Date   

Birmingham Southern? WAS: B&LE Gon #34894

Garrett W. Rea <Garrett.Rea@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Brian J Carlson" <brian@b...> wrote:
The Newburgh & South Shore had similar gons. Similar in that they
had the
same number of panels, side rivet patterns, fishbelly undeframe,
and box end
sills. Interestingly the N.S.S. cars were 50 ton cars and at least
the
picture in the 1943 CBC shows National type trucks.

Is the N.S.S a USS road? The USS roads tended to swap equipment
around so
this could have come from another USS road.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
I have to leave out the door right now, so I cannot check now, but
with that build date and USS road ownership, this MAY be one of the
eluisive PS-built Birmingham Southern USRA clones??????

More later-

Garrett Rea
Nashville, TN


Re: B&LE Gon #34894

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

The Newburgh & South Shore had similar gons. Similar in that they had the
same number of panels, side rivet patterns, fishbelly undeframe, and box end
sills. Interestingly the N.S.S. cars were 50 ton cars and at least the
picture in the 1943 CBC shows National type trucks.

Is the N.S.S a USS road? The USS roads tended to swap equipment around so
this could have come from another USS road.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hendrickson" <rhendrickson@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] B&LE Gon #34894



On Apr 13, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Eric Hansmann wrote:

I was just checking the latest images at Fallen Flags and I stumbled
onto this Bessemer & Lake Erie gondola.

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/ble/ble34894awb.jpg

This looks like a USRA mill gon, but I did not think the B&LE had any.
The built date looks like 4-40. Most interesting are the Andrews trucks
and the 5-70 repack date. The photo credit notes:
Madison WI - 06/04/1972 - {Warren I. Beckwith Jr. Photo} - MILW

Does anyone have further details on B&LE 34894?
You're right that it looks like a USRA-design mill gon, but it's not a
steam era B&LE car; this number series isn't in any of the ORERs up
through '62. The B&LE did acquire some second-hand gons of USRA
dimensions in the late '50s (they were numbered 36001-37000 and
39001-39500) but they had wood floors. The car shown in the photo may
have been one of these after the wood floors were replaced with steel
in the '60s. The trucks are 70 ton USRA Andrews, doubtless original,
so the built date would have to have been earlier than 1940.

Richard Hendrickson





Yahoo! Groups Links







Re: B&LE Gon #34894

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 13, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Eric Hansmann wrote:

I was just checking the latest images at Fallen Flags and I stumbled
onto this Bessemer & Lake Erie gondola.

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/ble/ble34894awb.jpg

This looks like a USRA mill gon, but I did not think the B&LE had any.
The built date looks like 4-40. Most interesting are the Andrews trucks
and the 5-70 repack date. The photo credit notes:
Madison WI - 06/04/1972 - {Warren I. Beckwith Jr. Photo} - MILW

Does anyone have further details on B&LE 34894?
You're right that it looks like a USRA-design mill gon, but it's not a steam era B&LE car; this number series isn't in any of the ORERs up through '62. The B&LE did acquire some second-hand gons of USRA dimensions in the late '50s (they were numbered 36001-37000 and 39001-39500) but they had wood floors. The car shown in the photo may have been one of these after the wood floors were replaced with steel in the '60s. The trucks are 70 ton USRA Andrews, doubtless original, so the built date would have to have been earlier than 1940.

Richard Hendrickson


B&LE Gon #34894

Eric Hansmann <ehansmann@...>
 

I was just checking the latest images at Fallen Flags and I stumbled
onto this Bessemer & Lake Erie gondola.

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/ble/ble34894awb.jpg

This looks like a USRA mill gon, but I did not think the B&LE had any.
The built date looks like 4-40. Most interesting are the Andrews trucks
and the 5-70 repack date. The photo credit notes:
Madison WI - 06/04/1972 - {Warren I. Beckwith Jr. Photo} - MILW

Does anyone have further details on B&LE 34894?

Eric Hansmann
Morgantown, W. Va.


Re: [Dominion Cars]

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Bruce Smith wrote:
Don reported the difference was between 5 and 4 decimal places (not 3
vs 6)...
I note that there are several versions going around of "what Don said," some dating from different time periods. Examples include 5 vs 4, 2 vs. 5, and 3 vs. 5, decimal places. Whether this point has anything to do with the lawsuit, I don't know.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: [Dominion Cars]

Doug Brown <brown194@...>
 

The important thing is the number of significant figures. The zeros only
affect the placing of the decimal point. 0.011481 x 87.1 = 0.9999951;
0.011 x 87.1 = 0.9581. 1/87.1 x 87.1 = 1.0000000.

Doug Brown

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom or Gail Madden [mailto:tgmadden@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:21 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: [Dominion Cars]


Bruce Smith, following Dave Nelson's explanation:
Don reported the difference was between 5 and 4 decimal places (not 3
vs 6)... thus, between conversion factors of 0.0114 and 0.01148 if the
tool maker was an idgit and didn't round, and 0.0115 if they did. At
436", the conversions are as follows:

0.0114 * 436 = 4.9704"
0.01148 * 436 = 5.00528"
0.0115 * 436 = 5.014"

Now (5.00528 - 4.9704)/5.00528 * 100 is 0.69% This is not the 4-5%
reported by Don. The difference in car body lengths would be 0.03488"
or 0.035" on a good caliper... about 3 times the thickness of a grab
iron.

Class dismissed
Whoa, Bruce - you're confusing theory with reality! I was about to post
the
same explanation as Dave, because it's grounded in reality: the car body

really is 4 to 5% undersize, and Don reported the problem was caused by
the
toolmaker using an incorrect conversion factor. If you accept those
premises, the more likely explanation is that Don mis-stated the 4 vs. 5

decimal places cause and it was really 3 vs. 5. I was working on another

project with Don back when all this happened, and my recollection was
that
Don told me it was 2 vs. 5. That recollection may be wrong, but I
definitely
remember it wasn't a matter of one decimal point difference.

Don called Monday night to order some more Pullman ice A/C sumps and
with
great trepidation I asked him how things were going with the Dominion
car.
He said he didn't want to talk about it. (Don't read too much into that
- it
was pushing midnight in VT and Don didn't want an adrenaline rush just
before bedtime.)

Tom Madden





Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: [Dominion Cars]

Doug Brown <brown194@...>
 

That's why dividing works much better. 435 /87 = 5.000; 435/87.1 = 4.994

Doug Brown

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Nelson [mailto:muskoka@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 1:29 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: [Dominion Cars]


Mike Brock wrote:
Bruce Smith notes about the error in the Dominion car:

You know, that's just about impossible. If the measurement was 1",
rounding to four decimal places results in a maximum error of 1 in
10,000 or roughly 0.01%.
Put another way, if the error was truly 36.3' - 34.75' [ forgetting
the half inch ], the difference is a significant 1.55'. This is an
error of .042699 or 4.2699% of the expected 36.3'.
Convert the real car length to inches and then mulitiply by 0.011481
(that's
1/87.1). If I've done my math right the result is a model Dominion car
that
5.005716 inches long. Now if you multiply by 0.011 instead you get a
model
Dominion car that's only 4.796 inches long. And 4.796 is just 0.003
inches
off of being a 34' 9.5" car. Sound familiar?

I dunno if that's what really happened -- I know nothing of the facts --
but
this math comes out real, real close to what's been reported here.

Dave Nelson






Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Walthers has received the ATSF cabooses

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

Good, I would guess they have quite a large backorder (forward order<G>)
on these units. I have five ordered!
Their site says the ATSF lettered units are still in transit but all the
others list as in stock. The pictures haven't been updated yet.

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


Walthers has received the ATSF cabooses

Brian Paul Ehni <behni@...>
 

My order is being processed today.
--
Thanks!

Brian Ehni


Re: [Dominion Cars]

jaley <jaley@...>
 

On Apr 13, 3:10pm, buchwaldfam wrote:
Subject: [STMFC] Re: [Dominion Cars]


Wow! Neat! A calculator with a canned function to convert prototype
to HO! Has the NMRA gone digital? ;>
Believe it or not, somebody used to actually make such a calculator, but I
can't find it in the Micro-Mark catalog anymore.

Regards,

-Jeff


--
Jeff Aley jaley@...
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Re: [Dominion Cars]

ljack70117@...
 

On Wednesday, April 13, 2005, at 11:10 AM, buchwaldfam wrote:

My whole argument is why should the tool maker have to convert anything? I supplied correct measurements and all he had to do was cut the mold.
Also again I say I never paid one thin dime in advance of receiving a plastic part for approval.
To each his own.
Thank you
Larry Jackman
ljack70117@...
The 50-50-90 Rule: Anytime you have 50-50 chance of getting something right, there is 90% probability you'll get it wrong.


Re: [Dominion Cars]

Rich C <richchrysler@...>
 

Phil wrote:<snip>
If the body has been corrected, I wonder if he would consider
either doing a resin underframe or selling just the body, and
include a drawing in the box to scratch up or bash the underframe.
He could recover some of his investment and we could get a kit!

With best intentions,
Phil Buchwald
I too look forward to Don's success in producing this car. However, if the above situation were to happen, the scratchbuilding or kitbashing work involved in completing the car would take more work than simply buying and building the excellent Westerfield cars that have been available for a long time.
I envision Don's Dominion car as being somewhat along the lines and complexity of a Tichy kit; all styrene parts with excellent fidelity and detail, somewhat less time involvement than a Westerfield. This would make a great steam era freight car more available to the masses and hopefully help hone their modelling skills for something more.
As an aside, the really ironic thing about all this is the fact that the CNR had actually more of the 5ft door Dominion cars than the 6ft door cars, but nobody makes them.

Rich Chrysler


Re: Intermountain Drop Bottom Gons

Clyde Williams <billdgoat@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "cgengr" <th498@a...> wrote:


Hello, list. Intermountain makes some sexy HO scale assemble
composite side drop bottom gondolas. Any suggestions on how best to
remove the some of the lettering (reporting marks) and heralds on an
assembled model? Thanks, Tom Holley
Tom, you only asked about removing lettering, not disassembling these
cars, so here is what i did.
I questioned IM a while ago about their choice of heralds on the GN
cars. They weren't aware of the GN historical group to ask for advice.
They sent me a small bottle of paint to match the cars. So I just
carefully painted over the too modern heralds and applied era proper
(for me) ones and the cars came out fine.
Since then I have had good luck with ELO (Easy Lift Off) from Polly S.
Bill Williams


Re: [Dominion Cars]

buchwaldfam <duff@...>
 

Wow! Neat! A calculator with a canned function to convert prototype
to HO! Has the NMRA gone digital? ;>

To leave the thoery behind, I'll bet that Mr. Valentine takes
real pride in getting the stuff dead on, but...
If the body has been corrected, I wonder if he would consider
either doing a resin underframe or selling just the body, and
include a drawing in the box to scratch up or bash the underframe.
He could recover some of his investment and we could get a kit!

With best intentions,
Phil Buchwald


--- In STMFC@..., Bruce Smith <smithbf@v...> wrote:

On Apr 13, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Tom or Gail Madden wrote:
Whoa, Bruce - you're confusing theory with reality!
No, I think its just different realities <G>

I was about to post the
same explanation as Dave, because it's grounded in reality: the
car
body
really is 4 to 5% undersize, and Don reported the problem was
caused
by the
toolmaker using an incorrect conversion factor. If you accept
those
premises, the more likely explanation is that Don mis-stated
the 4
vs. 5
decimal places cause and it was really 3 vs. 5. I was working
on
another
project with Don back when all this happened, and my
recollection was
that
Don told me it was 2 vs. 5. That recollection may be wrong, but
I
definitely
remember it wasn't a matter of one decimal point difference.
OK, THAT makes sense and would be right on for the error... each
addition decimal place ignored increases the error by a factor of
10.
Bottom line is that I'm forced to wonder why the toolmaker even
used
such an awkward factor to multiply the dimensions rather than
simply
dividing by 87.1? After all, most calculators do have that little
button these days <G>.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" -
Benjamin
Franklin
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___
________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __
__ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; |
||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-
0


Re: [Dominion Cars]

Bruce Smith <smithbf@...>
 

On Apr 13, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Tom or Gail Madden wrote:
Whoa, Bruce - you're confusing theory with reality!
No, I think its just different realities <G>

I was about to post the
same explanation as Dave, because it's grounded in reality: the car body
really is 4 to 5% undersize, and Don reported the problem was caused by the
toolmaker using an incorrect conversion factor. If you accept those
premises, the more likely explanation is that Don mis-stated the 4 vs. 5
decimal places cause and it was really 3 vs. 5. I was working on another
project with Don back when all this happened, and my recollection was that
Don told me it was 2 vs. 5. That recollection may be wrong, but I definitely
remember it wasn't a matter of one decimal point difference.
OK, THAT makes sense and would be right on for the error... each addition decimal place ignored increases the error by a factor of 10. Bottom line is that I'm forced to wonder why the toolmaker even used such an awkward factor to multiply the dimensions rather than simply dividing by 87.1? After all, most calculators do have that little button these days <G>.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: [Dominion Cars]

Tom or Gail Madden <tgmadden@...>
 

Bruce Smith, following Dave Nelson's explanation:
Don reported the difference was between 5 and 4 decimal places (not 3
vs 6)... thus, between conversion factors of 0.0114 and 0.01148 if the
tool maker was an idgit and didn't round, and 0.0115 if they did. At
436", the conversions are as follows:

0.0114 * 436 = 4.9704"
0.01148 * 436 = 5.00528"
0.0115 * 436 = 5.014"

Now (5.00528 - 4.9704)/5.00528 * 100 is 0.69% This is not the 4-5%
reported by Don. The difference in car body lengths would be 0.03488"
or 0.035" on a good caliper... about 3 times the thickness of a grab
iron.

Class dismissed
Whoa, Bruce - you're confusing theory with reality! I was about to post the same explanation as Dave, because it's grounded in reality: the car body really is 4 to 5% undersize, and Don reported the problem was caused by the toolmaker using an incorrect conversion factor. If you accept those premises, the more likely explanation is that Don mis-stated the 4 vs. 5 decimal places cause and it was really 3 vs. 5. I was working on another project with Don back when all this happened, and my recollection was that Don told me it was 2 vs. 5. That recollection may be wrong, but I definitely remember it wasn't a matter of one decimal point difference.

Don called Monday night to order some more Pullman ice A/C sumps and with great trepidation I asked him how things were going with the Dominion car. He said he didn't want to talk about it. (Don't read too much into that - it was pushing midnight in VT and Don didn't want an adrenaline rush just before bedtime.)

Tom Madden


Re: [Dominion Cars]

Bruce Smith <smithbf@...>
 

On Apr 13, 2005, at 1:29 AM, Dave Nelson wrote:
Convert the real car length to inches and then mulitiply by 0.011481
(that's
1/87.1).  If I've done my math right the result is a model Dominion
car that
5.005716 inches long.  Now if you multiply by 0.011 instead you get a
model
Dominion car that's only 4.796 inches long.  And 4.796 is just 0.003 inches
off of being a 34' 9.5" car.  Sound familiar?

I dunno if that's what really happened -- I know nothing of the facts
-- but
this math comes out real, real close to what's been reported here.

Dave Nelson
Don reported the difference was between 5 and 4 decimal places (not 3
vs 6)... thus, between conversion factors of 0.0114 and 0.01148 if the
tool maker was an idgit and didn't round, and 0.0115 if they did. At
436", the conversions are as follows:

0.0114 * 436 = 4.9704"
0.01148 * 436 = 5.00528"
0.0115 * 436 = 5.014"

Now (5.00528 - 4.9704)/5.00528 * 100 is 0.69% This is not the 4-5%
reported by Don. The difference in car body lengths would be 0.03488"
or 0.035" on a good caliper... about 3 times the thickness of a grab
iron.

Class dismissed
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin
Franklin
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: Intermountain Drop Bottom Gons

ZOE@...
 

Tom:

Let me qualify this answer by saying I've not done it. But if I were faced
with your problem the short answer is to try media blasting. Remember that
the styrene and the wood are going to respond differently to the media.

Another idea would be to dig the wood portion of the model out and toss it.
Then replace it with individual styrene strips (4 x 10?) cut ot match the
material removed. You could add grain to the styrene strips with .080 grit
sand paper. I did this and actually prefer the styrene treatment. I think
the sytrene looks more like rough wood.

Keep in mind that the steel and wood parts weather differently. You can
weather these parts separately before final assembly.

These are really nice models and you can do many things with them.

Mont Switzer

Quoting cgengr <th498@...>:




Hello, list. Intermountain makes some sexy HO scale assemble
composite side drop bottom gondolas. Any suggestions on how best to
remove the some of the lettering (reporting marks) and heralds on an
assembled model? Thanks, Tom Holley







Yahoo! Groups Links








Re: Accurail six- panel wood SS boxcar

Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...>
 

Stefan Lerch� asked:
"Could someone direct me to a review of this car and/or its prototype?"

http://www.steamfreightcars.com/modeling/new%20products/accurail/accu7000.ht
ml


Ben Hom


Re: [Dominion Cars]

Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

Mike Brock wrote:
Bruce Smith notes about the error in the Dominion car:

You know, that's just about impossible. If the measurement was 1",
rounding to four decimal places results in a maximum error of 1 in
10,000 or roughly 0.01%.
Put another way, if the error was truly 36.3' - 34.75' [ forgetting
the half inch ], the difference is a significant 1.55'. This is an
error of .042699 or 4.2699% of the expected 36.3'.
Convert the real car length to inches and then mulitiply by 0.011481 (that's
1/87.1). If I've done my math right the result is a model Dominion car that
5.005716 inches long. Now if you multiply by 0.011 instead you get a model
Dominion car that's only 4.796 inches long. And 4.796 is just 0.003 inches
off of being a 34' 9.5" car. Sound familiar?

I dunno if that's what really happened -- I know nothing of the facts -- but
this math comes out real, real close to what's been reported here.

Dave Nelson

156401 - 156420 of 196875