Date   

Re: Availability of Stock Car Models-Westerfield, easy to assemble?

ogdentowebercanyon
 

Speaking of Westerfield Models. I have been thinking about getting
some of their Union Pacific Stock Cars. I need around 12 of them.
How hard are they to assemble? I have assembled Intermountain and Red
Caboose but never a resin kit before. Any thoughts or tips on these
stock cars? Thanks.

Jason Sanford


Re: Ed, Kadee hopper, Speedwitch, et al

ajfergusonca <ajferguson@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "william darnaby" <WDarnaby@...> wrote:
They only suffer, IMHO, from the usual flaw of not enough reweigh
dates from the '50's. This deficiency is common. Martin's little
reweigh
sets that include the NYC, for example, gives you one date out of
the six
provided that is good for the 1955 period IIRC. Something for
future
consideration, Ted.

Bill Darnaby
My sets of CPR reweigh data give you each month twice of reweigh and
repack for a 5 year period, 'nuff for 120 cars. I have printed two
sets, 1950-1954 and 1955-1959 so far. note the locations are CPR
locations, CPR "font". My CNR box car sets like most of my sets have
reweigh dates every 3 years or less for the period that the scheme
was legitimate. maybe I should advertise more.
Allen Ferguson
Black Cat Publishing


Re: Ford hoppers

Mark P.
 

This has been discussed on the DT&I list a couple of different times, and like you, Ben, no one has solid evidence the Ford hoppers wandered offline. It also appeared that these usually went in groups ("unit trains").

Several of us checked through photos at the Henry Ford Museum during the DT&I Modelers' meet in the area a few years ago, but didn't find any photos that weren't online.

Mark Plank
Modeling the Toledo & Ohio Central's St. Marys branch, which was built by two DT&I predecessors, but apparently never had Ford hoppers on it

----- Original Message -----
<major snip>
I've been keeping my eyes open for
evidence that these cars got away from captive service, but so far
haven't found any (and don't expect to find a whole lot).
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/


SP Stock Car

mrslandser
 

Took a look at the Red Caboose site referenced. Can anyone clarify the build date on these cars as well as their external length?

Thanks

Jack Hanger

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


Re: Ford hoppers

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

Ed Mines wrote:
"While channel surfing I came across a program on the History Channel
which had a film clip showing Ford hoppers with the script "Ford"
name."

FRDX 1600-2300, 700 cars, IL 30 ft 5 in, height of top chord above
rail 10 ft 9 in, 1,880 cu ft. Close copies of the USRA twin, these
represented a part of Ford's massive early 20th Century vertical
integration, and were used to haul coal from the coal fields to the
River Rouge steel mills. I've been keeping my eyes open for
evidence that these cars got away from captive service, but so far
haven't found any (and don't expect to find a whole lot). Photo
from the pay side of the RPI website:
http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/images/Industries/Ford-blast-furnace-
1945-Detroit.jpg


Ben Hom


Re: Availability of Stock Car Models

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

David Karkoski wrote:
Are there any manufactures which have produced models for the following
series of cars?
SP 70479
Class S-40-11: no

SP 70779, SP 70904, SP 70931
Class S-40-10: Westerfield

SP 72643
ex-EPSW, no class: no

SP 73367
Class S-40-5: Westerfield and now Red Caboose in styrene

SP 74021, SP 74099, SP 74241 , SP 74365
Class S-40-8: Westerfield

TNO 15115, TNO 15140, TNO 15143, TNO 15289
Class -40-13: new Sunshine kit

The classes, and prototype photos, are in my Volume 1 on SP freight cars.

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: Availability of Stock Car Models

Garth Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

David,

Try Westerfield: http://www.westerfield.biz/ . Those 70000 series numbers appear on examples of both his S-40-5 and S-40-8/9/10 models. I am not an SP maven and can't give explain exactly why the numbers were reused or when. Tony Thompson will probably chime in here if he's not in moderation jail.

In addition to Westerfield, Red Caboose has photos of a new S-40-5 model: http://www.red-caboose.com/cgi-bin/e_catalog/catalog.cgi?&page=new_product_pages/front_page.html .Sorry, but you will probably have to reassemble this URL.

It is a good time to be an SP stock car fan.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

David Karkoski wrote:

Are there any manufactures which have produced models for the following
series of cars?


SP 70479

SP 70779

SP 70904

SP 70931

SP 72643

SP 73367

SP 74021

SP 74099

SP 74241
SP 74365

TNO 15115

TNO 15140

TNO 15143

TNO 15289





Re: Availability of Stock Car Models

Shawn Beckert
 

David Karkoski asked:

Are there any manufactures which have produced models for
the following series of <SP/TNO > cars?
Al Westerfield offers a series of resin stock car kits that are
correct for SP prototypes. You might check his web site:

http://www.westerfield.biz/


Shawn Beckert


Re: ADMIN: Re: re: ADMIN: Welcome for some to the new wing in Moderate Jail

Charlie Vlk
 

Not an excuse, but just stating the facts.... I arrange my Outlook Express Inbox so the most recent message is on top so messages that I'm going to deal with later or don't know where to file at the moment are at the bottom of the stack after I am through going thru a batch of email. That means for a half day's more or less worth of email, depending on how often I get to check it, I might respond to a message in a thread that has already gone into the "danger zone". This might be a reason some of us are slow on the uptake...we are so busy watching the road ahead we didn't see the flashing light in our rearview mirror, Officer!!
Charlie Vlk

STMFC'ers are slow to act,


Availability of Stock Car Models

David Karkoski <karkoskd@...>
 

Are there any manufactures which have produced models for the following
series of cars?



SP 70479

SP 70779

SP 70904

SP 70931

SP 72643

SP 73367

SP 74021

SP 74099

SP 74241

SP 74365

TNO 15115

TNO 15140

TNO 15143

TNO 15289





David Karkoski


Re: B&O Mather Stock Cars

Scott Pitzer
 

FWIW, a photo of 112334 shows solid ends.
By the way, 1950s end views show SEVEN lines of data on the ends, regarding wheels, couplers, brake gear etc.
(Maybe I'll take a look a my model... I don't remember all the details.)
Scott Pitzer

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian J Carlson <brian@bluemoon.net>
Sent: Apr 9, 2006 7:04 PM
To: stmfc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] B&O Mather Stock Cars

I'm building a P2k Mather Stock Car for the B&O. I am using Richard
Hendrickson's article in the November 1987 Model Railroading for prototype
guidance. The article contains photographs of B&O 110023, 110566, 111147,
and 112577. Cars 110023, 110566, and 111147 have slatted ends. 112577 has
solid ends. Is there a rhyme or reason to the end configuration of the cars
on the B&O? The kit road number is 112117, and I want to build it with the
correct ends if known.


Re: Ed, Kadee hopper, Speedwitch, et al

Bill Darnaby
 

If nothing else, go heavy on May (5-) and "1945" reweigh dates so we "modern" types have some 5s to work with!
Scott Pitzer
Good suggestion! I too have noticed that not only are reweigh dates from the '50's scarce in such sets, including Martin's, so are 5's so we can cut and paste to maintain the correct "font" (bad term, I know).

Bill Darnaby


1906 Car Builder's Dictionary

joe binish <joebinish@...>
 

Those not in jail,
I have found a little info in my ongoing search for the UTLX Type X
cars. An article in the 3/84 MR references the 1906 Car Bldrs Dictionary.
I am hoping someone on list has one(or a copy/reprint?) and can duplicate a
few pages for me, at my cost.
TIA,
Joe Binish
Up in the warm wastes of Minnesota


ADMIN: Re: re: ADMIN: Welcome for some to the new wing in Moderate Jail

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Tim O'Connor, breaking another STMFC rule regarding sending STMFC management issues to the group as a whole, writes:



I dunno Mike... I think this jailer stuff may be going to your head.
STMFC'ers are slow to act, but they may decide it's time for a new
sheriff! Especially since the sheriff has a bad habit of breaking his
own rules... Be careful not to be hoisted by your own petard!

For those members not aware of the culture and founding principles of the STMFC, the group was founded back in 2000 or so, when, as a result of some members of the old Freight Car Group taking issue with a stance for more accurate models, I asked 30 or so members if a Steam Era Frt Car Group would be something they would like to join. These founding members agreed that it would, indeed, be useful IF the culture and message content could be maintained such that discussions would be restricted to steam era frt cars and not the various tangents that internet groups frequently seem to inherent. I am fully aware that I am an active member and, therefore, am subject...as we all are...to wandering afield. Therefore, the policy that I have invoked is to not "punish" any member for being out of scope until a thread is terminated by me or my assistant, Jeff Aley. I believe I have followed this principle fairly well over the years...subject, of course, to blunder and error.

As to other management issues, the STMFC, I'm pleased to say, has had very few flame wars [ in which everyone loses ]. In my view this is because we don't allow any personal attacks. At the first sign of one, the potential antagonists are placed in moderation...so they can no longer send messages...until they cool down. Appropriate apologies and other comments might be required to gain "normal" message writing capabilities in some cases.

The point of all this is to make it clear that the STMFC will continue to follow the plan as laid down in 2000. Members are free to discuss aspects of steam era frt cars as clearly laid out in the rules:

"ALL SUBJECTS OTHER THAN THOSE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH STEAM ERA FREIGHT
CARS ARE PROHIBITED FROM MEMBER MESSAGES."

Any other subject is out of scope. It is, of course, recognized that we will all, from time to time, be tempted to wander out of scope and this is expected. It is also, to be sure, difficult to define exactly when and where out of scope begins. Thus, we can talk about frt car wheels but not track. How then, is discussion about turnout frogs in scope? When the the discussion about such frogs drives model frt car wheel choices. Similarly, the question of an oil company with close association to a frt car is permitted but not just any discussion of oil companies. In any case, the thing to remember is that a member will not be penalized for being out of scope until a warning is issued terminating a thread. Members should be on the lookout for such warnings and heed them. The issue is not punishment but, rather, control. When this happens the group's management will make it clear that it's time to get back on course and we expect the members to follow such directions. Otherwise, the group would be in anarchy and chaos and, I assure you, this will not happen. Last, when a member IS put in moderate, it is incumbent for them to make bail...express the view that they will stay within the management decrees.

So...sorry to have to take the time to make it clear why we do some of our actions, but, I suppose every now and then it is necessary.

Back to frt cars.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


M&StL brake wheel was Re: Kits (was: New stuff)

rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

I bought some IM '37 cars (STEAM FREIGHT CAR ERA) recently decorated
for M&StL if I can find some, Superior brake gear.
SGL
I've been told the Superior brake set is back in stock at Red Caboose.
I don't have the part number here at work.
Clark Propst


width of running boards

lnbill <bwelch@...>
 

I am detailing a resin body casting of a Canadian National 36 foot
Dominion boxcar w/5ft. door that likely will be offered by a purveyor
of such kits in the not too distant future. The running board consists
of 3 boards that measure 8 inches wide each. In Ted C.'s recent article
in RMC on the Dominion cars, the roof of one of these cars is shown
with the replacement running board consisting of four boards, probably
each 6 inches wide. In either case this produces a running board of
approximately 24 inches wide.

Most of the models I have built until now, all probably in fact, have
had running boards that appear to be approx. 18 inches wide and when
made of wood have three boards each 6 inches wide (or thereabouts).

Where the extra width running boards particular only to the Dominion
series, or particular to Canada. Was there a minimum and/or a maximum
width that was the standard for our era in the US or Canada?

Bill Welch


Re: Ed, Kadee hopper, Speedwitch, et al

Scott Pitzer
 

If nothing else, go heavy on May (5-) and "1945" reweigh dates so we "modern" types have some 5s to work with!
Scott Pitzer

I picked up a new decal set from

Speedwith at the Savannah RPM meet last week: NYC
steel cars in HO. Does the Westerfield steel car, 1937
and Modified 1937 cars, Branchline 40' car, and a few
others. It is a masterpiece. Best I've ever seen,
along the lines of his Seaboard box cars set. Better
than anything Middle Division and/or Microscale ever
made.
Last weekend I was able to eyeball Chet French's recent order of the NYC
decals and they are, indeed, the nicest I've ever seen. They are very
complete. They only suffer, IMHO, from the usual flaw of not enough reweigh
dates from the '50's. This deficiency is common. Martin's little reweigh
sets that include the NYC, for example, gives you one date out of the six
provided that is good for the 1955 period IIRC. Something for future
consideration, Ted.

Bill Darnaby





Yahoo! Groups Links






Re: Future of Freight Car Modeling

Charlie Vlk
 

Dave-
IMHO the technology for doing masters for resin production in Rapid Prototyping is already here.
It is expensive, but if one values one's time at any monetary amount, paying say, $300 to have a
master made on a Rapid Prototype machine is probably not a bad deal.
The best part is railroad stuff is so modular that you can build up a library of parts (in 3D CAD)
and making variations to get different prototype versions of a similar car is very doable.
Also, it is very easy to do extremely complex objects that would be a bear to scratchbuild a master
for (castings, complex formed sheet metal work).
I have a CB&Q SM16 stockcar in N Scale that was formed in one piece (ends, open slats, roofwalk
boards that stand proud of their supports, underframe channels, etc... ) which, of course, can't be
duplicated in resin that way. But it does demonstrate where the technology is right now. Unfortunately,
the guy with the machine moved to New Zealand and in the move the machine got bunged up and he
hasn't been able to do another run of parts for me that can be used as masters. The resolution of the
detail is so good that you can get Z Scale rivets and nuts and bolt detail in N....
The fly in the ointment is that the machine costs about $60,000 which is a little steep for casual home
use, and there is a considerable learning curve in figuring out how to get good parts out of it on a
production basis.
And Dave Nelson, if you have research and drawing skills and would like to do some side work for
pay, contact me off-list.... I'd like to talk to you and, besides, am trying to put together an informal pool
of 3D CAD guys to trade files so we can build up our libraries!!!
Charlie Vlk


Re: Ford hoppers

Scott Pitzer
 

-----Original Message-----
From: ed_mines <ed_mines@yahoo.com>
Sent: Apr 11, 2006 6:27 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Ford hoppers

While channel surfing I came across a program on the history channel
which had a film clip showing Ford hoppers with the script "Ford"
name. The program was about the start of the 20th century - Buffalo
world's fair, President McKinnley getting shot......

Ed







Yahoo! Groups Links







Re: Kadee hopper

Tim O'Connor
 

Sam, I was wondering why Kadee didn't make the side stakes
as separate small parts. Too much labor, or a technical reason?

Tim

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: <mail@kadee.com>

One of the few compromises we had to make is the orientation of the side
stake angles. Since there are an innumerable amount of configurations of
these side stake angles and the fact you only see one side of the car in
photos, thus not knowing the side stake orientation of the opposite side of
the car (they are not always the same), we decide to make only one
configuration of the stake angles. Each different configuration would
require additional extensive tooling (mold making).

132661 - 132680 of 186227