Date   

Re: WPM 2013 Photos Posted

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:27 AM, Don <riverman_vt@...> wrote:

. damn little Steam Era modeling is apparent in the photos.

Cordially, Don Valentine
I noticed the same thing, Don. However, WPM was founded years ago by modern modelers (from my perspective, "modern" is post-1960) and has always drawn most of its support from modelers of later eras. It's not that the organizers are at all hostile to steam era prototype modelers, but more modern modeling has always been the primary focus of the meet, just as steam and transition era modeling has tended, in the past, to be the main focus of the Naperville RPM meet. I've never attended WPM but have seriously considered doing so, since I know it is a fine and well organized meet, only to find that every year it turns out that I have some sort of schedule conflict.

Part of the problem, of course (as Tim pointed out) is that time flies, not only when you're having fun but even when you're not. A couple of years ago at a Santa Fe Historical Society meeting I did a clinic on steam locomotives I had run, ridden, photographed, etc. There were about 50 people in the room, but when I asked how many remembered seeing steam power in revenue service, only about five hands went up (and one of those was Stan Kistler's). It's often said that modelers are inclined to model what they experienced in childhood or adolescence, and if that's true the focus of the hobby is bound to keep shifting ahead in time, leaving us steam era guys behind. Let's face it, most modelers of the steam/transition era are now rather long in the tooth. Younger guys who choose to do so are modeling a period they only know from photos, videos made from (usually crude) movies, and old-timer narratives in magazines like Classic Trains. Aside from increasingly rare "rail fan runs" of the few surviving big steam locos - which aren't at all like the days of steam in regular daily service - there is no opportunity for people today to experience the size, noise, exposed machinery, and ground-shaking weight of main line steam in action that imparted to you and me our fascination with steam locomotion.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Photo collection with several steam era freight car images

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:29 AM, Don <riverman_vt@...> wrote:



--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:

On Apr 16, 2013, at 1:09 PM, caboose9792@... wrote:

Somewhere in my vast archive of material I have an article about a company
doing that for roofing granules. I believe the article or one like it was
in the trainshed cyclopedia series of books.
Mark, that was probably the Barrett Company, who in the '40s converted 80 old tank cars into what amounted to covered hoppers for roofing granules.

Richard Hendrickson
Hello Richard,

Could these have been the tank cars with the "live bottoms" having an endless conveyor system built into them that I have seen somewhere?
No, Don, that was the "dry-flo" car developed by General American in 1932 and shown in the 1937 Car Builders' Cyclopedia. That car, with its endless belt conveyor systems to drag dry cargo to a center discharge hatch, was way more complicated than a conventional covered hopper. AFAIK, GATC only built one and found no buyers for it.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: WPM 2013 Photos Posted

Tim O'Connor
 

Well, after all Don, 1950 was 63 years ago... Time marches on.

I hope WPM can expand into a serious 3-day meet like Naperville. That would make the trip worthwhile.
And I'd love to see more post-steam modeling and history clinics.

Tim O'Connor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don" <riverman_vt@...>

I have posted the photos from this years WPM meet, held Saturday April 13, 2013 in the San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot
http://www.pbase.com/dh30973/wpm2013&page=all

Nice to see that there are B&M modelers on the Left Coast but damn little Steam Era modeling is apparent in the photos.

Cordially, Don Valentine


Re: Interesting product from True Line Trains...

rhammill
 

Hi, all -

Dennis is correct, on the prototype no drop is allowable.

But on the model we have to live with compromises due to the wheels not being to scale. On the prototype the wheel tread is always on the railhead. With our oversized wheel flanges manufacturers have to expand the flangeways. Depending on how wide the flange is determines whether you may find this issue. This gap grows larger on longer turnouts. In many cases, all wheelsets run across the flangeway with no tread on the rail. Instead, the wheel runs on the flange across the bottom of the frog. This is also unprototypical but is done to prevent derailments.

I use Micro Engineering turnouts on my layout, and there is no point where the tread is not on the rail. In addition they have a more shallow frog so some older wheelsets do rise up slightly on these frogs. There is no rise or drop with our wheelsets. The Proto:87 stores Code 88 safe frogs do the same thing.

In testing so far, we've found that the impact is dependent upon the turnouts used, the gauge of the turnouts (and wheels), the trucks, and the weight of the cars. Ensuring turnouts are in gauge, preferably the minimum tolerences is important, with any wheelset. Fixed sideframe trucks exhibit less drop than equalized trucks, and heavier cars are more likely to show more drop.

That's why we're being forthright in letting people know that you probably want to test some of the wheelsets first, to make sure you're happy with them. We can't test every single turnout ever manufactured, and every layout's adherence to standards varies.

They won't be for everybody, and we realize that. We handed out hundreds of the test sets at Trainfest and the feedback has been very positive.

These have stepped metal axles to help with the issues in gauge that we've recently been having with our regular wheelsets. We will also be switching to metal axles for our other wheelsets on future releases for the same reason. If you have a problem with gauge that you can't fix on your own, let us know. We'll take care of it.

Thanks -

Randy
--
Randy Hammill
True Line Trains
http://truelinetrains.com
http://www.facebook.com/TrueLineTrains

--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@... wrote:


I agree with you Dennis, although my experience with NWSL .074 semi-fine scale wheels (which also have smaller
flanges than Code 110) on a large club layout was very good, with no problems or derailments at all. But all of that
track was hand laid to strict NMRA standard with the flangeways filled exactly as prescribed by the NMRA gauge.
I imagine that more typical layouts will have problems with these TLT wheelsets.

Tim O'Connor



Since on the prototype, NO drop is allowable, the wheel tread must be supported by the rail at all times. For model work, the "get-out-of-jail-free card" has been filling the frog flangeways, as in street railway practice, but that precludes using any standard Code 110 wheels on the track, as those flanges will rise up as they run through the frogs. The narrow tread wheels that retain the Code 110 size flanges are actually better for our purpose, as they allow the use offlange bearing specialwork.
Dennis





Re: WPM 2013 Photos Posted

Bruce Smith
 

Don,

Guess we need to organize a road trip for next year <VBG>??
Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/


"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."

__

/ &#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

On Apr 17, 2013, at 7:27 AM, Don wrote:



--- In STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC@...>, "dh30973" <dhussey@...> wrote:

I have posted the photos from this years WPM meet, held Saturday April 13, 2013 in the San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot
http://www.pbase.com/dh30973/wpm2013&page=all


Nice to see that there are B&M modelers on the Left Coast but damn little Steam Era modeling is apparent in the photos.

Cordially, Don Valentine



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Photo collection with several steam era freight car images

Donald B. Valentine
 

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:

On Apr 16, 2013, at 1:09 PM, caboose9792@... wrote:

Somewhere in my vast archive of material I have an article about a company
doing that for roofing granules. I believe the article or one like it was
in the trainshed cyclopedia series of books.
Mark, that was probably the Barrett Company, who in the '40s converted 80 old tank cars into what amounted to covered hoppers for roofing granules.

Richard Hendrickson
Hello Richard,

Could these have been the tank cars with the "live bottoms" having an endless conveyor system built into them that I have seen somewhere?

Cordially, Don Valentine


Re: WPM 2013 Photos Posted

Donald B. Valentine
 

--- In STMFC@..., "dh30973" <dhussey@...> wrote:

I have posted the photos from this years WPM meet, held Saturday April 13, 2013 in the San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot
http://www.pbase.com/dh30973/wpm2013&page=all

Nice to see that there are B&M modelers on the Left Coast but damn little Steam Era modeling is apparent in the photos.

Cordially, Don Valentine


Re: Front Range kits

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Thanks, Ed, I knew I could get a definitive answer on this list.



Schuyler



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Ed
Hawkins
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:08 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Front Range kits






On Apr 16, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Schuyler.larrabee wrote:

ACF 50' SD Box Car Part No. 5000

ACF 3 Bay Grain Car Part No. 4300

I know that at least some of the Front Range cars were without
prototype.
But I don't recall which of them were worth having and which were, in
Tim's
term, foobies.

Can anyone here enlighten me?
Thanks
Schuyler
Schuyler,
The grain car is a 1960s car and outside the time period of this forum.

The #5000 50' box car has 8' door openings, 16-panel welded sides, late
Improved Dreadnaught Ends (1955 & later), and diagonal panel roof. I
believe the model came with two optional side sills, but the tabbed
version is the best one to have for the 8' door opening. With a little
work and substitution of some the original detail parts (grabs,
ladders, brake gear), it builds up into a very nice, accurate model.

I published an article in the October 1992 Railmodel Journal about
using these models. Examples of prototype cars in which the F.R. #5000
can be used with limited modification are:

C&EI 3760-3784/3800-3874, ACF 4-55
D&RGW 64000-64099, ACF 8-56
MKT 90150-90200, ACF 10-56
MP 81000-81099, ACF 12-59
RI 30500-30699, ACF 12-55

The article also discusses some prototype cars with 9' door openings
that could also be devised using the Front Range #5000 kit. However,
more recently Branchline Trains (now Atlas) offers welded-side AAR 50'
box cars with 9' door openings that's a better starting point.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Armour FGE Photos in Chattanooga

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Steve Stull wrote:
Link does work, make sure to remove the line breaks (>), along with closing the gaps.
I tried this with Bill's link (and yes, I do know how links work) and no joy. But I tried the one-line version in Steve's email and it DID work. Good enough.

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: Front Range kits

Ed Hawkins
 

On Apr 16, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Schuyler.larrabee wrote:

ACF 50' SD Box Car Part No. 5000

ACF 3 Bay Grain Car Part No. 4300

I know that at least some of the Front Range cars were without
prototype.
But I don't recall which of them were worth having and which were, in
Tim's
term, foobies.

Can anyone here enlighten me?
Thanks
Schuyler
Schuyler,
The grain car is a 1960s car and outside the time period of this forum.

The #5000 50' box car has 8' door openings, 16-panel welded sides, late
Improved Dreadnaught Ends (1955 & later), and diagonal panel roof. I
believe the model came with two optional side sills, but the tabbed
version is the best one to have for the 8' door opening. With a little
work and substitution of some the original detail parts (grabs,
ladders, brake gear), it builds up into a very nice, accurate model.

I published an article in the October 1992 Railmodel Journal about
using these models. Examples of prototype cars in which the F.R. #5000
can be used with limited modification are:

C&EI 3760-3784/3800-3874, ACF 4-55
D&RGW 64000-64099, ACF 8-56
MKT 90150-90200, ACF 10-56
MP 81000-81099, ACF 12-59
RI 30500-30699, ACF 12-55

The article also discusses some prototype cars with 9' door openings
that could also be devised using the Front Range #5000 kit. However,
more recently Branchline Trains (now Atlas) offers welded-side AAR 50'
box cars with 9' door openings that's a better starting point.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Decaling our Steam Era Freight Cars

Tim O'Connor
 

Dear "Mad John" -- any idea what is in Champ's solution? My bottle
is half gone and I fear I'll never find another... It remains my all
time favorite; powerful stuff.

Tim O'Connor

More bad news. I looked it up today and found that the "new" solvent in Solvaset has a vapor pressure 10 times higher than the "old" solvent. That means it has 10 times the propensity to evaporate if you leave the top off the bottle. Another reason why it seems to get weaker with age. It's not your imagination! Don't know if the faster evaporation helps or harms the decaling process.

-- John


Front Range kits

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Hi,



I have two different Front Range kits.

ACF 50' SD Box Car Part No. 5000

ACF 3 Bay Grain Car Part No. 4300





I know that at least some of the Front Range cars were without prototype.
But I don't recall which of them were worth having and which were, in Tim's
term, foobies.



Can anyone here enlighten me?

Thanks




Schuyler


Re: Decaling our Steam Era Freight Cars

John
 

More bad news. I looked it up today and found that the "new" solvent in Solvaset has a vapor pressure 10 times higher than the "old" solvent. That means it has 10 times the propensity to evaporate if you leave the top off the bottle. Another reason why it seems to get weaker with age. It's not your imagination! Don't know if the faster evaporation helps or harms the decaling process.

-- John

--- In STMFC@..., "John Sykes" <John.Sykes@...> wrote:

I've seen some talk, I think here, but on some other modeling sites as well, about how Walthers Solvaset seems weaker than it use to be. Turns out it is different chemical than it use to be. Many years ago, I got an MSDS for Solvaset. The main ingredient was butyl cellosolve (in fact, Solvaset is listed as a synonym for butyl cellosolve on Wikipedia). If you look at a bottle of Solvaset now, it lists methoxy-2-propanol and methoxy-1-propanol as the active ingredients. DIFFERENT CHEMICAL!!!

Actually, the correct IUPAC names are 1-methoxy-2-propanol and 2-methoxy-1-propanol. Butyl cellosolve's IUPAC name is 2-butoxyethanol. Butyl cellosolve is also a lacquer retarder and paint solvent and is available in gallons from Sherwin Williams (usually in the storeroom, not on the store shelves).

Turns out that both butyl cellosolve and the methoxy propanols are in the glycol ether family. Cellosolve is an ethylene glycol derivative and the other is a propylene glycol derivative. Ethylene glycols have come under scrutiny because of their toxicity, however, propylene glycols have more recently come under some scrutiny too.

Also, methoxy-1-propanol is actually a contaminant of methoxy-2-propanol (1-5%) and is suspected as being more toxic than the parent compound.

Anyway, Solvaset is NOT the same as it use to be, and I wouldn't go swigging the stuff or let kids get around it too much.

Mad scientist -- John


Re: Armour FGE Photos in Chattanooga

Bill Welch
 

Thanks Tony

bill welch

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

Bill, I'm pretty sure your photo on p. 90 shows a workman "barring" the ice, to settle it more compactly and reduce void space. He is not breaking up the ice in this photo.

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: Armour FGE Photos in Chattanooga

Steve Stull
 

Glad to help Fenton.

Steve Stull

--- On Tue, 4/16/13, O Fenton Wells <@srrfan> wrote:

From: O Fenton Wells <@srrfan>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Armour FGE Photos in Chattanooga
To: STMFC@...
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 5:42 PM
Thanks Steve, that worked.
FentonWells

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Steve Stull <winslow7076@...>
wrote:

**


Tony;

Link does work, make sure to remove the line breaks
(>), along with
closing the gaps.

Steve Stull

--- On Tue, 4/16/13, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
wrote:

Follow this link. I am not sure how long it
be up:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws32jqhb9kxjffv/Loading%20Peaches%20%26%20Re-icing%20cars%20TRIAL%20spread%20.pdf

    Sorry, Bill, the link returns this:
Error (404)
We can't find the page you're looking for. Check
out our
Help Center and forums for help, or head back to
home.

Tony Thompson
 


--
Fenton Wells
3047 Creek Run
Sanford NC 27332
919-499-5545
@srrfan


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



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links


    STMFC-fullfeatured@...


Re: War Emergency rebuild?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Brian carlson wrote:
Sounds like a NW painter goofed
Some freight car photos make you wonder whether occasionally a painter couldn't resist expressing his sense of humor.

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: War Emergency rebuild?

Brian Carlson
 

Sounds like a NW painter goofed

Brian Carlson.
On Apr 16, 2013, at 8:32 PM, Tim O'Connor <@timboconnor> wrote:


Thanks Jim... something weird though: both classes appear to have
5/5 ends. And the B-31 photo shows a "BLT 4-44" stencil.

Tim O'

Here is what I have:

N&W Class B-31, #206000-206999 is former NKP 6000-6999; cars originally
built by Pullman- Standard in 1948; cars equipped with ASF Ride Control trucks
with D5 spring package. Cars are described as "plain" meaning general use.

N&W Class B-63, #208200-208299 is former NKP 8200-8299 built by Pullman-Standard
in 1944; these cars were rebuilt in 1964 at Brewster and equipped with "DF" Loaders,
Lading Band Anchors, 5 Belts.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

Nope. I'm not sure because these were NW classes and I don't have an NW
Diagram book. The few things I can tell from the NKP diagram were 8200-8249
had 2 3/8" T&G floors and 8250-8299 had 2 3/8" Koppers Floor (Not sure what
that was.) Also later on some had the capacity increased to 110,000 later in
life. I'm not sure if either of these changes would account for the
different classes. Jim Brewer are you out there?

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY

Does the article say why 208236 is stenciled B-31, and 208270 is
stenciled as class B-63?

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


Re: Armour FGE Photos in Chattanooga

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Bill, I'm pretty sure your photo on p. 90 shows a workman "barring" the ice, to settle it more compactly and reduce void space. He is not breaking up the ice in this photo.

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: Armour FGE Photos in Chattanooga

O Fenton Wells
 

Thanks Steve, that worked.
FentonWells

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Steve Stull <winslow7076@...> wrote:

**


Tony;

Link does work, make sure to remove the line breaks (>), along with
closing the gaps.

Steve Stull

--- On Tue, 4/16/13, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Follow this link. I am not sure how long it be up:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws32jqhb9kxjffv/Loading%20Peaches%20%26%20Re-icing%20cars%20TRIAL%20spread%20.pdf

Sorry, Bill, the link returns this:
Error (404)
We can't find the page you're looking for. Check out our
Help Center and forums for help, or head back to home.
Tony Thompson



--
Fenton Wells
3047 Creek Run
Sanford NC 27332
919-499-5545
@srrfan


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


Re: Armour FGE Photos in Chattanooga

Steve Stull
 

Tony;

Link does work, make sure to remove the line breaks (>), along with closing the gaps.

Steve Stull

--- On Tue, 4/16/13, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:


Follow this link. I am not sure how long it be up:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws32jqhb9kxjffv/Loading%20Peaches%20%26%20Re-icing%20cars%20TRIAL%20spread%20.pdf

   Sorry, Bill, the link returns this:
Error (404)
We can't find the page you're looking for. Check out our
Help Center and forums for help, or head back to home.
Tony Thompson