Date   

Re: Building Sunshine's General American Tank Car Type 30

Bill Welch
 

Dear Bill:

Thanks for responding. Yes Martin does include your suggestions about building the car and I like your technique of leaving the running boards off in order to detail other areas of the model. Additionally I like using long screws for the trucks that also screw into the tank so that I can treat it as a subassembly and can paint underframe and tank separately. This also makes working on the underframe easier as I don't have that weighted cylinder on it. Additionally while I will glue the tank and underframe together, the two long screws are an added advantage in securing the two major components together.

Regarding those pesky ill fitting bolsters, it appears to me the fit problems are that not only are they not "cast clean and square" but dimensionally off. I know like you I can wrestle them into place but this looks like some shims will be necessary. To me this is not just an issue brought on by the vagaries of using a rubber mold: The patterns are off

I am thinking too that Martin should know about this difficulty.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "william darnaby" <WDarnaby@...> wrote:

Hi Bill,

I assembled 3 of the cars last year for Martin for display and another for
him just recently. None had instructions as Martin just sends me parts.
I'm curious...did Martin include my recommendations in the instructions?

I had similar issues on the first couple of cars before I figured it out.
The pads at the ends of the running board set on top of the draft gear as
you observed. The problem is that the solid bolster castings are not cast
clean or square enough at their ends that are supposed to engage the center
sill.

Do what you are doing. Tack the running board on top of the draft gear
(center sill) with contact cement. Flip it upside down so the running board
is supported on a flat surface. File/sand/carve or whater you gotta do to
the bolster end so it engages the center sill and rests on the underside of
the running board. Tack everthing with contact cement. When satisfied fix
with CA.

Actually, I secured the bolsters to the sill with CA and then removed the
running board for later application. I prefered to add details like the
tank, the tank supports and bands with the running board out of the way.

Hope this helps. See you in Naperville.

Bill Darnaby



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Welch" <fgexbill@...>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 5:59 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Building Sunshine's General American Tank Car Type 30


I am curious if anyone on the list has started and/or built the GATC
type 30 tank car offered by Sunshine. I started it right after it
came out last year but put it aside in frustration and thinking maybe
I had done something wrong with the initial construction steps.

Having moved and recovered from the stress of that, I decided to look
at it again with a clear mind to determine if it is me or the kit.
The only thing I have done thus far is to glue the riveted plates to
the top and bottom of the center sill and have screwed on the coupler
pocket covers, shortened the screws and attached the cover plate over
the coupler with the parallel pieces upon which the tank will rest. I
have also attached the small end sill under the end board of each
running board a per the instructions and the accompanying photographs
of the model and prototype. Because of the following problems, I have
checked, checked again and rechecked to make sure I have everything
oriented correctly and I am now sure everything is in exactly the
correct position and orientation.

The problem is that when I lay the running board/end sill assembly on
top of the center sill and tack it there with contact cement and then
tack the four bolsters in place nested between the flanges of the
center sill, none of them line or match up correctly with said
running board in either plane. The running board assembly is about a
scale four inches too high or about the same thickness of the end
sill and does not rest on the ends of the bolsters. As tacked in
place, the place where the running board is supposed to rest is in
the same plane with the center sill instead of being higher. The
other problem is that the one piece running board is approximately
two inches too narrow on both sides or a total of four inches. I
would be willing to pry the end sill off of this assemble and
scratchbuild a new running board assembly but this would not solve
the problem of the bolsters not matching up. I could also cut out the
center portion of the end sills which would make this part of the
model look strange. I could shim the bolsters where the running board
is supposed to rest, thus making this area look overly thick. This is
unacceptable. I would prefer the end sill not being correct. I am
convinced that the bolster patterns are off in some way.

I am obviously curious if anyone has encountered similar problems. I
am thinking I will take the parts to Naperville to show to Martin as
it is kind of mind numbing I am sure to try to understand it without
being able to see it.

Bill Welch


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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: heavy duty flat was Athearn Blue Box kits discontinued

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
I'm not sure what your point was Tony. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't think the Athearn deck is accurate for any GSC cast steel flat car, but it may be accurate for one of the riveted cars that were similar in overall design. As I said, the PRR deck appears to be (smooth, rivetless, welded) perforated steel plate.
I did understand your point, and I would agree about the Athearn deck--amusing since the sides of the Athearn car are NOT riveted. But whether any railroad put a riveted deck onto a GSC casting, I don't really know. The SP heavy-duty GSC cars received slotted decks like you describe, and that's certainly the most logical application. I guess I wanted to emphasize that an after-market deck for GSC cars might have to be railroad-specific.

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: Lehigh Valley Wellhole Flatcar

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

I think all of those trucks were later made by Cape Line.<
Correct but now Bethlehem Car Works has the old Red Ball trucks in their Kit Bits line. They do not appear to have the Larmont design so either the mold wore out or they are just not making it anymore. I would suspect they have very little call for it and the wheels would have to come for (IM?).

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Re: Running board question

Bob McCarthy
 

Howdy,
 
     Which railroads and cars used this type running board.
 
Bob McCarthy

--- On Tue, 10/20/09, Camas74 <camas74@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Camas74 <camas74@yahoo.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Running board question
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 2:03 AM


 



What does the grid pattern on a Kerrigan running board look like???

Matt Sugerman,
Ft. Worth, TX



















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


Re: heavy duty flat was Athearn Blue Box kits discontinued

Bruce Smith
 

On Oct 19, 2009, at 10:48 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
Finding suitable loads for these cars is another problem to solve.
Any ideas?
Tim, Folks,

John Frantz posted a photo of an F34 loaded with a centrifuge pivot, destined for NASA, on the PRRPro list. For those who are PRRPro members, it is accessible here:
http://tinyurl.com/ylxsx6x

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: Athearn 200t GSC heavy duty flat car

SUVCWORR@...
 

Tim:

From PRR elevation drawings the length of the F34 over the strikers is 45' 1/4", the deck length 44' 0". The bolsters are 9'0" in from the end and the axle spacings are 5'0". The deck is 4' 1 5/8" above the rail and the lowest point of the depressed center is 2'1 1/4" above the rail. Assuming you reversed your scale feet of the deck measurement the Railworks is correct.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:41 pm
Subject: [STMFC] Athearn 200t GSC heavy duty flat car










Comparing the Railworks PRR F-34 GSC 200 ton heavy duty flat
model, to Athearn's generic model. All measurements taken with
digital calipers accurate to .001 +/- .0005

Athearn Railworks
---------------------------------------------------
Deck length 6.405" 6.071"
in scale feet 44.0 46.5
Side height at mid point .472 .321
Side height at trucks .276 .137
Deck thickness .043 .014
Sill flange thickness .042 .016

Calculated Difference
in side height less
deck and sill flange .387 - .291 = .096 ( 8.3" HO )

The F-34 deck looks like perforated steel plate, while the
Athearn deck is a riveted pattern. The rivets correspond with
the center sill and crossbearers.

The Athearn underframe has the same GSC pattern as the F-34
but the brass car captures the fact that the cross section
of the GSC steel castings are I-beams while the Athearn is
just fat cross sections matching the width of the I-beam web.
(Is it called a web?)

Anyway the much maligned span bolsters are the kits' best feature.
In length and depth they match the brass casting. It would be very
easy for almost anyone on this list to "detail" the span bolster.

By sanding 8" off the top of the underframe casting evenly and
sanding the deck down .029" (29 thousandths) and filing down the
sill flange a similar amount (.029") the total height of this
model seen from the side will be very close to the brass model
(which I can only pray is close to the prototype).

Just had a thought -- cut off the sill flange, and replace with
thinner strip styrene. This will result in a uniform looking sill
flange.

Shortening the Athearn car looks much more problematic. IMO this
would be wasted effort. Thinning the car will improve its looks
immensely.

Tim O'Connor



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: heavy duty flat was Athearn Blue Box kits discontinued

Tim O'Connor
 

I'm not sure what your point was Tony. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
I don't think the Athearn deck is accurate for any GSC cast steel
flat car, but it may be accurate for one of the riveted cars that
were similar in overall design. As I said, the PRR deck appears to
be (smooth, rivetless, welded) perforated steel plate.

Tim O'Connor

At 10/20/2009 01:10 AM Tuesday, you wrote:
Tim O'Connor wrote:
I don't know whether Athearn's deck is accurate or not for the
riveted cars. (Not all of these 200 ton flats were cast steel.)
Tim, the cast-steel frame did NOT have a deck--that was added
by the railroad assembling the car. It was common to put in a bunch of
slots for convenience in tying things down, but it's entirely possible
that no two railroads chose to do the same decks.

Tony Thompson


Re: heavy duty flat was Athearn Blue Box kits discontinued

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
I don't know whether Athearn's deck is accurate or not for the riveted cars. (Not all of these 200 ton flats were cast steel.)
Tim, the cast-steel frame did NOT have a deck--that was added by the railroad assembling the car. It was common to put in a bunch of slots for convenience in tying things down, but it's entirely possible that no two railroads chose to do the same decks.

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: Athearn 200t GSC heavy duty flat car

Tim O'Connor
 

Oops! I got the lengths reversed. This is the corrected
table:

Athearn Railworks
---------------------------------------------------
Deck length 6.405" 6.071"
in scale feet 46.5 44.0
Side height at mid point .472 .321
Side height at trucks .276 .137
Deck thickness .043 .014
Sill flange thickness .042 .016
Calculated Difference
in side height less
deck and sill flange .387 - .291 = .096 ( 8.3" HO )

Tim

At 10/19/2009 11:41 PM Monday, you wrote:
Comparing the Railworks PRR F-34 GSC 200 ton heavy duty flat
model, to Athearn's generic model. All measurements taken with
digital calipers accurate to .001 +/- .0005

Athearn Railworks
---------------------------------------------------
Deck length 6.405" 6.071"
in scale feet 44.0 46.5
Side height at mid point .472 .321
Side height at trucks .276 .137
Deck thickness .043 .014
Sill flange thickness .042 .016

Calculated Difference
in side height less
deck and sill flange .387 - .291 = .096 ( 8.3" HO )

The F-34 deck looks like perforated steel plate, while the
Athearn deck is a riveted pattern. The rivets correspond with
the center sill and crossbearers.

The Athearn underframe has the same GSC pattern as the F-34
but the brass car captures the fact that the cross section
of the GSC steel castings are I-beams while the Athearn is
just fat cross sections matching the width of the I-beam web.
(Is it called a web?)

Anyway the much maligned span bolsters are the kits' best feature.
In length and depth they match the brass casting. It would be very
easy for almost anyone on this list to "detail" the span bolster.

By sanding 8" off the top of the underframe casting evenly and
sanding the deck down .029" (29 thousandths) and filing down the
sill flange a similar amount (.029") the total height of this
model seen from the side will be very close to the brass model
(which I can only pray is close to the prototype).

Just had a thought -- cut off the sill flange, and replace with
thinner strip styrene. This will result in a uniform looking sill
flange.

Shortening the Athearn car looks much more problematic. IMO this
would be wasted effort. Thinning the car will improve its looks
immensely.

Tim O'Connor


Re: heavy duty flat was Athearn Blue Box kits discontinued

Tim O'Connor
 

Bruce

I don't know whether Athearn's deck is accurate or not for the
riveted cars. (Not all of these 200 ton flats were cast steel.)

But I agree a third-party etched brass (or cast resin) replacement
deck, along with the sanding to thin the body, could produce
prototype-specific models. In fact, this might be worthy of a
Sunshine mini-kit. Sunshine has produced these kitbasher projects
for Atlas and Kato plastic kits, so why not Athearn?

Finding suitable loads for these cars is another problem to solve.
Any ideas?

Tim O'Connor

It was actually a GSC "kit" that a number of railroads including C&NW,
PRR and IRRC, SP purchased and assembled. However, the Athearn car is
fundamentally flawed with a body that is far to tall, requiring major
surgery to create a realistic car. This is one car that screams for a
resin/etch metal version (etched metal for the deck).

Regards
Bruce


Re: Athearn 200t GSC heavy duty flat car

Schuyler Larrabee
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor

(Is it called a web?)
Flange


SGL





E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.1.0.447)
Database version: 6.13510
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/


Athearn 200t GSC heavy duty flat car

Tim O'Connor
 

Comparing the Railworks PRR F-34 GSC 200 ton heavy duty flat
model, to Athearn's generic model. All measurements taken with
digital calipers accurate to .001 +/- .0005

Athearn Railworks
---------------------------------------------------
Deck length 6.405" 6.071"
in scale feet 44.0 46.5
Side height at mid point .472 .321
Side height at trucks .276 .137
Deck thickness .043 .014
Sill flange thickness .042 .016

Calculated Difference
in side height less
deck and sill flange .387 - .291 = .096 ( 8.3" HO )

The F-34 deck looks like perforated steel plate, while the
Athearn deck is a riveted pattern. The rivets correspond with
the center sill and crossbearers.

The Athearn underframe has the same GSC pattern as the F-34
but the brass car captures the fact that the cross section
of the GSC steel castings are I-beams while the Athearn is
just fat cross sections matching the width of the I-beam web.
(Is it called a web?)

Anyway the much maligned span bolsters are the kits' best feature.
In length and depth they match the brass casting. It would be very
easy for almost anyone on this list to "detail" the span bolster.

By sanding 8" off the top of the underframe casting evenly and
sanding the deck down .029" (29 thousandths) and filing down the
sill flange a similar amount (.029") the total height of this
model seen from the side will be very close to the brass model
(which I can only pray is close to the prototype).

Just had a thought -- cut off the sill flange, and replace with
thinner strip styrene. This will result in a uniform looking sill
flange.

Shortening the Athearn car looks much more problematic. IMO this
would be wasted effort. Thinning the car will improve its looks
immensely.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Running board question

al_brown03
 

An ad, with a picture, is re-printed in RP CYC 16 p108.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Matt Sugerman wrote:
What does the grid pattern on a Kerrigan running board look like???
Extremely similar though not identical to Apex.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Heavy Duty Flatcars before Athearn.

Q1xamacarthur1 <Q1xaMacArthur1@...>
 

Before Athearn brought out there four trucked
Hvy. Duty flat one had been made by M.D.C.
cast all in metal. That is why they were know as
Model Die Casting Co.

Did Athearn copy this kit or buy them from M.D.C.?

This is a 200 Ton car. My model is lettered W.E.C.X.
100 built up from a kit #F-104 way back in 1957.

Even though the car body is moulded in two pieces
the lettering was on card stock that fit between
lower underframe and upper floor held together with
screws. The deck has nice looking rivet detail and
holes for tie down rods and some stake holes at ends.

If it has too thick of a body I would think it could be
milled or filed thinner. It measures 24" at ends
with about a 38" drop section at center.

The trucks with this kit are the standard 5'6" sprung metal
Bettendorf type as came with all kits back then.

I don't have an Athearn to compare it to. Who needs two of these?
Ed Kirstatter, B&O Modeler.
____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=uzana6dCQS6cbeIQu_JIVgAAJ1B8efes6EaXV6Eq1UC1e4YpAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=


Re: Athearn Blue Box kit usefulness

Tim O'Connor
 

Mark Morgan wrote

Just saw some undec. Athearn at Model Railroad Scene @ Mansfield Ohio
I have a forty foot boxcar which will become a DSSA boxcar someday!
Mark, you mean like this one? By the way my comments on that web
page are not accurate -- the prototype DSS&A cars had 7-rung ladders
so the Athearn box car is quite accurate for that prototype.

http://www.steamfreightcars.com/modeling/models/oconnor/dssa17065main.html

What I'd love to build is the "Route Superior Gateway for Superior Service"
version of the car but I've never been able to find decals.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Running board question

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Matt Sugerman wrote:
What does the grid pattern on a Kerrigan running board look like???
Extremely similar though not identical to Apex.

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


Lehigh Valley Wellhole Flatcar

Q1xamacarthur1 <Q1xaMacArthur1@...>
 

I still have that car on my layout L.V. 9952
Wasn't that a one of a kind for that railroad?

Yes it has 26" wheels with not too bad looking
flanges considering when this Red Ball T-33 kit
came out.

I believe those trucks were called Lamont or something
close to that.

I think all of those trucks were later made by Cape Line.

Ed Kirstatter, B&O Modeler.
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYe7UZbfrsQBVU6W8siaK6Sh3t2tcMoI6cA19wnF3xXKSwYugMI/


M53 & SAL B7

Jim King
 

Bob (and all),



I delivered 40 sets of M53 castings to Gary Wright at lunch today .. at
least 30 are destined for Naperville, so get to his suite and table quickly
to claim yours. If there are ANY skeptics out there wondering about the
quality of these castings compared to previously offered resin kits, just
email Gary for his opinion. I'll let my work speak for itself.



The SAL B7 will be produced under SMMW's banner in HO and S scale next year.
Now that I have 2 part-timers starting this week, I can focus on researching
new kits and CAD work with the plan of producing more kits in HO and S than
I was once able.



Jim King

Smoky Mountain Model Works, Inc.

<http://www.smokymountainmodelworks.com>;


M53 & SAL B7

Jim King
 

Bob,



I delivered 40 sets of body and underframe/detail sheet castings to Gary
Wright today and will be writing instructions this week. At least 30 of
them will be for sale at Gary's table in Naperville. I'll be producing the
HO and S scale SAL B7 next year. Now that I have 2 part-timers starting
this week, I can focus on research, design and patterns and (hopefully) spit
out more kits in both scales.



Jim King

Smoky Mountain Model Works, Inc.

<http://www.smokymountainmodelworks.com>;


Re: heavy duty flat

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
Oh, THAT car! . . .

Still, what I said was that the Athearn Blue Box car, the four truck
flat, isn't an ERIE car. What you're showing is that perhaps that
same casting could be fitted with six-wheel trucks, which may be
true. But it still doesn't make the Athearn kit an ERIE car . . .
You're right, I don't have a photo of an Erie car that matches
the Athearn model. I just was aware that Erie did buy non-depressed
center body castings from GSC, and thought that one of them might be
like the Athearn model.

Tony Thompson
The concurrent discussion about the LV well hole car and its 26" wheels made me look again at the
diagram for ERIE 7430, and I note that it has 30" wheels, not the usual 33" wheels. Which goes a
ways to explain why those cars have always looked like they're pretty hunkered down in photos . . .

SGL





E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.1.0.447)
Database version: 6.13510
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

95361 - 95380 of 180946