Date   

Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

Tony Thompson
 

Barry Bennett wrote:
Do you think that might be because a 70 ton truck may have 33" wheels and a 100 ton truck 36" wheels?
Bolster height has no necessary relation to wheel diameter, AFAIK.

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: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "DR Stinson" <dano@...> wrote:

Why? What's wrong with just following the prototype?
I think the heart of the problem is not being able to trade trucks of
different manufacturers between cars. Unfortunately, the example I'm
familiar with is Athearn, who doesn't even seem to have an internal
standard. You can't swap an Athearn 70 ton roller bearing truck on a
Genesis
boxcar with an Athearn Genesis 100 ton roller bearing truck without
messing
up the coupler height. (I'm sorry; I realize the example is outside the
scope of this group.) If Athearn can't even standardize within their own
line, I really doubt the NMRA is going to have much influence.

But then, that's just my opinion.

Dan Stinson
Helena, Montana
I've heard that. Of course, both those trucks are more modern than my
interests, and almost more modern than the cut-off date of this list,
but I'll reiterate; if someone is making a freightcar truck that has a
centerplate height more than a couple thousandths different than
.296", then they didn't bother to do their homework, both regarding
the prototype they're modeling, and the other models presently
available, for the sake of interchangeability. I understand that one
of those trucks you mention has a centerplate height of .325" or so, a
real bummer. Then again, if they didn't bother to look at the
prototype, I doubt they'd think to look at any third party
organization's standards.

Dennis


Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

Barry Bennett <Barrybennetttoo@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "DR Stinson" <dano@...> wrote:
Unfortunately, the example I'm
familiar with is Athearn, who doesn't even seem to have an internal
standard. You can't swap an Athearn 70 ton roller bearing truck on
a Genesis
boxcar with an Athearn Genesis 100 ton roller bearing truck without
messing
up the coupler height. If Athearn can't even standardize within
their own
line, I really doubt the NMRA is going to have much influence.

But then, that's just my opinion.

Dan Stinson
Helena, Montana

Do you think that might be because a 70 ton truck may have 33" wheels
and a 100 ton truck 36" wheels?

Cheers

Barry Bennett
Coventry, England


B&A 70-ton coal hoppers

Dave Owens
 

I've searched the obvious online sources for photos of a B&A coal
hopper in the 910000-910649 number series, which apparently matches
the Stewart 70-ton, 14-panel hopper. I'll check with Bob's Photos next
time I see him.

I'd like to letter a couple of these for B&A with the NYC herald and
then the mating worms of PC.

I have found photos of a B&A hopper in a higher number series that
does not match the Stewart car.

Anyone ever run across photos of these cars, or have an idea where I
might find photos?

Thanks,

Dave Owens
West Hartford, Connecticut

.


Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

 

Why? What's wrong with just following the prototype?
I think the heart of the problem is not being able to trade trucks of
different manufacturers between cars. Unfortunately, the example I'm
familiar with is Athearn, who doesn't even seem to have an internal
standard. You can't swap an Athearn 70 ton roller bearing truck on a Genesis
boxcar with an Athearn Genesis 100 ton roller bearing truck without messing
up the coupler height. (I'm sorry; I realize the example is outside the
scope of this group.) If Athearn can't even standardize within their own
line, I really doubt the NMRA is going to have much influence.

But then, that's just my opinion.

Dan Stinson
Helena, Montana


PRR N6b Brake Configuration

Justin Kahn
 

I got the first part of what I needed from Bruce, but I'd still appreciate a lead on how the K-2 brake rigging was located.

Jace Kahn, General Manager
Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.


I finally went ahead and redid the end railings according to the 1946
rebuild (but keeping the vertical brake staff configuration rather than
going all the way with the geared housings, as some of the prototypes did).
My recollection from information received the last round is that not all
N6a's received full upgrades, and I wanted to modernize a bit but keep the
archbar trucks. I replaced the turned K-2 brake cylinder with a
better-detailed Monarch casting (probably very few list members as old as it
is--even I am not) but I am uneasy about the original MG cylinder location,
which is pretty far to the outside of the floor. In usual K-2 orientation,
it should be up against the centersill, but the unusual arrangement of the
brake gear on X29's makes me less certain about where to move it. The
Geissel drawings in MRR 1942 also show the K-2 divided into its two
components (something like the D&RGW narrow gage caboose brake gear), but
all the photo views of N6b's I've found show only AB gear (where the brake
gear is discernible at all), so I have no reliable information on placement.
_________________________________________________________________
Share your special moments by uploading 500 photos per month to Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features


PRR N6b Assignments

Justin Kahn
 

Dear Bruce
Many thanks. The site was, as they used to say in SEA (may still say in the Middle East), "a target-rich environment." I was pleasantly surprised to find 57 N6b's still in service in 1957 (out of curiosity I checked a few other divisions and found a LOT more still around), although relatively few on the Elmira Branch. Judging from the views I've seen of coal drags with Hippos shoving on the rear, the preference for N5b, and N5c and N8's is understandable there.
Still, a good half of those were being used in New York State (one even in the Rochester Yard), which is what I wanted.

Jace Kahn, General Manager
Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.




On Oct 6, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Justin Kahn wrote:
Can someone
point me to a source to determine which N6b's were assigned to the
Northern
Division?
The only available PRR cabin car assignments are those of the 1957
roster which is online at:
http://kc.pennsyrr.com/forms/cabins/index.html
Bruce F. Smith
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip


Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Doug Brown" <g.brown1@...> wrote:

I think there are three important numbers involved:

- Rail to top of truck bolster.

- Bottom of body bolster to coupler box mounting surface.

- Coupler box mounting surface to centerline of coupler knuckle.
Actually, these are all presently set, just not codified anywhere.
Other than Kadee, all the freight car trucks currently made use a
centerplate height of .296" which is a scale reduction of the AAR
standard. I believe the MDC trucks are now history. If anyone is
making trucks with a centerplate ht. of something other than .296"
they aren't following the prototype.

The coupler centerline in specified in NMRA S-2, .391" is mid-range
withing the prototype limits and is a reasonable number.

Everyone that is building boxes to accept Kadee couplers makes them
.0625" deep, as that is the thickness of the Kadee No. 5 spring.
However, because the spring goes above the shank, which lays on the
bottom of the box, and there is appx. .010" of clearance to
accommodate the spring, the actual box surface needs to be .427" above
the rails. The Accumate PROTO:HO coupler adds back this clearance to
both the top and bottom of the its shanks to allow a .072" thick shank
that comes to the proper center dimension when mounted against this
existing box surface.

Both Kadee and Accurail use .025" thick covers for their separate
boxes, so on a model where a surface is provided for mounting an after
market coupler "draft gear box" this surface needs to be .452" above
the rails. Kadee specifies 29/64" in their instructions, which is .453":

http://kadee.com/html/5ins.pdf

Accurail specifies .453" in their instructions:

http://accurail.com/accurail/instr/protoho2.gif
http://accurail.com/accurail/instr/protoho1.gif

Sergent conforms to the Kadee dimensions for their "wide shank"
coupler, and to the Accurail dimensions for their narrow shank
version. See:

http://www.sergentengineering.com/

If you do the math, you'll see that the coupler box needs to be .131"
above the bolster centerplate, and a surface to mount a box on needs
to be .157" higher than the centerplate.

Dennis


Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

Didrik A. Voss <davoss@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Mike Brock" <brockm@...> wrote:
I might note that I did volunteer to help develop a "scale sized"
coupler
standard and never received any response.
Mike,

Thanks for volunteering to help develop coupler S&RP's. Several months
ago I asked Bruce Medcalf to work on this. I am sure he can use some
help.

Please email me directly for more information.

Didrik
davoss@...


Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Jim Betz <jimbetz@...> wrote:

Guys,

There is one thing that we could do that would really help all of
us - both the MS and LS modelers amongst us.

If we would all lobby the NMRA to produce two new
standards/recommended
practices we can make a lot of this stuff a lot easier.

Specifically, if the NMRA would specify a size and placement for the
bolster and mounting -pad- for the truck mounts and coupler mounts
that is
relative to the top of the track and nothing else. Then any
manufacturer's
truck or coupler box would be a drop in replacement for any other
manufacturer's.
Why? What's wrong with just following the prototype? There were only
two common dimensions from the rail to the bolster centerplate (the
part the body pivots on) used on freight cars throughout most of the
twentieth century; 2'-2 3/4", standardized, I believe, early on by the
Master Car Builder's association, and 2'-1 3/4", used on the USRA
design cars and standardized by the AAR in the thirties. These
dimensions scale out to .307" and .296" respectively.

There are also only two common model truck centerplate heights. The
NMRA suggested 5/16", .313", in RP-23, last revised in 1961. This was
obviously a compromise dimension based on a happy medium of the models
then in production, NOT the prototype. Kadee and Model Die Casting
were the last hold-outs still using this dimension. In the mid
sixties, Athearn adopted a lower height that allowed correctly
modeling centersills and body bolsters, and just about everyone else
followed suit. This dimension is .296" which is a scale reduction of
the AAR standard. This lower height has advantages; if the car has
correctly modeled body bolsters that call for the older 2'-2 3/4"
(.307") centerplate ht., a single Kadee red fiber washer gets it
there. Using trucks made to the old NMRA RP is more problematic, as
they put a properly modeled body either .006" or .017" too high. I
personally can live with the first, but not the second.

The last thing the hobby needs now is another arbitrary standard. How
about letting the prototype engineers do all the work, and just follow
their standards? Keep in mind that arbitrary standards are a double
edged sword. While they initially make the interchange of commonly
used components easier, if they call for dimensions that are anything
less than exact scale reductions of the prototype, they will
eventually serve to stifle innovation and freeze modeling at the
status quo, because building a better representation of the prototype
makes it non-standard.



Dennis


Re: 3 gons again

Dan Smith <espeefan@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "rockroll50401" <cepropst@...> wrote:

I thought I'd continue with the gondola saga now that I decaled
them. The Westerfield decals were no surprise, normal stuff that
comes with Al's kits. Nice decal set. But, no reweigh dates are
included. The Speedwitch decals are undoubtedly the best decals
ever. They are thick enough to be handled during installation yet
completely disappear after an application of setting agent. I use
Walthers. The decals were missing from the Sunshine kit. I wrote to
Martin about this. While my friends were visiting on Saturday we
talked about these kits and couplers in general. I mention my
Sunshine CNW gon kit was missing decals. Two of the guys had the
same kits and said that theirs were missing the decals too. I'll be
interested in Martin's response.
Clark,
I was also missing decals from my CNW kit #67.22. I let Martin know
and got them some time ago. Ocassionally decals have been missing from
Martin's kits- taught me to check for them when I get kits. Martin has
always sent what's needed.
Regards,
Dan Smith.


Re: N&W Ex-NKP Flat Cars

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Oct 8, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Brian J Carlson wrote:

Richard, the NKP had 4 series of these cars all very similar, but built at
different times, the 2700-2724, 2725-2774, 2775-2849, 3000-3049, do you have
a preference?
Brian, the flat cars in the 2700-2849 series weren't AAR-design cars, though I'll settle for photos of them if they're all I can find. What I need are photos of the 3000-3049 series, or of the 3100-3249 series (70 ton cars which were beefed-up versions of the 50 ton AAR design), after they were restenciled N&W. Walthers/Life-Like want to do an N&W version of the Proto 2000 models of these cars and my role is to make sure the lettering is correct.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

Doug Brown <g.brown1@...>
 

I think there are three important numbers involved:

- Rail to top of truck bolster.

- Bottom of body bolster to coupler box mounting surface.

- Coupler box mounting surface to centerline of coupler knuckle.

If coupler box is integral with underframe the last two are combined.



Doug Brown

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
James Eckman
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 10:30 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA



Why not ask the manufacturers to list this information as a first step?

I drop my depth gauge through the truck center but this doesn't work
well for sprung trucks. Also sometimes I forget to subtract the flange
depth.

The bolster is a bit more of a challenge I admit. List intended height
above the rails?

Jim Eckman


Re: 3 gons again

joebinish@...
 

Clark,
Being from the model airplane side of modeling, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

MOST mfgs of kits w/decals and aftermarket decal sheets show a drawing of the aircraft with colors and decal locations called out. The best (Modeldecal form the UK or aeormaster types have a "monograph" (read prototype info) with photos of the real deal and suggestions for colors and part #s for various makers paints!

Hopefully the next generation of instructions for our kits will do the same. It would make for a better. more complete kit.........
Joe Binish

---- Original Message -----
From: rockroll50401
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:32 AM
Subject: [STMFC] 3 gons again


I thought I'd continue with the gondola saga now that I decaled
them. The Westerfield decals were no surprise, normal stuff that
comes with Al's kits. Nice decal set. But, no reweigh dates are
included. The Speedwitch decals are undoubtedly the best decals
ever. They are thick enough to be handled during installation yet
completely disappear after an application of setting agent. I use
Walthers. The decals were missing from the Sunshine kit. I wrote to
Martin about this. While my friends were visiting on Saturday we
talked about these kits and couplers in general. I mention my
Sunshine CNW gon kit was missing decals. Two of the guys had the
same kits and said that theirs were missing the decals too. I'll be
interested in Martin's response.

I do have a complaint with all decal sets. Somebody goes to a lot of
trouble to put all that information (printing) on the decal paper,
yet they don't tell you what most of it's for. As examples: The
Westerfield Milwaukee gon I built has decals for at least two
different eras stenciling. The prototype for the Speedwitch Southern
gon was built by two different companies. The decal set has
stenciling for both cars. You are forced to rely on the supplied
photos for decal placement. I always wonder why they don't put
diagrams in for the decal sheet. If nothing else, show a photo of
the decal sheet and circle the lettering that goes together. I feel
bad seeing so much effort go to waste!

Several years ago I built a CNW 40' DD PS1 from a Lloyd Keyser
magazine article. In the article Lloyd said he had decals made for
the car. I called Lloyd, but he was out of the decals. I bought a
Micro Scale generic CNW box car decal set to make do. About the time
I was finished decaling the car it dawned on me that ALL the correct
lettering for that particular car was in the set, but they didn't
mention the fact anywhere!
Clark Propst


3 gons again

rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

I thought I'd continue with the gondola saga now that I decaled
them. The Westerfield decals were no surprise, normal stuff that
comes with Al's kits. Nice decal set. But, no reweigh dates are
included. The Speedwitch decals are undoubtedly the best decals
ever. They are thick enough to be handled during installation yet
completely disappear after an application of setting agent. I use
Walthers. The decals were missing from the Sunshine kit. I wrote to
Martin about this. While my friends were visiting on Saturday we
talked about these kits and couplers in general. I mention my
Sunshine CNW gon kit was missing decals. Two of the guys had the
same kits and said that theirs were missing the decals too. I'll be
interested in Martin's response.

I do have a complaint with all decal sets. Somebody goes to a lot of
trouble to put all that information (printing) on the decal paper,
yet they don't tell you what most of it's for. As examples: The
Westerfield Milwaukee gon I built has decals for at least two
different eras stenciling. The prototype for the Speedwitch Southern
gon was built by two different companies. The decal set has
stenciling for both cars. You are forced to rely on the supplied
photos for decal placement. I always wonder why they don't put
diagrams in for the decal sheet. If nothing else, show a photo of
the decal sheet and circle the lettering that goes together. I feel
bad seeing so much effort go to waste!

Several years ago I built a CNW 40' DD PS1 from a Lloyd Keyser
magazine article. In the article Lloyd said he had decals made for
the car. I called Lloyd, but he was out of the decals. I bought a
Micro Scale generic CNW box car decal set to make do. About the time
I was finished decaling the car it dawned on me that ALL the correct
lettering for that particular car was in the set, but they didn't
mention the fact anywhere!
Clark Propst


Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

Tony Thompson
 

cj riley wrote:
Keep in mind, NMRA's work with conformance applies only to interchangabilty issues, not to conformance with prototypes or other issues. It's obvious from this group that protype conformance is a big deal to keep up with.
CJ is quite right, except that he should have said "USED to apply only to interchangeability . . ." <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


Re: Replacement brake wheels for cars with vertical brake shafts

Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Bill Dixon <WRDixon@...> wrote:


Wrong. They don't carry all the parts (only 1875 different items in HO
scale) but they do carry PSC.

Bill Dixon
Well, so they do. I stand corrected. They must have started stocking
more than just old stock and the PSC catalogs again.

Here's a direct link to the Walthers PSC listings sorted for "brake
wheel". Good luck figuring out what they are, or even how many come in
a pack, from these listings.

http://walthers.com/exec/search?category=Part&scale=H&manu=585&item=&keywords=Brake+wheel&instock=Q&split=30&Submit=Search


Dennis


ADMIN: Clarification of discussions about standards

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

To clarify, discussions about developing standards for models of steam era frt cars that then might be proposed to the NMRA or any other organization is within the scope of the STMFC. One of the goals of the group is, after all, to promote the generation of superior models.

Again, however, I caution that such discussions should not wander over into critiques or the bashing of the NMRA. If, for example, the group did develop some standards [ or RP's ], they might well be given to the NMRA which might then decide to promote them or not. The group might, as an alternative, simply promote them to the manufacturers themselves...many of whom are members. I would also note that bashing or critical comments about the business practices of individual manufacturers is also out of scope of the STMFC. IOW, if the group comes up with ideas that might provide advantages to the models from the modeler's perspective, fine and good. In many cases in the past, advice from the experts that populate the STMFC have been accepted by manufacturers and, hopefully, the results warrant such acceptance.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

cj riley <cjriley42@...>
 

Keep in mind, NMRA's work with conformance applies only to interchangabilty
issues, not to conformance with prototypes or other issues. It's obvious from
this group that protype conformance is a big deal to keep up with.

CJ Riley

--- Tony Thompson <thompsonmarytony@...> wrote:

Mike Brock wrote:
Actually, quite a bit of standards and RP's have been produced since
then.
Take a look at:

http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-4.html

and you'll see just one example.
The page says "revised 1-90" but since I don't know what it
looked before 1-90, I can't tell if this is significant. I can't find
my NMRA Standards book at the moment, but IIRC RP-4 has been around for
some time.
My complaint was not that NO standards work has been done, but
that no SIGNIFICANT standards work has been done. I realize that
"significant" varies with the observer.
There is also the issue of conformance, once indicated by
permission to use the NMRA conformance warrant, which Mike raised
earlier. I realize there may be legal problems with denial of warrants,
in our litigious society, but the plain fact is, for most freight
car-related standards, that there is no meaningful conformance activity
by the NMRA. That is probably true for most other standards. If anyone
can prove me wrong, I'm happy to be enlightened.

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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA

James Eckman
 

Why not ask the manufacturers to list this information as a first step?

I drop my depth gauge through the truck center but this doesn't work well for sprung trucks. Also sometimes I forget to subtract the flange depth.

The bolster is a bit more of a challenge I admit. List intended height above the rails?

Jim Eckman