Date   

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


Re: Atlas 1932 ARA Clinchfield car

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

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


Re: Atlas 1932 ARA Clinchfield car

pierreoliver2003 <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Richard,
With tongue firmly planted in cheek,

Is it NMRA Standards or Reccommended Practices?
I had a similar grouse with the Life Like Simplex bolster trucks and
was firmly but kindly reminded of the distinction on this forum.

Sharing your pain,
Pierre Oliver




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: HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4

Paul Hillman
 

A final note by me:

Found the engine in question on the Bachmann site and it's due in 2009. No info about it's construction materials sources.

Always wanted a 5000 Class, but brass was too expensive at the times, but it would be an inspiration for me to increase my fleet of steam-era ATSF steel reefers, and watch them roll by behind this engine.

Thanks, Paul Hillman

----- Original Message -----
From: David North<mailto:davenorth@optusnet.com.au>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:28 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4


Good exploration, Ben, but as I said, "not seen on the Bachmann website . .
." I didn't say you
couldn't find it ANYwhere on the web.
SGL

The model Ben pointed to is the old version from Bachmann, with the NYC
tender.

Bachmann recently advised a re-release with the tender from their SF
Northern (I believe).

I think they are still using the body from their Northern.

http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/products.php?searchStr=2-10-4<http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/products.php?searchStr=2-10-4>
<http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/products.php?searchStr=2-10-4&act=vi<http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/products.php?searchStr=2-10-4&act=vi>
ewCat> &act=viewCat

cheers

Dave


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

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Folks;



While I know that the P&LE also did a stretch job on some of their
40-footers, the PRR never tried it. Since the PRR had big problems with even
their 40-foot box cars bowing (the '44 AAR cars they got were especially
bad), they seem not to have wanted to go down that road. I suspect after
seeing some files earlier this year, that the use of their 40-foot boxes for
forklifted coil steel shipments was causing a lot of the problem.



Like you stated earlier, the last 40-footers, (X46) built in the early 50's,
were meant for special shipments (appliances and the like), and were not
numerous. They were vastly over-shadowed by the many new classes of
50-footers. The early "lightweight" 50-footers (X41, X44, X45) turned out to
be weak, and were not repeated. After the lightweight X45's, the solution to
the bowing problem was to stop buying AAR designs and add a big, heavy
channel side sill to all new designs.



Elden Gatwood



________________________________

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
water.kresse@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:39 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] from 40' 6' to 50' 6" box cars



Garth,

The C&O bought plug-in kits in the late-50s from Youngston Steel Co (blt up
in southern Indiana ?) to stretch 40-ft cars into 50-ft cars (mostly P-S 1's)
at their Raceland and Wyoming Shops.

Al

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Garth G. Groff" <ggg9y@virginia.edu <mailto:ggg9y%40virginia.edu> >
Al,

How about customer preferences? On the Western Pacific (admittedly not a
mid-western or eastern road), 50' boxcars became the norm by the mid to
late 1950s due to customer demand. WP 50-footers were largely used for
auto parts and for lumber. In both cases, it was not only car size, but
also large door openings which were handy for forklifts, that made these
cars attractive to shippers. Once the WP (and subsidiaries Sacramento
Northern and Tidewater Southern) began buying 50' PS-1s in 1954, they
never looked back at 40' cars, except for a few specialized cars for
appliance loading (which might again have been customer preference).
Indeed, in the early 1960s, many of WP 40' PS-1s were returned to
Pullman for lengthening (but that's beyond the STMFP boundaries). ;-)

Kind regards,

Garth G. Groff

al.kresse wrote:
Folks,

Do we have the short list of key reasons (such as market and
technology) for the shifting of "standard" NEW and REBUILT steel box
cars becoming 50-ft vs previously 40-ft box cars after WW2 and into the
fifties? Especially in the midwest and east?

Al Kresse


Re: HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4

David North <davenorth@...>
 

Good exploration, Ben, but as I said, "not seen on the Bachmann website . .
." I didn't say you
couldn't find it ANYwhere on the web.
SGL



The model Ben pointed to is the old version from Bachmann, with the NYC
tender.



Bachmann recently advised a re-release with the tender from their SF
Northern (I believe).

I think they are still using the body from their Northern.

http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/products.php?searchStr=2-10-4
<http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/products.php?searchStr=2-10-4&act=vi
ewCat> &act=viewCat



cheers

Dave


Re: HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4

Paul Hillman
 

Oops!! Apology to Mike Brock & group. I thought I'd posted this to the Steam Loco Group, but thanks for all of the inputs.

The HistoricRail photo is of a #5026 ATSF 2-10-4. Says, "Newly Tooled", die-cast boiler etc. Never bought from HistoricRail but get their catalogs. They often don't list the manufacturer of models. Will try to call them again later. They list it for $169.00. Want to check out the maker's info first.

Thanks, Paul Hillman

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Stull<mailto:winslow7076@yahoo.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4


Paul;Go to Bachmanns website, http://www.bachmanntrains.com<http://www.bachmanntrains.com/> , go to the products tab, Ho Scale, Steam Engines, and in the product or keyword search, type in 2-10-4. That will call up 4 versions scheduled for delivery in '09.Steve StullWinslow 7076Who currently makes an, HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4 ?I searched google, etc., and can't find any current maker of one. Anyone know? Thanks, Paul Hillman


Naperville handout

jerryglow2
 

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 Glow
The Villages FL
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/


Re: Instructions for Sunshine 78.7

Jim & Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

The Soo/WC sawtooth box would be kits 78.1,78.2, or 78.3

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Lawler
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:46 AM
To: Steam Era Freight Cars Group
Subject: [STMFC] Instructions for Sunshine 78.7

Hi all,

I have a friend that needs instructions for Sunshine kit 78.7 which is
the Soo/WC Saw Tooth box car. The kit he purchased contains incorrect
instructions (we believe) which were for SS CB&Q, SL-SF cars. Maybe
these are the instructions that are suppose to come with this kit but
that would seem kind of weird to not mention the Soo/WC cars. If anyone
has this kit that and would be willing just to scan the instructions and
send them to me then that would be greatly appreciated.

All responses off list please.

Thanks,

Tom Lawler




E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.1.322)
Database version: 5.11050e
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor/

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Atlas 1932 ARA Clinchfield car

Richard Hendrickson
 

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"...

destron@...
 

Yeah, of the stock cars I hadn't yet started - I was sticking with boxcars
for the moment - I have photos of Quebec Central, PGE and other Canadian
Fowler stock cars, too.

But you did remind me that there's the PGE cars, too. The January 1953
ORER listing only mentions 3510 and 3511, but I have a scan of a photo (I
think from a CBC) of #3529 that clearly shows a Fowler. I don't know what
the full number series was, as nothing is listed for the PGE in the April
1942.

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC

I won't begin to claim any deep knowledge of Fowler cars, but I noted the
list was missing Pacific Great Eastern. Their ORER listing in Jan. 1948
says:"freight cars owned are only used in switching service with direct
connections";
an earlier listing (Oct. 1937) states "cars are not employed in interstate
commerce".. I have four shots of PGE stock cars (555, 562, 575 & 588),
all of
which look like Fowler cars.
Rich Burg
**************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all
other
Holiday needs. Search Now.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from
-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)





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

Yahoo! Groups Links




!DSPAM:1291,4912561489286650712301!

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC


Re: HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4

Steve Stull
 

Paul;Go to Bachmanns website, http://www.bachmanntrains.com  , go to the products tab, Ho Scale, Steam Engines, and in the product or keyword search, type in 2-10-4. That will call up 4 versions scheduled for delivery in '09.Steve StullWinslow 7076Who currently makes an, HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4 ?I searched google, etc., and can't find any current maker of one. Anyone know? Thanks, Paul Hillman




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


Re: HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4

tyesac@...
 

Paul,

Santa Fe had 4 separate groups of 2-10-4's, two were "one of a kind(s)";
?
3829, the world's first 2-10-4, built by Baldwin based upon the?3800 class 2-10-2 design, and?has been done in brass by Key, and recently in?plastic by Broadway Limited???

5000 "Madame Queen" 1929 Baldwin,?done by Hallmark models and recently by Coach Yard in several rebuilt versions.? The prototype 5000 is currently cosmetically restored and on display in Ammarillo,TX

The 5001 class (5001-5010) Baldwin 1938, with 74" drivers, done in brass by Westside Models as part of the
big three set, and again by Hallmark as a "Super Crown" in various versions in both HO & N scale.

5011 class (5011-5035)?Baldwin 1944-45, again with 74" drivers 56' tenders, several runs by PFM as a Tenshado "crown" & PFM United,?Hallmark Super Crowns, and most recently Global Imports.?This class was also done in O scale way back.

The Bachman 2-10-4 is a poor earlier?attempt at the 5011 class using the 3776/2900 class boiler casting and the NYC 4-8-4 centipeed tender.? Any of the other offerings would be a far better choice.

In the interest of this discussion group, the Madame Queen is conceptually more of?a "super power Bershire" with the benefit of an extra driver and more boiler HP.? Operationally, it helped?the shift from the drag freight era to high speed freight movement.??When new, the?freight cars seen behind?Madame Queen?would more likely be older 1920's built steel framed composite cars.? Only it's arrival on the eve of the Depression prevented follow-on orders.? The 5001's & 5011's are conceptually more of an oversized 4-8-4 and were known?for their speed and power.? Their "signature freight train" would be long strings of?reefers, mostly steel ice cooled reefers.?

Tom Casey?????

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul & Bernice Hillman <chris_hillman@msn.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 7:10 pm
Subject: [STMFC] HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4






Who currently makes an, HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4 ?

I got an, "Historic Rail", catalog in the mail today and on the back
cover there is one shown, but no manufacturer, as they often don't
list. I couldn't get them by phone tonight.

I searched google, etc., and can't find any current maker of one.
Anyone know?

Thanks, Paul Hillman


Atlas 1932 ARA Clinchfield car

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

I'm posting this as a public service advisory. I wanted to finish off my
Clinchfield 1932 ARA car for my layout tonight. I already changed the triple
valve, cut levers, reweigh and re pack date, and added PSC air hoses and
brackets.

The only thing left was to change the trucks to spring plankless trucks,
(the car comes with 50 ton spring plank trucks) so I grabbed a pair of P2k
trucks I had left over. It turns out Atlas doesn't use the same standard
bolster as other freight car so I had to remove material from the inside of
the truck screw hole. Also, Atlas trucks sit higher than normal trucks so I
had to add Kadee fiber washers to get the car to sit at the right height.
The washers also had to have the hole enlarged to fit over the bolster.
Finally, Atlas uses a shouldered (not sure if that is the right word) screw
that will not snug down to the P2k truck, and the 3/16 screws I have are too
long, so I have to get other screws. 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 J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


Re: HO ATSF 5000 Class 2-10-4

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Good exploration, Ben, but as I said, "not seen on the Bachmann website . . ." I didn't say you
couldn't find it ANYwhere on the web.

SGL

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
"Hmmm. Not seen on the Bachmann website, nor on Rivarossi . . ."

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of
in your philosophy:
http://www.ho-scaletrains.net/bachmannhoscalelocomotives/id55.html <http://www.ho-
scaletrains.net/bachmannhoscalelocomotives/id55.html>

Ben Hom


Re: Protowest/Sunshine AAR flatcar

Dennis Williams
 

I can scan you a copy tomorrow. Someone was asking about #78.7 which don't exist.  Do you have any info on this kit??  D.

--- 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


Re: Protowest/Sunshine AAR flatcar

Jim & Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

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

108341 - 108360 of 185181