Date   

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.


Re: Resin Casting

mwbpequod
 

Thanks, Earl!

They are a work-horse of a pump and at that price can't be beat;
their tolerance for abuse is exceptional as well. 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...

Thanks again for all the good info!

Martin Brechbiel



Yes, that's a 1402. I got it used for $300. There are a lot of
them
available on the used market. I took it apart, cleaned it up,
added
new oil and it runs like a champ. The only problem with it
(besides
being really heavy) was that the original 1/2 HP motor had
problems
getting it started. So I upgraded it to a 3/4HP motor with a
heavy
start winding. It is overkill as far as volume flow is concerned,
but
the larger oil capacity and overall design makes it less sensitive
to
contaminants than HVAC pumps. You really do need the high vacuum
levels it produces to degas some of the thicker resin formulations
I
occasionally use.

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


One question - Is that a Sargent-Welch 1402 vac pump you're
using
and
do you really need that much of a pump? I've 8 of them in my
labs
and
properly plumbed up they can draw a very serious vacuum...

Martin Brechbiel


Re: Floor-level ice decks?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

David Soderblom wrote:
Sorry to be late to the party, but this is in response to Tim O's posting on Nov. 22. I didn't see anyone bring up what seems ot me the most remarkable thing about this photo, which is the presence of an ice-loading deck which is at the height of the car floors.
Why in the world? Every other ice-loading deck I've ever seen in a photo is for loading ice into bunkers from roof level. What use is ice at floor level?
Presumably for bringing in ice to this facility, in ice-service reefers. Such decks are pretty common once you look at a bunch of photos. You're right, it is NOT useful for icing through the roof hatches.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Feed Mills

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

There were some few 70 ton covered hoppers built for grain service in
the very late fifties; the Soo line had some. Typical 70T cement cars
had cubic capacities of 1958 or 2003 CU. FT. In 1958 the Soo bought
some Pullman Standard "Jumbo" (yep, jumbo, said so right on the car)
three bay covered hoppers with a capacity of 70T and 2893 Cu.Ft. The
next year they went for more, these being "Super Jumbo" cars with a
capacity of 70T and 3219 Cu.Ft.

The use of covered hoppers for grain must not have been a foregone
conclusion at that time, because the railroad also began a program of
building new 50' boxcars with 10' plug doors that had grain loading
doors in the upper portion of the door. This arrangement overcame the
problem of fitting grain doors to wide door openings; the main plug
door became the "grain door", while the grain was blown in through the
small upper door. These cars were also 70t capy., and over 5000
cu.ft., so they would never fill above the bottom of the loading
doors. The cars with grain loading doors were built in 1963 and '64,
so are beyond the scope of this list, but it's interesting to note
that when the first 100T covered hoppers arrived, no additional
boxcars were built with grain loading doors, and those that had them
eventually lost them over the years.

It would appear that on the Soo at least, 1964 - 1965 was when the
decision was made to go with 100T covered hoppers exclusively for
grain service. Small customers who couldn't deal with the larger cars
were serviced for maybe the next decade or so with the existing 40'
boxcar fleet.





























Dennis, the history you summarize here was largely duplicated, though
on a larger scale, by the Santa Fe. The Santa Fe's first three bay
covered hoppers, 100 cars of the Ga-90 class, arrived from Pullman-
Standard in mid-1954, somewhat earlier than on the SOO. The 2893 cu.
ft. Ga-90s were specifically intended for grain service and must have
been successful, as 315 identical Ga-94s came in 1955, still more in
the late 1950s, and then a growing flood of grain covered hoppers in
the 1960s, with the first 100 ton cars in 1963. Like the SOO, the
ATSF covered their bets in the early 1960s by converting a sizable
number of 40' box cars with grain loading doors. And, of course,
they still had thousands of conventional 40' single door box cars
that could be fitted with temporary grain doors during the grain
shipping season, but the last such cars that were built new came in
1953. After that the Santa Fe bought only 50' box cars. By the late
1960s, new 100 ton covered hoppers were rapidly taking over the bulk
grain traffic.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Radial Roofs

Richard Hendrickson
 

Interesting stuff, Dennis. Thanks for posting it, and to Jim Dick
for making it available. I knew that roof had been invented in the
NP mechanical department but wasn't aware that the Soo had also used
it, or that the patent had been sold to Hutchins.

Richard Hendrickson


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

Paul Lyons
 

It is also to "small". We have been through this once before-Check past posts!

Paul Lyons
Laguna Niguel, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim & Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@verizon.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:25 pm
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: B&O M-53 Wagon Top - any hope of a plastic model in our future?






The F&C version with its one piece body is much easier to build.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
brianehni
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:15 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: B&O M-53 Wagon Top - any hope of a plastic model in our
future?

Or, how about building a kit that will look right?

http://www.sunshinekits.com/sunimages/sunpricelistsum08.pdf

See page 6 for 4 B&O wagontops, 3 of which are M53s.

Funaro and Camerlengo also make various wagontop kits:
http://www.fandckits.com/ The
B&O links will show you 9 different wagontops, including 5 M53, 2 M50, amd 2
M15 kits.

Brian Ehni


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

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

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


Re: Radial Roofs

Dennis Storzek
 

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

On Dec 18, 2008, at 10:01 AM, dssa1051 wrote:

I did a quick search of the site but found very little on radial
roofs.
Were the Central Valley radial roofs (from the CV stockcar)
specific to
the NP or could it be used on other roads' cars?
The CV roof represents the NP's unique "circular" outside metal roof,
which (AFAIK) was not used by any other RR.
Bob, Richard,

Mr. James Dick of the Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association
sent me copies of a bunch of NP company correspondence about these
roofs, which unfortunately raises more questions that it answers. Many
of these letters appear to be testimonials in response to a request
for same having been sent out by Mr. H. M. Robertson MCB of the
Northern Pacific Ry.

Here are some highlights:

A letter from the Twin City Joint Car Inspection Association dated
9/11/23 refers to the roof as the "Gilman-Robertson Circular Roof."
and states that it dates to 1909. It also states that the
Chicago-Cleveland Car Roofing Co. are to sell this style roof.

There is a memo from the NPRy. Mechanical Dept. dated 12/26/24
comparing the weight and cost of the "N.P. Composite Circular" roof to
the Hutchins All Steel roof and the Murphy X.L.A.

There is a request of information from the Norfolk Southern Railroad
dated 2/2/26, and the response on 3/8/26 which claims that, "This
construction is covered by a patent issued to our master car builder,
Mr. H. M. Robertson, and I understand the royalty for use of same is
$1.00 a car." However, I have not been able to confirm the existence
of this patent.

There is a letter addressed to Mr, Ralph Simpson, Mech'l Eng'r, Mps.
St.P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. (Soo Line) dated 6/21/27 asking if he would
please send, "a duplicate set of prints showing Mr. Robertson's design
of circular roof applied to the 500 boxcars which you recently had
built." Mr. Simpson responded in the affirmative 6/25/27. I feel that
this confirms that the arch roof cars the Soo had built in the late
twenties did indeed use the same roof the NP was using.

A letter dated 8/8/27 that appears to be signed by H. M. Robertson
concerning a inquiry by the Milwaukee Road states, "I informed him
that the patent covering the roof construction had been sold to the
Hutchins Car Roofing people." This surprises me, as the Soo purchased
additional cars with this roof in 1928, 29, and 30, and the Soo
equipment diagram claims the roof is Chicago-Cleveland.

There is a letter dated 8/11/27 to the Mech. Supt. of Fruit Growers
Express that states that the roofs on the NP 93000 series of
refrigerator cars, "were purchased from the Hutchins Car Roofing Co.
and that company also controls the diagonal roof board construction."

Speaking of the construction. These were simple outside metal roofs,
the light guage sheet metal being supported by wood sheathing. Reading
this correspondence, I realize the design intent was to allow the
entire roof to be one unbroken plane, so that the sheathing could be
laid at a 45* angle to the car, which improved the stiffness of the
roof structure and lessened "weaving", the tendency for the roof to
rack back and forth. This plane was bent into a gentle arch and
covered with sheet metal to shed water, but the important part of the
design was the diagonal sheathing.

As far as I can tell from this correspondence, while several other
roads inquired about the design, only the NP and Soo actually used it.

Dennis


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

Jim & Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

The F&C version with its one piece body is much easier to build.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
brianehni
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:15 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: B&O M-53 Wagon Top - any hope of a plastic model in our
future?

Or, how about building a kit that will look right?

http://www.sunshinekits.com/sunimages/sunpricelistsum08.pdf

See page 6 for 4 B&O wagontops, 3 of which are M53s.

Funaro and Camerlengo also make various wagontop kits:
http://www.fandckits.com/ The
B&O links will show you 9 different wagontops, including 5 M53, 2 M50, amd 2
M15 kits.

Brian Ehni


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

brianehni <behni@...>
 

Or, how about building a kit that will look right?

http://www.sunshinekits.com/sunimages/sunpricelistsum08.pdf

See page 6 for 4 B&O wagontops, 3 of which are M53s.

Funaro and Camerlengo also make various wagontop kits: http://www.fandckits.com/ The
B&O links will show you 9 different wagontops, including 5 M53, 2 M50, amd 2 M15 kits.

Brian Ehni

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Garth G. Groff" <ggg9y@...> wrote:

Charlie,

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.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff



Charlie Duckworth wrote:
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




weathering

Norman+Laraine Larkin <lono@...>
 

A recent computer glitch wiped out all of my email libraries. Sometime in the last six months, or so, a list member sent views of several HO models with remarkably subtle weathering using techniques new to me. I've been looking through the files section under weathering without luck. I realize this is a rather vague description, but I was wondering if this rings a bell with any of you. If so, could you point me in the right direction in the archives. I'll hunt if I know where to go.
Thanks,
Norm Larkin


Re: Radial Roofs

dssa1051
 

Thanks, Richard

Does anyone have any ideas or tips for modeling a more typical radial
roof than the NP style? Does any manufacturer offer a separate
injection molded or resin roof rib that could used on a roof whether it
was peaked or radial? It could be useful in modeling a flat panel roof
as well.

Robert Oom


Re: B&O M-53 Wagon Top - Maybe in urethane someday

Bob McCarthy
 

Howdy!
 
     More likely to happen when ever Jim King makes one for use in Scale S.  It will be easy for him to make an HO when and if we get one through his normal channels.
 
     Would not hold your breath, as his plate is full of existing projects.  Please note, I do not in anyway speak for Jim - but, he is swamped with current projects such as the SR Woodrack in Scale S.
 
Bob McCarthy
Modeling the Mighty Central of Georgia in Scale S

--- On Thu, 12/18/08, Charlie Duckworth <trduck@cox.net> wrote:

From: Charlie Duckworth <trduck@cox.net>
Subject: [STMFC] B&O M-53 Wagon Top - any hope of a plastic model in our future?
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 6:21 PM






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



















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

108421 - 108440 of 186232