%. . .1,183

Best wishes,
Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming

old kits RIP

jrhill <jrhill@...>

I wonder what kit is least likely to ever get built -
Ambroid ACF hoppers?
In O Scale, I'm betting on the Ambroid/QC/Gloor-Craft Lehigh & Hudson River
flanger kit. I've seen dozens of them for sale on eBay -- and not a single
one of them had been built (or even started).

Jim Hill

Re: The DS/SS split - More results

laramielarry <ostresh@...>

--- In STMFC@..., "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@...> wrote:

did you pick up on:

75202-75200 (originally a larger series)auto, built by H&B in 1917
No. THANKS! The series in the July 1950 ORER was 75038-75388, 18
cars.

37802 (originally a larger series)box, built by H&B in 1917
Yes. From your posts #47280 (Nov. 4, 2005) and #47463 (Nov. 7, 2005).
In the July 1950 ORER the series was 36682-38192, 44 cars.

Both series were DS truss rod cars, and each series had one car
remaining as of Jan. 1, 1962, when they were listed for retirement.
The ORER for the year of your list should give you the actual number
of cars then in service. These were the last DS cars built for the Soo
Line, and the only ones to make it to the end of the steam era.

Dennis
Here are the remaining SOO unknowns, if you would like to bring us to
the 100% level (currently we are at 96.9%).

Road, AAR, Kind, Series, IL, Door, Capy, Qty
SOO, XM, Box, 28504-28676, 40'4", 10'6", 80000, 17
SOO, XM, Box, 28700-28848, 40'3.375", 12'6", 80000, 53
SOO, XM, Box, 28810-28810, 40'3.375", 14'0", 80000, 1 (same as above)
SOO, XM, Box, 76000-76198, 50'0", 12'6", 100000, 68
SOO, XMR, Auto, 76000-76198, 50'0", 15'0", 100000, 30 (same as above)
SOO, XM, Box, 176500-176598, 50'6", 12'6", 100000, 50
SOO, XM, Box, 108436-108962, 36'0", 6'0", 60000, 2
SOO, XM, Box, 130136-130982, 40'0", 5'11", 80000, 6
SOO, XM, Box, 130136-130982, 40'4", 5'11", 80000, 1 (same as above)
SOO, XM, Box, 136200-136298, 50'0", 6'0", 100000, 40
SOO, XM, Box, 136200-136298, 50'0", 8'0", 100000, 5 (same as above)
SOO, XME, Box, 136200-136298, 50'0", 8'0", 100000, 5 (same as above)

Best wishes
Larry

Re: question about weight in HO

Dan,
If you weigh both the loaded and empty cars to the same NMRA Standard
you won't have "stringlining" and they should run fine.

Re: T&NO/SP & Other "Subsidiaries (was DS/SS Split)

al_brown03

A point of general interest here is: if modelling either a "parent" or
a "subsidiary", how should one's car fleet reflect that? As in many
other things, I suspect the answer depends on the particular situation.
Some subsidiaries survived only as accounting conveniences, and "their"
cars were distributed the same way as the parent's fleet. Others
operated with relatively high degrees of autonomy, and can be thought
of almost as independent railroads. And, as has been extensively
discussed here, some car types stayed home more than others. The most
accurate way to model a particular line is to get data about that line:
which in many cases isn't easy.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

Re: old kits RIP

Brian Paul Ehni <behni@...>

I have two of the Quality Craft ATSF steel caboose kits with brass wrappers.
Neither will ever get built, I¹m afraid; my soldering skills are not that
great.

On second thought, they might work out with ACC.
--
Thanks!

Brian Ehni

From: <rfederle@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:52:42 -0600
To: <STMFC@...>
Cc: ed_mines <ed_mines@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] old kits RIP

I think my "most likely NOT to get built" car is the Flexi-van Flat. I
thinks its an old Quality Craft kit. Maybe a Northeastern, I dont know.

Robert Federle
---- ed_mines <ed_mines@... <mailto:ed_mines%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

A lot of those old kits will never be built - much better kits of the
same car came along later or the castings warped or crumbled or the
kit was impossible to build by anyone from the very beginning.

I don't begrudge any of the manufacturers though. No one forced me to

I was Mr. Qualitycraft. Built multiples of many of those cars but
some defied my efforts. I visited Bob Weaver once and asked him about
some of the cars I was having problems with. He had exceptional built
up models of every one of them including the ones using screens as
roof walks.

Bob was a big guy, maybe 6'3" and 280 lbs. He showed me how to bend
that damn flat wire on the first try.

After Q'Craft Bob came out with a line of O scale plastic trains.

I wonder what kit is least likely to ever get built - Ambroid ACF
hoppers?

Ed

Re: old kits RIP

eabracher@...

In a message dated 2/6/07 11:07:23 AM, b.hom@... writes:

This
kit is so laughably bad that I keep it around for entertainment value.
Sounds like the Korean brass caboose NWSL imported years ago with finger
prints and crooked parts.

eric

Re: old kits RIP

rfederle@...

I think my "most likely NOT to get built" car is the Flexi-van Flat. I thinks its an old Quality Craft kit. Maybe a Northeastern, I dont know.

Robert Federle
---- ed_mines <ed_mines@...> wrote:

A lot of those old kits will never be built - much better kits of the
same car came along later or the castings warped or crumbled or the
kit was impossible to build by anyone from the very beginning.

I don't begrudge any of the manufacturers though. No one forced me to

I was Mr. Qualitycraft. Built multiples of many of those cars but
some defied my efforts. I visited Bob Weaver once and asked him about
some of the cars I was having problems with. He had exceptional built
up models of every one of them including the ones using screens as
roof walks.

Bob was a big guy, maybe 6'3" and 280 lbs. He showed me how to bend
that damn flat wire on the first try.

After Q'Craft Bob came out with a line of O scale plastic trains.

I wonder what kit is least likely to ever get built - Ambroid ACF
hoppers?

Ed

Re: demise of kits

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>

Malcolm Laughlin wrote:
"You may get a passable imitation of steel in plastic, but there's no
way that a plastic model of a wood car will look like wood."

Do we have to start this thread again? I think some people here had
better quit counting the number of unbuilt kits on their shelves and
get to building kits instead of wasting our time.

Ben Hom

Re: demise of kits

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>

I have to take exception to the notion that cars built from the old kits don't look as good because they don't have as much detail as the new plastic cars.

I'm currently building six Silver Streak kits from the 60's and two Athearn stell reefer kits from that era. They have an appearance feature that can't be found in plastic. The wood reefer kits look like wood, and the Atheran cars look like steel. You may get a passable imitation of steel in plastic, but there's no way that a plastic model of a wood car will look like wood.

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

 137141 - 137160 of 196937