Hi , Just to set the record straight , Jerry was part of InterMountain early on , the prime mover , who lost control when he had to go for an investor to get it off the ground . He wound up getting bought out for custom runs of the 1937AAR boxcar as I remember . That was the first model , the PFE R40-10 came later , followed by the USRA hopper . This was the O scale side , if you are talking about the HO models , I know nothing about that . Bob Jones

So far I have made reefer doors, fowler boxcar floors/underframes and a CPR reefer model in HO scale using Sketchup drawings and the Shapeways printing service.

My efforts are those of an amateur but, FWIW, in my opinion the fowler boxcar underframe is usable, but only because it will be under the car and mostly in the dark. I designed it without flanges on the bolsters or frame components - those will be added with styrene strip, That approach was taken as the material Shapeways offered would not produce a thin edged flange. From what I have read about the new material, it sounds like it would work.

The other parts I've had printed are not useable without a lot of additional work. I see a few problems:
- V groove siding on reefers: I was dumb enough to try scale lumber dimensions - it produced grooves so subtle they are less obvious than the grain of the material made while the part is printed. The problem arises as much from the printing process as from my use of fine dimensions - groove tend to fill up with material unless the gap is wider. On my second try, I enlarged the grooves about 50% That effort made little practical difference. Another 50% or 100% increase would be a better bet, and I will be giving it a try in due course.
- surface texture - is either grainy or granular depending on the materials I've used (white detail and strong flexible). I am looking forward to testing the ultra detail frosted stuff when $$$ allow another experiment. For now, to make the reefer acceptable I would have to scribe the grooves deeper and sand the board faces smoother - not something I relish.
- stair stepping on the sloped roof panels - requires sanding.
- minimum wall thickness - was .7mm, which is tolerable for a lot of things we do in HO but course for some. The new frosted detailed materials will work with a considerably thinner cross section. Again, I need to experiment.
- fit - I created small index features at the corners of the car sides. As a result, the parts fit together in perfect alignment. That is my favourite part of the process so far.
- floor/fishbelly underframe: I guess the floor was not made thick enough, as the whole part came out with a curve, bowing up in the centre, and down toward the car ends. It is flexible enough to straighten, and so I suppose could be made to work. But if making the part a half millimeter thicker will make it more straight and stiff, it will be worth the extra dollars.

The reefer - 2 sides, so ends, roof, floor/underframe - cost about $85 to print and have delivered. Not a good price for a lot of models, but if I was pleased with it, it would serve as a ready and replaceable basis for resin copies.

Someone mentioned using them for doors and ends or other parts. I am currently working on a Murphy-style inverted corrugation end for a CPR composite automobile and will see how that works. Like so many things, the drawing is as much a challenge for an amateur as anything else. For example, I seem to be unable to get Google Sketchup to render an HO scale rivet head. My thinking is to add them after the fact with Archer rivets, but that is going to get old in time. Another example - just how precisely to model the corrugations - what will show up in the printed version, and what will be lost. At this point, I'm using a fairly simplified profile as Google Sketchup seems to have problems with the very small faces that would be required with compound HO curves.

Rob Kirkham

Hoping this technology is improved and tweaked to meet our needs.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "John Kellett" <soccrdad525@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 11:22 AM
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Consumer-grade 3D printers hit the mainstream

Hi Mike,

Yes design your own 3-D models, upload, then they verify, and you can have them
printed. Shapeways does have instructions for the process to guard against
'open' models. Key word 'open' meaning that edges do not align to form a solid
model.

The pricing that you see includes the shipping cost. Shapeways minimum order is
$25.00 from any of the listed products. And from order, production, to delivery
is usually 10 to 14 days.

The one shop I have ordered from is 'Stonysmith'. Stony's models are mostly Z
scale, but with some recalculations you can see that they can be re-scaled. Oh,
and all shop owners can set their own margin for their models.

John Kellett




________________________________
From: Mike Aufderheide <mononinmonon@yahoo.com>
To: "STMFC@yahoogroups.com" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 2:09:10 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Consumer-grade 3D printers hit the mainstream


John,

If I understand the site correctly, one can send 3-D models to them and have
them made! Wow! A game changer? Where's my Sketch-up!

Regards,

Mike Aufderheide

From: John Kellett <soccrdad525@yahoo.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Consumer-grade 3D printers hit the mainstream


Here is a link to Shapeways. http://www.shapeways.com/

To see what is in the model train arena, use the menu on the left side of the
screen. Mouse over "Hobby" to gain access to the "Model Train" category. I am
sure you will be surprised at the detailed work. Shapeways is now experimenting

with a new material "Frosted Ultra Detail" (FUD). If you watch the rotating
header, there is a bulldozer and a MOW truck, both are Z scale (1:220). With
the new FUD material, Z scale can be designed now down to the three foot
details. Shapeways has other materials including metal, and now ceramics.

One more item, these prices are not that bad.

John Kellett

________________________________
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: stmfc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 1:22:36 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Consumer-grade 3D printers hit the mainstream


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/arts/design/makerbot-is-a-new-3-d-printer.html









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Clark you mean these tank cars? Attached photo shows Decker tank cars at the
Decker loading area about 1929.



Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

I'm passing this along. A&W Stokesdale depot (Greensboro). Anyone interested contact hunter.robert49@yahoo.com - Al Westerfield

Very interesting! I didn't know Brian Leppert worked with Bill Gould.

Tim O'Connor

Hi Bill,

You can find diagrams of New Haven DCFC's here;
http://www.alphabetroute.com/nynhh/fd.php

Look under number series beginning about 17050 to about 17069. As Bryan wrote, these two series were about 39' over striking plates. Other NH DCFC's were considerably longer.

Regards,
Peter Ness

Dennis Storzek wrote:

I hate to be put in the position to argue that prototype authenticity didn't matter, but looking back at the landscape as it was in the late seventies / early eighties, it didn't. No much, anyway. There wasn't even the wealth of information available on the prototype; it was common for the average modeler of the time to take the position that whatever the model, somebody must have had them, and it was impossible to ever say for sure that no one did. Remember the mantra, "there's a prototype for everything"?

For the bulk of modelers, this is still true, Dennis. What's markedly different is that you can be "correct" by buying the right stuff even if you don't know much about it yourself. That's where the "foobie trap" is: the modeler who THINKS that manufacturer X is doing the right stuff may well be buying paint schemes and little else.
I will refrain from discussing any specific manufacturers. <g>
But this point really has little to do with Bill Gould, who set out to do much better. That he trusted Bob Hundman remains a sad detail of the hobby.

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

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

Keeping projects quiet is one thing; an obsession with secrecy is
another. If the project is going to succeed, the small business
needs trustworthy prototype consultants. A number of us on this list
have acted as consultants to numerous manufacturers and have provided
essential information, drawings, and photos (Ed Hawkins, Ted Culotta,
Tony Thompson, and Jerry Stewart come immediately to mind, as well as
myself) and none of us have ever, to my knowledge, spoken out of turn
or spilled the beans prematurely. It's never been hard to find out
who can be trusted to provide accurate information without talking
out of turn. Gould's fascination with detailed drawings, combined
with his ignorance of prototype history, were his undoing. Notice
that he followed the non-existent USRA tank car with a model of an
AC&F flat car - again, because the Cyc drawings were superb - which
had exactly three owners: NC&StL, SP&S, and FEC. Hello? Another
fine model, but how many of us need even one, let alone several of them.

I hate to be put in the position to argue that prototype authenticity didn't matter, but looking back at the landscape as it was in the late seventies / early eighties, it didn't. No much, anyway. There were those, Richard Hendrickson and Al Westerfield who were working to change that, but they were the exception, not the rule. And, who knew who could be trusted, since outside of the brass importers, very few of the manufacturers did extensive research, or any research at all. Most of what had come before was single prototype cars; Atheran's 40' boxcar really only has one prototype, as did their wood side box. Most of the MDC cars had no prototype at all, and the Train Miniature line was a mix... they started with a couple real cars, then mixed and matched the mold inserts to make more, modifying dimensions at will to make everything fit. There wasn't even the wealth of information available on the prototype; it was common for the average modeler of the time to take the position that whatever the model, somebody must have had them, and it was impossible to ever say for sure that no one did. Remember the mantra, "there's a prototype for everything"?

Against that background, Bob Hundman surely looked like a good expert adviser; he had worked for PFM before starting Mainline Modeler, and was an excellent draftsman. Who in the heck were these other guys?

Looking to hang a date on the Gould tankcar, I ran into this biography of Bill Gould:

http://craftsmanshipmuseum.com/gould.htm

It appears the work he si doing is head and shoulders above anything done in the model railroad hobby, as are the commissions, I'm sure. That, I recall, is why Bill eventually sold out; there is really no money in this hobby, and you end up running production, with all it's risks, rather than locking in those big bucks commissions.

It's a shame that he didn't stay with the hobby; it's our loss.

Dennis

On May 13, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote

if it had not been for Gould's obsession with secrecy ...

Based on stories I have heard, an "obsession" with secrecy may
be the key to survival for small businesses making large investments.

Keeping projects quiet is one thing; an obsession with secrecy is
another. If the project is going to succeed, the small business
needs trustworthy prototype consultants. A number of us on this list
have acted as consultants to numerous manufacturers and have provided
essential information, drawings, and photos (Ed Hawkins, Ted Culotta,
Tony Thompson, and Jerry Stewart come immediately to mind, as well as
myself) and none of us have ever, to my knowledge, spoken out of turn
or spilled the beans prematurely. It's never been hard to find out
who can be trusted to provide accurate information without talking
out of turn. Gould's fascination with detailed drawings, combined
with his ignorance of prototype history, were his undoing. Notice
that he followed the non-existent USRA tank car with a model of an
AC&F flat car - again, because the Cyc drawings were superb - which
had exactly three owners: NC&StL, SP&S, and FEC. Hello? Another
fine model, but how many of us need even one, let alone several of them.

The classic example is the R-40-23 tooled by Jerry Porter, who made
no secret of his work, so Intermountain rushed in with the exact
same model (instead of reducing their O-scale R-40-10 to HO scale)
simply to run a torpedo into his side... and IMWX's boat sank very
rapidly.

IMWX's boat was already sinking. Jerry Porter was a meticulous
researcher and talented designer who certainly moved the hobby ahead
a whole lot, but he was also an inept businessman who was trying to
do it with smoke and mirrors and almost no capital. Some of us who
knew him well foretold the end almost from the beginning.

Richard Hendrickson

The book has been sold. Thanks.

Jason Sanford

Stock car.
 
Cyril Durrenberger

I have for sale a copy of the Post War Freight Car Fleet by Culotta. It has been looked though 5 times, if that. Stored in a dust free and smoke free environment. Like new condition with dust jacket. $85, includes shipping and insurance. Please drop me a note offline. Paypal or check. Thanks.

Jason Sanford
Salt Lake City, UT

Aha! Well, even with photos, if there is no model -- and no desire to
scratchbuild -- what is one to do?

Tim

Richard Hendrickson wrote

>> Not true, Dennis.

I read Dennis's post differently Richard. I think you are in
agreement -- there were alternatives, people tried, but Hundman
and Gould didn't listen.

>> if it had not been for Gould's obsession with secrecy ...

Based on stories I have heard, an "obsession" with secrecy may
be the key to survival for small businesses making large investments.

The classic example is the R-40-23 tooled by Jerry Porter, who made
no secret of his work, so Intermountain rushed in with the exact
same model (instead of reducing their O-scale R-40-10 to HO scale)
simply to run a torpedo into his side... and IMWX's boat sank very
rapidly. Rapid replication and preemption and commonly used tactics
in the hobby business.

Tim O'Connor

On May 13, 2011, at 9:46 AM, soolinehistory wrote:

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

Isn't that the truth! And they came out how many years before
those other highly touted ones who had the benefit of more
research and technology.

Jerry Glow

I suppose, just for history's sake, I should point out that at the
time the car was tooled, we had essentially nothing, so ANYTHING
was better than what we had. While the were people who wanted
prototype models wandering in the wilderness, they were hardly the
driving force in the market, and it was easy to assume, "build it
and they will come."

Bill Gould was a small shop, and he was still on the uphill side of
a very steep learning curve. This was not a situation where
Megabucks Corp. just throws money at a problem; Gould was looking
for projects that he could do in-house, with the equipment and
expertise he had in his possession. The four plate tank
construction of the proposed USRA car was a significant factor; it
made all the difference between doing a tankcar model, or not. No
matter how many people pointed out that no cars were actually
constructed to those plans, and I know several people did just
that, unless they were prepared to offer an alternate prototype
WITH FOUR PLATE TANK CONSTRUCTION, and had as complete a set of
drawings of their proposal as what were published in the CBC, it
wasn't going to make any difference. If those people had been
successful at getting around the interference Bob Hundman was
running, they only would have been responsible for the project
being dropped, not changed to something more common.

Not true, Dennis. The obvious four-horizontal-course tank cars that
were built in the thousands, and for which excellent drawings were
available, were the AC&F 10K gal. Type 21s. When rumors spread that
Gould was planning a tank car model, several of us who had
considerable expertise about tank cars volunteered to help and were
told that Gould had his own expert and was well supplied with
prototype information. The "expert" was Bob Hundman, who reinforced
Gould's belief that, because the USRA drawings existed, the cars had
to have been built. In fact, Hundman continued to maintain that was
true even after the model was released and reviews (one of them mine)
pointed out that, excellent as it was, it was a foobie.

Give the man credit for having the stones to develop a new product
that was going to retail at two or three times the price of his
competition. The fact that it sold at all proved that there was a
market beyond what the big players of the day were serving, and
paved the way for all that has come since.

The fact that it sold at all was a tribute to its brilliant
engineering and precision molding. But it would certainly have sold
better, and would still sell better, if it had represented a real
prototype instead of a tank car design that was proposed but never
built. A few minutes of research on the history of the USRA by Gould
or Hundman would have revealed that fact, as would a few minutes of
reflection on the fact that there were no, zero, nada photographs of
a USRA car, whether built by the USRA or anyone else. In fact,
though Bob Hundman believed that drawings were the ultimate evidence
(a curious conviction, given that his own drawings so often contained
errors), any manufacturer who devotes a lot of time and money to
developing a model without photos of the prototype is sliding rapidly
down a slippery slope. Bill Gould's intentions were the best, but we
all know what the road to hell is paved with. Frankly, I'm tired of
hearing people make excuses for the fact that the model had (and has)
no prototype, because it easily could have had a prototype if it had
not been for Gould's obsession with secrecy and his dependence on a
magazine editor who fancied himself the ultimate authority on
everything.

Richard Hendrickson

Hi Mike,

Yes design your own 3-D models, upload, then they verify, and you can have them
printed.  Shapeways does have instructions for the process to guard against
'open' models.  Key word 'open' meaning that edges do not align to form a solid
model.

The pricing that you see includes the shipping cost.  Shapeways minimum order is
$25.00 from any of the listed products.  And from order, production, to delivery
is usually 10 to 14 days.

The one shop I have ordered from is 'Stonysmith'.  Stony's models are mostly Z
scale, but with some recalculations you can see that they can be re-scaled.  Oh,
and all shop owners can set their own margin for their models.

John Kellett




________________________________
From: Mike Aufderheide <mononinmonon@yahoo.com>
To: "STMFC@yahoogroups.com" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 2:09:10 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Consumer-grade 3D printers hit the mainstream

 
John,
 
If I understand the site correctly, one can send 3-D models to them and have
them made!  Wow!  A game changer? Where's my Sketch-up!
 
Regards,
 
Mike Aufderheide

From: John Kellett <soccrdad525@yahoo.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Consumer-grade 3D printers hit the mainstream

 
Here is a link to Shapeways.  http://www.shapeways.com/

To see what is in the model train arena, use the menu on the left side of the
screen.  Mouse over "Hobby" to gain access to the "Model Train" category.  I am
sure you will be surprised at the detailed work.  Shapeways is now experimenting

with a new material "Frosted Ultra Detail" (FUD).  If you watch the rotating
header, there is a bulldozer and a MOW truck, both are Z scale (1:220).  With
the new FUD material, Z scale can be designed now down to the three foot
details.  Shapeways has other materials including metal, and now ceramics.

One more item, these prices are not that bad.

John Kellett

________________________________
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: stmfc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 1:22:36 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Consumer-grade 3D printers hit the mainstream

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/arts/design/makerbot-is-a-new-3-d-printer.html








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

John,
 
If I understand the site correctly, one can send 3-D models to them and have them made!  Wow!  A game changer? Where's my Sketch-up!
 
Regards,
 
Mike Aufderheide

From: John Kellett <soccrdad525@yahoo.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Consumer-grade 3D printers hit the mainstream


 
Here is a link to Shapeways.  http://www.shapeways.com/

To see what is in the model train arena, use the menu on the left side of the
screen.  Mouse over "Hobby" to gain access to the "Model Train" category.  I am
sure you will be surprised at the detailed work.  Shapeways is now experimenting
with a new material "Frosted Ultra Detail" (FUD).  If you watch the rotating
header, there is a bulldozer and a MOW truck, both are Z scale (1:220).  With
the new FUD material, Z scale can be designed now down to the three foot
details.  Shapeways has other materials including metal, and now ceramics.

One more item, these prices are not that bad.

John Kellett

________________________________
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: stmfc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 1:22:36 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Consumer-grade 3D printers hit the mainstream

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/arts/design/makerbot-is-a-new-3-d-printer.html

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

Here is a link to Shapeways.  http://www.shapeways.com/

To see what is in the model train arena, use the menu on the left side of the
screen.  Mouse over "Hobby" to gain access to the "Model Train" category.  I am
sure you will be surprised at the detailed work.  Shapeways is now experimenting
with a new material "Frosted Ultra Detail" (FUD).  If you watch the rotating
header, there is a bulldozer and a MOW truck, both are Z scale (1:220).  With
the new FUD material, Z scale can be designed now down to the three foot
details.  Shapeways has other materials including metal, and now ceramics.

One more item, these prices are not that bad.

John Kellett




________________________________
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: stmfc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 1:22:36 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Consumer-grade 3D printers hit the mainstream

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/arts/design/makerbot-is-a-new-3-d-printer.html




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