While I gather info to create new SR wood caboose patterns, info already on
hand (thanks to the SRHA) for the SR 60000-series 50' gon will be used to
create the next HO kit. This car was built in 1953 and ran well into the
80s in revenue service and late 90s in MOW service. They wore Roman
lettering when built but are most widely recognized for the block lettering
hauling lime and other bulk commodities. A few even had the "O" in SOUTHERN
filled in with a green dot. A photo of this car will be posted on my web
site under "future projects" shortly.



The kit will be constructed per my usual process: 3D CAD-generated files,
SLA patterns, 1-pc resin body with separate underframe, hidden brass weight,
trucks, Kadee #58 couplers, decals and detail parts. Instructions will be
full-color, highly detailed step by step .. on a mini-CD.



This will be my first HO kit since getting back into the scale late last
year. Shipments are targeted to start mid-April, so don't delay getting
your prepaid order sent in (or wired).



Price is $45 each. Discounts are available if you buy 3-5 (10%) or 6+
(15%). Add $7 shipping per order, regardless of quantity.



Paid orders being accepted now. Send payment via check, money order or
PayPal (add 3.5% to the total, including postage, to cover their fee to me).
Contact me off-list to order and/or ask questions.



Jim King

Smoky Mountain Model Works, Inc.

<www.smokymountainmodelworks.com>

My apologies as I know this message will only be of interest to those
in Florida and is sent at the risk of shameless self-promotion. The
following blurb from the Pinellas County Historical Society is pretty
self-explanatory. Heritage Village is in Largo, FL and directions are
easy to find on the Internet. The talk, while geared to the general
public (I hope), should also be interesting for prototype modelers in
terms of how the railroads influenced the growth of commercial
agriculture.

"Railroads and the Growth of Agriculture"
Speaking of History Lecture
Sunday, February 21 at 2 p.m.

The dawning of the 20th century brought with it a pronounced growth
in the production of fruits and vegetables that could be delivered to
the main population centers by rail, providing people with food
almost year round that previously had been only available for a
limited amount of time during their respective local growing seasons.

This presentation on Sunday, February 21 at Heritage Village in Largo
highlights the technologies, the infrastructures, and the people that
made it possible for many of us to eat more balanced diets and
consequently live longer lives. Period photographs of the era will
present a rich journey into the farming and transportation industries
of the time. The program is sponsored by the Pinellas County
Historical Society. Free

Bill Welch

Sorry for the lack of clarity but the model is 1:48 scale (O). Chooch does make HO buildings but no rolling stock to my knowledge.

Gene Deimling

Cooch makes kits in both O and HO scales. In which scale or scales will this kit be made?

Ken Montero

To me, the only clue this is a model is the seam where the diagonal braces join the end.

Bill Welch

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the STMFC
group.

File : /Copy of Soo #811 final.jpg
Uploaded by : losgatos48 <losgatos48@comcast.net>
Description : Chooch Enterprises will be releasing this new kit for the Soo Line/ Wisconsin Central single sheathed boxcar. The prototype was built in 1926 by Pullman and lasted well into the second generation diesel era. The kit comes with decals developed by Ken Soroos of the Soo Line Historical Technical Society

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/Copy%20of%20Soo%20%23811%20final.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

losgatos48 <losgatos48@comcast.net>

HI

I am looking for ACF builder's photos of CNW boxcars

79250 to 80250, 1944

82652 to 84250, 1944

84300 to 86298, 1948

Again I am looking for any pictures of CMO and CNW slogan boxcars.

Thanks

Tim

Dick--

First, my posting is NOT a personal criticism directed at you. It is simply a note of caution regarding the use of corporate websites for info. Any corporation has an interest in presenting it in the best possible light. Ford does not mention the Edsel on its website--

http://www.ford.com/about-ford/heritage/vehicles

Which does not mean that the vehicle never existed.

Keep in mind that the "We Will Deliver" tagline immediately preceded "Building America".

The "Building America" "logotype", or as known in advertising, a "tagline" is presented adjoining the UP logo on this site under "2002 Today Shield and Building America SM" on that web page.

Likewise, the 1897 Harriman Shield on this website on the page shows the "World's Pictorial Line" tagline under the shield, not as a part of it.

These are but two instances of a tagline accompanying the shield as a part of UP logos.

The convenient omission of any mention of the circa 1996-2001 "We Will Deliver" tagline makes one wonder what other info has been "tweaked" over the years.

Again, caution is warranted when relying on corporate sites as a source of info. You have corroborated what is on the website with other info that you have--good. But to rely on a corporate website alone for historical info is fraught with peril for a serious historian.

Steve Lucas.

The stated goal of this list is that "Emphasis is to be placed on
the study of the prototype with a goal of producing models of them
with as great a degree of accuracy as possible". To the extent
possible, that is also my goal on this thread.

There is not a single operational nor visual positive side to coupler
droop, and although I cannot speak for them, I will not believe that
Kadee, Sergent or Accurail (the only coupler manufacturers that I know
of who are actually thinking about such things, not merely producing
commodity knock-offs) would disagree.

However, all manufacturers (less Sergent) are all hostage to the fact
that although coupler boxes are made to a rough standard (the old
original Athearn box of the late '50s), in fact the coupler boxes can
vary considerably in depth, as do the thickness of coupler shanks.
The latter is even more variable when one considers that some coupler
shanks take into account the thickness of a sheet bronze centering
spring (even if the coupler does not need such a spring), while others
do not. As a result, the fact that any given coupler will in fact have
a smooth net fit in any given coupler box can be a crap shoot. The
Accumate Proto coupler is the exception (as I also believe the Sergent-
with-coupler-box) where the coupler and box are engineered as single
entity. As a result, they are the only couplers currently on the
market with no significant droop.

Shims can help, but required thicknesses can be surprisingly variable
(see above), and can also represent for the unwary modeler a lot of
pretty fiddly work.

We confuse operational practicality with prototype accuracy. They are
not the same thing.

As a matter of practicality or desperation, I may choose to (or HAVE
to) tow my freight cars with linked paper clips, loops of string, or
chewing gum around 9" horizontal and 45º vertical curves, but it
surely would be a stretch for me to assert that has anything to do
with prototype modeling (except detraction) (:-).

Denny


Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento

"Medallion" Is the term used by EMD on the painting and styling diagrams for M&StL and CGW Fs.
Clark Propst

On Feb 14, 2010, at 8:20 AM, STMFC@yahoogroups.com wrote:

3b. Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity
Posted by: "Jim Betz" jimbetz@jimbetz.com oldrockygn
Date: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:30 am ((PST))

Denny, et al,

While I agree that the standard length of the shanks on
the Kadee product line (and all other mfgrs as well - with the
possible exception of the Sergents) is longer than it should be -
it does mean that we can operate our model trains on track with
significantly more curvature than the prototype. The same can
be said of the width of the coupler box - and that measurement
is directly related to the same thing.

I have never seen a layout that has truly prototypical
curvature standards. And even those that have truly generous
standards (such as "nothing smaller than 36" on the mainline")
still have several areas on the layout that have smaller
curves and lower numbered turnouts. If I remember correctly
a #10 turnout -approaches- the typical smallest radius of the
prototype (and I'm not talking about mainline). Yes, of course,
these are generalizations/standard practices and you can go
out and find examples where the real RRs had more curvature
than these statements. But they are pretty close to what
the real RRs use as their standards (which they may or may
not break depending upon the situation).
On our layouts we 'fudge' even our own standards - not once
in a while but often/always. The phrase "I can make it fit if
I use a #4 turnout here for this industry track" is one I hear
a lot. The other thing you hear are statements such as "we
have 30-inch radius every where on our mainline - except for
the areas at _____ and _____" ... and those statements are made
proudly/as a brag about how generous that particular layout is.
And there is a real reason why the time-saver is based upon
all #4 turnouts.
If I remember correctly I think that an HO layout would
have to adopt s curvature standard of something approaching
that used on O-scale in order to be in the same ball park as
the real RRs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IO0XYI8mew - my modular group. The curve the train passes on is 86" radius... 7'2"...and comparing it to main railroads it looks pretty tight. It's pretty sharp for us nowadays. Nothing tighter on the mainline except for the turnouts used to access the yards...which we detest but yards take up enough room without #18 turnouts leading in and out of them.

We use a mix of #5 and #58/158 couplers on our modular layout. If they match up to the Kadee gauge we have very little issue with random uncouplings in 80+ car trains running for 8 hours a day as moving scenery. Cars that uncouple or derail more than twice get lifted and inspected...usually finding a droopy coupler being the cause.



Craig Zeni
Join the Penn Central Railroad HS at www.PCRRHS.org

I think that the "Green Mountain Gateway" herald was called a herald on
the Rutland.
Chuck Hladik

On Feb 13, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Schuyler Larrabee wrote:

As far as I know, the ERIE used "Herald" as the nomenclature for the
diamond.

SGL

FWIW, UP used the word "medallion" on their engineering drawings.
The company also used the words "shield" and "logo", but never have I
seen any UP document refer to a "herald". Did any railroad use the
word "herald", or is it another modeler invention?

Aiming for historical accuracy,
Dick Harley

In official documents the Santa Fe called its cross-in-circle-in-
square emblem either a "monogram" or a "badge." There does not seem
to have been any term that was universal, or nearly so, in the
railroad industry. Modern day historians and modelers have generally
called them "heralds," but the use of that term goes back far enough
in history that it obviously was not a modeler's invention.

Richard Hendrickson

As far as I know, the ERIE used "Herald" as the nomenclature for the
diamond.

SGL


FWIW, UP used the word "medallion" on their engineering drawings.
The company also used the words "shield" and "logo", but never have I
seen any UP document refer to a "herald". Did any railroad use the
word "herald", or is it another modeler invention?

Aiming for historical accuracy,
Dick Harley







E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14350
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

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

Denny,

Consider that most (uncushioned) model draft gear do not extend further
than the end sills, and then the extra shank length (.031) plus the smaller
coupler head means that the car-to-car distance is closer to prototype
than you might expect if you're only considering the shank length. So if
you insist on using only the "short" shank #153 then you must also mount
your draft gear so the distance over pulling faces of the couplers is
set according to the prototype.

Tim O'Connor

That's not a foregone conclusion, Tim. Back when I did the first kits for Accurail, I looked at this; my thought was to position the coupler pivot point so the cars had the correct coupled distance. What I found was that the coupler box would have to end back under the car, which was not going to please the customers. So, I just put the end of the box at the correct location of the striker plate, and figured some day our model couplers would finally catch up. From what I've seen, most manufacturers have done the same, modeling the car, but not paying much attention as to what the modeler is going to put in the coupler box.

Dennis

Denny, et al,

While I agree that the standard length of the shanks on
the Kadee product line (and all other mfgrs as well - with the
possible exception of the Sergents) is longer than it should be -
it does mean that we can operate our model trains on track with
significantly more curvature than the prototype. The same can
be said of the width of the coupler box - and that measurement
is directly related to the same thing.

I have never seen a layout that has truly prototypical
curvature standards. And even those that have truly generous
standards (such as "nothing smaller than 36" on the mainline")
still have several areas on the layout that have smaller
curves and lower numbered turnouts. If I remember correctly
a #10 turnout -approaches- the typical smallest radius of the
prototype (and I'm not talking about mainline). Yes, of course,
these are generalizations/standard practices and you can go
out and find examples where the real RRs had more curvature
than these statements. But they are pretty close to what
the real RRs use as their standards (which they may or may
not break depending upon the situation).
On our layouts we 'fudge' even our own standards - not once
in a while but often/always. The phrase "I can make it fit if
I use a #4 turnout here for this industry track" is one I hear
a lot. The other thing you hear are statements such as "we
have 30-inch radius every where on our mainline - except for
the areas at _____ and _____" ... and those statements are made
proudly/as a brag about how generous that particular layout is.
And there is a real reason why the time-saver is based upon
all #4 turnouts.
If I remember correctly I think that an HO layout would
have to adopt s curvature standard of something approaching
that used on O-scale in order to be in the same ball park as
the real RRs.
I can't remember ever seeing a commercially available
turnout number larger than a #10. Even Fast Tracks only
goes up to a #12 (and I'll predict that they don't sell very
many of them!) - in HO and N ... and they only go up to a #6
in O-scale.

If you can get Kadee (or any other coupler mfgr) to answer
you I'm certain that you will find that the size of the coupler
box and the length of the shank has been chosen in order to
provide for operation of normal length equipment on tight
radius curves (where tight is defined as 22" or larger - at
least). The other thing that you will be told is that they
are using the sizes/measurements they are using due to the
NMRA standards/RPs.

Until we start to have layouts that do not compromise on
the curvature and turnout numbers in use I'm afraid we are
going to have to compromise on the coupler boxes and shanks.
I don't see any way around it.
I'll even go further and state that due to the sheer
number of layouts and existing model trains that are
already out there already you are going to be hard pressed
to figure out how to influence/change this reality. We may
be 'committed' to this state "for ever". *Sigh*
On the other side - I'm not sure any of us would ever
attempt to build a layout based upon true prototype
curvature standards ... we just don't have the space.

One last thing - all of the above relates directly to
the operational characteristics of our 'typical' trains and
is equally applicable to all scales and eras. If your layout
is early enough in the STMFC era that you have only 40'
or shorter freight cars then you might be able to use
smaller boxes and shorter shafts. Even a train of all
50' cars, going around a 40" radius curve - will look 'funny'
when compared to the real RRs. By 'funny' I mean that the
cars will be hanging out over the rail in the middle of the
car further than you will see them do on a real RR.
- Jim

P.S. It certainly -seems- to be true that having a coupler
box available that has a 'built-in shim' across the
opening to prevent coupler droop would be a good idea.
But I highly doubt we'll ever see it from Kadee - if
for no other reason than that it would prevent that
box from being used for a #5 with the existing copper
centering spring.
A good argument can be made for the idea that a
coupler "needs" to be able to 'droop' during certain
loading situations. I have certainly seen couplers
between two cars that were "pulled down" from the
normal orientation when going thru a vertical curve.
Less possible movement in that direction under these
conditions would translate into more frequent break-in-
twos (but eliminate others).
And I'm sure that Kadee will tell you that if your
couplers are drooping that you need to look at how
they are installed and fix the problem that way. And
their argument is technically correct. However, it is
also true that installing a shim may be a much quicker
and easier way to fix the problem on a particular
installation.
One thing that I've seen done (and done myself) is
to reverse the copper spring in the box - to put the
'face' of it below instead of above the coupler. This
is one "quick and dirty" way to correct droop.

On Feb 13, 2010 Tim O'Connor wrote:

Consider that most (uncushioned) model draft gear do not extend further
than the end sills, and then the extra shank length (.031) plus the smaller
coupler head means that the car-to-car distance is closer to prototype
than you might expect if you're only considering the shank length. So if
you insist on using only the "short" shank #153 then you must also mount
your draft gear so the distance over pulling faces of the couplers is
set according to the prototype.

What is the scale relationship, i.e. distance, between the striker plates of coupled car, and/or what is the correct scale relationship, i.e. projected distance, between the face of the coupler box striker plate and the end sill on an individual car?

My opinion presumes that the coupler box striker plates are, or are placed in at least a close semblance of the correct prototype position, which IMHO they mostly are in the great majority of the fine models that the members of this list seems to embrace.

The Accumate Proto couplers are dead on, striker plate to striker plate, and the Kadee #153s are just two inches over- not enough to notice. This means that if the striker plates of the coupled cars have the correct relationship to their respective cars, then the use of these couplers will result in the coupled distance between the cars being at least very-close-to-prototype as well.

By the way, trains of fine prototype cars individually coupled at prototype distances apart can look stunning! ("Quality is the close attention to detail.).

DEnny


Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento

M&StL only used "mongram" in documents I have found so far.
Gene Green

Hi Everyone

Over the next two or three weeks, a wedge snow plow, steam engine, bunk car, and caboose will be moved from various locations in Laramie, Wyoming, to a new Railroad Heritage Park adjacent to the historic Union Pacific depot. Once assembled, the equipment will re-create a 1950s era snow train used to keep the rail lines open in the fierce Wyoming winters. It will be a tribute to the hard working men and women of Laramie and the West who braved the elements to keep the passenger and freight trains running. The train will not only serve an historical function, but it will also be "coherent", meaning that it could have existed in the real world, operating in exactly this assemblage. This is rare for static displays.

It is seldom that one sees any piece of railroad equipment riding on a truck through city streets. This is an opportunity to see an entire train move, albeit spread over several days.

The first move is scheduled for 11 AM, Tuesday, February 16, but this could be delayed if there are weather or moving company equipment problems.

The train consists of the following equipment:

Wedge snow plow – Union Pacific snow plow 900015, now located in Laramie's West Side. It was built in the UP Pocatello shops in 1953 and was converted from a steam engine tender. The original number was 015. It was featured on the cover of The Streamliner, Vol. 6, No. 3, in action blasting through a snow drift near Strasburg, Colorado in 1982.

Steam engine – Union Pacific 535, now in LaBonte Park in Laramie. It was built by Baldwin in 1903. It is a 2-8-0 Consolidation and was originally part of the Oregon Short Line. It worked the Laramie yards and the U.P. Coalmont branch in the 1950s.

Bunk car – built by Ralston Steel Car Company for the U.P. in 1929. It began life as an A-50-12 automobile car, part of series 152001-152500, was converted to a box car in 1940, and then into a six-man bunk car in the late 1940s. An article about the U.P.'s bunk cars, which includes a photo of a car similar to ours, appeared in The Streamliner, Vol. 16, No. 3. (I hope the fact that this is part of the train will keep me out of Mike's Moderator Jail!!!)

Caboose – Union Pacific 25232, built in 1951 with original number 3932. It is a class CA-5 caboose, one of a set of 100 such cars built by the U.P. in its Omaha shops. This was the first class of steel cabooses built in the U.P. shops. In the 1970s the caboose was upgraded with trucks that gave it a smoother ride. It served on the Maryville, KS, branch until it was retired.


The bunk car actually led to the creation of RR Heritage Park. A year ago the car was scheduled to succumb to a salvage company's cutting torch. The effort to save it let to a whirlwind of activity which culminated in the Park.

Railroad Heritage Park is a joint project between the Laramie Railroad Depot Association and the City of Laramie. For more details on this park, the equipment, and up to date information on the schedule for the moves see the Association's website at www.laramiedepot.org (Click on "News" for info about the move; and on "About – Railroad Heritage Park" for info about the park and equipment.)

Best wishes,
Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming

The Chicago North Western called it a Trade Mark later on they called it a Monogram.

The Chicago Great Western called it a Trade Mark

Tim