Okay Boss, I know you might think a low of 59º is cold but that is higher than our high up here in the Willamette Valley today. They are talking freezing FOG over night this weekend. I never heard

The Van Dyke (V cars) were the ones with no center sill, or sills of any kind, for that matter that had bolsters and draft gear mounted to a heavy bottom sheet of the tank. The X cars were also

X was the design which succeeded the frameless Van Dyke tanks, not conversions of them. One or the other of the famous narrow-gauge tanks can be converted back to a standard gauge X without too much

Since this subject can be a bit controversial and at times some of the members tend to be...shall we say emotional regarding the subject of the NMRA and its standards...I will caution the members to

I really hate interrupting the Revell flat car thread... I was intrigued to hear the rumors of a UTLX tank car in styrene, even though the size or capacity is not mentioned. I thought I would mention

So, what's a "Code 88 wheel"? Just another in a long line of halfway measures. If you guys want true fidelity to scale, go to P:87, as expressed in NMRA S-4.1 Wheels, Proto&Fine Scales. What's the

Facing the risk of being accused of sending the plow down the same furrow twice, I wish to note that a "semi-scale" code 88 wheel's tread width is only about .004" (four thousandth of an inch) wider

Code 110 wheelsets are sold as "scale" (versus Flyer barrels) in S. I find it amusing that P:64 wheels are code 87, while P:87 wheels are code 64. The true scale wheels do look much better, but then

Sorry, but I missed who posted this. I'm pretty sure none of the current .088 tread wheel sets on the HO market fully conform to any NMRA standard or recommendation -- they're an adaptation to

I was going to go for the Windows Command Prompt reference, but thought better of it. Thanks! -- Brian Ehni From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> Reply-To: STMFC List

Bolero!! Oh, nevermind, wrong composer. To: STMFC@... Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 2:23:52 PM Subject: [STMFC] Re: How far do we go? Backward compatibility, so those Revel

Backward compatibility, so those Revel flatcars can still be run. Dennis

Tim O'Connor wrote: See Bill Daniels' reply, which I think answers it eloquently. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705

Tim O'Connor asked: "...what NMRA standard for wheel profiles? I've only heard about a recommendation." Wheel standards as

Bill Daniels wrote: Well said, Bill. The NMRA cannot contain itself, patting itself on the back for "compatibility standards" which were promulgated over 50 years ago. Fine, but as we ask many

Richard, what NMRA standard for wheel profiles? I've only heard about a recommendation. Don't you recall when Athearn tried putting .088 wheels on their Genesis freight cars? They came under heavy

But Tony, they are still made of phosphor-bronze. They're only stained black. And you evaded Arved's question. ;-) Tim

I think that both sides have a point, but then both sides are also off base. For example, Arved asks if real couplers don't have that phosphor-bronze spring, why should a model coupler have one?"

"Retool to a new standard??" So... how is that circa-1984 analog mobile phone working? Standards (should) evolve... and those changes help carry the industry forward. IMHO... it is time for

Arved Grass wrote: Maybe you haven't noticed, Arved, but the Kadee #78 couplers have blackened springs. I haven't bought a new #5 for quite some time, so don't know if the same is true for those,