|
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:
GenesisWhy? What's wrong with just following the prototype?I think the heart of the problem is not being able to trade trucks of boxcar with an Athearn Genesis 100 ton roller bearing truck withoutmessing up the coupler height. (I'm sorry; I realize the example is outside theI'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 internala Genesis boxcar with an Athearn Genesis 100 ton roller bearing truck withoutmessing up the coupler height. If Athearn can't even standardize withintheir own line, I really doubt the NMRA is going to have much influence. 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_________________________________________________________________ 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 someoneThe only available PRR cabin car assignments are those of the 1957 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:
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:
standards/recommended practices we can make a lot of this stuff a lot easier.that is relative to the top of the track and nothing else. Then anymanufacturer's truck or coupler box would be a drop in replacement for any otherWhy? 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:
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 atBrian, 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:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
- 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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
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 sinceThe page says "revised 1-90" but since I don't know what it __________________________________________________ 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
|
|
|