Date   

Re: SP G-50-12 by Challenger

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

I attended a regional NMRA event this last weekend in Ocala, FL, at which some guy was selling brass cars at rather low prices. I picked up an SP G-50-12 by Challenger in mint condition for $30. I'm a bit curious about the lettering. First, the number is good...92928. The style is like that on pg 124, car G-50-9, 46387 of your SP gondola/ stock car book. However, it was reweighed in 1940. And, an airbrake test was performed in 1946. It has a Carmer coupler lever and a horizontal brake wheel [ rod parallel to the rails ]. It also has a round rod that is part of the dump mechanism as opposed to a rectangular shaped rod. Other than that, it appears to be correct...without measuring it. There is no doubt that it is a G-50-12...matching well with the photo on pg 100/101 except for the circular dump rod and the " modern" brake wheel.
Yes, I have a couple of the same Challenger cars, received gratis for having helped with proto info. You are right that the operating rod for the doors should be square. Some of the 1920s GS gons did get horizontal-shaft brake wheels in later years, but most retained their original vertical-staff brakes. As I'm sure you know, Mike, the car was delivered with two-level Dalman trucks and these were rarely replaced. Tahoe Model Works makes a superb version of this truck, which I commend to your use under this car.
I take it from your comment about lettering that the car has a spelled-out road name. This style was introduced in 1946, so the 1940 reweigh date is obviously obsolete; I assume you will change it anyway to reflect the era of your layout <g>.

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: SP G-50-12 by Challenger

Tim O'Connor
 

30 bucks??? Does this guy have an address??

(I just saw one listed for $150)

Challenger imported both SP G-50-9 and G-50-12 models. And similar
UP gondolas too.

Tim O'Connor

At 5/23/2011 12:19 PM Monday, you wrote:
For Tony Thompson but open to all:

I attended a regional NMRA event this last weekend in Ocala, FL, at which
some guy was selling brass cars at rather low prices. I picked up an SP
G-50-12 by Challenger in mint condition for $30. I'm a bit curious about the
lettering. First, the number is good...92928. The style is like that on pg
124, car G-50-9, 46387 of your SP gondola/stock car book. However, it was
reweighed in 1940. And, an airbrake test was performed in 1946. It has a
Carmer coupler lever and a horizontal brake wheel [ rod parallel to the
rails ]. It also has a round rod that is part of the dump mechanism as
opposed to a rectangular shaped rod. Other than that, it appears to be
correct...without measuring it. There is no doubt that it is a
G-50-12...matching well with the photo on pg 100/101 except for the circular
dump rod and the " modern" brake wheel.

Mike Brock


Re: Rail Yards in Ohio

Tim O'Connor
 

Yes, but only after WWII.

At 5/23/2011 12:13 PM Monday, you wrote:
Sohio did business in Pennsylvania as Boron and IIRC in a few other states
surrounding Ohio

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:05 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Rail Yards in Ohio


Frank are you sure? I looked up SOHIO's history online and for many years
it was not permitted to do business outside of Ohio -- but it dominated the
business within the state of Ohio (like 70%-80% of the market)! I think the
restrictions were relaxed later, or they found a way to conduct business
via subsidiary companies. But in Bill's pre-war photos, I think the SOHIO
signs are a very strong indicator of Ohio.

Tim


Bill, If everyone thinks the photo was taken in Ohio, it probably was,
but Standard of Ohio
also marketed in Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky. Their primary territory
was, of course, Ohio.
FHP (Frank H. Peacock)


Re: Rail Yards in Ohio

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Rich Orr wrote:
Sohio did business in Pennsylvania as Boron and IIRC in a few other states surrounding Ohio
Boron was indeed a subsidiary of Sohio but there were Boron stations in Ohio, too. Not sure how all that worked.

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


Overland 8K GATC tank car

mike brock <brockm@...>
 

I also managed to stea...uh...acquire an Overland GATC 8,000 gal vertical course tank car...unpainted...Overland # 3481. Overland seems to think this car served Oldetyme Distillers, Mi-Co, Gasoline, and Varnish Co...whoever they are. So...if anyone has any info, I'd appreciate seeing it. And, yes, I searched through the archives...without much success. The model was built in 2/2000 apparently.

I'll try to analyze it after it cools down a bit.

Mike Brock


Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Richard Hendrickson
 

On May 23, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Jim Betz wrote:

Hi,

We keep re-visiting the topic of freight car distribution ...
and discussing how to represent the freight cars for a point
in time or an "era" ... and then, presumably, adjusting the
mix of freight cars on our layouts ...

So I'm prompted to ask "Why not model actual trains?" As in
find a train sheet you like and go for it - with selective
compression - of course. And then extend it to several trains.

Is anyone out there doing this? Thinking seriously about it?
Tried it and found they couldn't field enough models to fill
the bill (how close did you get)? Selectively compress out the
models you don't have as a first cut? No, substitutions allowed
(same number series but different number)? One box car - from
the correct era - is just as good as the next?

You could even preserve the order of the cars in the train
even if you aren't modelling all of them. And 'just' adjust
the waybills for the layout?
JIm, many years ago the late Terry Metcalfe had found a cache of
wheel reports for the location and date he wanted to model on the
Union Pacific and was well along with the research that would have
enabled him to model specific trains. I helped him with that
research and provided numerous photos of the car series in the wheel
reports. At that time, there were fewer models available of the cars
he would have needed, but today, with the profusion of styrene and
resin freight car models that have been introduced since that time,
it would be much easier to replicate those trains exactly.
Regrettably, Terry's unfortunate and premature death brought that
effort to a halt.

I know a number of other modelers who are doing essentially what you
describe, and I'd be inclined to do it myself if I had the
documentation it would require.

Bruce Smith's objection that modeling specific trains would make it
impossible to do prototypical operation is, of course valid. but
modeling specific trains is a viable alternative for those of us who
don't have the space to build a model railroad that's suitable for
prototypical operation. My diorama is intended to be what Bruce
refers to (I hope not condescendingly) as a "railfan's" model
railroad; sit down on a stool (standing in for a pile of crossties)
and watch the trains run through a scene that is, as accurately as I
can make it, a miniature of a real place at a real point in time. I
find prototypical operation rewarding, too, but when I feel the need
for an operating fix I can get it at the La Mesa club's Tehachapi
Pass layout in San Diego or at Bill Darnaby's in suburban Chicago.
On both of those large model railroads, operations are realistic
enough that it's well worth the air fare to get there occasionally.

Richard Hendrickson


possible container project

Bill Lane
 

I am back to using Solidworks again. I have designed 1 container so far in S
Scale. http://www.lanestrains.com/Lanes_Trains_Containers.jpg I am looking
for a person or small group of people in HO and possibly in O Scale to be
the point of contact for such items in your scales. I believe you understand
the scale better if that is what you model in.



Please reply directly with your interest or questions. I will fill in some
of the details at that time. Tire kickers need not reply.







Thank You,
Bill Lane

Modeling the Mighty Pennsy & PRSL in 1957 in S Scale since 1988

See my finished models at:
<http://www.lanestrains.com/> http://www.lanestrains.com
Look at what has been made in PRR in S Scale!

Custom Train Parts Design
<http://www.lanestrains.com/SolidWorks_Modeling.htm>
http://www.lanestrains.com/SolidWorks_Modeling.htm

PRR Builders Photos Bought, Sold & Traded
(Trading is MUCH preferred)
<http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRphotos.xls>
http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRphotos.xls

***Join the PRR T&HS***
The other members are not ALL like me!
<http://www.prrths.com/> http://www.prrths.com
<http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRTHS_Application.pdf>
http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRTHS_Application.pdf

Join the Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines Historical Society
It's FREE to join! <http://www.prslhs.com/> http://www.prslhs.com
Preserving The Memory Of The PRSL


Re: Why not model actual train consists?

William Keene <wakeene@...>
 

Jim and Group,

While I do not model specific trains, I do base my modeling on a somewhat similar bit of information. My operation scheme for my switching layout has its foundation based upon the documentation of freight car traffic into and out of Climax, Kansas, that was complied by a young James Burke and posted on the SFRH&MS website. While I model Gridley and Burlington, Kansas, instead of Climax the towns of Gridley and Climax are not that far apart thus the freight car mix and operations should be somewhat similar.

Burke's documentation was done in 1945 and covers perhaps 85 to 90% of that year. Climax is a small Kansas town somewhat similar to Gridley. While I model 1953 instead of 1945, there is not too much difference. Rolling stock wise, I tend to follow the actual car types and railroads that were seen in Climax. Yes, there are some revisions. Cars that were removed from service prior to 1953 are replaced in the fleet with more modern cars from the same railroad. Burke's list also provides an understanding into the ebb and flow of rail traffic in rural east-central Kansas.

As for operations... the concept is to use Burke's list to create the necessary traffic movements. And each operations secession will be the next day of the year (1953) as the little mixed train operated on a daily except Sunday schedule. This results in 312 operating secessions before the cycle would repeat itself. If the modeled layout operations happened even once a week, then that would be over 6 actual years before the list would repeat itself. And that is only at Gridley.

As for Burlington, Kansas, which is a much larger town of around 2,500 souls, the rail traffic will be interpolated from the Gridley traffic based upon the variance in the industries served in the larger town. Also, the operations will also incorporate some additional acquired data that fills in the gaps. And of course, the operations will be flavored to taste.

As for the size of the fleet, the plan is presently in action to acquire a freight car fleet based upon the mix of cars and railroads on Burke's list. There are a total of around 160 individual freight cars on the list. I presently have about 40 of them. Adding in the cars and operations at Burlington would add at least another 160 freight cars. No, I do not believe I will ever reach a total freight car fleet of 300+ cars. The goal is to have a prototypical overall fleet with a proper mix of home road cars (ATSF in this case) combined with the remaining cars being representative of the national fleet mix. Around 70% of the cars on the layout are boxcars. Stock cars make up the next highest percentage. One item, there is not a single hopper car -- other than MW ballast hoppers -- on the line.

Is this exact train modeling? No. But the concept represents operations based upon actual car movements. I am happy with this concept and am looking forward to the challenge of building a very interesting freight car fleet.

Happy Modeling,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA

On May 23, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Jim Betz wrote:

Hi,

We keep re-visiting the topic of freight car distribution ...
and discussing how to represent the freight cars for a point
in time or an "era" ... and then, presumably, adjusting the
mix of freight cars on our layouts ...

So I'm prompted to ask "Why not model actual trains?" As in
find a train sheet you like and go for it - with selective
compression - of course. And then extend it to several trains.

Is anyone out there doing this? Thinking seriously about it?
Tried it and found they couldn't field enough models to fill
the bill (how close did you get)? Selectively compress out the
models you don't have as a first cut? No, substitutions allowed
(same number series but different number)? One box car - from
the correct era - is just as good as the next?

You could even preserve the order of the cars in the train
even if you aren't modelling all of them. And 'just' adjust
the waybills for the layout?
- Jim Why Not


Re: Box Car door stops

Bill Welch
 

These are part of a little sprue of boxcar details offered by Tichy. Also they are part of the styrene 1/2 door detailing set done a few years ago by "Standard Car Company," an offshoot I think of New England Rail Service. It converts the Accurail SS boxcar to a GTW prototype. Gorgeous tooling includes gusset plates, door stops and door supports. Combined w/Blackcat decals make a really nice model.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


The only HO scale plastic detail part door stops I'm aware of come with
the Red Caboose ARA/X29 box car kits. There are probably just too many
prototype styles to attract a 3rd party vendor to make 'generic' door stops.

Tim O'


At 5/23/2011 07:59 AM Monday, you wrote:
This to me seems like a missing detail needed by us modelers. Has or does anyone make door stops?
Rich Christie


Re: Why not model actual train consists?

james murrie
 

I've done it with passenger trains, but not freight. lack of reference materials on my part mostly as I'd like to do an accurate mixed train sometime.
Jim Murrie

-


Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Richard Orr <SUVCWORR@...>
 

Why not? Primarily because they are not available for the road I model.
They were consider to contain information that was valuable to competitors
so the sheets were routinely destroyed by the railroad and second because it
would become very boring switching the same car to the same location every
operating session.

What I do is use the make-up of trains and train consists not using specific
cars for a specific day. I do follow the blocking instructions in the
make-up of trains. This allows variability in the actual cars in the train
and allows for a system which varies the deliveries of cars.

That being said, I am still left with all those mineral trains which
operated as extras and those scheduled trains with simple make-ups like "all
westward empties indiscriminately."

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Betz
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:52 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Why not model actual train consists?

Hi,

We keep re-visiting the topic of freight car distribution ...
and discussing how to represent the freight cars for a point
in time or an "era" ... and then, presumably, adjusting the
mix of freight cars on our layouts ...

So I'm prompted to ask "Why not model actual trains?" As in
find a train sheet you like and go for it - with selective
compression - of course. And then extend it to several trains.

Is anyone out there doing this? Thinking seriously about it?
Tried it and found they couldn't field enough models to fill
the bill (how close did you get)? Selectively compress out the
models you don't have as a first cut? No, substitutions allowed
(same number series but different number)? One box car - from
the correct era - is just as good as the next?

You could even preserve the order of the cars in the train
even if you aren't modelling all of them. And 'just' adjust
the waybills for the layout?
- Jim Why Not



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: SP G-50-12 by Challenger

Brian Ehni <behni@...>
 

$30! Sure it isn't hot? 8^)


Thanks!
--

Brian P. Ehni

From: mike brock <brockm@brevard.net>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 12:19:55 -0400
To: STMFC List <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] SP G-50-12 by Challenger






For Tony Thompson but open to all:

I attended a regional NMRA event this last weekend in Ocala, FL, at which
some guy was selling brass cars at rather low prices. I picked up an SP
G-50-12 by Challenger in mint condition for $30. I'm a bit curious about the
lettering. First, the number is good...92928. The style is like that on pg
124, car G-50-9, 46387 of your SP gondola/stock car book. However, it was
reweighed in 1940. And, an airbrake test was performed in 1946. It has a
Carmer coupler lever and a horizontal brake wheel [ rod parallel to the
rails ]. It also has a round rod that is part of the dump mechanism as
opposed to a rectangular shaped rod. Other than that, it appears to be
correct...without measuring it. There is no doubt that it is a
G-50-12...matching well with the photo on pg 100/101 except for the circular
dump rod and the " modern" brake wheel.

Mike Brock









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


SP G-50-12 by Challenger

mike brock <brockm@...>
 

For Tony Thompson but open to all:

I attended a regional NMRA event this last weekend in Ocala, FL, at which some guy was selling brass cars at rather low prices. I picked up an SP G-50-12 by Challenger in mint condition for $30. I'm a bit curious about the lettering. First, the number is good...92928. The style is like that on pg 124, car G-50-9, 46387 of your SP gondola/stock car book. However, it was reweighed in 1940. And, an airbrake test was performed in 1946. It has a Carmer coupler lever and a horizontal brake wheel [ rod parallel to the rails ]. It also has a round rod that is part of the dump mechanism as opposed to a rectangular shaped rod. Other than that, it appears to be correct...without measuring it. There is no doubt that it is a G-50-12...matching well with the photo on pg 100/101 except for the circular dump rod and the " modern" brake wheel.

Mike Brock


Re: Rail Yards in Ohio

Richard Orr <SUVCWORR@...>
 

Sohio did business in Pennsylvania as Boron and IIRC in a few other states
surrounding Ohio

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:05 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Rail Yards in Ohio


Frank are you sure? I looked up SOHIO's history online and for many years
it was not permitted to do business outside of Ohio -- but it dominated the
business within the state of Ohio (like 70%-80% of the market)! I think the
restrictions were relaxed later, or they found a way to conduct business
via subsidiary companies. But in Bill's pre-war photos, I think the SOHIO
signs are a very strong indicator of Ohio.

Tim


Bill, If everyone thinks the photo was taken in Ohio, it probably was,
but Standard of Ohio
also marketed in Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky. Their primary territory
was, of course, Ohio.
FHP (Frank H. Peacock)



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Armand Premo
 

I do use actual consists when ever possible.Naturally I can not run an entire train but break a single consist to a more manageable number.The rest will be sent in a "Second Section".Because I have records for entire months wheel reports can be much more realistic.The major hitch is that not all cars are available in model form.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:18 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Why not model actual train consists?



Jim

Yes, the thought has occurred to me and I'm sure to many others.
I have seen consists for 1950's and 1960's "mixed freights" (not
unit trains) where most of the cars can be modeled in HO scale.
My practical limit on train size is around 50-60 cars (that's the
size of train I can transport in a Proto-Power case with 5 boxes)
and so compression isn't necessarily a problem.

People model whole passenger trains, so why not freight trains?

Also, this way of modeling appeals to me because I like to model
freight cars of railroads other than the SP (my main interest) so
I can model a C&NW or Rock Island or Southern Rwy train too. And
of course SP trains varied a lot depending on the region.

Tim O'Connor

> We keep re-visiting the topic of freight car distribution ...
>and discussing how to represent the freight cars for a point
>in time or an "era" ... and then, presumably, adjusting the
>mix of freight cars on our layouts ...
>
> So I'm prompted to ask "Why not model actual trains?" As in
>find a train sheet you like and go for it - with selective
>compression - of course. And then extend it to several trains.
>
> Is anyone out there doing this? Thinking seriously about it?
>Tried it and found they couldn't field enough models to fill
>the bill (how close did you get)? Selectively compress out the
>models you don't have as a first cut? No, substitutions allowed
>(same number series but different number)? One box car - from
>the correct era - is just as good as the next?
>
> You could even preserve the order of the cars in the train
>even if you aren't modelling all of them. And 'just' adjust
>the waybills for the layout?
> - Jim Why Not






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



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.891 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3235 - Release Date: 11/03/10 04:36:00


Re: 2011 Central Ohio RPM Meet

seaboard_1966
 

Some revised numbers and something I forgot to mention. My wife has had the opportunity to go through ALL the registration forms and then add the workers to the total count and we had 69 folks in attendance.

I also forgot to mention the meet closing cookout. We had 28 people that took part in that and went through right around 110 hamburgers and right at 50 or so hotdogs. We had potato salad, macaroni salad and all of the fixings for a cookout.

Thanks to all who attended and I look forward to another successful meet next year. If you did NOT attend this year please be sure to watch for dates for next years meet and then make plans to attend.

Denis Blake


Central Ohio RPM

http://s1187.photobucket.com/albums/z397/salguy1/?start=all

http://www.hansmanns.org/meet/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#!/pages/Central-Ohio-Prototype-Modelers-Meet/326645470797


From: Denis Blake
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:15 AM
To: Baby Boom Freight Car List ; Andy Sperandeo ; brian biggs ; brian leppert ; Dale DeVene ; Dan Adair ; Don Reventlow ; Driver James ; DT&IModeler ; Gary Salzgaber ; Jeff Reams ; Jim Six ; John Engstrom ; Mark Kerlick ; mark_menges ; Modern Freight Car List ; Steam Era Freight Car List ; Passenger Car List ; Espee@yahoogroups.com ; Edward Sanicky ; Whit Wardell ; Warren Calloway ; Victor Baird ; Tony Sissons ; Terry Schwartzwalder
Subject: 2011 Central Ohio RPM Meet

The 2011 Central Ohio RPM is now history. A GREAT time was had by all. Our attendance and model count were both up over last year. Remember, this is only the 2nd year for this meet. We had 52 attendees and 435 models were on display. During the 2 days we had 7 clinics and 4 slide shows. CSX and NS sent well over 100 trains through town during the show.

Thursday night featured dinner at The Shovel Restaurant and then a slide show. We broke up around 1115 PM or so.

Each night featured a slide show and there was even an impromptu one held Friday afternoon as well.

This year we had a couple of O scale C&O passenger cars but the remainder of the models were all HO scale.

Door prizes were furnished by almost 25 sponsors and we had enough door prizes for just about everyone to get 2 selections.

Below is a link to check out a photobucket site for the meet. It has no captions at this time and I don’t know if it ever will. Be sure to check it out and be sure to plan on attending this outstanding and growing meet next year.

http://s1187.photobucket.com/albums/z397/salguy1/?start=all


Denis Blake

2012 Central Ohio Prototype Modelers Meet, ????????

www.hansmanns.org/meet/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#!/pages/Central-Ohio-Prototype-Modelers-Meet/326645470797


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


Re: Why not model actual train consists? (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Jim;

It's because only a handful of actual train consists survived. In at least
one big example, they were routinely destroyed to keep shipper info and etc
falling into the wrong hands. I have only seen portions of a few, usually
odd, examples, for my RR, and it doesn't begin to satisfy the needs for my
time and locale.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Betz
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:52 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Why not model actual train consists?



Hi,

We keep re-visiting the topic of freight car distribution ...
and discussing how to represent the freight cars for a point in time or an
"era" ... and then, presumably, adjusting the mix of freight cars on our
layouts ...

So I'm prompted to ask "Why not model actual trains?" As in find a train
sheet you like and go for it - with selective compression - of course. And
then extend it to several trains.

Is anyone out there doing this? Thinking seriously about it?
Tried it and found they couldn't field enough models to fill the bill (how
close did you get)? Selectively compress out the models you don't have as a
first cut? No, substitutions allowed (same number series but different
number)? One box car - from the correct era - is just as good as the next?

You could even preserve the order of the cars in the train even if you aren't
modelling all of them. And 'just' adjust the waybills for the layout?
- Jim Why Not





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Bruce Smith
 

Jim Betz <jimbetz@jimbetz.com> 05/23/11 9:55 AM >>>
So I'm prompted to ask "Why not model actual trains?" As in
find a train sheet you like and go for it - with selective
compression - of course. And then extend it to several trains.
Jim,

Lots of folks do this or something similar. I disparagingly call it
"ground hog day" syndrome because you are doomed to repeat the same
thing over and over again. If you are interested in operations, this
really does not work. What operator wants to see the same train and do
the same work every time (hence the ground hog day moniker)?

If you're interested in ops (and to me that is what keeps a model RR
interesting), then you need to work with a fleet and a system that
realistically moves cars on, over and off of the railroad... hence my
interest in the fleet approach, since I am absolutely an operator, and
not a "railfan" modeler.

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Tim O'Connor
 

Jim

Yes, the thought has occurred to me and I'm sure to many others.
I have seen consists for 1950's and 1960's "mixed freights" (not
unit trains) where most of the cars can be modeled in HO scale.
My practical limit on train size is around 50-60 cars (that's the
size of train I can transport in a Proto-Power case with 5 boxes)
and so compression isn't necessarily a problem.

People model whole passenger trains, so why not freight trains?

Also, this way of modeling appeals to me because I like to model
freight cars of railroads other than the SP (my main interest) so
I can model a C&NW or Rock Island or Southern Rwy train too. And
of course SP trains varied a lot depending on the region.

Tim O'Connor

We keep re-visiting the topic of freight car distribution ...
and discussing how to represent the freight cars for a point
in time or an "era" ... and then, presumably, adjusting the
mix of freight cars on our layouts ...

So I'm prompted to ask "Why not model actual trains?" As in
find a train sheet you like and go for it - with selective
compression - of course. And then extend it to several trains.

Is anyone out there doing this? Thinking seriously about it?
Tried it and found they couldn't field enough models to fill
the bill (how close did you get)? Selectively compress out the
models you don't have as a first cut? No, substitutions allowed
(same number series but different number)? One box car - from
the correct era - is just as good as the next?

You could even preserve the order of the cars in the train
even if you aren't modelling all of them. And 'just' adjust
the waybills for the layout?
- Jim Why Not


Re: Box Car door stops

Tim O'Connor
 

The only HO scale plastic detail part door stops I'm aware of come with
the Red Caboose ARA/X29 box car kits. There are probably just too many
prototype styles to attract a 3rd party vendor to make 'generic' door stops.

Tim O'

At 5/23/2011 07:59 AM Monday, you wrote:
This to me seems like a missing detail needed by us modelers. Has or does anyone make door stops?
Rich Christie

86081 - 86100 of 186232