Date   

Re: [937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

Phillip Blancher <pblancher@...>
 

Sweet. Thank you for the reference document. Very informative.

Phil

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Benjamin Hom <b.hom@att.net> wrote:
Phil Blancher wrote:
"I am still trying to figure out what to model with the IMWX Square
Corner car I have."

Teaching you how to fish:
http://www.steamerafreightcars.com/prototype/frtcars/1937aarpdfmain.html

Some of these prototypes will require further modfications to the kit (Viking
Roofs; Sylvan aftermarket roofs and ends for some of the Canadian prototypes),
but there are some on this list that you can do from this kit with minimal work.


Ben Hom


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

Yahoo! Groups Links


--
--
Phillip Blancher
http://about.me/phillipblancher


Re: [937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

Benjamin Hom
 

Phil Blancher wrote:
"I am still trying to figure out what to model with the IMWX Square
Corner car I have."

Teaching you how to fish:
http://www.steamerafreightcars.com/prototype/frtcars/1937aarpdfmain.html

Some of these prototypes will require further modfications to the kit (Viking
Roofs; Sylvan aftermarket roofs and ends for some of the Canadian prototypes),
but there are some on this list that you can do from this kit with minimal work.


Ben Hom


Re: [937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

Phillip Blancher <pblancher@...>
 

I am still trying to figure out what to model with the IMWX Square
Corner car I have.

Phil

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM, <cepropst@q.com> wrote:
Arved,
You're correct the BLT car is not to the same standard as the RC car. You can try eBay or HOInterchange for square corner RC kits. Undec kits are still offered on the RC website.
Clark Propst

Is it up to the standards of a Red Caboose kit? I don't think so. We'll have to see - if I can get any of the RC 1937 cars. This 1937 AAR boxcar has the rounded corners. that's going to leave a hole in what's available.

Arved Grass



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


--
--
Phillip Blancher
http://about.me/phillipblancher


Re: [937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

Clark Propst
 

Arved,
You're correct the BLT car is not to the same standard as the RC car. You can try eBay or HOInterchange for square corner RC kits. Undec kits are still offered on the RC website.
Clark Propst

Is it up to the standards of a Red Caboose kit? I don't think so. We'll have to see - if I can get any of the RC 1937 cars. This 1937 AAR boxcar has the rounded corners. that's going to leave a hole in what's available.

Arved Grass


Re: 1937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

Pieter Roos
 

Hello Arved;

I would not try to measure the inside of the car to determine the inside height. After all, the floor is made of injection molded styrene, not wood and steel, so the probability of the interior height being prototypical is about nil.

That said, the IH contributes to other measurements, so measuring the height at the eves or over the running board and comparing to drawings of the appropriate cars should give you a good idea of which type of car you have purchased.

Otherwise, spotting features are difficult because builders and railroads had quite a bit of leeway with the application of the standard.

Pieter Roos
Connecticut


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Arved" wrote:

Sometimes I feel like I'm the world's oldest newbie... But as they say, the first step is to admit there is a problem...

I'm having some trouble differentiating between the 1937 AAR box car, and the 1937 Modified AAR Box Car. The only difference I've found is the inside height - 10' even for the unmodified car, and 10' 6" for modified. Are there other spotting differences?
<SNIP>
Speaking of inside height, on a model, where and how would I measure this? I want to verify that the Atlas Trainman 1937 AAR box car is indeed a 1937 AAR box car, and not a modified AAR box car, and only knowing the difference in inside height... My only other guess at this point is that since it has 4/5 (that is 4 over 5) Dreadnaught ends, it can't be a "modified" car. This makes a little sense - that missing 6" is probably the difference between a 4/5 and 5/5 end. So I may have my spotting feature after all.

The Trainman 1937 AAR box car has NOT been mentioned, but the opportunity to get one (at this point, easier to get than either of the Red Caboose 1937 AAR box car kits) peaked my interest. I hope to prepare a review for my blog sometime soon - as soon as I complete my research on subject cars.

Sorry I got a little long winded. Just wanted to show I had done SOME homework to get to this point.

Warmest regards,

Arved Grass
Fleming Island, Florida


Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Model armor and model aircraft web sites with building BLOGS and reviews

Jeff Shultz <jeff@...>
 

And if you'd like to post to a possibly wider (I don't know about larger
without looking up the numbers) audience, this was one of the things we
hoped would happen when we set up the forums and blogs over a
http://mrhmag.com - since we don't do reviews in the magazine, being
entirely advertiser funded, we encourage our readers to do it instead.

I won't say you will not be criticized, but we do also hope for healthy
debate and conversations.

Jeff Shultz
A railfan approaches a crossing hoping for a train
On Jan 14, 2013 7:10 PM, "Mike Brock" <brockm@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

**


Charlie Duckworth writes:

"It would be nice to see a site where model railroaders could post
previews
of kits, building blogs and reviews of the paint and decals available."

Actually there is a place where you can do that. It's called the STMFC.
Note
the group rule:

"Members are permitted to criticize or praise manufacturer's products free
from criticism from other members."

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>;, and is
believed to be clean.

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


Re: [937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

arved_grass
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, cepropst@... wrote:

I think you've answered your own guestion when you noticed a difference in the ends.
That Atlas car is the Branchline Yardmaster series. 1937 AAR car.


Clark Propst
Thanks Clark. I usually assume Atlas Trainman products to be on the crude side - built to a low price point. I was surprised to find an undec kit, and even more surprised to see seperate roof and ends, etc. About the only concession to the price point seems (so far) to be cast on ladders and grabs. Dare say, this is a finer kit than the Bowser X31F I paid twice as much for!

Is it up to the standards of a Red Caboose kit? I don't think so. We'll have to see - if I can get any of the RC 1937 cars. This 1937 AAR boxcar has the rounded corners. I assume Intermountain does, too, based on what I've seen on the web site. So unless Intermountain runs the square corner cars from Red Caboose, that's going to leave a hole in what's available.

Warmest regards,
Arved Grass
Fleming Island, Florida


Re: Model armor and model aircraft web sites with building BLOGS and reviews

Charlie Duckworth
 

Mike
Thanks, You may start seeing a few reviews from me.

Charlie Duckworth

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Brock" wrote:

Charlie Duckworth writes:

"It would be nice to see a site where model railroaders could post previews
of kits, building blogs and reviews of the paint and decals available."

Actually there is a place where you can do that. It's called the STMFC. Note
the group rule:

"Members are permitted to criticize or praise manufacturer's products free
from criticism from other members."

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Re: [937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

Clark Propst
 

I think you've answered your own guestion when you noticed a difference in the ends.
That Atlas car is the Branchline Yardmaster series. 1937 AAR car.


Clark Propst


Re: [937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Arved Grass wrote:
Not a real spotting feature. There are (unmodified) 1937 AAR box cars with both square and round corner ends. Let me clarify that - different, but not on the same car!
Correct. But it does apply to many cars, so it can be a starting point. That's all I was trying to say.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Determining car dimensions from photographs.

Schuyler Larrabee
 

True enough, Tony. I probably should have used some other dimension than
40'-6". It didn't occur to me at the time that it was a Significant
Dimension in the freight car world.



From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 3:53 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Determining car dimensions from photographs.





Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
Another thing is that if you do have a square-on photo, and it's
inconveniently not to scale, and you don't have a way to make it so, you can
establish an angle along which you can measure to get the dimensions to read
right. So if your photo measures 38' along the length, and you KNOW that the
length should be 40'-6", then angle the scale you have so that the zero mark
is at one end, and angle the scale so the 40'-6" mark is in line with the
other end.

Be careful with this example. Usually 40' 6" is an INSIDE dimension. Length
over strikers CAN correspond to an outside length, though usually not
exactly.

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@signaturepress.com
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Model armor and model aircraft web sites with building BLOGS and reviews

Mikebrock
 

Charlie Duckworth writes:

"It would be nice to see a site where model railroaders could post previews of kits, building blogs and reviews of the paint and decals available."

Actually there is a place where you can do that. It's called the STMFC. Note the group rule:

"Members are permitted to criticize or praise manufacturer's products free
from criticism from other members."

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Re: Model armor and model aircraft web sites with building BLOGS and reviews

Charlie Duckworth
 

Tony, nice write up. Here's an example of what I was talking about as to a site with model reviews and several active blogs:
http://www.track-link.com/

The aircraft and military modelers are a pretty critical bunch, maybe we are used to fixing inaccurate kits. The most accurate resin kit I've built as the Speedwitch Wabash automobile boxcar. The decals lettering was on spot, the instructions were very well done. One of the worse, in contrast, was F&C's Illinois Central SS boxcar. Poor , one page instructions, poorly made decals and poorly designed underframe. It would be nice to see a site where model railroaders could post previews of kits, building blogs and reviews of the paint and decals available. Like another modeler said "maybe model railroaders are too busy building to write blogs...".

Charlie Duckworth

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson wrote:

Charlie Duckworth wrote:
There are many well done modeling sites on the web that contain building BLOGS of a kit or well described reviews of a model, Just google Spitfire 1/48 review or Sherman 1/35 review and you get pages of results. I have always wondered why the model railroad products haven't received the same attention.
Maybe the population of modelers in our side of the hobby doesn't justify these types of sites but thought I'd toss it out for discussion.
Gosh, Charlie, I do a blog about modeling, covers many aspects of modeling, not just new kits. Have a look -- here's a recent post:

http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2013/01/rust-part-2-car-roofs.html

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: [937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

arved_grass
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson wrote:

From 1939 onward, the 1937 cars built by just about everyone had W-corner post (curved-corner) ends instead of the sharp corners of the original 1937 cars.
Not a real spotting feature. There are (unmodified) 1937 AAR box cars with both square and round corner ends. Let me clarify that - different, but not on the same car!

Example:

SP class B-50-18 and -19 are unmodified 1937 AAR cars with square ends.
SP class B-50-20, -21, and 23 are unmodified 1937 AAR cars with W-corner posts (curved corner).

In the non-SP world, Southern also had (unmodified) 1937 AAR cars with both square and W corner posts (curved corner - I think Ed Hawkins is preferring this nomenclature over W corner posts now, based on recent e-mail discussions with him).

Most modified 1937 AAR box cars had rounded ends, as you said, but there are exceptions:

DSS&A 17000-17099
IC 17000-19999 (in 4 lots)
SOO 42800-44498 (even nos. in 3 lots), and 136300-136398 (even nos).

All the above had square corners. So corners can't be used as a spotting feature between original and modified 1937 AAR box cars!

I'm guessing the 5/5 Dreadnaught end being the spotting difference for the 10' 6" IH that distinguishes the "modified" cars. I can't find a standard 1937 AAR design box car that has 5/5 ends, and I can't find a modified 1937 AAR design without. So if I can see the end, I can spot the difference. Well, I have some hope. As long as I don't find one parading around with a Pullman Standard end or something like that. Wreck rebuilds NEVER have the wrong part installed, right? :-)

Arved Grass
Fleming Island, Florida


Re: Mobilgas 2 dome red tank car

Bruce Smith
 

Gary,

I thought about using this photo for my clinic <VBG>!
Regards
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [STMFC@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of gary laakso [vasa0vasa@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 8:26 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Mobilgas 2 dome red tank car

Another Jack Delano picture of a 2 dome Mobilgas tank car in red, okay a very faded red (maybe Bruce Smith got to with with his acrylics?):

http://www.shorpy.com/node/2991?size=_original#caption

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

I did my part spending on kits and photos and parts this last weekend in Cocoa Beach!




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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Mobilgas 2 dome red tank car

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

gary laakso wrote:
Another Jack Delano picture of a 2 dome Mobilgas tank car in red, okay a very faded red (maybe Bruce Smith got to with with his acrylics?):

http://www.shorpy.com/node/2991?size=_original#caption
Note on the car end that compartments A and B have quite different capacities, so although the two domes look equally spaced from the tank ends, the dividing bulkheads must be offset a fair amount.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Mobilgas 2 dome red tank car

gary laakso
 

Another Jack Delano picture of a 2 dome Mobilgas tank car in red, okay a very faded red (maybe Bruce Smith got to with with his acrylics?):

http://www.shorpy.com/node/2991?size=_original#caption

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

I did my part spending on kits and photos and parts this last weekend in Cocoa Beach!


Re: [937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Arved Grass wrote:

I'm having some trouble differentiating between the 1937 AAR box car, and the 1937 Modified AAR Box Car. The only difference I've found is the inside height - 10' even for the unmodified car, and 10' 6" for modified. Are there other spotting differences?
From 1939 onward, the 1937 cars built by just about everyone had W-corner post (curved-corner) ends instead of the sharp corners of the original 1937 cars.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


1937 Modified and Unmodified AAR Box Car

arved_grass
 

Sometimes I feel like I'm the world's oldest newbie... But as they say, the first step is to admit there is a problem...

I'm having some trouble differentiating between the 1937 AAR box car, and the 1937 Modified AAR Box Car. The only difference I've found is the inside height - 10' even for the unmodified car, and 10' 6" for modified. Are there other spotting differences?

I've looked at the material on the Steam Era Freight Car web site. There are enough differences within each group (modified and original/unmodified 1937 AAR Box Cars), that I'm running out of things to look for as spotting features. I've also consulted with "The Model Railroader's Guide to Freight Cars," by Jeff Wilson.

Not that I can trust "The Model Railroader's Guide to Freight Cars." P. 9 has an end view of C&NW 72854, Looks like a 5/5 Dreadnaught End to me, but the caption labels it as a 4/4. Really? Let me count again. And again. And finally, I find this car on the roster of modified 1937 AAR box cars, and sure enough, it's a 5/5. I'm vindicated! I can count to 5!

I've also searched the archives here, but frankly, there's so much to sift through, it became easier to just post a question. :-( You all are just too prolific! (GD&R) I'd rather do my own footwork, but sometimes I just have to reach out and depend on the expertise of my friends. After a couple hours of research, it's time to ask for help, even if it's right here under my nose. Lots of talk about this car or that car being one or the other - which I can verify with the rosters on the Steam Era Freight Car web site (thanks Ed Hawkins and Ted Culotta!), but that sounds like too much of a crutch if there's some other way to spot the difference.

Speaking of inside height, on a model, where and how would I measure this? I want to verify that the Atlas Trainman 1937 AAR box car is indeed a 1937 AAR box car, and not a modified AAR box car, and only knowing the difference in inside height... My only other guess at this point is that since it has 4/5 (that is 4 over 5) Dreadnaught ends, it can't be a "modified" car. This makes a little sense - that missing 6" is probably the difference between a 4/5 and 5/5 end. So I may have my spotting feature after all.

The Trainman 1937 AAR box car has NOT been mentioned, but the opportunity to get one (at this point, easier to get than either of the Red Caboose 1937 AAR box car kits) peaked my interest. I hope to prepare a review for my blog sometime soon - as soon as I complete my research on subject cars.

Sorry I got a little long winded. Just wanted to show I had done SOME homework to get to this point.

Warmest regards,

Arved Grass
Fleming Island, Florida


Re: New Haven 38' gondolas

Joel Holmes <lehighvalley@...>
 

Hi All,

I found a plan for a 38' gondola in the 1906 reproduction of the Car
Builders Encyclopedia that sure looks like the NH 38' gon.

Joel Holmes

Keith's catalog lists a photo of NH 51000 built 10/23/1906, Neg 328 and
NH 51500 blt 10/27/07 Neg 379

Roger Hinman
On Jan 11, 2013, at 3:43 PM, tedander2000 <tedander@core.com> wrote:



At the IRM's Pullman Library we do have many original pencil and ink
drawings of SSC freight and passenger cars, plus interurbans and early
trolley cars. According to Eric Neubauer's CD of P-S freight cars, there
was one 1906 order and three 1907 orders for NYNH&H 80 ton 38 ft
gondolla cars, general arrangement drawing 15751: s/n's 51000 - 51499,
51500 - 51999, 52000 - 53449, and 53450 - 55949. In 1911 there was
another order for similar cars, s/n 55950 - 57499, but under GA dwgs
28438 and 28906. If there is interest in these drawings or including
detail like the underframe and brake arrangement drawing, or the drop
door mechanism drawing, please let us know and we can check for
availability, then mail an estimate. A drawing copy goes for $25, but
that includes priority mailing. Note that we supply significant numbers
of drawing copies to model manufacturers, under Bombardier license. That
protects them and you from unauthorized copies for other than the
intended single use
r use, also protects us as the fees cover annual costs in the thousands
for digital equipment upkeep and ongoing restorations to protect the
originals. I checked my listing for Keith's photos without success for
these cars, but maybe Roger has an updated list!
Sincerely, Ted Anderson, IRM Pullman Library volunteer curator

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Roger Hinman wrote:

I certainly hope the others are correct and the collection is
available. I'm on travel this weekend but I have his catalog at home
with the photo listings for these cars
Sent from my iPad

On Jan 10, 2013, at 8:25 AM, "wdzwonchyk" wrote:

Roger: If, as others in the group have indicated, Retterer is still
alive and active, why is his Standard Steel Car builders photo
collection currently not available?
Wayne M. Dzwonchyk









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

Yahoo! Groups Links



67941 - 67960 of 181173