|
Re: J&L 20K tank cars...later in life
If I wanted to know,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I would be checking the Official Railroad Guides looking for that capacity of a car owned by Barrett. Rich.
-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mforsyth127 Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:35 PM To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Subject: [STMFC] Re: J&L 20K tank cars...later in life Rich, Thanks for the insight, might of been in HO?? Didn't Mann also do it in "O"? Regardless of scale, still looking to find out if any of those cars ran for Barrett, hauling the same comodity. MF --- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, oscale48@... wrote: wasn't  aware of one being done by Overland. of the 20K gallon Jones and Laughlin tank cars. owned by J&L, hauling coal tar. (were sold off by J&L) and one or more wound up in coal tar service, assigned to Barrett (a Division of Allied Chemical and Dye Co.)  decorated for Barrett. ever owned by Barret?
------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links
|
|
|
|
Re: More Missing Links
Are we not all overlooking 40' auto box cars ?Wouldn't these cars"Armand Premo" <armprem2@surfglobal.net> 10/22/09 7:09 PM >>> have universal appeal?.Armand Premo Hence my suggestion of the PRR X31 series, with the X31 and X31C representing autoloader equipped subclasses, while the X31A double door and X31B subclasses represent autoparts cars, and the X31A single door is a LARGE general service class. Regards Bruce Smith Aubnurn, AL
|
|
|
|
Re: More Missing Links
Armand Premo
Are we not all overlooking 40' auto box cars ?Wouldn't these cars have universal appeal?.Armand Premo
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Brock To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:50 PM Subject: [STMFC] More Missing Links Missing link cars is an interesting subject and excercise and over the yrs has, I think, given us greedy modelers useful stuff. I'll add a comment or two. 1. From the perspective of the largest number of prototype cars [ but certainly not the most common nationwide ] for which there is no model car, I don't think one could argue against the Alternate Standard AAR 2 bay offset side hopper. The prototype...about 25,000 C&O cars but of several ends, plus Erie, NKP, P&WV, NP [ NP? ], W&LE, M&STL, Clinchfield, and a few small, obscure lines such as L&A, BAR and Santa Fe east of the West...wherever they were to be found...presumably somewhere in Illinois...<G>. 2. Also, not to be overlooked is the 4 bay hopper car. Armand has noted this before. Other than that, the only cars I can conceive of importance would be the 4 course tank cars of the UP 4209 - 4908 12500 gal cars and, of course, the UP 69000 class tank cars...both of which modelers have been clamoring for for yrs. I suppose the UP HK 50 ton series of ballast hopper cars would also be a good choice....unless you were to model some RR other than UP. Actually, I agree with many that a "depressed center" flat car would be a good choice...although if it were me, I would not do it in plastic. One issue for such cars might be the trucks depending on the prototype. Anyhow, I've been preaching about such cars for 10 yrs. Mike Brock ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2452 - Release Date: 10/22/09 18:44:00
|
|
|
|
Re: Missing links
Greg Martin
Guys,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
A possible candidate for consideration is the post-war rebuilt boxcars that came from the RR's rebuilding with an ARR box on a earlier underframes. Certainly we know that the ATSF, KCS,PRR, WABASH and the ACL did this and I am sure others are well. It would require tooling for a variety of underframes, roofs and ends, but the "box" remained the same. (yes, I realize the ACL cars were only 10'-3" IH, but my eyes can't measure 3 scale inches without a micrometer). Once the tooling was complete the idea would be to mix and match the possible ends, roofs and underframes to cover as many roads as one could. The PRR had two classes as well as the ACL and I am not an ATSF expert, but I believe there was more than one. The Wabash and the DT&I had cars that mirrored the PRR X26c as well. The PRR continued the practice well into the 1950s like the ACL, being frugal was the name of the game at the time. If you include double door cars the list grows. The trucks were recycled (the re-use of Andrews trucks by some) as well. It would take research and forethought before one jumped in, but it does open many doors for sales to prototype modelers. Greg Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Armand Premo <armprem2@surfglobal.net> To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, Oct 22, 2009 11:03 am Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Missing links Gang,I kind of suspected that there would be a regional influence for nominees.While offset hoppers seem to dominate the interest of eastern aficionados ,there are still many other types of hoppers that are totally missing from the scene.I will attempt to collate the choices and put it to a vote.While hoppers seem to be of only marginal interest to western prototype modelers some other cars appear to have a more uniform appeal.Armand Premo .
|
|
|
|
Re: More Missing Links
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Mike Brock wrote:
Actually, I agree with many that a "depressed center" flat car would be a good choice...although if it were me, I would not do it in plastic. One issue for such cars might be the trucks depending on the prototype. Anyhow, I've been preaching about such cars for 10 yrs.By the 1950s, most such cars (of 125 tons capacity, a common figure) used conventional 6-wheel Buckeye trucks. 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
|
|
|
|
More Missing Links
Mike Brock <brockm@...>
Missing link cars is an interesting subject and excercise and over the yrs has, I think, given us greedy modelers useful stuff. I'll add a comment or two.
1. From the perspective of the largest number of prototype cars [ but certainly not the most common nationwide ] for which there is no model car, I don't think one could argue against the Alternate Standard AAR 2 bay offset side hopper. The prototype...about 25,000 C&O cars but of several ends, plus Erie, NKP, P&WV, NP [ NP? ], W&LE, M&STL, Clinchfield, and a few small, obscure lines such as L&A, BAR and Santa Fe east of the West...wherever they were to be found...presumably somewhere in Illinois...<G>. 2. Also, not to be overlooked is the 4 bay hopper car. Armand has noted this before. Other than that, the only cars I can conceive of importance would be the 4 course tank cars of the UP 4209 - 4908 12500 gal cars and, of course, the UP 69000 class tank cars...both of which modelers have been clamoring for for yrs. I suppose the UP HK 50 ton series of ballast hopper cars would also be a good choice....unless you were to model some RR other than UP. Actually, I agree with many that a "depressed center" flat car would be a good choice...although if it were me, I would not do it in plastic. One issue for such cars might be the trucks depending on the prototype. Anyhow, I've been preaching about such cars for 10 yrs. Mike Brock
|
|
|
|
Re: Missing links
SUVCWORR@...
Armand,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I would suggest including the NYC USRA clones, Rich Orr
-----Original Message-----
From: Armand Premo <armprem2@surfglobal.net> To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Missing links Gang,I kind of suspected that there would be a regional influence for nominees.While offset hoppers seem to dominate the interest of eastern aficionados ,there are still many other types of hoppers that are totally missing from the scene.I will attempt to collate the choices and put it to a vote.While hoppers seem to be of only marginal interest to western prototype modelers some other cars appear to have a more uniform appeal.Armand Premo Subject: [STMFC] Re: Missing links Tony, a big ditto here! I dearly would like to have several prewar SP flat cars. Good examples would be something like the F-50-9 and F-50-13 which were very distinct from each other and both classes lasted past 1960. SP used to run long cuts of empty flat cars back to Oregon. I've seen it in photos and even in Hollywood movies! Tim O'Connor >3. I make it no. 3 only out of humility: the Harriman flat car with >straight side sills, either the 40-foot or 50-foot version (if we had >forties, we could kitbash the fifty-footers). > >Tony Thompson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2444 - Release Date: 10/18/09 09:04:00 ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links
|
|
|
|
Re: Decal artwork (Was: Athearn Blue Box kit usefulness)
proto48er
Charlie -
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
You just HAVE to use the appropriate steam era drawing methods and equipment to draw steam era freight cars properly! A.T.
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Morrill" <badlands@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Missing links
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Garth Groff wrote:
I don't think so, at least not easily. It would involve cutting out alternate boards across the end, less the end braces. You would probably spend less effort building Al's kit. [Which reminds me, I've got to put mine together someday. :-[ ]Extremely similar cars except for the narrow slots between boards on the ends. These are NOT alternate boards, but look like kind of quarter-board widths. I would just cut some slots, but as you say, with the bracing it's not an easy job. An approximation could be made by wide grooves which you fill with black. Don't know about WP trucks, but on the SP cars, the S-40-5 had Vulcan trucks, the S-40-8 T-section trucks. Thats' the other distinctive feature, along with the ends. 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: Missing links
Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
Tony,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I don't think so, at least not easily. It would involve cutting out alternate boards across the end, less the end braces. You would probably spend less effort building Al's kit. [Which reminds me, I've got to put mine together someday. :-[ ] Are there other differences between the SP S-40-5 and the S-40-8? The WP cars were a supposed to be a clone of the latter class. Kind regards, Garth G. Groff Anthony Thompson wrote:
Garth Groff wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Missing links
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Garth Groff wrote:
You mention the SP/WP stock cars, and I gather that you are speaking of the styrene Red Caboose models and not Westerfield's resin kits. In point of fact, there is NO WP stock car from RC. The ends are solid wood, and the WP cars had open slatted upper ends. I have passed on the RC car for just that reason (also because of the absurd price). The car is an SP S-40-5 and nothing else.Garth, is the model fixable for WP? open up some slots, etc.? I haven't looked at it with that in mind. 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: Decal artwork (Was: Athearn Blue Box kit usefulness)
Charles Morrill
Ahhh A.T.! You really do need to stop trying to put a saddle on that dead horse. As another O.F. who had to give up my slide rule and ink pens for the pc, I soon found CAD to be much faster because of the much greater accuracy (how about drawing your tank cars 1:1 ) and the speed of making changes --- no ink erasers needed!! Now ink is something to use for staining wood flat car decks (to get back to list subject) and ties.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
From: "proto48er" <atkott@swbell.net> Schuyler -
|
|
|
|
Re: Missing links
Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
Dave,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
You mention the SP/WP stock cars, and I gather that you are speaking of the styrene Red Caboose models and not Westerfield's resin kits. In point of fact, there is NO WP stock car from RC. The ends are solid wood, and the WP cars had open slatted upper ends. I have passed on the RC car for just that reason (also because of the absurd price). The car is an SP S-40-5 and nothing else. Kind regards, Garth Groff ealabhan0 wrote:
. . . the ATSF and SP/WP stock cars, you echo my point about manufacturers issuing unique one-(or two-)road plain paint cars . . . .
|
|
|
|
Re: Missing links
Armand Premo
Gang,I kind of suspected that there would be a regional influence for nominees.While offset hoppers seem to dominate the interest of eastern aficionados ,there are still many other types of hoppers that are totally missing from the scene.I will attempt to collate the choices and put it to a vote.While hoppers seem to be of only marginal interest to western prototype modelers some other cars appear to have a more uniform appeal.Armand Premo
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Missing links Tony, a big ditto here! I dearly would like to have several prewar SP flat cars. Good examples would be something like the F-50-9 and F-50-13 which were very distinct from each other and both classes lasted past 1960. SP used to run long cuts of empty flat cars back to Oregon. I've seen it in photos and even in Hollywood movies! Tim O'Connor >3. I make it no. 3 only out of humility: the Harriman flat car with >straight side sills, either the 40-foot or 50-foot version (if we had >forties, we could kitbash the fifty-footers). > >Tony Thompson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2444 - Release Date: 10/18/09 09:04:00
|
|
|
|
Re: Missing Links
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Bill Welch wrote:
InterMountain do the Insulated Tank for their ACF Type 27 Underframe.This is an outstanding suggestion and there have been rumors in the past that IM was considering this. I really don't know why they haven't done it, since it would get them into some colorful paint schemes, always popular with the average modeler. And the rest of us could REALLY use a good styrene ICC 104. 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: Atlas 1932 ARA Box Car
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Denis Blake wrote:
Can we soon expect Signature Press do to a book on WM Fireballs and their various applications with regard to freight cars?Only if someone writes it . . . like most of our books. There's already a fine series underway by the WM Historical Society on WM freight cars, but we would certainly be pleased to consider a WM manuscript. 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: Missing links
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Chuck Peck wrote:
Yes, Tony, a hopper car. A basic offset side two bay hopper with optional ends . . .Actually, I do know. It just won't impact MY modeling if it's produced. But I would never speak against the introduction of such a model. 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: Missing links
David Sieber
Tim,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Yeah, I know; UTL X-3s have been on "most wanted" lists at least since the "Model Railroading" survey/lists of the '80s - and they're still needed. The underframe could also be used for X-4 insulated and X-5 pressurized tanks. Some X-5s had lessor markings (e.g., Skelgas); not sure if any X-4s had lessor paint. These cars surely were seen on just about every railroad and would fit anywhere. With the ATSF and SP/WP stock cars, you echo my point about manufacturers issuing unique one-(or two-)road plain paint cars. How about the ATSF Caswell gon, PRR K7 stock car, Central Valley NP stock car, or many Bowser Pennsy cars, some only in PRR and predecessor and subsidiary lettering? We could even go back to Athearn blue box UP stock car and UP grainloading boxes (sorta'), plus classic ATSF and SP cabeese - though also in many bogus paint schemes. Someone really should do the ubiquitous UTL X-3 and other common tank cars. The "one boring paint scheme" excuse can't explain why no styrene GATC type 30 tank cars. The old Athearn blue box 12,500gal (almost-)UP/SP tank car and modified unreal 3-dome cars (and AHM, etc., copies) were a poor attempt to continue the yellow box GATC tanks in different sizes that were excellent early '50s metal kits. While those metal underframes had no bolster-end poling pocket detail, they did exhibit most characteristics of the GATC tank car frame. It can be frustrating trying to assemble resin tank car kits that are often at best fiddley and/or don't quite fit together; see the recent STMFC GATX 30 underframe thread. That's why I continue the call for UTLX and GATC tank cars in styrene, in the hope that others will add to the hue and cry until some manufacturer hears the potential sales market. After all, 10 years ago, who would have expected that two firms would issue the ACF type 21 and the type 27, both in 8K and 10K capacities, one even also with the insulated tank?. I can deal better with model shortcomings than with the complete lack of a common prototype car. Regards, Dave Sieber Reno NV
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
4. UTL X-3 (etc.) tank carsDave that tank car has been on the wish list for so long
|
|
|
|
Re: Decal artwork (Was: Athearn Blue Box kit usefulness)
proto48er
Schuyler -
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I am also in that O.F. category! I still occasionally use a slide rule! My last set of scale drawings (for the Yoder AC&F Type 7 tank cars - 6 different cars) were done 33.33% larger than 1/4" scale in ink on drafting paper. My intent was to have them shot down with a stat camera so that I would have a true 1/4" scale 8" X 10" negative for each sheet. However, all of the local drafting supply places have now disposed of their stat cameras, and the closest one was in a smaller town 70 miles away. (We are the 9th largest U.S. city.) Times they are a changin' - for the worse! I did use Rapidograph pens of varying width, but also used a compass from an old drafting set to make the circular cross sections. It has the split points that can be adjusted for varying line widths, loaded in the old fashion way with ink from a bottle. The good old days! When drawing freight car scale plans, I can produce finished drawings with a Rapidograph pen much faster than someone using CAD. CAD, however, is superior for drawing things with symmetrical curvilinear form, like trucks - just no soul to the finished drawing! A.T. Kott
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Schuyler Larrabee" <schuyler.larrabee@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Ambroid Vinegar Car Plans
CJ Riley
A good source for kit instructions is the NMRA Kalmbach Library. They maintain a large collection of instruction sheets.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
CJ Riley
--- On Wed, 10/21/09, rdietrichson <Rdietrichson@ec.rr.com> wrote:
From: rdietrichson <Rdietrichson@ec.rr.com> Subject: [STMFC] Ambroid Vinegar Car Plans To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 4:15 AM Good morning all, Does anyone out there have the plan sheet for the Ambroid vinegar car that could send it to me. I recently acquired the kit, but alas there is no plan sheet. Thank you, Rick Dietrichson Wilmington, NC Rdietrichson@ ec.rr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
