Date   

Re: Naperville Proto Modelers Seminar photos

Larry Kline
 

Eric Hansmann asked:
Has anyone posted images from the Naperville event yet?

From the RPM-Forum Yahoo Group:
Posted by: "mgoedert" mgoedert@gmail.com mgoedert
Sun Nov 1, 2009 12:27 pm (PST)

Hello:

I have posted a large amount of photos from the last RPM meet in
Naperville IL. this weekend. Once again there were a lot of great
models this year on display. I personally thank everyone who brought a
model as the display room is my favorite part of the show.

Please enjoy the photos at:
http://www.MrTrains.com

If you have any questions or corrections to the site please feel free
to contact me.

- Mark N. Goedert



Eric Hansmann asked:
Has anyone posted images from the Naperville event yet?


Wright Trak CD instructions & Apple Computors

Bill Welch
 

Denis & Gary:

My roommate at Naperville who used to work at Apple did note that the small CD's will not work w/Apple computers so it will be important to have these on the WT website for downloading. CogGHS will need to have these for their "Vents" or have a link to your site for those instructions.

Although I looked at the Vent kit and do not think I need the instructions, I would like to look at them just to make sure.

Bill Welch


Rails Unlimited ACL K-7 41'6" Lowside Gondola

Justin Kahn
 

Some months ago I bought one of Ted Schnepf's resin O scale kits (there are a few such
in O scale--just not nearly so many as HO modelers have available) and his instruction sheet
(which unhappily has very little information) is keyed to the 2007 issue from the SCL
modelers website, now deleted. Are there any currently-accessible images of this car online?
As it is, I don't even know what the B-end of the car looks like, nor the brake gear on the
underframe (apparently it was built with a K-2 system, perhaps upgraded to AB at a later date).

Jace Kahn, General Manager

Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.




_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9690331&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009


Naperville Proto Modelers Seminar photos

Eric Hansmann
 

Has anyone posted images from the Naperville event yet?

Eric




Eric Hansmann
Chagrin Falls, Ohio
Starting over in a new house:
http://designbuildop.hansmanns.org/


Re: Wabash 19000 auto box

cef39us <cfrench@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "mopacfirst" <ron.merrick@...> wrote:

I bought a Sunshine mini-kit for the Wabash 19000-19124 homebuilt double-door box with Superior doors. The intent of this kit is to modify the Life-Like (P2K) box. So far so good, and the Superior doors provided seem to fit perfectly in the Life-Like door opening, which is taller than Branchline et al. Probably not supposed to be that tall, but that's not what I am interested in. The notes in the kit allude to early Youngstown doors used in the lower range of this series, up to about 19050. I don't have pictures either way, so can somebody confirm this? The Wabash diagram copy in the instructions shows Y'town doors, but it shows end doors also, probably because it's a combined stenciling drawing that also covers another class.

I'm actually taking the Superior doors to do a car for a close neighbor of the Wabash, so it's be neat if I could also build a Wabash car with Youngstown doors.


I have not found any information showing at which car the door change
was made. I have not found a photo of one of the cars with Youngstown
doors, although I have several of the cars with the Superior doors,
all numbered above 19050. Twenty five random cars in the 19000 - 19124 series were sent to the Evans Co., in Plymouth, MI, to have
DF utility loaders installed in Dec. 1949 and Jan. 1950. The cars
were renumbered 19275 - 19299.

I did send Ron a scan showing Youngtown doors installed on one of the 18000 series end door auto cars that were built at the same time at the 19000's series cars in 1942.

Chet French
Dixon, IL


Re: 8 Hatch Canadian Reefers

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Steve and Tony,

I think this is just an misunderstanding of how the data in the ORER is presented. My March 1958 ORER shows three blocks of GTW reefers. The first has a note saying "steel underframe", and this is continued by ditto marks to the other two following blocks. However, there is nothing in the term "steel underframe" that demands a wooden superstructure, though that is how we usually interpret these listings. In any case, the 8-hatch cars ARE there in my ORER (they were built in 1955). The photo shown in Harrison's book is undated, but it must have been taken before 28 February 1957, as that was the end of operation over this line. I'm no expert on old automobiles, but one of the cars alongside the train appears to be a 1955 or 1956 model.

Kind regards,


Garth Groff

steve l wrote:

Tony--

There's a colour photo of GTW 206426 on page 68 of January, 1996 RMC (another photo of GTW 206476[?]on page 61 of Feb., 1996 RMC). It's an all-steel reefer, almost an exact copy of the CN cars. Page 69 of that issue has a complete table by Stafford Swain of CN overhead-ice-bunker cars and numbers in service at various dates. The 100 GTW cars, 206400-206499 are listed as being built in 1955. Pages 70/71 have HO scale drawings of these cars.

Id venture that the ORER data you cite is in error. This serves as a caution to those relying on ORER data.

Steve Lucas.


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

Ian Cranstone wrote:

Tony, it's true that GTW had no steel reefers in 1953, but they did receive 100 all-steel 8-hatch copies of the Canadian design built by Pacific Car & Foundry in 1955 -- check that 1958 ORER again and look for the 206400 series
For the series 206400-206499, the January 1958 ORER says "refrig., steel underframe," as it does for the other reefers listed, and as it did for all the reefers in 1953. Are you saying this is an error?

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




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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: freight car kit discounts

Mark
 

I just placed an order at F and C for ten kits, five are free and free shipping!

Mark

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "ed_mines" <ed_mines@...> wrote:

I recently bought 7 for the price of 3 from them through the mail.

Ed

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Miller" <aslmmiller@> wrote:

As far as I know F&C always offers 2 for 1 at show and by mail throught their flyer.

regards,

Andy Miller (who will be running F&C PRR MP54s at the North Shore Model RR Club Open house this week end)
----- Original Message -----
From: ed_mines
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:44 PM
Subject: [STMFC] freight car kit discounts


Anyone know somewhere which discounts Atlas 1932 box cars?

Has F&C recently been offering 2 for one at shows?

Any of the other resin manufacturers having sales?

Ed





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


Looking for a Sunshine Mini-kit

pierreoliver2003 <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Hello all,
I'm looking for 2-3 of the Sunshine Mini-Kits #4.
For converting a P2K 50' into a Wabash Auto car.
I neglected to ask Martin about these last weekend. They were originally a gift, so I don't know if they're still available from Sunshine.
Contact me off list please.
Pierre Oliver


Re: 8 Hatch Canadian Reefers

steve l <stevelucas3@...>
 

Tony--

There's a colour photo of GTW 206426 on page 68 of January, 1996 RMC (another photo of GTW 206476[?]on page 61 of Feb., 1996 RMC). It's an all-steel reefer, almost an exact copy of the CN cars. Page 69 of that issue has a complete table by Stafford Swain of CN overhead-ice-bunker cars and numbers in service at various dates. The 100 GTW cars, 206400-206499 are listed as being built in 1955. Pages 70/71 have HO scale drawings of these cars.

Id venture that the ORER data you cite is in error. This serves as a caution to those relying on ORER data.

Steve Lucas.

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

Ian Cranstone wrote:
Tony, it's true that GTW had no steel reefers in 1953, but they did
receive 100 all-steel 8-hatch copies of the Canadian design built by
Pacific Car & Foundry in 1955 -- check that 1958 ORER again and look
for the 206400 series
For the series 206400-206499, the January 1958 ORER says
"refrig., steel underframe," as it does for the other reefers listed,
and as it did for all the reefers in 1953. Are you saying this is an
error?

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


Re: Masochism: The Building of a Sunshine Standard Brands Vinegar Tank Car.

pierreoliver2003 <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Denny,
Excellent description of dealing with that kit.
I've built 3 to date, hopefully that's it, and have pretty much followed the same building process as you have. As you've yet to install the handrail I would suggest that you look at the PSC tank car stanchions rather than the cast units in the kit. The cast ones ones are brutally oversize as are the elbow castings for the corners.
Cheers,
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Denny Anspach <danspach@...> wrote:

This kit (variously identified as kits #60.1, 60.2 [mine], and 60.3)
came out as a special "Anniversary Kit" in 2003. It created quite a
stir because of the prototype's exotic appearance, and because of the
kit's pretty esoteric complexity. It surely is a sophisticated- but
not precise- kit that models a very complex and very interesting
prototype that was seemingly more ubiquitous than might be otherwise
imagined.

Several lengthy early posts by Bill Darnaby (#20484) and Ted Cullotta
(#36207) provided considerable information on the challenges that this
kit posed, and later- almost nothing- as most purchasers seemed to
then put the kits on the shelf. A more recent illustrated blog by
Bill Herbert at- http://forums.rrarchives.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=332&p=491&hilit=vinegar+tank+car#p491
-provided more recent information. All- particularly Bill's
detailed help- succeeded in keeping my mind focused on at last
tacklng the kit.

Recognizing that most listers will likely push 'delete', but also
recognizing that some might find my own experiences useful for their
own future tackling of this benchmark kit, this post can be copied and
stuffed into the kit box.

The kit directions are rudimentary to say the least; much is left out;
and close and continuing study of the enclosed prototype photos and
web model photos are essential.

The parts also fit together with more "slop" (Ted's term) than I have
ever previously experienced.

Nevertheless, at the very end, Bill Darnaby describes the finished
model as "Really Neat", and Ted comments that this is the type of kit
that makes one realize what a wonderful hobby model railroading really
is. They are both "right on".

Car architecture overview: It really helps to first understand the
fundamental architectural elements of this car: a long cylindrical
wood-stave tank- encircled with 37 rod bands- that is then secured on
its side on an open steel flat car between steel bulkheads . The
tanks rest on transverse bunks or saddles. Because such an unsupported
wood stave tank would not likely stand up more than a nonosecond to
the vicissitudes of slack action, etc. the tank has also been
longitudinally-braced between the bulkheads by wood timber blocking
and X-braces, and supported from below by fitted wood blocks or
dunnage driven between the resting tank and the saddles. The tank is
held tight to the saddles by four encircling flat straps with rod
tighteners.

The kit has more parts than Carter has pills, and taking the time to
identify and separate the parts into different bags was helpful for me
to get organized. The instructions are rudimentary for such a
complex and different model, so one should be prepared for a
wonderful exercise in patient craftsmanship, keeping always in mind
the very wise aphorism of "Measure Twice, Cut Once".

The Tank Wrapper: Beware: trouble ahead. The tank wrapper is a very
nicely detailed flat casting that was rolled at Sunshine into a
cylinder when still warm. However, the resulting cylinder ex factory
is commonly neither perfectly round, square on the ends, or with
seamed edges that are flat. Required reading: Bill's and Ted's
cautionary comments on the list, in this regard. The kit instructions
have meaning when they caution that the finished tank should be 7'6"
in diameter. If it is either larger, or smaller problems large and
small will pop up later on.

To obviate the anticipated problems with the wrapper I "re-rolled" the
wrapper- a fairly easy process, as it turned out; and I avoided
trimming the seam edges, even by a fraction.

By serendipity I deduced that Martin had probably rolled the wrapper
around a standard heavy-duty mop handle armature, several of which in
my house measured an exact 0.975" in diameter- virtually a dead net
fit for the correctly-oriented wrapper edges to touch each other
evenly and squarely along their lengths. I wrapped the cast resin
wrapper around the mop handle armature forcibly adjusting it to the
extent I could do so safely, and then secured it along its length with
a thousand discarded newspaper rubber bands out of the kitchen drawer.
I then tossed into a hot water bath (from a tea kettle). I let the
water cool, bathed the wrapper/broom handle under cold water, removed
the rubber bands and- amazing- after several of these attempts- the
wrapper morphed into a true and square cylinder of proper diameter
that needing no final trimming whatsoever. Electing to not fix which
ain't broke, at that moment I tacked the edges together with ACC to
close the cylinder; and once set, and armature removed, I flooded more
ACC along the seam in the interior. A very satisfying result that FIT!

When set, I squared the cylinder tank ends on a NWSL True-Sander, and
proceeded with fitting the tank to the saddles already mounted on the
car frame. Just as on the prototype, the tank cylinder on the model
has to fitted net to the saddles with 'wood' blocks, shims, or wedges
driven between the curves of the saddles and the tank. The end
saddles over the bolsters have these blocks already cast-on, while the
others do not.

To begin the fitting process, It is best to simply wrap sandpaper
around the mop handle armature and sand the principal end saddles-with-
blocking to shape, careful to not sand through the cast-on blocks.
This will still leave the tank to be cantilevered in thin air over all
the five intermediate saddles, the needed blocking obviously to be
added by the modeler out of styrene or strip wood scraps. My advice is
to tape the tank cylinder in place and fabricate/fit/cement the
blocking now (I added it at the end, and although successful, it would
have been a lot less work, and probably better modeled, if I had done
it earlier).

Tank Cylinder Strapping: There are 37 encircling rods that bind the
staves of the tank together- all to be installed by the modeler. The
model eliminates four in the way of the principal saddles, leaving 33,
and also (wisely) ignores the fact that each rod has not one (1) but
two (2) rod tighteners. The kit models only one. The kit give
rudimentary instructions on bending a forest of enclosed 0.015" wire
for the rods, but I instead opted for Bill's great advice to 'forget
the wire' and use instead 0.013" monofilament fishing line- a sheer
stroke of genius (when stretched and painted monofilament looks like
rod or wire; and it is unexcelled in it affinity for ACC). That is
exactly what I did- especially when a length of just the right
fishing line fortuitously showed up wrapped around the propellor of my
antique Hacker wood speed boat.

The rod tighteners (a sort of "turnbuckle") have correct and incorrect
orientations (not pointed out in the directions), but evident from a
close study of the photographs. Each and every one requires drilling
#78 or #79 holes into both of their ends sufficient to grab the
monofilament, an exercise in patience, preparation, and a careful
setup both sparing of these tiny parts, and one's fingers. Most of
tighteners have a dimple for drill centering, but not all. I used a
very sharp steel scribe to reinforce the dimple and/or create new
ones. A number of the tighteners are "reversed". I have no idea
whether this was an accident or whether this a subtle esoteric
modeling detail that I overlooked.

The monofilament line is easily and strongly secured into these
drilled holes with ACC, and I secured one end of a measured piece of
line into each of the tightener. With the help of a small stainless
radiator clamp on which to draw a true circumference (Jeff Aley's
suggestion), I marked with a pencil each every place where the bands
could NOT go- fill hatch on top, and most saddles below- and with
the help of small pieces of tape to hold each band in place around the
tank, I then secured both ends of the encircling band into the
tightener. I did NOT ACC the bands to the tank, however, leaving that
to later. This method worked quite well, and as I moved forward I
was able to install almost all the bands in one sitting. When pulling
these bands tight, not a single one pulled out.

Later, I rotated each still-loose band so that the visually-prominent
tighteners were in a pattern roughly approximating that seen on the
prototype. Continuing to use the photos as a guide I then positioned,
squared and cemented each band in the careful sequential parallel
patterns seen on the prototype, using calipers to measure in from the
previously-squared ends of the tank. I tacked each monofilament band
at 90º points. They remain remarkably impervious to routine handling.

I also took the opportunity to also model the "missing" rods or bands
(those in the way of the saddles) once the tank was finally installed
(with dabs of Barge cement). I did so by drilling a #78 hole in the
middle of the outer facing seam between block and tank , ACC'd the fay
end of a segment of monofilament line in the hole, pulled each facing
pair together over the top of the tank and secured them into a
tightener. With a surplus of one, there was just enough of the
tighteners in the kit to do this.

The printed directions direct that the tank drain is to be installed-
but where? Although, by exclusion I finally figured what had to be
the 'drain part', I joined Bill Darnaby in drawing a blank as to where
it should reasonably go (inasmuch as all brake gear and piping is on
one side of the center sill, and would be unlikely to have the drain
course though the midst of the heavy center sill, I would presume the
the drain would exit on the other side of the sill in some fashion- h-
mmm.

There are a number of holes for securing important braces and hold
downs to be drilled where no dimples, or directions actually show the
way. This was more daunting in theory than reality, and by studying
the photos, things become pretty obvious.

Both Bill and Ted (and the kit directions!) take considerable pains
to point out the absolute necessity of drilling the holes for X band
tightener rods toward the far outboard edges on the top bulkhead end
frames. They are not kidding! If the tank that you have fabricated is
over-size, the problems here are increased. To forestall problems, I
first temporarily installed the tank into the frame and with a sharp
pencil marked the outline the tank end on the frame. Because these
ends also have some pretty obvious detailing on their outer faces that
visually line up with the X band rods, there is a overwhelming desire
to "fudge" and not drill out far enough. Resist the temptation!.
Important: Note also that Ted notes that these end details have a
definite orientation- not noted in the directions- and making this
distinction is cosmetically important.

I Barge-cemented some sheet lead in the tank for weight, and selected
Kadee trucks (Reboxx wheels) for added weight. I installed Accumate
Proto couplers and PSC brass air hose brackets and hoses.

I have yet to install the hand-railing, and some other pesky small
details. Painting will be Amtrak Platinum Mist, with the kit's red
lettering. The real challenge will be to effectively weather and age
a model of a car of composite construction that has more details
sticking up and out than a porcupine.

This is by far the most difficult kit that I have ever put together.
It took as much patience as skill, and it sopped up the same time that
I would have ordinarily devoted to building four or five more
conventional prototype models- if not more.

However the final result speaks for itself: it is a spectacular model.

Denny









Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: 1947-era Covered Hopper Question

David North <davenorth@...>
 

<Now I question what cars were
<used in the grain business from 1942 to 1954. Off line covered hoppers
appear
<to be the right idea; eg: SP, GN, UP, and midwest RR's. Anyone care to
<enlighten me, and others who may still wonder.
<Fred Freitas







Fred and Ralph,

Santa Fe fitted roofs with loading hatches to a number of 2, 3 & 4 bay
hoppers in 1945 for grain loading.

A total of 150 cars were so modified.

So covered hoppers were used in the immediate post war period for this
purpose, at least on the Santa Fe.



However, I'd guess that the majority of grain shipments on the ATSF were
still made by boxcars and as far as I know, covered hoppers weren't used in
any quantity until the PS 2893cft 3 bay arrived in the mid 50s.

Happy to be corrected, but I'd feel that modelling any quantity of these
roofed hoppers would be modelling the unusual in the late 40s period.

Can't comment on other roads.

Cheers

Dave North


Re: Masochism: The Building of a Sunshine Standard Brands Vinegar Tank Car.

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Thank you, Denny!

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Denny
Anspach
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 11:27 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Masochism: The Building of a Sunshine Standard Brands
Vinegar Tank Car.



This kit (variously identified as kits #60.1, 60.2 [mine], and 60.3) came out
as a special "Anniversary Kit" in 2003. It created quite a stir because of
the prototype's exotic appearance, and because of the kit's pretty esoteric
complexity. It surely is a sophisticated- but not precise- kit that models a
very complex and very interesting prototype that was seemingly more
ubiquitous than might be otherwise imagined.

Several lengthy early posts by Bill Darnaby (#20484) and Ted Cullotta
(#36207) provided considerable information on the challenges that this kit
posed, and later- almost nothing- as most purchasers seemed to then put the
kits on the shelf. A more recent illustrated blog by Bill Herbert at-
http://forums.rrarchives.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=332&p=491&hilit=vinegar+tan
k+car#p491
<http://forums.rrarchives.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=332&p=491&hilit=vinegar+ta
nk+car#p491>
-provided more recent information. All- particularly Bill's detailed help-
succeeded in keeping my mind focused on at last tacklng the kit.

Recognizing that most listers will likely push 'delete', but also recognizing
that some might find my own experiences useful for their own future tackling
of this benchmark kit, this post can be copied and stuffed into the kit box.

The kit directions are rudimentary to say the least; much is left out; and
close and continuing study of the enclosed prototype photos and web model
photos are essential.

The parts also fit together with more "slop" (Ted's term) than I have ever
previously experienced.

Nevertheless, at the very end, Bill Darnaby describes the finished model as
"Really Neat", and Ted comments that this is the type of kit that makes one
realize what a wonderful hobby model railroading really is. They are both
"right on".

Car architecture overview: It really helps to first understand the
fundamental architectural elements of this car: a long cylindrical wood-stave
tank- encircled with 37 rod bands- that is then secured on its side on an
open steel flat car between steel bulkheads . The tanks rest on transverse
bunks or saddles. Because such an unsupported wood stave tank would not
likely stand up more than a nonosecond to the vicissitudes of slack action,
etc. the tank has also been longitudinally-braced between the bulkheads by
wood timber blocking and X-braces, and supported from below by fitted wood
blocks or dunnage driven between the resting tank and the saddles. The tank
is held tight to the saddles by four encircling flat straps with rod
tighteners.

The kit has more parts than Carter has pills, and taking the time to identify
and separate the parts into different bags was helpful for me to get
organized. The instructions are rudimentary for such a complex and different
model, so one should be prepared for a wonderful exercise in patient
craftsmanship, keeping always in mind the very wise aphorism of "Measure
Twice, Cut Once".

The Tank Wrapper: Beware: trouble ahead. The tank wrapper is a very nicely
detailed flat casting that was rolled at Sunshine into a cylinder when still
warm. However, the resulting cylinder ex factory is commonly neither
perfectly round, square on the ends, or with seamed edges that are flat.
Required reading: Bill's and Ted's cautionary comments on the list, in this
regard. The kit instructions have meaning when they caution that the finished
tank should be 7'6"
in diameter. If it is either larger, or smaller problems large and small will
pop up later on.

To obviate the anticipated problems with the wrapper I "re-rolled" the
wrapper- a fairly easy process, as it turned out; and I avoided trimming the
seam edges, even by a fraction.

By serendipity I deduced that Martin had probably rolled the wrapper around a
standard heavy-duty mop handle armature, several of which in my house
measured an exact 0.975" in diameter- virtually a dead net fit for the
correctly-oriented wrapper edges to touch each other evenly and squarely
along their lengths. I wrapped the cast resin wrapper around the mop handle
armature forcibly adjusting it to the extent I could do so safely, and then
secured it along its length with a thousand discarded newspaper rubber bands
out of the kitchen drawer.
I then tossed into a hot water bath (from a tea kettle). I let the water
cool, bathed the wrapper/broom handle under cold water, removed the rubber
bands and- amazing- after several of these attempts- the wrapper morphed into
a true and square cylinder of proper diameter that needing no final trimming
whatsoever. Electing to not fix which ain't broke, at that moment I tacked
the edges together with ACC to close the cylinder; and once set, and armature
removed, I flooded more ACC along the seam in the interior. A very satisfying
result that FIT!

When set, I squared the cylinder tank ends on a NWSL True-Sander, and
proceeded with fitting the tank to the saddles already mounted on the car
frame. Just as on the prototype, the tank cylinder on the model has to fitted
net to the saddles with 'wood' blocks, shims, or wedges driven between the
curves of the saddles and the tank. The end saddles over the bolsters have
these blocks already cast-on, while the others do not.

To begin the fitting process, It is best to simply wrap sandpaper around the
mop handle armature and sand the principal end saddles-with- blocking to
shape, careful to not sand through the cast-on blocks.
This will still leave the tank to be cantilevered in thin air over all the
five intermediate saddles, the needed blocking obviously to be added by the
modeler out of styrene or strip wood scraps. My advice is to tape the tank
cylinder in place and fabricate/fit/cement the blocking now (I added it at
the end, and although successful, it would have been a lot less work, and
probably better modeled, if I had done it earlier).

Tank Cylinder Strapping: There are 37 encircling rods that bind the staves of
the tank together- all to be installed by the modeler. The model eliminates
four in the way of the principal saddles, leaving 33, and also (wisely)
ignores the fact that each rod has not one (1) but two (2) rod tighteners.
The kit models only one. The kit give rudimentary instructions on bending a
forest of enclosed 0.015" wire for the rods, but I instead opted for Bill's
great advice to 'forget the wire' and use instead 0.013" monofilament fishing
line- a sheer stroke of genius (when stretched and painted monofilament looks
like rod or wire; and it is unexcelled in it affinity for ACC). That is
exactly what I did- especially when a length of just the right fishing line
fortuitously showed up wrapped around the propellor of my antique Hacker wood
speed boat.

The rod tighteners (a sort of "turnbuckle") have correct and incorrect
orientations (not pointed out in the directions), but evident from a close
study of the photographs. Each and every one requires drilling
#78 or #79 holes into both of their ends sufficient to grab the monofilament,
an exercise in patience, preparation, and a careful setup both sparing of
these tiny parts, and one's fingers. Most of tighteners have a dimple for
drill centering, but not all. I used a very sharp steel scribe to reinforce
the dimple and/or create new ones. A number of the tighteners are "reversed".
I have no idea whether this was an accident or whether this a subtle esoteric
modeling detail that I overlooked.

The monofilament line is easily and strongly secured into these drilled holes
with ACC, and I secured one end of a measured piece of line into each of the
tightener. With the help of a small stainless radiator clamp on which to draw
a true circumference (Jeff Aley's suggestion), I marked with a pencil each
every place where the bands could NOT go- fill hatch on top, and most saddles
below- and with the help of small pieces of tape to hold each band in place
around the tank, I then secured both ends of the encircling band into the
tightener. I did NOT ACC the bands to the tank, however, leaving that to
later. This method worked quite well, and as I moved forward I was able to
install almost all the bands in one sitting. When pulling these bands tight,
not a single one pulled out.

Later, I rotated each still-loose band so that the visually-prominent
tighteners were in a pattern roughly approximating that seen on the
prototype. Continuing to use the photos as a guide I then positioned, squared
and cemented each band in the careful sequential parallel patterns seen on
the prototype, using calipers to measure in from the previously-squared ends
of the tank. I tacked each monofilament band at 90º points. They remain
remarkably impervious to routine handling.

I also took the opportunity to also model the "missing" rods or bands (those
in the way of the saddles) once the tank was finally installed (with dabs of
Barge cement). I did so by drilling a #78 hole in the middle of the outer
facing seam between block and tank , ACC'd the fay end of a segment of
monofilament line in the hole, pulled each facing pair together over the top
of the tank and secured them into a tightener. With a surplus of one, there
was just enough of the tighteners in the kit to do this.

The printed directions direct that the tank drain is to be installed- but
where? Although, by exclusion I finally figured what had to be the 'drain
part', I joined Bill Darnaby in drawing a blank as to where it should
reasonably go (inasmuch as all brake gear and piping is on one side of the
center sill, and would be unlikely to have the drain course though the midst
of the heavy center sill, I would presume the the drain would exit on the
other side of the sill in some fashion- h- mmm.

There are a number of holes for securing important braces and hold downs to
be drilled where no dimples, or directions actually show the way. This was
more daunting in theory than reality, and by studying the photos, things
become pretty obvious.

Both Bill and Ted (and the kit directions!) take considerable pains to point
out the absolute necessity of drilling the holes for X band tightener rods
toward the far outboard edges on the top bulkhead end frames. They are not
kidding! If the tank that you have fabricated is over-size, the problems here
are increased. To forestall problems, I first temporarily installed the tank
into the frame and with a sharp pencil marked the outline the tank end on the
frame. Because these ends also have some pretty obvious detailing on their
outer faces that visually line up with the X band rods, there is a
overwhelming desire to "fudge" and not drill out far enough. Resist the
temptation!.
Important: Note also that Ted notes that these end details have a definite
orientation- not noted in the directions- and making this distinction is
cosmetically important.

I Barge-cemented some sheet lead in the tank for weight, and selected Kadee
trucks (Reboxx wheels) for added weight. I installed Accumate Proto couplers
and PSC brass air hose brackets and hoses.

I have yet to install the hand-railing, and some other pesky small details.
Painting will be Amtrak Platinum Mist, with the kit's red lettering. The real
challenge will be to effectively weather and age a model of a car of
composite construction that has more details sticking up and out than a
porcupine.

This is by far the most difficult kit that I have ever put together.
It took as much patience as skill, and it sopped up the same time that I
would have ordinarily devoted to building four or five more conventional
prototype models- if not more.

However the final result speaks for itself: it is a spectacular model.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: Wright Trak M53/M53A

rfederle@...
 

Thank you Jim,

I had a misconception there. It was lack of knowledge about the model and the prototype on my part. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Robert Federle
---- smokymtn28805 <jimking3@charter.net> wrote:

Robert,

The underframe isn't operational, just highly detailed with a separate centersill and 10 wear plates. The c'sill does "ride" in the underframe's crossbearers but there are no springs to let it "work" (but there are pockets for springs if you want to add that detail). As far as I know, Kadee's PS1 underframe is the only operational u/f on the market but I really don't follow other mfrs too often .. got too many of my own projects to focus on.

Jim King
SMMW

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, <rfederle@...> wrote:

Jim,

In my previous post I meant to ask about the underframe. Due to a couple glitches with my e-mail provider I think I missed some comments. It was mentioned the Duryea frame is "operational". By that you mean the center sill rides inside the framework correct? Can you explain a little more about this operation? I am not well versed in the Duryea details.

Robert Federle


Re: Wright Trak M53/M53A

Jim King
 

Rob,

Glad my instructions are well-liked. This is my 2nd kit using a mini-CD but is now "the norm". I put a lot of effort into taking in-process photos, including history and writing clear step by step notes. My Design Engineer training is probably obvious! Using a mini-CD allows up to about 200 mB of info at a VERY cheap price and provides a medium for all-color info, which is very costly to print using traditional methods, like a laser printer. The .pdf format allows you to zoom in on the high-rez model pix and the medium- to high-rez proto pix. John Cantley's underframe pix of an M53 in Parrish Fl really "made" the instructions ... I couldn't have designed the underframe with so much detail without those pix.

Jim King
SMMW

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Rob & Bev Manley" <robev1630@...> wrote:

One of the best features in the kit is the mini-disc instructions. They are the best instruction sheet I have seen for a resin kit. Now I can finally finish my Sunshine Duryea underframes.

Rob Manley

From: rfederle@...
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Jim King
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Wright Trak M53/M53A



Jim,

Since I couldn't make it to Naperville, I appreciate the production sample pics you sent. I think the detail is superb and I dont see the problem with the ladders or any of the detail for that matter. The size of the photos show far more than will be seen on the track (especially in HO) but I would say you have done a great job.

From what I understand sales went well at the show. Suppose I'll have to get my order in. Congratulations on a job well done.

Robert Federle
---- Jim King <jimking3@...> wrote:
> Tim,
>
>
>
> Then if you have a suggestion for an accurate ladder, I'll give it serious
> thought to replacing the ladder rails with 4 dimples to drill for a molded
> ladder.
>
>
>
> Jim King
>
> Smoky Mountain Model Works, Inc.
>
> <http://www.smokymountainmodelworks.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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


Re: Wright Trak M53/M53A

Jim King
 

Robert,

The underframe isn't operational, just highly detailed with a separate centersill and 10 wear plates. The c'sill does "ride" in the underframe's crossbearers but there are no springs to let it "work" (but there are pockets for springs if you want to add that detail). As far as I know, Kadee's PS1 underframe is the only operational u/f on the market but I really don't follow other mfrs too often .. got too many of my own projects to focus on.

Jim King
SMMW

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, <rfederle@...> wrote:

Jim,

In my previous post I meant to ask about the underframe. Due to a couple glitches with my e-mail provider I think I missed some comments. It was mentioned the Duryea frame is "operational". By that you mean the center sill rides inside the framework correct? Can you explain a little more about this operation? I am not well versed in the Duryea details.

Robert Federle


Masochism: The Building of a Sunshine Standard Brands Vinegar Tank Car.

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

This kit (variously identified as kits #60.1, 60.2 [mine], and 60.3)
came out as a special "Anniversary Kit" in 2003. It created quite a
stir because of the prototype's exotic appearance, and because of the
kit's pretty esoteric complexity. It surely is a sophisticated- but
not precise- kit that models a very complex and very interesting
prototype that was seemingly more ubiquitous than might be otherwise
imagined.

Several lengthy early posts by Bill Darnaby (#20484) and Ted Cullotta
(#36207) provided considerable information on the challenges that this
kit posed, and later- almost nothing- as most purchasers seemed to
then put the kits on the shelf. A more recent illustrated blog by
Bill Herbert at- http://forums.rrarchives.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=332&p=491&hilit=vinegar+tank+car#p491
-provided more recent information. All- particularly Bill's detailed help- succeeded in keeping my mind focused on at last
tacklng the kit.

Recognizing that most listers will likely push 'delete', but also
recognizing that some might find my own experiences useful for their own future tackling of this benchmark kit, this post can be copied and
stuffed into the kit box.

The kit directions are rudimentary to say the least; much is left out;
and close and continuing study of the enclosed prototype photos and
web model photos are essential.

The parts also fit together with more "slop" (Ted's term) than I have
ever previously experienced.

Nevertheless, at the very end, Bill Darnaby describes the finished
model as "Really Neat", and Ted comments that this is the type of kit
that makes one realize what a wonderful hobby model railroading really
is. They are both "right on".

Car architecture overview: It really helps to first understand the
fundamental architectural elements of this car: a long cylindrical
wood-stave tank- encircled with 37 rod bands- that is then secured on
its side on an open steel flat car between steel bulkheads . The
tanks rest on transverse bunks or saddles. Because such an unsupported
wood stave tank would not likely stand up more than a nonosecond to
the vicissitudes of slack action, etc. the tank has also been
longitudinally-braced between the bulkheads by wood timber blocking
and X-braces, and supported from below by fitted wood blocks or
dunnage driven between the resting tank and the saddles. The tank is
held tight to the saddles by four encircling flat straps with rod
tighteners.

The kit has more parts than Carter has pills, and taking the time to
identify and separate the parts into different bags was helpful for me
to get organized. The instructions are rudimentary for such a
complex and different model, so one should be prepared for a
wonderful exercise in patient craftsmanship, keeping always in mind
the very wise aphorism of "Measure Twice, Cut Once".

The Tank Wrapper: Beware: trouble ahead. The tank wrapper is a very
nicely detailed flat casting that was rolled at Sunshine into a
cylinder when still warm. However, the resulting cylinder ex factory
is commonly neither perfectly round, square on the ends, or with
seamed edges that are flat. Required reading: Bill's and Ted's
cautionary comments on the list, in this regard. The kit instructions
have meaning when they caution that the finished tank should be 7'6"
in diameter. If it is either larger, or smaller problems large and
small will pop up later on.

To obviate the anticipated problems with the wrapper I "re-rolled" the
wrapper- a fairly easy process, as it turned out; and I avoided
trimming the seam edges, even by a fraction.

By serendipity I deduced that Martin had probably rolled the wrapper
around a standard heavy-duty mop handle armature, several of which in
my house measured an exact 0.975" in diameter- virtually a dead net
fit for the correctly-oriented wrapper edges to touch each other
evenly and squarely along their lengths. I wrapped the cast resin wrapper around the mop handle armature forcibly adjusting it to the
extent I could do so safely, and then secured it along its length with
a thousand discarded newspaper rubber bands out of the kitchen drawer.
I then tossed into a hot water bath (from a tea kettle). I let the
water cool, bathed the wrapper/broom handle under cold water, removed
the rubber bands and- amazing- after several of these attempts- the
wrapper morphed into a true and square cylinder of proper diameter
that needing no final trimming whatsoever. Electing to not fix which
ain't broke, at that moment I tacked the edges together with ACC to
close the cylinder; and once set, and armature removed, I flooded more
ACC along the seam in the interior. A very satisfying result that FIT!

When set, I squared the cylinder tank ends on a NWSL True-Sander, and
proceeded with fitting the tank to the saddles already mounted on the
car frame. Just as on the prototype, the tank cylinder on the model
has to fitted net to the saddles with 'wood' blocks, shims, or wedges
driven between the curves of the saddles and the tank. The end
saddles over the bolsters have these blocks already cast-on, while the
others do not.

To begin the fitting process, It is best to simply wrap sandpaper
around the mop handle armature and sand the principal end saddles-with-
blocking to shape, careful to not sand through the cast-on blocks.
This will still leave the tank to be cantilevered in thin air over all
the five intermediate saddles, the needed blocking obviously to be
added by the modeler out of styrene or strip wood scraps. My advice is
to tape the tank cylinder in place and fabricate/fit/cement the
blocking now (I added it at the end, and although successful, it would
have been a lot less work, and probably better modeled, if I had done
it earlier).

Tank Cylinder Strapping: There are 37 encircling rods that bind the
staves of the tank together- all to be installed by the modeler. The model eliminates four in the way of the principal saddles, leaving 33,
and also (wisely) ignores the fact that each rod has not one (1) but
two (2) rod tighteners. The kit models only one. The kit give
rudimentary instructions on bending a forest of enclosed 0.015" wire
for the rods, but I instead opted for Bill's great advice to 'forget
the wire' and use instead 0.013" monofilament fishing line- a sheer
stroke of genius (when stretched and painted monofilament looks like
rod or wire; and it is unexcelled in it affinity for ACC). That is
exactly what I did- especially when a length of just the right
fishing line fortuitously showed up wrapped around the propellor of my
antique Hacker wood speed boat.

The rod tighteners (a sort of "turnbuckle") have correct and incorrect
orientations (not pointed out in the directions), but evident from a
close study of the photographs. Each and every one requires drilling
#78 or #79 holes into both of their ends sufficient to grab the
monofilament, an exercise in patience, preparation, and a careful
setup both sparing of these tiny parts, and one's fingers. Most of
tighteners have a dimple for drill centering, but not all. I used a
very sharp steel scribe to reinforce the dimple and/or create new
ones. A number of the tighteners are "reversed". I have no idea
whether this was an accident or whether this a subtle esoteric
modeling detail that I overlooked.

The monofilament line is easily and strongly secured into these
drilled holes with ACC, and I secured one end of a measured piece of
line into each of the tightener. With the help of a small stainless
radiator clamp on which to draw a true circumference (Jeff Aley's
suggestion), I marked with a pencil each every place where the bands
could NOT go- fill hatch on top, and most saddles below- and with
the help of small pieces of tape to hold each band in place around the
tank, I then secured both ends of the encircling band into the
tightener. I did NOT ACC the bands to the tank, however, leaving that
to later. This method worked quite well, and as I moved forward I
was able to install almost all the bands in one sitting. When pulling
these bands tight, not a single one pulled out.

Later, I rotated each still-loose band so that the visually-prominent
tighteners were in a pattern roughly approximating that seen on the
prototype. Continuing to use the photos as a guide I then positioned,
squared and cemented each band in the careful sequential parallel
patterns seen on the prototype, using calipers to measure in from the
previously-squared ends of the tank. I tacked each monofilament band
at 90º points. They remain remarkably impervious to routine handling.

I also took the opportunity to also model the "missing" rods or bands
(those in the way of the saddles) once the tank was finally installed
(with dabs of Barge cement). I did so by drilling a #78 hole in the
middle of the outer facing seam between block and tank , ACC'd the fay
end of a segment of monofilament line in the hole, pulled each facing
pair together over the top of the tank and secured them into a
tightener. With a surplus of one, there was just enough of the
tighteners in the kit to do this.

The printed directions direct that the tank drain is to be installed-
but where? Although, by exclusion I finally figured what had to be the 'drain part', I joined Bill Darnaby in drawing a blank as to where
it should reasonably go (inasmuch as all brake gear and piping is on
one side of the center sill, and would be unlikely to have the drain
course though the midst of the heavy center sill, I would presume the
the drain would exit on the other side of the sill in some fashion- h-
mmm.

There are a number of holes for securing important braces and hold
downs to be drilled where no dimples, or directions actually show the
way. This was more daunting in theory than reality, and by studying
the photos, things become pretty obvious.

Both Bill and Ted (and the kit directions!) take considerable pains
to point out the absolute necessity of drilling the holes for X band
tightener rods toward the far outboard edges on the top bulkhead end
frames. They are not kidding! If the tank that you have fabricated is
over-size, the problems here are increased. To forestall problems, I
first temporarily installed the tank into the frame and with a sharp
pencil marked the outline the tank end on the frame. Because these
ends also have some pretty obvious detailing on their outer faces that
visually line up with the X band rods, there is a overwhelming desire
to "fudge" and not drill out far enough. Resist the temptation!.
Important: Note also that Ted notes that these end details have a
definite orientation- not noted in the directions- and making this
distinction is cosmetically important.

I Barge-cemented some sheet lead in the tank for weight, and selected
Kadee trucks (Reboxx wheels) for added weight. I installed Accumate
Proto couplers and PSC brass air hose brackets and hoses.

I have yet to install the hand-railing, and some other pesky small
details. Painting will be Amtrak Platinum Mist, with the kit's red
lettering. The real challenge will be to effectively weather and age
a model of a car of composite construction that has more details
sticking up and out than a porcupine.

This is by far the most difficult kit that I have ever put together.
It took as much patience as skill, and it sopped up the same time that
I would have ordinarily devoted to building four or five more
conventional prototype models- if not more.

However the final result speaks for itself: it is a spectacular model.

Denny









Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: Wright Trak M53/M53A

Jim King
 

Robert,

Yes, Gary Wright told me he sold out the first run (78 kits) in just a few hours and could have sold more up until late Saturday afternoon. I'm now making another 100 and, based on our chat yesterday, at least 50 are already spoken for. He'll be at Milwaukee's Train Fest next weekend. After that show, he'll have time to regroup and start filling orders via mail.

The M53/M53A has been HUGELY popular; far more than we originally thought, which is a good problem to have. Even my S scale version has sold 167 which is great for the "secret scale".

Jim King
SMMW

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, <rfederle@...> wrote:

Jim,

Since I couldn't make it to Naperville, I appreciate the production sample pics you sent. I think the detail is superb and I dont see the problem with the ladders or any of the detail for that matter. The size of the photos show far more than will be seen on the track (especially in HO) but I would say you have done a great job.

From what I understand sales went well at the show. Suppose I'll have to get my order in. Congratulations on a job well done.

Robert Federle
---- Jim King <jimking3@...> wrote:
Tim,



Then if you have a suggestion for an accurate ladder, I'll give it serious
thought to replacing the ladder rails with 4 dimples to drill for a molded
ladder.



Jim King

Smoky Mountain Model Works, Inc.

<http://www.smokymountainmodelworks.com>







Re: NYC box car that went far...

Robert kirkham
 

Hi Ross, that's not an area I know much about yet. Have you found a source that demonstrates the movement of empty USA cars into Canada for lumber loading? To what era does it apply?

I don't have any trouble accepting the idea, for example, that the GN in southern B.C. sent ore cars north to serve a GN serviced mine. But I have not seen any clear explanation of how a US carrier could send its empty cars north from the USA to, for example, a west coast lumber mill port served by car ferry or barge. To achieve that, they would be sending the empty car a lot of miles over other people's railways and railroads all to secure the load. And potentially incurring customs fees too. Then the fees for sending it to a customer would not necessarily see the car travel over the railway's own track - especially if the route involved re-directing cars to new consignees as it went.

I can, on the other hand, see a railway negotiating with customers who wanted to move lumber to their on-line site trying to negotiate the routing with the customer and supplying a car order and waybill to the railway that was near where the load was to be picked up. But I suspect that is where their control might end, and the cars supplied by the nearest carrier would be what they had on hand. In BC that would often be Canadian railway cars until at least WWII (when things changed for a time) and some years after.

I'd be happy to be shown how this misunderstands the economic factors, the on-the-ground happenings an the tariff walls etc. But I've not seen anything directly on the subject before.


Your comments on bonded and sealed cars moving through Canada east and west did remind me of the answer for the short cut traffic through Southern Ont., thanks!

Rob Kirkham

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ross McLeod" <cdnrailmarine@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:08 AM
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] NYC box car that went far...






Of course, if rules were followed, the choice of route and destination were limited
because of tariffs and other regs. re crossing the border.

US freight tariffs permitted many overhead routings thru Canada, inconnection with a thru rating all authorized routings/gateways had the same price.
One of the rules I don't have any insight into is how the "shortcut" for US traffic heading between the Atlantic seaboard and the Mid-West across southern Ontario was dealt with in terms of customs tariffs etc.

Handled "In Bond", Seals intact, Customs manifest required for both countries.
US cars in British Columbia:
Lumber from British Columbia went to many destinations in the USA, from many origins, to many destinations, multiple routing choices, lumber was either sold direct by the producer or by lumber traders selling cars on the roll, there were a multiple of factors that made this business line more complex than the routing/shipping patterns of other commodities that were pretty straight forward after the first shipment. Lumber for the most part moved as single car shipments, multiple gateway/routing choices meant an opportunity for any railroad to participate in the routing by route solicitation or car supply (by agreement with the originating carrier). Lots of competition/interest for this business between the railroads. Foreign cars seen in Canada in some cases were specifically supplied empty for lumber loading. US railroads had "offline" traffic offices in Vancouver or Seattle to target this business. Lumber was a highly competitive business requiring
much more resources to service than other lines of business.

I am not suggesting that the NYC car was sent to BC for loading, just that not every foreign car seen in BC moved loaded into the province, some were supplied empty for loading.

Ross McLeod Calgary


__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

http://www.flickr.com/gift/




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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: 8 Hatch Canadian Reefers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
Like Tony, I was mislead by the ORER listing showing "steel underframe" reefer. This is usually code for "wood sided car" in the ORER. In the GT listings the brine reefers are listed that way, and the AAR car type is RAMH too. I didn't look at note JJ in the ORER that finally tells you the cars had 8 overhead ice hatches.
But evidently not the all-steel ones. GTW's parent CN did have all- steel 8-hatch cars and so listed them.

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: [CDN-frt-cars-n-ops] 8 Hatch Canadian Reefers

brianleppert@att.net
 

Everyone on this list who is also a member of the Southern Pacific Historical & Technical Society should remember the Fall 2002 issue of the SP Trainline magazine that had a very good article on the Salt Lake Division. Included therein was a reproduction of a switch list for freight train 2-563, Imlay to Sparks, Nevada (west bound), on May 5, 1944.

Included in this train is CN #209636, an eight-hatch reefer built in 1942. It was loaded with fish and destined to San Francisco, CA. Handling instructions for this car was "DNR"--do not re-ice.

Brian Leppert
Carson City, NV

100081 - 100100 of 186156