Date   

Re: Re(2): PSC angle cock brackets and Hi-Tech air hoses.

Bruce Smith
 

On Thu, November 6, 2008 6:08 pm, Daiquiri St John wrote:
Jerry,
I've been questioning others about these hoses being manufactured
in Passenger car hoses. Haven't been able t find any so far. One
other question is, how do you connect them together in a consist. If
permanently attached together that's good to, however, if you wanted
to rearrange a consist how would you get them loose ??? And then,
reconnected ???

--Daiq
Daiq,

Well, to connect them, you just reach under the car, and slip the ends
together and rotate to lock. To unnconnect, just pull apart ;^).... OH!
you mean on the model... on the model they do not connect. Now, I have
heard of folks using tiny rare-earth magnets on models to connect the
hoses. Pretty cool if you ask me.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Protowest/Sunshine AAR flatcar

Dennis Williams
 

I can not scan.  Will send originals by snail mail.  Dennis

--- On Wed, 11/5/08, Jim & Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@verizon.net> wrote:

From: Jim & Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Protowest/Sunshine AAR flatcar
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 6:58 PM






Oops. I goofed. I should know better. Sunshine's 52'6" AAR flat cars are
kits 30.11-30.18 not 33.xx. Sorry for the confusion.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups. com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
Dennis Williams
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:49 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Protowest/Sunshine AAR flatcar

Jim.
  The kits that you refer to, 33.11-33.18, are not on my list.  What are
they?????  Dennis Williams 


















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


Re: Swift reefer colors

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
 

No. The yellow sides with red and white Swift emblem did not appear
until 1948 (?) or thereabouts - all I know is that is it too "modern"
for me. In the late 1930s through the war years, they had plain
yellow sides with black stenciling.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road
Guilford, CT 06437
(203) 453-6174
info@speedwitch.com


Re(2): PSC angle cock brackets and Hi-Tech air hoses.

Daiquiri St John <daiquiri@...>
 

Jerry,
I've been questioning others about these hoses being manufactured in Passenger car hoses. Haven't been able t find any so far. One other question is, how do you connect them together in a consist. If permanently attached together that's good to, however, if you wanted to rearrange a consist how would you get them loose ??? And then, reconnected ???

--Daiq

Can anyone clarify the PSC part number for the angle brackets and/or
post where they are available?

I have painted a few sets of the Hi-Tech hoses with Poly Scale Acrylic
paints and the paint holds very well. I have abused the attached part
with a pencil to show customers their resilience and I have had no
issues with paint coming off the valve or glad hand. Time will tell
but for now they appear to hold up to abuse admirably.

Jerry Jackson
Kissimmee, FL


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

Yahoo! Groups Links


--
Daiquiri St John
daiquiri@earthlink.net


NP reefer roof

Eric Carlson <etcengineer2000@...>
 

Hello group,

I am looking for help on the roof colors on Northern Pacific steel
reefer cars. I have a couple Intermountain kits that have brown roofs
but I see that Intermountain is going to release them with silver tops.
Does anyone know which is correct??

Thanks

Eric Carlson


Re: Re(2): WOW- New HO rubber freight car brake hoses

Paul Lyons
 

Daiq,



I just ot off the phone with Jimmy Booth of Hi-Tech Details. There area actually two different air hose castings. The ones I need are on the way to me. I should be able to finish a model next week in the manner I discribed in the post. I will send a photo or post one to the web site.

They should work for passenger cars.

Paul?

-----Original Message-----
From: Daiquiri St John <daiquiri@earthlink.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 6:32 pm
Subject: Re(2): [STMFC] WOW- New HO rubber freight car brake hoses







Paul,
I received your post on the STMFC Yahoogroups mailout. Good post.
I'm wondering if these hoses will do for passenger cars. I'm working
on an Amtrak passenger train consist and i hated the usual magnetic
hookup gadget under the couplers. This new airhose looks like it
might work. But...are they for passenger cars or just freight ???
And took did you take any photos of your work ??? I'd like to see
what you've done so far.

--Daiq

Andy and List,

When?I first saw them at the NMRA National show several months ago,
I was also "brown away". However, after experimenting with them for
the last two weeks, I have to say there?are some issues. The big
issue is their attachment. There is a "pin" that is part of the
moulding that I am assuming is for their attachment to the
underframe. I have not spoken to Jimmy about this because I
am?traveling?as usual, and again out of the country, but the "pin"
has some benefits and some problems. The?"pin" is located?very close
to the angle cock and thus when mounted the projection of the
hose?from the end is no where near prototypical.?Great for
operations, but?leaving a lot to be desired for prototypical
looks.?However, I have one car completed this way and it looks
pretty good. What I am presently trying to?do is "marry" these hoses
with the "new"?PSC bracket casting?and then I think we might at last
have the FINAL answer to an age old problem. The problem with trying
to mount the hose to the bracket is that the "pin" is now in the
way. I am in the process of trimimng the "pin" down to a size where
it will pop through the hole in the bracket, but not be able to back
itself out----sort of like the way Kadee attaches parts on their
PS-1. It am also trying all kinds of adheasives to see what will
work will real rubber. Any thoughts here woud be greatly
appreicated. On the completed car I used Cool Chem to mount the
noses and that seems to have worked fine, but it is one of my least
favorite glues.?I am?yet to paint them?to see if they will "hold"
paint-I have my doubts.

In closing, these are a far better idea than plastic or brass air
hose if we can make them work. Please buy some, the more folks
working on the issues the better.

Paul Lyons
Laguna Niguel, CA
--
Daiquiri St John
daiquiri@earthlink.net


Re: F&C kits

Jim & Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

WOW! A very positive review of an F&C kit. What's this world coming to?

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon

Eldon said...
I am also in process on one of F&C's PRR X26C kits, and find it to be one of
the best resin kits I have worked on. The one-piece body casting is very
nice, with no bowing or skew. The ladders and roofwalk are weak, but I
replace them regularly on most everything, so no big deal. I am looking
forward to this!


Re: Swift reefer colors

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

Guy Brooke asked:
"Thanks for the quick reply, is this the version with the Swift logo
on the right side of the car in white letters on a red rectangle?"

Yes.


Ben Hom


Re: Swift reefer colors

comox11 <gsbrooke@...>
 

Thanks for the quick reply, is this the version with the Swift logo on
the right side of the car in white letters on a red rectangle? Guy Brooke


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

On Nov 6, 2008, at 12:25 PM, comox11 wrote:

Can anyone comment on what the color of Swift reefers was just after
the 1938 cutoff on billboard schemes, and perhaps when the earliest of
the red scheme cars appeared. Thanks Guy Brooke




Yellow sides, mineral red roof and ends, black underframe and
trucks. The all-red scheme did not appear until late 1949/early 1950.

Richard Hendrickson



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


Re: Swift reefer colors

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Nov 6, 2008, at 12:25 PM, comox11 wrote:

Can anyone comment on what the color of Swift reefers was just after
the 1938 cutoff on billboard schemes, and perhaps when the earliest of
the red scheme cars appeared. Thanks Guy Brooke




Yellow sides, mineral red roof and ends, black underframe and
trucks. The all-red scheme did not appear until late 1949/early 1950.

Richard Hendrickson


Swift reefer colors

comox11 <gsbrooke@...>
 

Can anyone comment on what the color of Swift reefers was just after
the 1938 cutoff on billboard schemes, and perhaps when the earliest of
the red scheme cars appeared. Thanks Guy Brooke


Re: F&C kits

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

_ Folks;



I just finished one of the F&C B&M well flats, and have to say it was great
fun. It is a nice little kit, and is so different from what I have been
building that it was very entertaining. If you have not built one of these,
you may want to try one.



I am also in process on one of F&C's PRR X26C kits, and find it to be one of
the best resin kits I have worked on. The one-piece body casting is very
nice, with no bowing or skew. The ladders and roofwalk are weak, but I
replace them regularly on most everything, so no big deal. I am looking
forward to this!



If you have not built any F&C kits recently, you ought to pick one up. They
fill out some gaps in your fleet quite nicely.



Elden Gatwood


Re: 36' Fowler/Dominion cars and "almosts"...

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@...> wrote:

If I recall correctly, the Fowler Patent was based on a slotted hole
in the structural members which allowed boards to be
moved to "tighten up" the sheathing. Many cars (most of those
listed?) may not be true Fowler Patent Cars but simply
have the structural pattern ("sawtooth" pattern of
framing/floor/sheathing) and other architecture of the Canadian Cars....
not to say that some US cars were not built under the patents.
For our purposes the elongated screw holes are probably not a major
concern.... hidden behind the screw heads as they
are???
Charlie Vlk

I agree with Charlie on the name, which is why I like the "Dominion
car" coined by Stafford Swain and Paul Clegg, but I realize that a lot
of folks use the Dominion and Fowler names interchangeably. However,
the "sawtooth" post, crossbearer, and sidesill arrangement is totally
unrelated to the Dominion cars, and was possibly never built in
Canada. All the Canadian Dominion cars had conventional channel
section side sills, although early production did use a body bolster
that extended a couple inches below the bottom of the side sills. This
includes the 36' Dominion car copies built for the Soo line by AC&F in
1912.

The "sawtooth" design seems to have been originated by AC&F, first
used on an order of 40' cars built for the Frisco in 1913, and also an
order for the Soo Line that same year. AC&F went on to use the design
for several other roads, almost always on 40' cars.

The Soo Line liked the design enough that when they changed their car
buying allegiance to Haskell & Barker (later Pullman) they had B&B
copy the underframe design, with some changes. AC&F got another bite
at the apple in 1923, but those cars incorporated the same changes as
the H&B cars.

The CP eventually started converting some of their large fleet of 36"
Dominion cars to stockcars. When the Soo needed new stockcars, they
didn't have the large fleet of 36' steel frame boxcars to draw upon,
so they had H&B shrink the 40' boxcar framing down to 36', and these
cars bear a strong resemblance to the CP stockcars, except for the
"sawtooth" side sill. But they are really more like second cousins,
twice removed.

All of the above has been developed from roster information; I have
yet to find an article in the trade press of the day, or any company
correspondence that explains who was the proponent of this side sill
design, and what arguments they made in it's favor. If I could find
that, I'd finally be able to write an article on the cars.

Dennis


Re: Atlas 1932 ARA Clinchfield car

Ray Breyer
 

Hi guys,

This very same question popped up on the Atlas forum a couple of months ago. Atlas replied in essence, "We inherited the bolster design from the dark ages of the company, and decided to cheap out and keep it instead of retooling."

Ray Breyer


Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@opendoor.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2008, at 8:23 PM, Brian J Carlson wrote:
....What should have been a 2 minute truck
swap has turned into an hour long project, that I will have to
finish later once I get new screws. Why don't Atlas use the
> same bolster and truck mounting as other manufacturers?

Brian, I've had similar problems when changing trucks on Atlas cars.
It's a major project. A better question is, why doesn't Atlas
conform to NMRA standards with regard to bolster height and truck
mounting dimensions. Granted, the NMRA standards committee is now
little more than a bad joke, but those standards have existed for a
long time and are still followed (more or less, at least) by almost
all other manufacturers. Atlas appears to be thumbing their
collective noses at those of us who aren't content to just pop the
model out of the box and put it on the track, regardless of whether
the trucks are prototypically correct.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: 36' Fowler/Dominion cars and "almosts"...

Charlie Vlk
 

If I recall correctly, the Fowler Patent was based on a slotted hole in the structural members which allowed boards to be
moved to "tighten up" the sheathing. Many cars (most of those listed?) may not be true Fowler Patent Cars but simply
have the structural pattern ("sawtooth" pattern of framing/floor/sheathing) and other architecture of the Canadian Cars....
not to say that some US cars were not built under the patents.
For our purposes the elongated screw holes are probably not a major concern.... hidden behind the screw heads as they
are???
Charlie Vlk


Re: GM&O Naperville handout minikit

Andy Carlson
 

Ed's post reminded me that there were 2 orders of these cars. The car I have photographed was built in 1942, based on the foundry lettering on the trucks.
-Andy

--- On Thu, 11/6/08, Andy Carlson <midcentury@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

From: Andy Carlson <midcentury@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [STMFC] GM&O Naperville handout minikit
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 7:59 AM
Those who attended Naperville this year received a
mini-minikit consisting of decals, instructions and a ladder
forming jig for the GM&O '37 AAR 9 rung ladder,
single door boxcar.

On the way to my return air flight, I stopped with Al
Ferguson and Tim O' Connor to photograph a surviving
GM&O car which was conveniently located within 2 miles
of Midway airport.

I can send a digital photo of a close-up of the 9 rung
ladder to anyone requesting it. Please make the request
off-list at <midcentury@sbcglobal.net>

-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


GM&O Naperville handout minikit

Andy Carlson
 

Those who attended Naperville this year received a mini-minikit consisting of decals, instructions and a ladder forming jig for the GM&O '37 AAR 9 rung ladder, single door boxcar.

On the way to my return air flight, I stopped with Al Ferguson and Tim O' Connor to photograph a surviving GM&O car which was conveniently located within 2 miles of Midway airport.

I can send a digital photo of a close-up of the 9 rung ladder to anyone requesting it. Please make the request off-list at <midcentury@sbcglobal.net>

-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


Re: Naperville handout

Ed Hawkins
 

On Nov 6, 2008, at 5:45 AM, Jerry Glow wrote:

According to the info sheet with the handout GM&O had these cars in 2
number series (5000 and 8000) and that the ends and roof were black on
the 8000s and BC red on the 5000s. I checked the ORER and all
dimensions match. Are these series the same details? My friend and I
would like to do them as both variations if possible.
Jerry,
Both series of GM&O 1937 AAR box cars were built by AC&F. As built,
series 8000-8999 (9-40) had sides painted oxide red with black ends
roof, underframe & trucks. White stencils. Youngstown doors.

Series 5000-5683 (5-42) had sides & ends painted freight car red
(medium box car red). Black ends roof, underframe & trucks. White
stencils. All cars except 5683 had Youngstown doors. Car 5683 had
Superior doors.

All cars from both series had Equipco hand brakes & Apex r/b & b/s.

What caused these cars to be a bit unusual were the 9-rung side & end
ladders. However, the side ladders weren't the same for both groups of
cars. Series 5000-5683 had side ladders with vertical members that
extended nearly to the edge of the roof. At the top there was almost
enough distance for a 10th rung. The 8000-8999 series had shorter
vertical ladder supports that ended just above the top rung. In both
series the end ladders were the same length as the side ladders on the
8000-series cars.

Builder's photos (albeit small size) from both series were shown in the
July 1991 Railmodel Journal. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Atlas 1932 ARA Clinchfield car

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Brian J Carlson" <brian@...> wrote:

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 21:53:20 -0800, Richard Hendrickson wrote

Brian, I've had similar problems when changing trucks on Atlas cars.
It's a major project. A better question is, why doesn't Atlas
conform to NMRA standards with regard to bolster height and truck
mounting dimensions.
Richard, That is really what I meant in my poorly worded email. Most
other
manufacturers follow those standars why doesn't Atlas. I think on
some of
there early cars they did. I also need to apologize for my poor
grammer in
the email "Why don't Atlas use.." yeesh.

Brian Carlson
Actually, no. The only wisdom the NMRA has on the subject is RP-23,
last revised in August of 1961. RP-23 calls for the centerplate to be
5/16" (.3125") above the rails, with a .089" diameter hole.

The defacto industry standard for the last twenty years has been the
centerplate .290" / .300" above the rails, with a hole that provides
clearance on an 1/8" boss, .126" / .130".

What are the dimensions of the new Atlas trucks? If they are too high,
they may be doing exactly what you ask…

Dennis


Re: from 40' 6' to 50' 6" box cars

water.kresse@...
 

"Forklift-proofing" made strength and thickness an issue on box cars. Part of Lt Wt is the addition of DF-type rails. Older 40-ft box cars had bulkheads and floor coverings put in their ends and on their wooden flors to ship heavy iron castings for the auto industry.

ALL GOOD FEEDBACK! Thanks guys. NOW I have to get the C&O Rwy Cost Sheets out and determine typical 40-ft to 50-ft box purchasing cost differentials.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Anthony Thompson <thompson@signaturepress.com>
AL Kresse wrote:
I agree on the Lt Wt issue. They experimented with 0.075" thk HSLA
steels just prior to the war and then re-upped the ga. again. HSLA
(then called high tensile) steel was used in side-sheets but at the
older std thicknesses.
This is a subtle point. The stronger steel is no STIFFER, so making
it thinner makes it prone to buckling, and that's what happened to some
box cars with thinner side sheets: wrinkling, etc. This can be solved
by adding intermediate posts between the regular side posts (that's the
so-called "Alternate Center Riveting" or ACR box car design), but then
the weight of the extra posts offsets the weight saving of the thinner
steel.
This emphasizes that much of structural design, including box
cars, is based on stiffness and not on strength. The best illustration
of that is the dreadnaught end. It is trivially STRONGER than a flat
end, but greatly STIFFER. The same goes for underframes, sides and
roofs.

Anthony Thompson
Dept. of Materials Science & Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
thompsonmarytony@sbcglobal.net

108321 - 108340 of 185177