Are the WA&G cars also XM-1's? Why didn't Martin do lettering for
these cars? Were they modified so much it would have required a new
kit?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&;item=130342818897

Tim O'Connor

What is a DT&I hopper doing in Tracy in Oct. 1948?
http://www.steamfreightcars.com/index.html
Mark Pierce

Answering a little for Dennis, Athearn blue box kits have been discontinued.
And Accurail kits have always been a step up from Athearn and more accurate.
They may not be craftsman kits but with just a little work can be darn good
looking.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon
www.sunshinekits.com

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Francis A. Pehowic, Jr. <
rdgbuff56@...> wrote:

Dennis,
I have a question. Is it worth the chance and expense to put another car on
the market that has been done more than a couple of times before. It is
already known that some shortcuts (leeway) have been taken to put this in
production. Can you really make enough to have money to invest in future
products? The Athearn car is fairly inexpensive and readily works for
modelers who operate. If you need a well detailed car that might be
different. I would think most modelers are looking for something new, not a
rehash.

Francis A. Pehowic, Jr. in Sunbury, Pa.

________________________________
From: soolinehistory <destorzek@... <destorzek%40mchsi.com>>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, November 18, 2009 5:33:42 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Accurail Offset Twin

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups. com, Bill Welch <fgexbill@ .> wrote:

Dennis, does Accurail intend to offer this with heap shields?

Bill Welch

Bill,

Not at the present. The tooling was originally designed so it could be done
with changeable inserts, until we realized that that would leave an
objectionable "witness line" across what is supposed to be a flat continuous
sheet. Since few of the triples had heap shields, we decided not to do it..
When designing the twin, I see from Ed's roster that almost all the cars
with heap shields are the AAR Alt. design, with the exception of L&N. Since
these paint schemes are stand-ins at best anyway, we again decided not to
worry about it. I can't say that we'll never do it, especially if someone
wanted to commission a large custom run, but I don't see that happening. It
will take new end inserts.

Dennis Storzek
Accurail, Inc.

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

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

Tim O'Connor wrote:

I was just looking at the Athearn web site, at their retooled MDC 3-
bay offset car. While the Accurail model is more accurate for the
T&NO (Southern Pacific) cars, I note that the Athearn RTR car comes
with all wire grab irons installed, slope sheet supports, and the
correct National Type B trucks -- for $4 more than an Accurail kit
that comes with plastic wheelsets.

Wish I could use a T&NO triple myself, but in my modeled era,
they were still stuck in Texas. A shame.

Tony Thompson

Schuyler,

The most noticable difference (to me) between the Erie cars and the Accurail is the double row of rivits with a reenforcing plate on the end and center ribs on the Erie cars. The Accurail cars show only a single rivit line. Admittedly ony an artists rendition of the car. But I beleive this is one of the differences between the AAR std and the AAR alternate design.

regards,

Andy Miller

----- Original Message -----
From: Schuyler Larrabee
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper



http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/dlw82243adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie24000bdb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie25500adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie26729adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie27708adb.jpg

OK, so my bias shows in these selections. But this is the shape of the side sills that Ed is
talking about here. I am looking forward to this kit, though Ed's comments about the reuse of the
50-ton end is disappointing. If Accurail is going to do a new model, I'd like to see the ENTIRE
model done new.

Modelers of at least most if not all the roads listed on Accurail's page have been waiting for these
models for a long time. And since I had some trouble figuring out what people were talking about
(OK, I'm dense at times . . .), this is their page:

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm

SGL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ed Hawkins
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:29 PM
> To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, devansprr wrote:
>
> > Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the
> > various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety
> > appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate
> > me?
> >
>
> Dave,
> When looking at the various 50-ton AAR hopper cars that were built, one
> of the key features I look at to distinguish one version from another
> is the shape of the side sills. The earliest version (used from 1934 to
> 1949) had side sills that angled upward from the bolsters to the
> corners and were straight between the bolsters. A later version (used
> from 1940-1960) had side sills that were level with the track from the
> bolsters to the corners and had a shallow fish-belly between the
> bolsters. Note there's a 10-year overlap from 1940-1949 where new cars
> could have either version. By the way, the same side sill variations
> were present on 70-ton AAR offset-side hoppers.
>
> The Atlas model has side sills representing the early version while the
> Athearn and Kadee models have side sills representing the later
> version. The image of the model on the Accurail web site shows a side
> sill of the early version.
>
> Then, of course, there are the differences in how the side sheets
> nearest the ends were formed as well as a variety of different end
> arrangements. The combinations of all of these variations are
> practically endless, not to mention other more subtle differences and
> specialty items.
>
> Some ends with flat tops used angles extending from the top of the end
> to the end sills, others used channels extending from the bottom of the
> end sheets to the end sills, and some used closely spaced Z-sections.
> Further variations include ends having extensions (i.e., peaked
> ends/heap shields) of various shapes. All of these combinations add to
> the complexity and cost of tooling.
>
> It's my understanding that Accurail is using the same end configuration
> for their 50-ton model as they used on their 70-ton model. It
> represents (poorly in my opinion) an end arrangement having Z-section
> vertical supports that are closely spaced near the middle. The
> Z-sections on the model aren't Z-sections, and instead are rectangular
> cross sections, because otherwise the body could not be ejected from
> the mold. Unfortunately, combining this end with the side arrangement
> creates a very rare prototype 50-ton AAR hopper car.
>
> There are other end arrangements that would be a better choice for more
> road names. It comes down to the tooling cost involved with making
> other variants. Since Accurail already had the end tooled from their
> 70-ton model, they chose economy by reusing the end despite the
> relative rarity of the car that will be offered. Depending on sales
> once the models are released, perhaps Accurail might be open to
> offering other end variations that were more commonly found on
> prototype 50-ton AAR Standard hopper cars.
>
> My intent is NOT to hurt Accurail sales, but rather to help educate
> consumers in making an informed decision on what they buy. To that end
> I will be happy to assist any manufacturer interested in producing
> accurate models of AAR hopper cars.
> Regards,
> Ed Hawkins

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/dlw82243adb.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie24000bdb.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie25500adb.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie26729adb.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie27708adb.jpg

Modelers of at least most if not all the roads listed on Accurail's page have been waiting for these
models for a long time. And since I had some trouble figuring out what people were talking about
(OK, I'm dense at times . . .), this is their page:

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm

SGL

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ed Hawkins
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:29 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper




On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, devansprr wrote:

Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the
various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety
appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate
me?

Dave,
When looking at the various 50-ton AAR hopper cars that were built, one
of the key features I look at to distinguish one version from another
is the shape of the side sills. The earliest version (used from 1934 to
1949) had side sills that angled upward from the bolsters to the
corners and were straight between the bolsters. A later version (used
from 1940-1960) had side sills that were level with the track from the
bolsters to the corners and had a shallow fish-belly between the
bolsters. Note there's a 10-year overlap from 1940-1949 where new cars
could have either version. By the way, the same side sill variations
were present on 70-ton AAR offset-side hoppers.

The Atlas model has side sills representing the early version while the
Athearn and Kadee models have side sills representing the later
version. The image of the model on the Accurail web site shows a side
sill of the early version.

Then, of course, there are the differences in how the side sheets
nearest the ends were formed as well as a variety of different end
arrangements. The combinations of all of these variations are
practically endless, not to mention other more subtle differences and
specialty items.

Some ends with flat tops used angles extending from the top of the end
to the end sills, others used channels extending from the bottom of the
end sheets to the end sills, and some used closely spaced Z-sections.
Further variations include ends having extensions (i.e., peaked
ends/heap shields) of various shapes. All of these combinations add to
the complexity and cost of tooling.

It's my understanding that Accurail is using the same end configuration
for their 50-ton model as they used on their 70-ton model. It
represents (poorly in my opinion) an end arrangement having Z-section
vertical supports that are closely spaced near the middle. The
Z-sections on the model aren't Z-sections, and instead are rectangular
cross sections, because otherwise the body could not be ejected from
the mold. Unfortunately, combining this end with the side arrangement
creates a very rare prototype 50-ton AAR hopper car.

There are other end arrangements that would be a better choice for more
road names. It comes down to the tooling cost involved with making
other variants. Since Accurail already had the end tooled from their
70-ton model, they chose economy by reusing the end despite the
relative rarity of the car that will be offered. Depending on sales
once the models are released, perhaps Accurail might be open to
offering other end variations that were more commonly found on
prototype 50-ton AAR Standard hopper cars.

My intent is NOT to hurt Accurail sales, but rather to help educate
consumers in making an informed decision on what they buy. To that end
I will be happy to assist any manufacturer interested in producing
accurate models of AAR hopper cars.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins










E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.508)
Database version: 6.13730
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

Answering a little for Dennis, Athearn blue box kits have been discontinued.
And Accurail kits have always been a step up from Athearn and more accurate.
They may not be craftsman kits but with just a little work can be darn good
looking.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon
www.sunshinekits.com

Dennis,
I have a question. Is it worth the chance and expense to put another car on the market that has been done more than a couple of times before. It is already known that some shortcuts (leeway) have been taken to put this in production. Can you really make enough to have money to invest in future products? The Athearn car is fairly inexpensive and readily works for modelers who operate. If you need a well detailed car that might be different. I would think most modelers are looking for something new, not a rehash.

Francis A. Pehowic, Jr. in Sunbury, Pa.