Date   
Re: Photo: CN Livestock Car 815029

Ian Cranstone
 

On Mar 4, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Bob Chaparro via Groups.Io wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/28555987@N06/16514676841/in/album-72157678690227526/

I trust this car's origins are before the cutoff date for this group. Looking at the car's end, I wonder if this car was rebuilt from a boxcar?


Sure was… specifically from CN 508017 in 1967 — this car was originally built by Canadian Car & Foundry in April 1930, and was an example of a CNR 1929 standard boxcar.  As built, these were relatively low-roofed cars, and you can see more-or-less where the original roof line was.

Ian CranstoneOsgoode, Ontario, Canada

Re: Duryea Underframes (Was: Coupler Distance . . . )

Randy Hees
 

Per AAR interchange rules (my copy is 1975) per rule 90 (cars banned for interchange) under sub-section 3a, " all freight cars 46 years or older from date built or rebuilt... (at the time 1929) and sub-section 3b "Cars built prior to April 1,1950 equipped with Duryea underframe"   

I also note that the FRA bans freight cars (including cabooses) over 50 years of age... 

Randy Hees

Photo: CN Livestock Car 815029

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: CN Livestock Car 815029

A Richard May photo:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/28555987@N06/16514676841/in/album-72157678690227526/

I trust this car's origins are before the cutoff date for this group. Looking at the car's end, I wonder if this car was rebuilt from a boxcar?

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA

Re: Central of Georgia Boxcar Series Help

Tim O'Connor
 


Charles R Lange photo


On 3/4/2020 6:36 AM, Todd Horton via Groups.Io wrote:
These were the last new 40’ cars purchased by the Central in 1957.  They were different in that they were delivered in a brown color as opposed to the more common freight car red.  These cars also had black ends that were missed on the Kadee model.      As far as back dating them to 1955 I have no suggestions because the next large batch of cars before that were delivered in 1953 with a monogram only and no “ Right Way” lettering.  Kadee did this car as well and it’s in the more common FCR paint color.       Todd Horton 


On Mar 4, 2020, at 1:20 AM, Richard Townsend via Groups.Io <richtownsend@...> wrote:


8300-8799 January 1958 ORER

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Cain <Allencaintn@...>
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io <main@realstmfc.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Mar 3, 2020 7:39 pm
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Central of Georgia Boxcar Series Help

Could someone who has a ORER from November 1957 or later please tell me the number series that the boxcar CG 8734 was included in?

I am considering renumbering the Kadee part number 5216 boxcar to backdate it to 1955 so any advice on the suitability of this car for that project would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Allen Cain


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts

Re: SAL, ex-GF&A ARA XM-1 Box Cars

Tim O'Connor
 

On 3/4/2020 10:20 AM, Don Burn wrote:
Correction,

RPC 18.

Don Burn


-----Original Message-----
From: Don Burn [mailto:burn@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 10:20 AM
To: 'main@RealSTMFC.groups.io' <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: RE: [RealSTMFC] SAL, ex-GF&A ARA XM-1 Box Cars

Page 45 of RPC 19.

Don Burn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of O Fenton Wells
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 10:11 AM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] SAL, ex-GF&A ARA XM-1 Box Cars

Scott, trying to help you and on page 42 of my RPC vol 19 is a Wabash box (NJI&I #4145) Let me know where else to look Fenton

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 6:16 AM Scott H. Haycock <shhaycock@... <mailto:shhaycock@...> > wrote:


I just pulled this F&C kit, #8081, WofA, out my stash to work on. My plan is to turn it into the GF&A version, then letter it for the SAL as it would have looked after 1944.

Originally, when I came up with this idea, I did my research, collected everything I'll need- Kit, Trucks, Decals, a photo ... Oops! no photo. I know there is a photo of one of these cars in GF&A livery in RPC 19, pg. 42, But I don't have this book anymore. And I cant find a scan either, though I'm pretty sure I took one. I thought I had a photo of one of these cars in SAL lettering as well, but it's not in my modeling notes. If anyone can point me at a photo or two I'd appreciate it.

My main concern at this time however, is the roof. I need to replace the model's roof with a Hutchin's roof. I could really use a good photo or better yet a drawing of this roof.

Thanks for any help,

Scott Haycock

--
*Tim O'Connor*
*Sterling, Massachusetts*

Re: SAL, ex-GF&A ARA XM-1 Box Cars

Don Burn
 

Correction,

RPC 18.

Don Burn

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Burn [mailto:burn@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 10:20 AM
To: 'main@RealSTMFC.groups.io' <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: RE: [RealSTMFC] SAL, ex-GF&A ARA XM-1 Box Cars

Page 45 of RPC 19.

Don Burn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of O Fenton Wells
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 10:11 AM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] SAL, ex-GF&A ARA XM-1 Box Cars

Scott, trying to help you and on page 42 of my RPC vol 19 is a Wabash box (NJI&I #4145) Let me know where else to look Fenton

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 6:16 AM Scott H. Haycock <shhaycock@... <mailto:shhaycock@...> > wrote:


I just pulled this F&C kit, #8081, WofA, out my stash to work on. My plan is to turn it into the GF&A version, then letter it for the SAL as it would have looked after 1944.

Originally, when I came up with this idea, I did my research, collected everything I'll need- Kit, Trucks, Decals, a photo ... Oops! no photo. I know there is a photo of one of these cars in GF&A livery in RPC 19, pg. 42, But I don't have this book anymore. And I cant find a scan either, though I'm pretty sure I took one. I thought I had a photo of one of these cars in SAL lettering as well, but it's not in my modeling notes. If anyone can point me at a photo or two I'd appreciate it.

My main concern at this time however, is the roof. I need to replace the model's roof with a Hutchin's roof. I could really use a good photo or better yet a drawing of this roof.

Thanks for any help,

Scott Haycock







--

Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd

Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
@srrfan <mailto:@srrfan>

Re: SAL, ex-GF&A ARA XM-1 Box Cars

Don Burn
 

Page 45 of RPC 19.

Don Burn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of O Fenton Wells
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 10:11 AM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] SAL, ex-GF&A ARA XM-1 Box Cars

Scott, trying to help you and on page 42 of my RPC vol 19 is a Wabash box (NJI&I #4145) Let me know where else to look Fenton

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 6:16 AM Scott H. Haycock <shhaycock@... <mailto:shhaycock@...> > wrote:


I just pulled this F&C kit, #8081, WofA, out my stash to work on. My plan is to turn it into the GF&A version, then letter it for the SAL as it would have looked after 1944.

Originally, when I came up with this idea, I did my research, collected everything I'll need- Kit, Trucks, Decals, a photo ... Oops! no photo. I know there is a photo of one of these cars in GF&A livery in RPC 19, pg. 42, But I don't have this book anymore. And I cant find a scan either, though I'm pretty sure I took one. I thought I had a photo of one of these cars in SAL lettering as well, but it's not in my modeling notes. If anyone can point me at a photo or two I'd appreciate it.

My main concern at this time however, is the roof. I need to replace the model's roof with a Hutchin's roof. I could really use a good photo or better yet a drawing of this roof.

Thanks for any help,

Scott Haycock







--

Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd

Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
@srrfan <mailto:@srrfan>

Re: SAL, ex-GF&A ARA XM-1 Box Cars

O Fenton Wells
 

Scott, trying to help you and on page 42 of my RPC vol 19 is a Wabash box (NJI&I #4145)  Let me know where else to look
Fenton

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 6:16 AM Scott H. Haycock <shhaycock@...> wrote:
I just pulled this F&C kit, #8081, WofA, out my stash to work on. My plan is to turn it into the GF&A version, then letter it for the SAL as it would have looked after 1944. 

Originally, when I came up with this idea, I did my research, collected everything I'll need- Kit, Trucks, Decals, a photo ... Oops! no photo. I know there is a photo of one of these cars in GF&A livery in RPC 19, pg. 42, But I don't have this book anymore. And I cant find a scan either, though I'm pretty sure I took one. I thought I had a photo of one of these cars in SAL lettering as well, but it's not in my modeling notes. If anyone can point me at a photo or two I'd appreciate it.

My main concern at this time however, is the roof. I need to replace the model's roof with a Hutchin's roof.  I could really use a good photo or better yet a drawing of this roof. 

Thanks for any help,

Scott Haycock 



--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...

Re: coupler distance over car end

Dennis Storzek
 

Just to finish this up, I'm going to post a link to the results of a search and see if it works:

Distance between coupled cars

Not exactly the same question but related there are some good comparisons made by Doc Denny back in 2005.

Dennis Storzek

Re: Central of Georgia Boxcar Series Help

Todd Horton
 

These were the last new 40’ cars purchased by the Central in 1957.  They were different in that they were delivered in a brown color as opposed to the more common freight car red.  These cars also had black ends that were missed on the Kadee model.      As far as back dating them to 1955 I have no suggestions because the next large batch of cars before that were delivered in 1953 with a monogram only and no “ Right Way” lettering.  Kadee did this car as well and it’s in the more common FCR paint color.       Todd Horton 


On Mar 4, 2020, at 1:20 AM, Richard Townsend via Groups.Io <richtownsend@...> wrote:


8300-8799 January 1958 ORER

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Cain <Allencaintn@...>
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io <main@realstmfc.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Mar 3, 2020 7:39 pm
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Central of Georgia Boxcar Series Help

Could someone who has a ORER from November 1957 or later please tell me the number series that the boxcar CG 8734 was included in?

I am considering renumbering the Kadee part number 5216 boxcar to backdate it to 1955 so any advice on the suitability of this car for that project would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Allen Cain

SAL, ex-GF&A ARA XM-1 Box Cars

Scott H. Haycock
 

I just pulled this F&C kit, #8081, WofA, out my stash to work on. My plan is to turn it into the GF&A version, then letter it for the SAL as it would have looked after 1944. 

Originally, when I came up with this idea, I did my research, collected everything I'll need- Kit, Trucks, Decals, a photo ... Oops! no photo. I know there is a photo of one of these cars in GF&A livery in RPC 19, pg. 42, But I don't have this book anymore. And I cant find a scan either, though I'm pretty sure I took one. I thought I had a photo of one of these cars in SAL lettering as well, but it's not in my modeling notes. If anyone can point me at a photo or two I'd appreciate it.

My main concern at this time however, is the roof. I need to replace the model's roof with a Hutchin's roof.  I could really use a good photo or better yet a drawing of this roof. 

Thanks for any help,

Scott Haycock 

Re: Central of Georgia Boxcar Series Help

Richard Townsend
 

8300-8799 January 1958 ORER

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Cain <Allencaintn@...>
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io <main@realstmfc.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Mar 3, 2020 7:39 pm
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Central of Georgia Boxcar Series Help

Could someone who has a ORER from November 1957 or later please tell me the number series that the boxcar CG 8734 was included in?

I am considering renumbering the Kadee part number 5216 boxcar to backdate it to 1955 so any advice on the suitability of this car for that project would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Allen Cain

Prototype Junction Crowd Funding - Only one week to go

Steve and Barb Hile
 

I was excited to learn about the project that two of our list members, Randy Hammill and John Drake have launched.  The chosen prototypes are interesting and varied while sharing some characteristics.  Something from the group would be appropriate for eras from the late 1920's into the 1970's.
 
See their website for more details  https://www.prototypejunction.com/
 
What I see as most unique is their approach to financing the project using a crowd sourcing model.  I have not seen this used in the Model Railroad hobby before, but it is a well accepted process for developers of board and video games, among others.  Sadly, at this point they don't seem to be nearing their goals and that risks this project being started as well as bodes poorly for similar funding of model railroad projects, as well.
 
Please take a look at their Indiegogo page at https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ho-40-single-sheathed-box-and-auto-cars-1929-70s#/ for other details.  Near the bottom of the page are some listings of names that you might recognize from this list that have already supported this project.
 
Consider adding your name to this list to support this project.  If the project fails to get enough support the deposits will be returned.
 
Thanks,
Steve Hile

Central of Georgia Boxcar Series Help

Allen Cain
 

Could someone who has a ORER from November 1957 or later please tell me the number series that the boxcar CG 8734 was included in?

I am considering renumbering the Kadee part number 5216 boxcar to backdate it to 1955 so any advice on the suitability of this car for that project would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Allen Cain

Re: coupler distance over car end

vapeurchapelon
 

Hello to all repliers,
 
please excuse the delay. Ed, Dennis, this is all great information again! Lots of thanks! Jim, all my models HAVE to run good to excellent, and as I mentioned some weeks ago when I linked a clip of my freight train shot at an exhibition, I am investing all the time needed (which unfortunately can be really "excessive" on some models with numerous or serious problems) to get them track very well, roll great, without wobbling, and of course with correct coupler height (plus lots of repairs, enhancements, detail corrections, etc...). Now with the necessary correction of the coupler box position on several cars it is even more work since the new thread - per Murphys rule - of course isn't far enough away from the current thread that one just could drill a new hole - no, I have to cut away the floor section and solder in a new one :-)))
 
Dennis, thanks for pointing out these two schools of thought. It seems that I am looking for or already doing a combination of both - but I am sure most will call it "weird" so I won't recommend but just mention it! As already written I am using the narrow coupler box from Kadees #178 (which in my eyes looks even better than the #262 narrow box), but I am inserting the short #153 coupler. Because I know that these "semi-scale" coupler heads still are oversized I file away some material from the coupler head back face (of course both atop and below the shank) to get the coupler move freely in the box. Of course that short coupler won't swivel side to side in that box as much as the recommended-size coupler - but still more than enough for operations on radii above 30" or so. Our standard at the FREMO is a minimum of 40" (and not very much less on sidings).
 
Interesting to learn about the problem with pre-WWI, fortunately I don't model that era (which nonetheless is VERY interesting, of course!)
 
Many thanks again to all who replied!
 
Johannes
modeling the early post-war years up to about 1953
 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. März 2020 um 20:17 Uhr
Von: "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@...>
An: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Betreff: Re: [RealSTMFC] coupler distance over car end
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 08:07 AM, vapeurchapelon wrote:
One problem is that most brass cars don't have a coupler box already in place but just a cut-short at a non-defined place center sill instead, and several models obviously have the threads for the coupler box set at a wrong place...
 
It's not just brass cars. Since ALL the couplers available to the hobby, except for the Kadee #711 "Old Time" coupler, the Sergent, and the PROTO:HO Accumate were/are oversize, there has always been two schools of thought as to where to place the 'coupler box' on the model, since this part really doesn't model anything that's on the prototype car. One school basically said to put the end of the box at the prototype striker location, leaving the oversize coupler to be the modeler's problem. The other school said to move the coupler box back, so the distance between coupled cars would be correct when using the commonly available couplers. The problem with that strategy is to move the pulling face of the knuckle back where it belongs, the projection of the box past the end sill disappears, which doesn't look right either. So, most plastic kit floors have the box end somewhere between those two extremes. Fortunately, today's scale size couplers come with their own boxes, so those who care can do their research and mount the box in the correct location. Of course, if you model the pre-WWI MCB era, you're back to the same problem of oversize couplers. The Kadee 711 is the right size, as it's their HOn3 coupler equipped with a longer trip pin, but it's not very pleasing to look at.

Dennis Storzek
 

Re: coupler distance over car end

Jim Betz
 

Johannes,

  I'm going to answer this from a different perspective.  First you need to
decide whether the car will be used on a layout.  If it will then the amount
of distance between the coupler face and the truck center can affect
how well the car will/will not operate thru curves.  Derailments are no
fun whether it happens only to you, to someone else, or only in one or
two places on only one or two cars.
  Most models,  including both kits and resin cars, place both the truck
center and the coupler box/mounting holes by using "NMRA standards"
which rarely are 100% protoypically accurate (never?).  Those standards
were developed a long time ago when operational reliability was the
primary goal.

  There are often similar issues with how high the car rides.  This one is
often hard to fix (time consuming) and affects coupler height as well.
Remember that all couplers on all cars on any railroad at any one
point in time were essentially -identical- in terms of coupler height.

  These are -your- decisions to make.  

  Often you can simply use a short shank coupler in the same mount
(box) and close up the distance easily and quickly - even that may not
be prototypical distance but it often results in a car that operates
well and is "more accurate" ... and doesn't look obviously wrong.

  Lastly there is the decision about what you want to do in terms of
prototypical accuracy - and balancing that against your time spent
and perhaps even on money spent.
                                                                                               - Jim

Re: coupler distance over car end

Dennis Storzek
 

On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 08:07 AM, vapeurchapelon wrote:
One problem is that most brass cars don't have a coupler box already in place but just a cut-short at a non-defined place center sill instead, and several models obviously have the threads for the coupler box set at a wrong place...
 
It's not just brass cars. Since ALL the couplers available to the hobby, except for the Kadee #711 "Old Time" coupler, the Sergent, and the PROTO:HO Accumate were/are oversize, there has always been two schools of thought as to where to place the 'coupler box' on the model, since this part really doesn't model anything that's on the prototype car. One school basically said to put the end of the box at the prototype striker location, leaving the oversize coupler to be the modeler's problem. The other school said to move the coupler box back, so the distance between coupled cars would be correct when using the commonly available couplers. The problem with that strategy is to move the pulling face of the knuckle back where it belongs, the projection of the box past the end sill disappears, which doesn't look right either. So, most plastic kit floors have the box end somewhere between those two extremes. Fortunately, today's scale size couplers come with their own boxes, so those who care can do their research and mount the box in the correct location. Of course, if you model the pre-WWI MCB era, you're back to the same problem of oversize couplers. The Kadee 711 is the right size, as it's their HOn3 coupler equipped with a longer trip pin, but it's not very pleasing to look at.

Dennis Storzek
 

Re: Duryea Underframes (Was: Coupler Distance . . . )

Tim O'Connor
 


EARLY Duryea underframes were banned sometime around 1971 or 1972. Later
Duryea underframes (mid 1950's) were never banned, as far as I can been able to find.

Tim O'Connor



On 3/3/2020 1:26 PM, Garth Groff and Sally Sanford wrote:
Friends,

Ed Bommer said (in part):

"The Duryea design reduced much of the stress from rough handling on the car body and its framing by isolating and spring-loading the center sill. A major problem with it was the need for special tooling and skills to repair it, for which not all railroads were equipped to handle. As Duryea under fames aged, increasing maintenance and repair work was required. They were banned from interchange service in the 1960's."

Banning Duryea underframes must have put a big dent in the fleets of some railroads and some private owners, probably hastening the end of older cars. Nearly all the D&RGW's 40' steel boxcars, for example, were Duryea-equipped, and some survived in MW service into the UP-era. The ATSF was also a big Duryea user, and there were a lot of Duryea-equipped URTX refrigerator cars. OTOH, the Western Maryland had numerous Duryea-equipped cabooses which survived until the end of caboose operations in the 1980s under the Chessie System. A few still survive at museums or for non-railroad uses, including one still in Staunton, Virginia which I was able to crawl under to shoot pictures of the underframe (when I was much younger and more agile!).

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff  🦆

Attachments:



--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts

Re: new TICHY freight car parts

Paul Woods <paul@...>
 

Ahem....from the Westerfield site:

"Made in Injection Molded Styrene. Not Resin"

Regards
Paul Woods

NYCSHS #7172


---- On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 05:05:45 +1300 Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote ----

Not styrene, but still available from Westerfield in resin:
https://id18538.securedata.net/westerfieldmodels.com/merchantmanager/product_info.php?products_id=667


Ben Hom


Re: new TICHY freight car parts

dahminator68
 

Hello Ben, Tim and all:  Actually the Westerfield Models #1171 Wine Door Lock set IS styrene, NOT Resin.

The sets are currently available on our website, as Ben pointed out.

Here is the link:

On Tuesday, March 3, 2020, 11:05:55 AM EST, Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote:


Tim O'Connor wrote:
"Now if we could just get Wine door locks in injection molded plastic."

Ralph Brown responded:
"I'd like to see Simonton operating gear as well, but I do have more than a few hoppers that could stand improved Wine door locks."

Not styrene, but still available from Westerfield in resin:
https://id18538.securedata.net/westerfieldmodels.com/merchantmanager/product_info.php?products_id=667


Ben Hom