Date   

SC&F Tank Cars/response from jon

Jon Cagle <jscagle@...>
 

Jim Hayes Wrote" "The small rods on the under boards are locaters" Jim and all: Initially yes, but disregard. You don't really need these. ONce the "origami" has taken place with steps you can just glue them into place. I believe I over engineered the rod/pin/hole/placement. Jim you are fine in getting rid of the parts. It's much easier. As for the decals, initially the car is released with Spencer Kellog, other road names to follow. As for the web site: Yes, it's coming along. I am a pattern maker, not a web site designer, big hurdle for me to get over. Working on this. John Miller; disregard old web site and go with what the group is telling you. The 2 cars that are available are the 2 compartment car (GATX), and the 6 course Radial Car. $49.00 each, plus $7.50 shipping handling up to 3 kits. If you need lots of tanks, I offer a bakers dozen, buy 12 get 13. Of course it would have been much easier if you would have just shown up at Cocoa! Weather was great and great time was had by all. We expect you next year though, it will be Mike's 10th anniversary bash. I hear he is renting a Gulfstream III to fly around the country and pick people up. He got a bailout from the Gov't ! Thanks for the kind words. jonsc&f


Re: Alco marine boilers via rail - was Bruce Smith's boiler

Donald B. Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Karl Peters <krlpeters@...> wrote:

Don:
 
Without looking at the photos you mentioned I cannot be sure, but
from your description, they are of the back of the boiler, and the
flue like progections are the staybolts that brace the combustion
chamber that connects the furnace and the flues.
 
The large circular holes you mention are the actual furnaces.

That is highly is highly possible but courtesy of Bruce, Greg
Martin and Richard Hendrickson I now have photos of both sides of
Bruce's model and the NYC prototype flat car with load. They tell me
that the four boilers I have photos of in the CPR train vary somewhat
from Bruce's model. I'm out the door within an hour or two until a
week from tomorrow or Wednseday but will try to scan my two photos
and get them into the archives upon my return to see what others
think. Should I take them with me to the ARS in Springfield, Mass.
next weekend?

Take care, Don Valentine


Re: PSCC hopper article in Model Railroad Hobbyist

Donald B. Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Payne" <1payne1@...> wrote:

The CV hopper in the Model Railroad Hobbyist is based on a Bowser
model, and the author (Marty McGuirk) says that the thing that the
most significant thing that scream "Pennsy" are the tapered side
posts. I, on the other hand, find that the end sills look wrong,
too
deep and too tall, extending below the bottom of the side sills.
Another author (I searched for the article in RMC and couldn't find
it, maybe it was in MR) corrected the depth issue by sawing off and
reattaching the end sill, but it still extended below the level of
the
side sills. A quick measurement shows the end sills to be about 11"
tall, versus maybe 7.5" for the side member (rough measures, sorry!)
There are a number of non-USRA hoppers that could be modeled using
the
Bowser kit, including those manufactured by SSCC (and Cambria??) by
removing these Pennsy-specific details. I will try replacing the
end
sill with square styrene stock. I also see six grabs on my
prototype,
that may (or may not) be more common with the PSCC/SSCC cars.
The article has re-kindled my interest in these cars, thanks!

Dean Payne
Hello Dean,

A number of us have looked at the Pennsy hopper for conversion to
both the earlier Rutland hoppers and the central Vermont hoppers.
Alas, it is at best a stand-in that for some will at least pass the
three foot rule but for others just doesn't make it.

Regards, Don Valentine


Re: Model Rail Hobbyist

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
Not quite sure what you're grousing about, Tony. I mean, Adobe Reader 9 is free, easily available, and an improvement over its predecessor versions.
I don't mind downloading Adobe Reader 9, in fact I've done so, but it won't work with Mac OS 10.4.10 (latest one I have). This means (at least for Mac users) that only the newest OS can run the reader that handles MRH. That's what I mean by NOT reaching an awful lot of the public, which I think is a funny way to do a magazine.

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


film short

Westerfield <westerfield@...>
 

Turner Classic Movies is premiering a 1921 short at midnight ET tonight about NYC inclding bridges and rail yards. I'll be recording it. - Al Westerfield


Re: Automobile Car Shortage

James D Thompson <jaydeet@...>
 

Looking in the 1919 CBC
at what H&B was building for other railroads, I/m not entierly sure
that in 1917 H&B was equipped to build a steel framed car... This was
right at the end of the transition period from wood to steel
construction, and H&B was by no means a major builder.
Looking through the H&B lot list Eric Neubauer published a while back, H&B's first all-steel order was a batch of hoppers for CTH&SE in 1913 (although they had some steel center sill/steel frame orders going back to 1910), and H&B's general business seems to have picked up quite a bit at the same time that B&S went into their steady demise.

David Thompson


Re: Automobile Car Shortage

Dennis Storzek
 

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

Dennis Storzek wrote:
Meanwhile the freightcar business went to H&B. Looking in the 1919
CBC
at what H&B was building for other railroads, I/m not entierly sure
that in 1917 H&B was equipped to build a steel framed car...
Dennis, if you look at the builder photos from H&B in Ed
Kaminski's book on Pullman-Standard, you'll see a whole bunch of
steel-framed cars built by H&B well before 1917.

Tony Thompson
Thanks, Tony. Just got back... was running freight trains for twelve
hours in 1955 today... ALL STEAM!!! Well, I did see some of those
diseasel critters starting to encroach on the yard jobs, but the
mainline is still secure :-)

I also see that I omitted my entire first paragraph from my reply
somehow as I rushed to send it and get out the door, but it reads OK
just the same... score one for brevity.

I actually hadn't given this issue much thought in recent years and
answered off the top of my head, also haven't had a chance to peruse
Kamenski's H&B book. I based my supposition on what was shown in the
1919 CBC as reprinted as Train Shed No. 35. Looking at it again, I see
there is exactly ONE Haskell & Barker boxcar shown; a Great Northern
car, which is almost an exact duplicate of the cars the Soo received,
complete with the double sheathed wood ends with the little horizontal
truss rods to stiffen the end posts. So, I suppose that I based my
theory on an inadequate sized sample. But given the background story,
it still appears that those cars were purchased because someone really
wanted to do business with H&B, either because AC&F's capacity was all
booked and H&B had shop time, or these were an order someone else
declined and they were available cheap. Either way, this order seemed
to get H&B's foot in the door, so to speak, something which they
really capitalized on a couple years later, to AC&F's detriment.

As it was, because these cars were so short lived, back when there
were less prototype resources available, this series always seemed to
be "missing"; no photos, no surviving diagram sheets, no record of why
the whole series was just gone. Now we have a lot more data about the
cars, but nothing concrete about the reasons that led to the decision
to buy essentially obsolete cars after four years of buying steel
frame SS cars. The Soo Society now has boxes of AFE files we are
working through, but they seem to only go back to about 1920, so no
help there.

But, we search on.

Dennis


Re: SC&F Tank Car

Jim and Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

They are $49 each plus shipping. The 6-course 8K gallon and 2 dome cars are available now. He has an ad in the Feb. RMC. Jon told me that he has a new website almost ready to go and we may see it in about 2 weeks. Jon also told me that in addition to Spencer Kellogg, the 6-course kit is also available with NATX, UTLX, VENX, & AE Staley decals. Email him for details.

Jon Miller wrote:

I just check the site and nothing yet appears on the tanks!


Re: SC&F Tank Car

Jim and Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

I just remembered a source for lots of Standard Tank Car prototype data. Ted's Steam Era Freight Cars Reference Manual Volume Two:Tank Cars contains almost 20 pages of photos of STC cars.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon


Re: railroad film

Jim Betz
 

"Other Men's Women" has lots of steam era freight car content.
- Jim Betz
--
****************************************************************************
*** If you love movies and trains check out Yahoo group MovieTrains ***
****************************************************************************


Re: SC&F Tank Car

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

I just check the site and nothing yet appears on the tanks!

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


SC&F Tank car

Jim and Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

My first mistake? Under the corners of the walkway were some small pins. Some were broken off so I trimmed the rest off thinking they were just some casting leftovers. Wrong! I think they are meant to be locators for the stirrup steps.So, be careful and don't remove them unless you're sure it's the right thing to do. It's too late for me to go back and do a trial fit.

Jim Hayes Portland Oregon


Re: PSCC hopper article in Model Railroad Hobbyist

Dean Payne
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Payne" <1payne1@...> wrote:

The CV hopper in the Model Railroad Hobbyist is based on a Bowser
model, and the author (Marty McGuirk) says that the thing that the
most significant thing that scream "Pennsy" are the tapered side
posts. I, on the other hand, find that the end sills look wrong, too
deep and too tall, extending below the bottom of the side sills.
Another author (I searched for the article in RMC and couldn't find
it, maybe it was in MR) corrected the depth issue by sawing off and
reattaching the end sill, but it still extended below the level of the
side sills. A quick measurement shows the end sills to be about 11"
tall, versus maybe 7.5" for the side member (rough measures, sorry!)
There are a number of non-USRA hoppers that could be modeled using the
Bowser kit, including those manufactured by SSCC (and Cambria??) by
removing these Pennsy-specific details. I will try replacing the end
sill with square styrene stock. I also see six grabs on my prototype,
that may (or may not) be more common with the PSCC/SSCC cars.
The article has re-kindled my interest in these cars, thanks!

Dean Payne
I found the article written by what I described above as "...another
author...", it is in the October 2007 MR, written by Bob Karig. He is
a hopper modeler of no small talent, I was very impressed when I saw
his work in person, which included grafting an additional several
inches on top of some Accurail USRA hoppers: the seam was expertly
hidden! The hopper in the October 2007 MR was a "minimalist kitbash",
retaining the cast-on grabs. In fact, the "prototype" (his was
lettered for the fictional Turtle Creek Central) is a car produced by
the Cambria Steel Car Company (see! Some of my brain cells are still
intact!) It had 5 grabs, like the GLa, but differed somewhat in some
other details that wouldn't be appropriate to correct in a "minimalist
kitbash".
There is also a super-detailed USRA hopper in that issue, which will
give you some idea of Bob Karig's capabilities.

Dean Payne


SC&F Tank Car

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Well, Mike inquires, and yes, as we speak, I am on the verge of finishing the frame of the single dome tank. In my experience with cast resin car kits, this is a most sophisticated and complete kit, one of the best I have yet dealt with. Jon Cagle: you are a fine model builder, and this kit production certainly cements this opinion.

The resin castings have the sharpness and clarity that one usually associates with good styrene moldings- and there are some fine special styrene moldings to boot. Richard Hendrickson in enclosed notes opines that the kit is best for experienced model builders, and it probably is, but- so far I have encountered nothing that patient deliberate skill cannot overcome.

Inasmuch as the frame, with all of its appurtenances, multitudinous details, brake gear, saddles, anchors, trucks, wheels, etc. will be out in full view, meticulous attention to detailing is required, and the kit provides most of the means to do so.

Observations to date:

1) Just as God intended, the very narrow long shanks of Kadee #78 semi-scale couplers fully reside within the walls of the ends of the center sill with a pretty ingeneous installation (I do not know whether or not the centersill is actually scale width, but if not, it certainly has to be close). With couplers and striker plates installed, it looks great, especially after the magnetic glad hands have been cut off flush (:-)).

The price paid for this is that the coupler can have only very limited swing through the narrow striker plate opening, further limited by the unusually long, and fully recessed #78 shank. There is a centering spring, but its efforts seem to be ineffectual, and I am not certain that it could not be left out. This limitation of coupler swing does not bother me at all, but it may create potential operational problems for others.

2) The directions suggest that the coupler covers be glued on. I have never trusted glued covers, and I have a lot of miserable experience over the years that underlies this mistrust. Instead, I tapped a 00-90 hole through the coupler posts and the covers (there is a dimple on the post to assist you), and then countersunk the cover by hand with the tip of a larger drill so that a 00-90 1/8" flat head screw could settle down with the head absolutely flush. When I ACC'd some etched brass strips along the lower lips of the sill ends, I had to be careful to not accidentally glue them to the coupler cover. The couplers are now fully removable.

3) With the coupler shanks fully recessed, the head right up to the striker plate, a full prototypical striker-to-striker distance of c. 33" is achieved, only a few inches beyond the prototype 29-31" standard. Because of how the #78 head is shaped, I do not believe a closer distance could be achieved. The cumulative effect of a train of fine cars coupled with prototype distances between can be, and is magical.

3) No trucks are specified. Taking a clue from the single prototype photo, I chose on-hand Accurail Andrews trucks, with Reboxx 1.025" semi scale wheels. This length gives an excellent balance between fine rollability and minimal end play (the latter an especially important issue with the coupler arrangement outlined above). Single truck 0.015" red washers bring the couplers to ideal height. That the Accurail truck is reported to be dead-on accurate as to all major dimensions seems to make it a good choice.

4) I will be finishing up frame details in the next day or so, but I have already been looking at the tank, primarily to determine weight- because once the tank is closed up, there will be no place for any added weight. Weight is not addressed in the instructions. However, I weighed everything and the assembled tank car (as is with trucks, etc. ) promises to weigh in at c. 1.8oz, far below the 3.5oz. target for a car of this length in the the NMRA RPs. I will be looking through my cache of spent uranium to remedy the problem, fastening any added weight to the interior of the tank with Barge Cement.

The instructions are very complete, and included are an unusually large array of very helpful photos of the car under construction. A minor disappointment: only one photo of the prototype car.



Denny













Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: Tidewater Southern general service gondola

Mark Pierce <marcoperforar@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

Mark, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the five cars
of
the TS 501-505 series were, in fact, delivered new in 1958 and
were
70 ton cars with an inside length of 45'10". The Western Pacific,
which owned the Tidewater Southern and the Sacramento Northern,
ordered 100 cars in 1958 from AC&F; 5 went to the TS, 10 to the
SN,
and the remaining 75 to parent WP. Unfortunately, Red Caboose is
notorious for making highly accurate models and then painting and
lettering them not only for the railroads that owned the
prototypes
but also for every other railroad that owned anything even
remotely
similar. Thus what you now have is, at best, a very loose stand-
in
for the prototype TS cars. AFAIK, there have never been any
accurate
HO models for these 45'10" IL drop bottom gondolas (or the similar
cars owned by the D&RGW).
Thanks for the info, Richard. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the
first time Red Caboose has "done this" to me.

Mark Pierce


Re: Tidewater Southern general service gondola

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jan 18, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Mark Pierce wrote:

I just completed assembly of an HO-scale general service (GS) gondola
by Red Caboose lettered for the Tidewater Southern, #205. I was
surprised to see a built date of March 1958 and a capacity of 70 tons.
The car's (prototype) design is old and railroads having similar, but
older models, had a 50-ton capacity. Red Caboose uses the same parts
for their SP & UP-lettered models. So, I wonder, is the model lettered
correctly? was the prototype really built brand new in 1958? or is
it a
rebuilt, upgraded car? Thanks!









Mark, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the five cars of
the TS 501-505 series were, in fact, delivered new in 1958 and were
70 ton cars with an inside length of 45'10". The Western Pacific,
which owned the Tidewater Southern and the Sacramento Northern,
ordered 100 cars in 1958 from AC&F; 5 went to the TS, 10 to the SN,
and the remaining 75 to parent WP. Unfortunately, Red Caboose is
notorious for making highly accurate models and then painting and
lettering them not only for the railroads that owned the prototypes
but also for every other railroad that owned anything even remotely
similar. Thus what you now have is, at best, a very loose stand-in
for the prototype TS cars. AFAIK, there have never been any accurate
HO models for these 45'10" IL drop bottom gondolas (or the similar
cars owned by the D&RGW).

Richard Hendrickson


STMFC railroad films

gary laakso
 

Santa Fe 2-10-10-2s are featured in the Hazards of Helen series of 1915-16 and VINTAGE freight cars! I was amazed that those huge articulates did, in fact, move! Now, back to my 1937 GN boxcar kits and adding more grabs to my Westerfield GN trussrod boxcar kits..

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Westerfield
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 1/18/2009 3:36:06 PM
Subject: [STMFC] railroad films


John Riddell suggests that I prepare a list of films of interest to the list members. There's no need. The current mailing of Historic Rail (www.HistoricRail.com) lists almost all of them - 36. Listed as The Steel Highway, its real name is Other Men's Women, the best combination of rr and models ever filmed. Other early ones I've seen and recommend are The Silk Express, The Hurricane Express serial (lots of fights on top of box cars) and Phantom Express. Except for Hurricane the prices are kind of steep. You may want to check Amazon for used copies. The Silk Express pops up on TCM occasionally, as does Other Men's Women. I obtained Phantom from an independent source, perhaps Sinister Cinema but I don't remember. - Al Westerfield


SC&F tank cars

Jim and Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

I ordered mine at Naperville and they arrived about a week ago. I dithered back and forth for several days before settling on the 2-dome car to do 1st. They are beautiful and the kit is well thought out. Having Ted Cullota's June 2008 RMC Esential Freight Cars article to hand is very helpful. So far I'm enjoying the project.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon


SC&F tank cars was ADMIN: Adobe software systems

Bruce Smith
 

On Sun, January 18, 2009 6:51 pm, Mike Brock wrote:
So, how many of you who purchased an SC&F tank car
at Cocoa Beach have built one? Opinion? I start tommorrow.
I opened the box... but there are several projects ahead of them. I think
it was Ted who coined the term for the brass sill steps - "oragami"! I
don't think that the kits are quite as simple as John's sales pitch of
"practically ready to run" and "almost builds itself" <VBG> but they sure
look like they will make into nice cars. I for one can't wait both for
other size tanks and for other lettering options!

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Alco marine boilers via rail - was Bruce Smith's boiler

krlpeters
 

Don:
 
Without looking at the photos you mentioned I cannot be sure, but from your description, they are of the back of the boiler, and the flue like progections are the staybolts that brace the combustion chamber that connects the furnace and the flues.
 
The large circular holes you mention are the actual furnaces.
 
Karl Peters

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

103721 - 103740 of 182181