Date   

N&W 90/100-ton Gondola Class GK and GS FC Diag Shts

al.kresse <water.kresse@...>
 

Folks,

I'm looking for the post-USRA original, as-built N&W Freight CAr
Diagram sheets for the N&W's 90-ton GKs and 100-ton GS 6-wheel gondola
cars . . . . again, prefer as built, or even take as modified.

Thanks for any leads, or access to these diag shts,

Al Kresse
Romeo, MIchigan
getting snow


Re: B&O M-53 Wagon Top - any hope of a plastic model in our future?

Larry Kline
 

The O scale B&O M-53 Wagon Top is available from Rails Unlimited
http://railsunlimited.ribbonrail.com/Models/40boxcars.html

Larry Kline
Pittsburgh, PA

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Morrill" <badlands@...> wrote:

John,
Is the B&O boxcar available now? I do not find any mention of it
on the SCMW web pages.
Charlie

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mateyko" <rattler21@...>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:28 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: B&O M-53 Wagon Top - any hope of a plastic
model in ourfuture?

St. Charles Model Works has one in O scale.


LOOKING FOR

joel norman <mec-bml@...>
 

WOULD CHARLIE DUCKWORTH PLEASE E MAIL ME,ID LIKE MORE DETAIL ON HIS
GREAT LAYOUT.....
THANKS AND YOU ALL HAVE A GREAT BLESSED HOLIDAY SEASON AND A EVEN
BETTER 2009..
JOEL NORMAN


Re: B&O M-53 Wagon Top - any hope of a plastic model in our future?

Charles Morrill
 

John,
Is the B&O boxcar available now? I do not find any mention of it on the SCMW web pages.
Charlie

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mateyko" <rattler21@sbcglobal.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:28 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: B&O M-53 Wagon Top - any hope of a plastic model in our future?


St. Charles Model Works has one in O scale.




Well another year almost by us and I still would like a B&O M-53
Wagon
Top on the layout. For a steam - early diesl layout they are a must
have in a rail yard. I got my wish last year with the ART steel
reefer
being issued so perhaps there's hope.

Anybody heard any rumors of a scale B&O car being done in plastic?

Charlie
Modeling 'the Mop'
http://mopac51.tripod.com/index.html


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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: B&O wagon top in O-scale

George R. Stilwell, Jr. <GRSJr@...>
 

Couldn't find it on the St Charles web site. Please direct me to the information for ordering one.

Ray


Re: B&O M-53 Wagon Top - any hope of a plastic model in our future?

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Ben,

I agree that Sunshine or F&C's resin kits would give a superior model. I have one of the Sunshine cars (unbuilt, of course :-D ). But the original question concerned a plastic kit, and that's what Cannonball's is.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:

Garth Groff wrote:
"How about http://www.mrrwarehouse.com/ . Click on 'signature series'
at left. May not be Intermountain quality, but maybe it will do for a
stand-in until something else comes along."

Gotta agree with Brian and Jim - $29.95 for what is essentially the old Cannonball Car Shops/Red Ball kit is questionable, especially when you can spend the same amount of money for a much nicer resin kit from Sunshine or Funaro.


Ben Hom


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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Anybody have any info about Richfield's Tank Car fleet?

Miles C
 

For the sake of argument, let's start at Zero. I don't want you to make
any assumptions as to what I did and didn't research so perhaps I can
get a fuller perspective on the topic of the Richfield Tank car fleet.

How can I access ORER's? (Is there an online database, or would my
local library have them on hand?)

I live in the SF bay area, are there any good places I could visit to
research this topic?

Let's focus on available HO models OR tank car parts that could
feasibly be kitbashed to closely resemble Richfield tanks. I'll also be
willing to try resin kits and such.

-Miles


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

espeeac12 (not signing his name) wrote:
Anybody have any info about Richfield's Tank Car fleet?
I know about the Travel Town tank car, but is there any more info
out
there?
Want to tell us where you started? Have you looked at Equipment
Registers, photos in books, Wikipedia, etc.? Or starting from zero?

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: Rubber brake air hoses: a disappointment.

rustonman1 <rfederle@...>
 

I humbly retrack that post. My apologies to the group. In answer, no.
It would have been the 60's and 70's. I failed to remember what group
I was posting to.

Robert Federle

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

Robert Federle wrote:
Prototype appearances. I have sen prototype air hose knuckles
drag
over grade crossing timbers and railheads.
Was this observation in the era of this list, with 22-inch
hoses,
or more recently with 27-inch hoses?

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: Rubber brake air hoses: a disappointment.

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Robert Federle wrote:
Prototype appearances. I have sen prototype air hose knuckles drag over grade crossing timbers and railheads.
Was this observation in the era of this list, with 22-inch hoses, or more recently with 27-inch hoses?

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


SP DF B-50-22

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

Does anyone make decals for the orange and black "DF" rectangle applied to
the SP boxcars starting in the mid 1950's. Alternatively, Does anyone know
where I can locate a p2k kit for the 50' B-50-22 81574 it was lettered in
this scheme? See the bottom photo on page 271 of SP Freight Cars V 4 for a
photo.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


Any HO Richfield Tank Cars available?

Miles C
 

I've been trying to build a fleet of Richfield tank cars for my 1954
era layout and have come up without success. Bob Smaus' articles
suggest that they used whatever they could buy.

What kits would be close or accurate for any richfield oil tank cars?
(HO scale)

Is there a set of decals I can buy to letter them with?

Are there any RTR versions? I think Red Caboose might have produced a
few..but who has one they'd be willing to part with?

Where can I find data on this fleet of tank cars?

Obviously you guys are the best pool of knowledge out there for me to
tap and point me inthe right direction.

-Miles


Re: B&O M-53 Wagon Top - any hope of a plastic model in our future?

Bill Darnaby
 

Buyer beware with the old Cannonball kit. They are notorious for being too wide. Go with resin.

Bill Darnaby


Gotta agree with Brian and Jim - $29.95 for what is essentially the old
Cannonball Car Shops/Red Ball kit is questionable, especially when you
can spend the same amount of money for a much nicer resin kit from
Sunshine or Funaro.


Ben Hom


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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: Resin Casting

Westerfield <westerfield@...>
 

Earl - I started with several of those. They stand up to some use but fail quickly in production situations. - Al

----- Original Message -----
From: Earl T. Hackett
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:15 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Resin Casting


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Brechbiel" <martinwb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Earl!
> I'd only worry a
> little about flat surfaces and the novice experiencing implosion
> possibilities. I've imploded some glassware with those in my
youth...
>

When glass implodes is sends shards all over the place. Not a good
idea. Plastic just cracks and releases the vacuum. I have a
commercial vacuum chamber I've never had the nerve to use. It's a
cylinder, 12" dia x 14" high with a flat top, but only 1/8" thick,
made of some amber colored transparent plastic. I just didn't think
it looked nearly strong enough.


Re: Feed Mills

Earl Tuson
 

Don Valentine asked about:

I'm not just certain of when the changeover from box
cars to covered hoppers occurred for this inbound grain, however, and
wonder if someone can shed some light on that issue.
Regarding such things in New England, I would encourage you to take up a dialog with Dwight Smith regarding this.

�� The other issue here is grain arriving in Canadian cars. It occurs
to me that they could not be reloaded for delivery of the processed
product, i.e. grain in 100 lb. bags, to the final destination. Is
this correct?
Dwight had the foresight to, among other things, save the last two months of interchange records for the Suncook Valley Railroad prior to its abandonment in December of 1952. Included in that traffic was a fair amount of inbound feed (primarily for the extensive poultry operations in the valley.) The primary sources included H.K.Webster (which Don already mentioned; they sold Blue Seal feeds) as well as Merrimack Farmers Exchange (Bow Junction, NH,) St. Albans Grain Company (which offered the Wirthmore brand milled in the namesake town in VT,) and Eastern States Farmers Exchange (Buffalo, NY.) (A fair amount of artifacts from these companies have now been saved from the corners of my barns and my attic. Like Bill Welch with his produce labels, I am accumulating feed bags and such, some of which actually traveled on the SunVal.) Below is a list of the cars orginated from these four locations:

Date Car No. Contents From Shipper
12/8 SAL 4232 Feed Black Rock, NY ESFX
11/24 MP 32665 Feed Buffalo, NY ESFX
11/11 PRR 90785 Feed Buffalo, NY ESFX
11/8 ACL 24113 Grain Concord, NH MFX
11/19 BM 71399 Grain Concord, NH MFX
11/26 BS 6589 Grain Concord, NH MFX
11/13 CN 484497 Grain Concord, NH MFX
11/12 CN 526501 Grain Concord, NH MFX
11/7 CP 225388 Grain Concord, NH MFX
11/26 CP 227746 Grain Concord, NH MFX
11/20 DLW 52068 Grain Concord, NH MFX
12/10 DM 3090 Grain Concord, NH MFX
12/4 NKP 16499 Grain Concord, NH MFX
12/3 NYC 135931 Grain Concord, NH MFX
11/5 PRR 571427 Grain Concord, NH MFX
12/11 SOU 12499 Grain Concord, NH MFX
11/15 CN 480668 Grain Richford, VT HKW
11/15 CN 485909 Grain Richford, VT HKW
12/15 CP 222756 Grain Richford, VT HKW
11/12 CP 222966 Grain Richford, VT HKW
11/26 CP 240268 Grain Richford, VT HKW
11/5 CP 256493 Grain Richford, VT HKW
11/19 CP 258141 Grain Richford, VT HKW
11/8 CP 258690 Grain Richford, VT HKW
12/4 CP 260307 Grain Richford, VT HKW
12/10 FWD 7554 Grain Richford, VT HKW
12/6 GBW 832 Grain Richford, VT HKW
11/22 IC 31414 Grain Richford, VT HKW
11/1 MP 31486 Grain Richford, VT HKW
12/12 PRR 603949 Grain Richford, VT HKW
11/28 SAL 25128 Grain Richford, VT HKW
12/3 SP 103549 Grain Richford, VT HKW
11/26 CN 474696 Grain St. Albans, VT Wirth
11/19 CP 257626 Grain St. Albans, VT Wirth
11/12 NKP 27343 Grain St. Albans, VT Wirth
11/5 UP 100291 Grain St. Albans, VT Wirth

This list includes 36 shipments from the four mills. While none of the ESFX feed was shipped in Canadian cars, much of that grain may have been of US origin anyhow. Of the 13 MFX carloads, 4 were shipped from Bow onto the SunVal in Canadian road cars. The location of the MFX facility placed it well to conceivably receive traffic from any of the main western interchanges (CP, CV, D&H, NH, or NYC.) HKW shipped 16 carloads onto the shortline, and with its proximity to the international border, it comes as little surprise that 9 of those cars were Canadian. Wirthmore feeds came in 2 each of American road and Canadian road cars; I can only speculate here, but I belive they could have come directly from Canada or via the Rutland.

All in all, I think this argues that Canadian cars were regulary reloaded at the three northern New England mills. From my understanding from Dwight, that was in fact part of the point with milling-in-transit- it was not quite considered a stop in the cars journey to the final consignee.

Lastly, it would leave something out if I failed to mention 6 other inbound grain carloadings:

12/6 B&O 285471 Grain Coshocton, OH unk
11/26 C&O 291153 Corn Chicago, IL unk
11/4 CNW 85882 Corn Newville, PA unk
12/10 CP 183800 Oats Goderich, ON unk
11/25 CP 250119 Grain Peterboro, ON unk
12/8 CP 260881 Bran Peterboro, ON unk

Note the correspondence between country of origin and car ownership.

These cars were all destined for Fowler Brothers grain mill, a small local affair located right behind the Suncook depot. A longtime customer of the road, Fowler Bros occasionally received blended feeds from some of the other feed mills, but more often purchased grain directly. They also shipped to destinations elsewhere on the SV.

I hope that helps,
Earl Tuson


Re: Rubber brake air hoses: a disappointment.

Andy Carlson
 

I looked up EPDM, a likely injection molding compatable rubber like substance, which may be the material used for the HiTech air hoses, on the internet. It is listed as having great resistance to UV radiation (Sun light) and a tolerable range of temperature up to 120ºC. I assume this material should be a thermoplastic and I hope to perform experiments by heating up the hoses to a temp that may relax hoses enough to lose their memory, and reshaping them to the curve suitable for our expectation. I will also try to see if a shortened hose could be reattached, perhaps with Barges cement. I will get back with my results.

-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA




________________________________
From: rustonman1 <rfederle@cox.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:17:43 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Rubber brake air hoses: a disappointment.


Prototype appearances. I have sen prototype air hose knuckles drag
over grade crossing timbers and railheads. This of course while
switching and air hoses NOT connected. For prototype appearances, and
eliminate the dragging of the air hoses, they will have
to "connected". To do this in HO scale may be a feat, no matter what
the hose length.

Robert Federle

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

Paul Lyons comments-

I absolutely love these new HiTech rubber air hoses. I think
they
are far superior to anything we have had to date. Yes there are
a
few short comings. I did not realize that they are a bit
long ...
if .050" really makes a visual difference. I?seriously question
that
it?will make the difference you describe in your email. On the
other
hand, I agree,?a real short fall is that they cannot be curved
to
the prototype shape. A bit unforunate, but certainly off set by
the
pluses.

I am mounting these hoses to the PSC bracket on most models.
They
look dynamite! The two big pluses of rubber air hoses?are they
do
not break if "hit" and they do not foul the coupler if the
bracket
is not set the "perfect" distance from the end and coupler box.
The
rubber these things are made out of is so flexable, that if the
air
hose is in a?SLIGHT conflict with the coupler, the coupler will
just
"push" it out of the way. You have to see it to believe it.
I do not disagree with a good deal of what Paul says, and to a
large
extent it depends upon what else we are doing on the ends of our
cars,
and to what degree any one of us tolerates the appearance of any
particular out-of-scale detail. That the flexibility of these
rubber
hoses offers considerable cover to routine handling and coupling/
uncoupling operations is certainly true, but this feature cannot
cover
up the fact that if the hoses are mounted at the proper height off
the
railhead, they will indeed bounce over close rails, grade
crossings,
etc.- not an operational problem, certainly, but a visual
distraction.
22" vs. 27" is a relatively large difference, hard to ignore,
especially if one has taken considerable efforts to detail other
significant nearby elements (coupler, coupler shank length,
coupler
box, etc.) also to prototype measurement.

However, as in all we do when are attempting to edge closer to
precise
scale, when we do so, we are also likely to bump up against other
unforeseen issues. When I am describing the problems that I have
with
these new rubber hoses, I am not only complaining about the (to
me)
serious out-of-era, out-of-scale lengths and lack of angle, but
also
as they relate to couplers that have a semblance of scale size,
coupler boxes that have scale widths, and in particular- and most
important- couplers whose shank length approximates that of the
prototype. The latter group includes the Accumate Proto, the
Sergent,
and the Kadee #152s. Some of the short shank larger-head couplers
come closer, but the large head defeats them. The Kadee #5s and
clones, and #78s have long shanks so that perhaps these over-long
rubber hoses might reach, but will still drag on the ground unless
mounted much higher than prototype.

However the long unprototypical shanks also push the coupler head
out
far enough that with wide swings any angle cock stays well inside
out
of the way. With the short prototypical shanks, swinging coupler
heads can butt up against the angle cocks, unless some care is
taken
to specifically mount the brackets out of the way.

A brief review and measurement of coupler hoses in a variety of
steam
era cars and locomotives on museum display nearby demonstrated the
following in real time: 1) All air hoses (the hose proper, not
the
angle cock nor the glad hand) were 22" long. No exceptions.
2) The railhead clearance from the lowest tip of the glad hands
was
almost uniformly between 5" and 6", with outliers of 19" and 3".
3) All anglecocks were angled toward the car centerline.
4) The normal angle of repose of the hoses were slightly curved
almost
to the vertical in the longitudinal plane with the tip of the glad
hand resting under the coupler. In the lateral plane the angled
angle
cock already points the hose toward the centerline, so little
shaping
is required.
5) At the very tip of the brake hose, the glad hand is then angled
slightly outward toward the next car, a reflexion of the attitude
is
has taken from being attached to many other similar airhoses.
6) Not a single air hose was straight, or even close to it.

BTW, the Kadee angle cock bracket that they designed many many
years
ago for their logging cars is indexed so that their air hoses can
only
be put in at an angle- perhaps one of the very few -or only-
manufacturer that recognized this signature feature.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento






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


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


Re: Floor-level ice decks?

Douglas Harding <dharding@...>
 

Opps, just read my own message and saw a small error in the final paragraph, first line. It reads "I doubt the ice was channeled
down the chutes, ..." It should read I doubt the salt was channeled down the chutes, ...

Sorry about the error.

Doug Harding
www.iowacentralrr.org


Re: Rubber brake air hoses: a disappointment.

rustonman1 <rfederle@...>
 

Prototype appearances. I have sen prototype air hose knuckles drag
over grade crossing timbers and railheads. This of course while
switching and air hoses NOT connected. For prototype appearances, and
eliminate the dragging of the air hoses, they will have
to "connected". To do this in HO scale may be a feat, no matter what
the hose length.

Robert Federle

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

Paul Lyons comments-

I absolutely love these new HiTech rubber air hoses. I think
they
are far superior to anything we have had to date. Yes there are
a
few short comings. I did not realize that they are a bit
long ...
if .050" really makes a visual difference. I?seriously question
that
it?will make the difference you describe in your email. On the
other
hand, I agree,?a real short fall is that they cannot be curved
to
the prototype shape. A bit unforunate, but certainly off set by
the
pluses.

I am mounting these hoses to the PSC bracket on most models.
They
look dynamite! The two big pluses of rubber air hoses?are they
do
not break if "hit" and they do not foul the coupler if the
bracket
is not set the "perfect" distance from the end and coupler box.
The
rubber these things are made out of is so flexable, that if the
air
hose is in a?SLIGHT conflict with the coupler, the coupler will
just
"push" it out of the way. You have to see it to believe it.
I do not disagree with a good deal of what Paul says, and to a
large
extent it depends upon what else we are doing on the ends of our
cars,
and to what degree any one of us tolerates the appearance of any
particular out-of-scale detail. That the flexibility of these
rubber
hoses offers considerable cover to routine handling and coupling/
uncoupling operations is certainly true, but this feature cannot
cover
up the fact that if the hoses are mounted at the proper height off
the
railhead, they will indeed bounce over close rails, grade
crossings,
etc.- not an operational problem, certainly, but a visual
distraction.
22" vs. 27" is a relatively large difference, hard to ignore,
especially if one has taken considerable efforts to detail other
significant nearby elements (coupler, coupler shank length,
coupler
box, etc.) also to prototype measurement.

However, as in all we do when are attempting to edge closer to
precise
scale, when we do so, we are also likely to bump up against other
unforeseen issues. When I am describing the problems that I have
with
these new rubber hoses, I am not only complaining about the (to
me)
serious out-of-era, out-of-scale lengths and lack of angle, but
also
as they relate to couplers that have a semblance of scale size,
coupler boxes that have scale widths, and in particular- and most
important- couplers whose shank length approximates that of the
prototype. The latter group includes the Accumate Proto, the
Sergent,
and the Kadee #152s. Some of the short shank larger-head couplers
come closer, but the large head defeats them. The Kadee #5s and
clones, and #78s have long shanks so that perhaps these over-long
rubber hoses might reach, but will still drag on the ground unless
mounted much higher than prototype.

However the long unprototypical shanks also push the coupler head
out
far enough that with wide swings any angle cock stays well inside
out
of the way. With the short prototypical shanks, swinging coupler
heads can butt up against the angle cocks, unless some care is
taken
to specifically mount the brackets out of the way.

A brief review and measurement of coupler hoses in a variety of
steam
era cars and locomotives on museum display nearby demonstrated the
following in real time: 1) All air hoses (the hose proper, not
the
angle cock nor the glad hand) were 22" long. No exceptions.
2) The railhead clearance from the lowest tip of the glad hands
was
almost uniformly between 5" and 6", with outliers of 19" and 3".
3) All anglecocks were angled toward the car centerline.
4) The normal angle of repose of the hoses were slightly curved
almost
to the vertical in the longitudinal plane with the tip of the glad
hand resting under the coupler. In the lateral plane the angled
angle
cock already points the hose toward the centerline, so little
shaping
is required.
5) At the very tip of the brake hose, the glad hand is then angled
slightly outward toward the next car, a reflexion of the attitude
is
has taken from being attached to many other similar airhoses.
6) Not a single air hose was straight, or even close to it.

BTW, the Kadee angle cock bracket that they designed many many
years
ago for their logging cars is indexed so that their air hoses can
only
be put in at an angle- perhaps one of the very few -or only-
manufacturer that recognized this signature feature.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento






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


Re: Rubber brake air hoses: a disappointment.

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Paul Lyons comments-

I absolutely love these new HiTech rubber air hoses. I think they
are far superior to anything we have had to date. Yes there are a
few short comings. I did not realize that they are a bit long ...
if .050" really makes a visual difference. I?seriously question that
it?will make the difference you describe in your email. On the other
hand, I agree,?a real short fall is that they cannot be curved to
the prototype shape. A bit unforunate, but certainly off set by the
pluses.

I am mounting these hoses to the PSC bracket on most models. They
look dynamite! The two big pluses of rubber air hoses?are they do
not break if "hit" and they do not foul the coupler if the bracket
is not set the "perfect" distance from the end and coupler box. The
rubber these things are made out of is so flexable, that if the air
hose is in a?SLIGHT conflict with the coupler, the coupler will just
"push" it out of the way. You have to see it to believe it.
I do not disagree with a good deal of what Paul says, and to a large
extent it depends upon what else we are doing on the ends of our cars,
and to what degree any one of us tolerates the appearance of any
particular out-of-scale detail. That the flexibility of these rubber
hoses offers considerable cover to routine handling and coupling/
uncoupling operations is certainly true, but this feature cannot cover
up the fact that if the hoses are mounted at the proper height off the
railhead, they will indeed bounce over close rails, grade crossings,
etc.- not an operational problem, certainly, but a visual distraction.
22" vs. 27" is a relatively large difference, hard to ignore,
especially if one has taken considerable efforts to detail other
significant nearby elements (coupler, coupler shank length, coupler
box, etc.) also to prototype measurement.

However, as in all we do when are attempting to edge closer to precise
scale, when we do so, we are also likely to bump up against other
unforeseen issues. When I am describing the problems that I have with
these new rubber hoses, I am not only complaining about the (to me)
serious out-of-era, out-of-scale lengths and lack of angle, but also
as they relate to couplers that have a semblance of scale size,
coupler boxes that have scale widths, and in particular- and most
important- couplers whose shank length approximates that of the
prototype. The latter group includes the Accumate Proto, the Sergent,
and the Kadee #152s. Some of the short shank larger-head couplers
come closer, but the large head defeats them. The Kadee #5s and
clones, and #78s have long shanks so that perhaps these over-long
rubber hoses might reach, but will still drag on the ground unless
mounted much higher than prototype.

However the long unprototypical shanks also push the coupler head out
far enough that with wide swings any angle cock stays well inside out
of the way. With the short prototypical shanks, swinging coupler
heads can butt up against the angle cocks, unless some care is taken
to specifically mount the brackets out of the way.

A brief review and measurement of coupler hoses in a variety of steam
era cars and locomotives on museum display nearby demonstrated the
following in real time: 1) All air hoses (the hose proper, not the
angle cock nor the glad hand) were 22" long. No exceptions.
2) The railhead clearance from the lowest tip of the glad hands was
almost uniformly between 5" and 6", with outliers of 19" and 3".
3) All anglecocks were angled toward the car centerline.
4) The normal angle of repose of the hoses were slightly curved almost
to the vertical in the longitudinal plane with the tip of the glad
hand resting under the coupler. In the lateral plane the angled angle
cock already points the hose toward the centerline, so little shaping
is required.
5) At the very tip of the brake hose, the glad hand is then angled
slightly outward toward the next car, a reflexion of the attitude is
has taken from being attached to many other similar airhoses.
6) Not a single air hose was straight, or even close to it.

BTW, the Kadee angle cock bracket that they designed many many years
ago for their logging cars is indexed so that their air hoses can only
be put in at an angle- perhaps one of the very few -or only-
manufacturer that recognized this signature feature.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: GN Plywood Panel Box Cars

Walter M. Clark
 

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

Group,

Approximately when did the GN start repainting the plywood panel box
cars from the as-delivered orange paint scheme to their standard
freight car color? Thanks.
Frank Brua
Frank, you just missed it. Robert D. Heninger wrote in message 77137
on November 13, 2008 "As far as paint schemes, the earliest pictures
of mineral red GN plywood boxcars I have seen have repaint dates of 1953."

Time stopped in November 1941
Walter M. Clark
Pullman, Washington, USA


Re: Resin Casting

Earl T. Hackett <hacketet@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Brechbiel" <martinwb@...> wrote:

Thanks, Earl!
I'd only worry a
little about flat surfaces and the novice experiencing implosion
possibilities. I've imploded some glassware with those in my
youth...
When glass implodes is sends shards all over the place. Not a good
idea. Plastic just cracks and releases the vacuum. I have a
commercial vacuum chamber I've never had the nerve to use. It's a
cylinder, 12" dia x 14" high with a flat top, but only 1/8" thick,
made of some amber colored transparent plastic. I just didn't think
it looked nearly strong enough.

108381 - 108400 of 186204