Date   

Re: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Ken O'Brien
 

Gentlemen,

Their site address is: http://southwestscale.com/

Ken O'Brien

--- In STMFC@..., "Scott H. Haycock " <shhaycock@...> wrote:

Brian,


Do you (or anyone) have a way to reach Southwest Scale Models? They don't show up on Google.


Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent
----- Original Message -----





Nelson: If you are changing the roof walk you may want to change the door
too. In Ed Hawkins speak these had YSD-2A: Improved Youngstown steel door
with three sections (5/5/4 corrugation pattern, top-to-bottom) available
from Southwest scale models. I got mine through Andy Carlson (no relation)
from this list.

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


USG RBs was: Re: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Clark Propst
 

I've got a question. If you're (meaning anyone of the same opinion as Tony) are modeling a car needing a US Gypsum running board do you leave the RB off, hoping that a satisfactory version will someday be made? Or, do you just not build any models needing a USG RB?
Clark Propst

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

You're right that really none of the metal running boards we have are truly right. But I still agree with Ed that the Plano version of the Gypsum board falls a lot shorter of reality >
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: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Scott H. Haycock
 

Brian,


Do you (or anyone) have a way to reach Southwest Scale Models? They don't show up on Google.


Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent

----- Original Message -----





Nelson: If you are changing the roof walk you may want to change the door
too. In Ed Hawkins speak these had YSD-2A: Improved Youngstown steel door
with three sections (5/5/4 corrugation pattern, top-to-bottom) available
from Southwest scale models. I got mine through Andy Carlson (no relation)
from this list.

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY


Re: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Brian Carlson
 

Nelson: If you are changing the roof walk you may want to change the door
too. In Ed Hawkins speak these had YSD-2A: Improved Youngstown steel door
with three sections (5/5/4 corrugation pattern, top-to-bottom) available
from Southwest scale models. I got mine through Andy Carlson (no relation)
from this list.



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Nelson Moyer
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:50 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question





Richard and Ed,

Thanks for the authoritative and complete response. As a result of the
input, I'll paint both running boards with Poly Scale Simulated Stainless
Steel, tone them down a bit, and add the black car cement effects at the
appropriate locations. The resulting two cars will be novel, since none of
my other cars have 'two-tone' running boards.

Nelson Moyer

._,___


2013 Central Ohio RPM

seaboard_1966
 

Well guys, the 2013 version of the Central Ohio RPM is now in the books. We featured 10 OUTSTANDING clinicians who presented 12 GREAT clinics. We had 692 models on display over the course of the weekend. Final attendance figures are not complete yet but off hand I would say between 70 and 80 folks attended the meet.

The meet featured door prizes from Athearn, Tangent Scale Models, Model Expo, MicroTrains Line, Kadee, InterMountain Railway, Kalmbach Publishing, Rail Shop, Red Cap Line, PRR THS, Lines West, Bob the Train Guy, Fast Tracks, Irish Track Layer, Evergreen Scale Models, Monster Model and Laser Works, Andrew Fletcher, WrightTRAK, Xuron, Broadway Limited, Butch Eyler, Jeannine Blake, John Peters, A.l.M.Products, Marion Model Railroad Club, DEEX Dave, Chessie Historical Society and probably one or two that I have forgotten about.

Thanks to all that participated and helped out as well.

The dates for next years meet have been set and they are April 24-26, 2014 at Marion Union Station. We hope to see many of you guys there.

Denis Blake
Organizer
2013 Central Ohio RPM


Intermountain Assembled 10K & 8K ACF 27 tank cars

Andy Carlson
 

Hello,

I am offering for sale some new HO Intermountain tank cars, factory assembled.

"Robeson Process Company New York" black 8K gallon tank car, IMRC# 46301, have 3
#s.
"Canadian General Transit Company Limited" black 10K gallon, IMRC# 46211, I have
6 #s.
Pictures are viewable on the Intermountain web site.

Priced at $23.00/each, plus shipping by USPS. Canadians, please note that US to
Canada parcel costs have shot up to near-obscene levels earlier this year.

I accept checks and money orders. For a small fee I can accept PayPal. If
interested, please contact me (OFF-LIST-Please) at <midcentury@...>

Thanks,
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


Re: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
Tony, as you're so fond of saying: YMMV. They're good enough for me.

Producing correct-to-scale HO running boards remains elusive. You can't name even a single APEX board that is correct. As I pointed out some time ago, even the Kadee APEX running boards are 100% oversize. YMMV.
You're right that really none of the metal running boards we have are truly right. But I still agree with Ed that the Plano version of the Gypsum board falls a lot shorter of reality than do the Apex boards. And BTW, I find the Plano Apex board better overall than the Kadee boards, though I've used both.

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: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Tim O'Connor
 

Tony, as you're so fond of saying: YMMV. They're good enough for me.

Producing correct-to-scale HO running boards remains elusive. You can't
name even a single APEX board that is correct. As I pointed out some time
ago, even the Kadee APEX running boards are 100% oversize. YMMV.

Tim O'

Tim O'Connor wrote:
Ed, Plano makes #192 and a number of other "expanded-metal" style etched metal parts. I don't recall if the catalog calls them Gypsum or "diamond hole" or something else, but they do a decent job of representing Gypsum-style parts. They make them for modern cars as well.
"Decent?" Better get your glasses prescription checked, Tim. The Plano product holes are immense (in scale) and there is no three-dimensionality as there is in the prototype Gypsum product. InterMountain attempted it with a kind of rough surface running board, which looks better than the Plano version, though still not really right. And I am not ripping on Plano -- I use their Apex and Morton products -- but the Gypsum version is just too far from reality. I agree with Ed.

Tony Thompson


Re: 1943 ACF US Army flat

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 27, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Gene <bierglaeser@...> wrote:

.The reporting marks USAX did not come into use until sometime between April 1947 and October 1948. USAX can't be found in the former ORER but can in the latter. I have none in between.
Not in the 7/47 ORER either, Gene.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: 1943 ACF US Army flat

Gene <bierglaeser@...>
 

The military - maybe the whole US govt. - kept track of railway equipment differently than the rest of North America. Apparently the number series didn't matter.

Dept. of the Army Technical Manual 55-208 has descriptions of quite a variety of rail equipment, all of which is labeled either "domestic service" and "foreign service." Army rail freight equipment was marked USAX (and later DODX) for use in interchange in the North America and USA for foreign service OR intra-plant use within ammunition depots and other such facilities. During the Korean War the Army bought a number of single-sheathed box cars from the M&StL and specified that the cars all have K brakes, not AB brakes. One of these box cars has ended up in a museum in Alabama.

When an Army office that controlled rail equipment was closed in St. Louis I happened to be handy and got a folder of photos of military freight cars plus a spreader and a snow plow. I just went through the folder. There is nothing like the car in question in the photo folder. I can't find such a car in TM 55-208 either.

The reporting marks USAX did not come into use until sometime between April 1947 and October 1948. USAX can't be found in the former ORER but can in the latter. I have none in between.

Gene Green


Re: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Nelson Moyer <ku0a@...>
 

Richard and Ed,



Thanks for the authoritative and complete response. As a result of the
input, I'll paint both running boards with Poly Scale Simulated Stainless
Steel, tone them down a bit, and add the black car cement effects at the
appropriate locations. The resulting two cars will be novel, since none of
my other cars have 'two-tone' running boards.



Nelson Moyer

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Ed
Hawkins
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:01 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question






On Apr 27, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I purchased and built two Branchline Blueprint kits of GMO 40 ft. AAR
1937
boxcars several months to years apart. Kit #1413, road number 22135,
had a
steel running board painted silver to represent unpainted steel,
while the
other kit (number unavailable), road number 22098, had a steel
running board
painted black. The ends and roofs of both cars are black. Did GMO
have both
painted and unpainted steel running boards on this series of cars? I
don't
know whether to paint the black one silver, paint the silver one
black, or
leave them alone. I'm a CB&Q modeler, and my knowledge of other roads
rolling stock is miniscule.
Nelson,
Just so you are aware, GM&O 22135 from series 22000-22419 wasn't a 1937
AAR box car but rather a postwar AAR 10'-6" box car with 4/4 Improved
Dreadnaught ends. The build date of the #22061 builder's photo is
12-47. According to ACF original paint specs for these cars, the sides
& doors were painted Sherwin-Williams Synthetic Brown. The ends, roof,
and underframe were coated with black car cement. Truck side frames
were black. White stencils. The sides were a medium shade of oxide red
per a paint sample, a near perfect match to Tru-Color Paint #TCP93.

The paint specs don't make reference specifically to the running
boards, but as Richard mentioned, the visible portion of the running
board on a 3/4 builder's photo of 22061 shows it to be black. Because
the 3/4 photo was taken from a low angle, it's difficult to determine
with any certainty how far the black paint on the running board
extended beyond the proximity of the end. If this was the only photo I
had to use, I would come to the same conclusion and assume the entire
running board was sprayed with black car cement along with the rest of
the roof.

In this case I also have a side view print of GM&O 22061 that provides
more insight to help answer your question. The black near the ends of
the running board fades to a light color (i.e., unpainted galvanized
steel) except where it passes over each seam cap, where it is black.
Because the running board was attached to the car before painting, the
running board received some black car cement at each seam cap and
running board support when the roof was being sprayed.

If you're modeling a car as it appeared when new, the running board
should be a mixture of black and unpainted galvanized steel. Based on
the photo, the latitudinals should be mostly black, the section of the
running board near the ends should be black including the entire
portion of the running board that extended past the ends, and areas
near each seam cap should be black. The rest was unpainted galvanized
steel, which was gray in appearance more-so than silver.

Now to the other issue about the running board. These prototype cars
received U.S. Gypsum expanded-metal running boards, and in HO scale
there simply isn't anything very accurate to replicate them. The
Branchline part, which is based on the more common Apex Tri-lok, is
perfectly acceptable for a box car having this type of rectangular-grid
running board. A significant shortcoming in the HO scale market is the
lack of an accurately-rendered U.S. Gypsum expanded-metal running board
& brake step as were used during the 1940s to about 1953-54. This is
probably way more than you wanted to know or hear about, but I hope
your question is answered.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
Ed, Plano makes #192 and a number of other "expanded-metal" style etched metal parts. I don't recall if the catalog calls them Gypsum or "diamond hole" or something else, but they do a decent job of representing Gypsum-style parts. They make them for modern cars as well.
"Decent?" Better get your glasses prescription checked, Tim. The Plano product holes are immense (in scale) and there is no three-dimensionality as there is in the prototype Gypsum product. InterMountain attempted it with a kind of rough surface running board, which looks better than the Plano version, though still not really right. And I am not ripping on Plano -- I use their Apex and Morton products -- but the Gypsum version is just too far from reality. I agree with Ed.

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: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Tim O'Connor
 

??

Ed, Plano makes #192 and a number of other "expanded-metal" style
etched metal parts. I don't recall if the catalog calls them Gypsum
or "diamond hole" or something else, but they do a decent job of
representing Gypsum-style parts. They make them for modern cars as
well.

Tim O'Connor

Now to the other issue about the running board. These prototype cars
received U.S. Gypsum expanded-metal running boards, and in HO scale
there simply isn't anything very accurate to replicate them. The
Branchline part, which is based on the more common Apex Tri-lok, is
perfectly acceptable for a box car having this type of rectangular-grid
running board. A significant shortcoming in the HO scale market is the
lack of an accurately-rendered U.S. Gypsum expanded-metal running board
& brake step as were used during the 1940s to about 1953-54. This is
probably way more than you wanted to know or hear about, but I hope
your question is answered.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Ed Hawkins
 

On Apr 27, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I purchased and built two Branchline Blueprint kits of GMO 40 ft. AAR
1937
boxcars several months to years apart. Kit #1413, road number 22135,
had a
steel running board painted silver to represent unpainted steel,
while the
other kit (number unavailable), road number 22098, had a steel
running board
painted black. The ends and roofs of both cars are black. Did GMO
have both
painted and unpainted steel running boards on this series of cars? I
don't
know whether to paint the black one silver, paint the silver one
black, or
leave them alone. I'm a CB&Q modeler, and my knowledge of other roads
rolling stock is miniscule.
Nelson,
Just so you are aware, GM&O 22135 from series 22000-22419 wasn't a 1937
AAR box car but rather a postwar AAR 10'-6" box car with 4/4 Improved
Dreadnaught ends. The build date of the #22061 builder's photo is
12-47. According to ACF original paint specs for these cars, the sides
& doors were painted Sherwin-Williams Synthetic Brown. The ends, roof,
and underframe were coated with black car cement. Truck side frames
were black. White stencils. The sides were a medium shade of oxide red
per a paint sample, a near perfect match to Tru-Color Paint #TCP93.

The paint specs don't make reference specifically to the running
boards, but as Richard mentioned, the visible portion of the running
board on a 3/4 builder's photo of 22061 shows it to be black. Because
the 3/4 photo was taken from a low angle, it's difficult to determine
with any certainty how far the black paint on the running board
extended beyond the proximity of the end. If this was the only photo I
had to use, I would come to the same conclusion and assume the entire
running board was sprayed with black car cement along with the rest of
the roof.

In this case I also have a side view print of GM&O 22061 that provides
more insight to help answer your question. The black near the ends of
the running board fades to a light color (i.e., unpainted galvanized
steel) except where it passes over each seam cap, where it is black.
Because the running board was attached to the car before painting, the
running board received some black car cement at each seam cap and
running board support when the roof was being sprayed.

If you're modeling a car as it appeared when new, the running board
should be a mixture of black and unpainted galvanized steel. Based on
the photo, the latitudinals should be mostly black, the section of the
running board near the ends should be black including the entire
portion of the running board that extended past the ends, and areas
near each seam cap should be black. The rest was unpainted galvanized
steel, which was gray in appearance more-so than silver.

Now to the other issue about the running board. These prototype cars
received U.S. Gypsum expanded-metal running boards, and in HO scale
there simply isn't anything very accurate to replicate them. The
Branchline part, which is based on the more common Apex Tri-lok, is
perfectly acceptable for a box car having this type of rectangular-grid
running board. A significant shortcoming in the HO scale market is the
lack of an accurately-rendered U.S. Gypsum expanded-metal running board
& brake step as were used during the 1940s to about 1953-54. This is
probably way more than you wanted to know or hear about, but I hope
your question is answered.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


FtDDM&S XM-1 box car

Tim O'Connor
 

at least, I think it's an XM-1...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/111058856740

Tim O'


Re: Coiled steel in Rdg gon Mar1937 (UNCLASSIFIED)

caboose9792@...
 

Took a look at the rest of the set. There is an additional set of coils
laying down in a second car as if some coils were ejected from the car and put
inside the second car to move them to the rip track. Look at the end view
looking towards the station you can see the second car and how the car was
loaded most likely a full carload. with a hard impact.

Mark Rickert

In a message dated 4/1/2013 12:37:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
elden.j.gatwood@... writes:

In doing some more digging into the story on coiled steel shipment in
freight cars, I came across the following photo:

http://www.thepwvhiline.com/WreckDerailmentsandDamage/Metal_Coils_At_Avella_
002_Web.html

My initial reaction was, WAY overloaded (50-ton gon?); my second thought,
coiled sheet in 1937?, but look at the cars in the background; again then,
I don't know what kind of sheet this was. Canstock is thinner than car
fenders, right? The coils are rather small diameter, but wide. I was also very
surprised to see them eye-up, banded together in groups, in an open car,
since the sheet looks fairly "finished".


Re: Coiled steel in Rdg gon Mar1937 (UNCLASSIFIED)

caboose9792@...
 

I my 1941? loading diagram books for enclosed cars shows coiled and strip
(blanks) each have there own diagram. Type of steel determines whether it
is shipped covered or open. Another thought it is coils but not of steel,
instead aluminum or magnesium for structural work, particularly aircraft
bodies.

Mark Rickert

In a message dated 4/1/2013 12:37:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
elden.j.gatwood@... writes:

Any ideas, aside from the obvious, what is going on here? Have you ever
seen anything like this before? Not the smartest idea I have seen
implemented....

Elden Gatwood


Re: GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937 Boxcar Question

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 27, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Nelson Moyer <ku0a@...> wrote:

I purchased and built two Branchline Blueprint kits of GMO 40 ft. AAR 1937
boxcars several months to years apart. Kit #1413, road number 22135, had a
steel running board painted silver to represent unpainted steel, while the
other kit (number unavailable), road number 22098, had a steel running board
painted black. The ends and roofs of both cars are black. Did GMO have both
painted and unpainted steel running boards on this series of cars? I don't
know whether to paint the black one silver, paint the silver one black, or
leave them alone.
Nelson, in the builder's photos I have of GM&O 22069, the running boards clearly appear to be black. I'd be surprised if some cars in the series had painted running boards and the others not, but maybe Ed Hawkins can shed some further illumination on this question.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: 1943 ACF US Army flat

Tim O'Connor
 

I checked the Westerfield Jan-45 ORER disk, but didn't find any listing for USAX
or other Army reporting marks. What's with that? Did I miss something?
Jack Mullen


I don't know Jack -- my 1940 and 1950 ORER's are from Westerfield and both of them
have USAX pages. I loaded all 5 of my Westerfield ORER's onto my hard drive - makes
searching for stuff about 50x faster.

Tim O'Connor


Re: modeling the '43 US army flat

Tim O'Connor
 

I would say it doesn't look anything like a PRR FM.

It has shallow fishbelly sides, a steel 'lip' running the
full length of the deck that supports the ends of the deck
timbers (so the body is narrower than the deck), and square
stake pockets, some of which appear to be offset from the
side (could be an optical illusion, but the seven middle
stake pockets look like they are tubular and mounted on angle
brackets).

Could be scratchbuilt more easily than kitbashed. It's a very
interesting looking car.

Tim O'Connor

At 4/26/2013 06:39 PM Friday, you wrote:
looks like a pennsy FM could be used as a start point... any other suggestions?