Date   

Re: Another PFE reefer....

Andy Carlson
 

--- mjmcguirk@cox.net wrote:

This is perhaps the best example of poor
communications I've seen in a long time . . . most
caused by people trying to type and wonder,
fretfully, why George Mason couldn't go all the way
in the NCAA tournament. . . .
Marty, Paul simply repeated my typo error- which I
posted a correction quite quickly.

As discussion of PFE reefers is not a bad topic,
perhaps some facts will reset the baseline and let
us achieve communication:

1. InterMountain makes an R-40-23
2. Amarillo contracted with InterMountain to tool a
new roof and a set of new ends to make an R-40-25.
The IM R-40-25 end is incorrect, as Dan Smith has
posted. It is only a -25 end in that it is afixed to a
product labeled as a R-40-25.



I don't know what exactly is wrong with the ends on
the R-40-25. I vaguely recall discussing ends of one
car or another (rounded or square edges to the
taper) with someone at one point, but that's all
slipped out of my head.
Odd that someone with your experience is unclear on
what "is wrong with the ends..." given that multiple
experts have freely offered quality research
assistance. Perhaps this is an example of something
being done too hastily, and perhaps too much
"on-the-cheap".

If at this late date you are receptive in being
enlightened as to this cars shortcomings, maybe Dan
Smith can have a 2nd round of educating you.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


Re: Detailed equipment handling

Tim O'Connor
 

Marty

Every part of the North Shore is accessible by hand, but you have
to be willing to crawl under the layout in some cases. Many of the
members are too old or too fat or just too lazy to do it, and the
tongs have reappeared in MULTIPLES even after I made an effort
to hide them a couple of years ago.

Another aspect of equipment handling for most layouts is storage.
Cars should never be stored on their sides, but that is exactly what
we do. You can imagine how many broken ladders, stirrups, grabs
and other damage (e.g. paint/lettering) occurs from this. Proto 2000
tank cars tend to have a short damage-free life!

The prevailing attitude is that stuff should be durable, but I have
seen plenty of broken Athearn and MDC cars too. The layout itself
is pretty great, and most members are respectful of equipment. But
very few have ever built a Westerfield or Tichy car and have no idea
how to handle them with care.

Tim O.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: <mjmcguirk@cox.net>

I guess I'm really curious where exactly you guys are finding all
these layouts that have such a long reach that you need a mechanical
arm to pick up equipment.


Re: AAR std & alt hoppers (was Kadee's new hopper)

Charlie Vlk
 

Speaking of the "33 year old tooling"....
At the time the Athearn cars came out their was some scuttlebutt going around (at the time
they came out I was working at All Nations Hobby Shop in Chicago) that the tooling
was originally commissioned by MDC but Athearn ended up with them.
We know that Clarence and Irv were good buddies and used the same toolmakers so it is
possible. Anybody know the story???
Charlie Vlk


Re: PFE reefer error

Tim O'Connor
 

Marty, after Dan & Andy described the problem, I checked photos, and the
Amarillo models, and indeed, the end is wrong and it really shows when you
know what to look for. In fact, this modified end is found on later PFE and
NP reefers including the R-40-26 (plug door) and R-40-28 (split swing-plug
door).

The ribs on the end should have more of a pronounced "rolling pin" look,
but the worst problem is that the topmost large rib has a STRAIGHT bottom
edge, unlike any of the other ribs. Like I say, it really stands out once you
know what to look for. This is non-trivial to fix. It's a shame that the Sunshine
kit didn't catch this. Perhaps we can convince Martin to fix his resin version
of the R-40-26.

The Challenger brass models also have this error.

Tim O'Connor

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: <mjmcguirk@cox.net>

2. Amarillo contracted with InterMountain to tool a new roof and a set of
new ends to make an R-40-25.
I don't know what exactly is wrong with the ends on the R-40-25.


Re: Ladders for CN Dominion 36 ft boxcars w/5 ft doors

al_brown03
 

Umm ... Westerfield's 1500-series kits have 5' doors, or so the site
says anyway.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

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

But Al W. has not done the car with the 5 foot door,


Re: Another PFE reefer....

mjmcguirk@...
 

This is perhaps the best example of poor communications I've seen in a long time . . . most caused by people trying to type and wonder, fretfully, why George Mason couldn't go all the way in the NCAA tournament. . . .

As discussion of PFE reefers is not a bad topic, perhaps some facts will reset the baseline and let us achieve communication:

1. InterMountain makes an R-40-23
2. Amarillo contracted with InterMountain to tool a new roof and a set of new ends to make an R-40-25.
3. InterMountain tooled an R-40-10 -- everyone freaked.
4. InterMountain tooled the R-40-10 again, called it a Premium or Premier or some such kit, raised the price, and everyone REALLY freaked.
5. InterMountain bought a bunch of Terry Wegmann's parts and got the R-30-18s (and perhaps the -19s, I don't remember) assembled and decorated.

Clear?

I don't know what exactly is wrong with the ends on the R-40-25. I vaguely recall discussing ends of one car or another (rounded or square edges to the taper) with someone at one point, but that's all slipped out of my head.

Oh, and the part about "At least it's not another PFE reefer was a joke . . . I'm always happy to get a new, nicely detailed model of <almost> anything.

Marty McGuirk





NOTE: I tried to respond to this post earlier but my remote connection timed out, sorry in advance if this is a duplicate.


From: "espeefan@juno.com" <espeefan@juno.com>
Date: 2006/04/04 Tue AM 01:09:02 EDT
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Another PFE reefer....


Detailed equipment handling WAS: Kadee's new offset twin hopper

mjmcguirk@...
 

I guess I'm really curious where exactly you guys are finding all these layouts that have such a long reach that you need a mechanical arm to pick up equipment.

There is a good, and valid, topic in this thread though -- how much detail can be, or is, too much for an "operating" layout.

I put a fair amount of detail on my cars, and expect any visiting operators to treat the equipment with respect and care. That said, accidents (key word being accidents) can, and do, happen. If something breaks I simply shrug my shoulders and put it aside to fix it later.

An excessive amount of accidents from one individual is cause for concern -- in that case a "no touch" rule is entirely called for.

I've found the following thoughts/attitudes/ideas universal in discussions with layout owners around the country who have detailed equipment and operating layouts:

1. Slow it down. The "move 2,000 cars each session" attitude is akin to taking a hammer to the rolling stock.
2. Detail begets care -- once people understand that the equipment is detailed, they will treat it with more respect.
3. Instead of threatening anyone who touches anything with bodily harm, explain there are certain ways to handle equipment, and if they are unsure or uncomfortable ask the host.
4. Most of the "damage" tends to be relatively minor -- shrug it off, and understand that some minor repairs are often the tradeoff for an operating layout.
5. Use mechanical claws to enforce the equipment policies, and to escort offenders out the door, but don't use them on rolling stock.

All that said, the vast majority of my experience is with (often) smaller home layouts -- clubs are a whole different matter. I don't belong to any clubs, but understand there's a wide variety of other issues to contend with (one of the reasons I personally don't "do" clubs . . but that's anothe topic altogether.)

Marty McGuirk


From: "Schuyler Larrabee" <schuyler.larrabee@verizon.net>
Date: 2006/04/04 Tue AM 12:05:48 EDT
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Kadee's new offset twin hopper


Re: Painted Wheels Banned in 1948

Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Betz" <jimbetz@...> wrote:

Jack,
I have the date that banning of painting of trucks and wheels as
1948. I believe that date is actually when they were no longer
allowed to apply paint to new/reworked cars. I do not have a date
when painted wheels/trucks were banned no matter what. Anyone
have a date for that?
Keep in mind that any "ban" that predates the federalization of these
sort of rules in the early seventies is only a ban in interchange
service, and as far as Jack's YV caboose is concerned, the railroad
could paint them any color they wanted.

Dennis


Re: Kadee's new offset twin hopper

SamClarke
 

Hello Group,

Perhaps a few comments from Kadee maybe in order now.

First a personal thank you to Ed Hawkins for his continuum of friendship,
information, comments, and his extensive assistance with all of our cars
including this open hopper. His preceding comments have already touched on
the particular version of the Standard Offset Hopper we have built and the
roads it applies to.

Officially we are not releasing this car until the first part of next
week. Unfortunately, the timing didn't work with certain magazines
publication dates, big deal.

Presently, the why and why nots of this car will not be discussed,
perhaps later, (if you are nice to me). However, I'll touch on a few items
that's been brought up here.
Because of our desires to get onto other projects we "presently" have no
plans of doing other versions of this car, but the door is not closed on
this. We will have undecorated cars available for the "modelers" to work
with. Also, our line of decals is getting better and more extensive and will
cover many of the roads we'll be doing and perhaps many roads we're not
going to do.
It was not our intentions to narrow down the road names for this car but,
unfortunately, that's just what happens when you start looking at the costs
involved with every little detail on these cars.
We do appreciate the comments form this group positive and negative and
we do listen, thank you.

Sam Clarke
Kadee Quality Products

Yahoo! Groups Links






Re: Ladders for CN Dominion 36 ft boxcars w/5 ft doors

lnbill <bwelch@...>
 

But Al W. has not done the car with the 5 foot door, so I have
assumed his data sheets did not include information for the cars in
question. Am I wrong?

Bill Welch

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Rich C" <richchrysler@...> wrote:

Bill,
This is a tremendously large and complex subject because the cars
were built
for a number of parent railways such as the Canadian Northern
railway,
Canadian Government Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, the
Intercolonial
Railway, and so on. that eventually were rolled into becoming the
Canadian
National. These builds ranged from 1912 through 1923 with only the
last
build in '23 actually being built for the newly formed CNR.

Fortunately Al Westerfield (and friends) has done the research for
us and
includes this data in all his CNR "Fowler patent" kits of these
cars.

Rich Chrysler

----- Original Message -----
From: "lnbill" <bwelch@...>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Ladders for CN Dominion 36 ft boxcars w/5 ft doors


I note from the few photos I have of the Canadian National's 36
foot
Dominion boxcar with a 5 foot door, side ladders with 6 rungs are
present while some had 7 rungs. I assume they were built like
this and
one style is not a replacement for the other. Can someone fill me
in
about the numbers of cars built with each style, and if known, the
correct number series?

Bill Welch


Re: Kadee's new offset twin hopper

Doug Brown <g.brown1@...>
 

Jon, I was referring to MSRP in all cases. Dumping them was not in ERTL's
original plans. <G> Doug Brown

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon
Miller
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:58 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Kadee's new offset twin hopper
Importance: High

for less than ERTL cost many years ago, all RTR<
Many of the ERTL cars were dumped at prices of a few bucks.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Re: AAR std & alt hoppers (was Kadee's new hopper)

Ed Hawkins
 

On Monday, April 3, 2006, at 09:16 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

Ed, thanks for the explanation. Kadee is more like the Athearn car than
the Atlas?

I admit I need to look a lot more closely at these cars. If I
understand
you there are at least early and late versions of the AAR standard car,
and it sounds like, two major versions of the alternate standard. And I
notice you haven't mentioned step-down versus tapered transition of the
sides as they narrow towards the ends. It sounds like we really could
use
a "spreadsheet" with all the attributes of each order of hoppers, so
that
it would be easy to line up cars with the closest match of attributes.
I
know the RPC articles contain a lot of data, but do they contain enough
that I could create a spreadsheet to do this job of sorting? I also
could
include the Athearn, Atlas and Kadee car in the spreadsheet, so that it
would be easier (for me at least) to line up prototypes with models.
Tim,
The general arrangement of the Kadee model is more like the Athearn
model than the Atlas model, however, that's where the similarities
stop. There's absolutely no comparison of the level of detail of the
Kadee model to the Athearn model, which I recently learned from Doug
Brown is 33 year old tooling (thanks, Doug, for the info).

My roster of AAR Standard and Alternate Standard cars, plus so-called
nonstandard offset-side cars with 33' IL, was compiled and published in
RP CYC Volume 1 in 1997. Since that time I've located more photos of
these cars and have updated the file that identifies the cars'
attributes to a far greater extent. This includes identification of the
side sill arrangement, end arrangement, the arrangement/orientation of
the side stakes (for cars using angles for side stakes), and the use of
push-pole pockets. I have also updated the various appliances such as
the door lock mechanisms, hand brakes, and brake steps. There exists
some holes in the data for cars that I've not been able to locate
photos or other technical data, but the list has been taken to another
level vs. the 1997 published roster. A portion of the roster for
prototype cars applicable to the Kadee model will be in the forthcoming
RMJ article.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Ladders for CN Dominion 36 ft boxcars w/5 ft doors

Rich C <richchrysler@...>
 

Bill,
This is a tremendously large and complex subject because the cars were built for a number of parent railways such as the Canadian Northern railway, Canadian Government Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Intercolonial Railway, and so on. that eventually were rolled into becoming the Canadian National. These builds ranged from 1912 through 1923 with only the last build in '23 actually being built for the newly formed CNR.

Fortunately Al Westerfield (and friends) has done the research for us and includes this data in all his CNR "Fowler patent" kits of these cars.

Rich Chrysler

----- Original Message -----
From: "lnbill" <bwelch@uucf.org>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Ladders for CN Dominion 36 ft boxcars w/5 ft doors


I note from the few photos I have of the Canadian National's 36 foot
Dominion boxcar with a 5 foot door, side ladders with 6 rungs are
present while some had 7 rungs. I assume they were built like this and
one style is not a replacement for the other. Can someone fill me in
about the numbers of cars built with each style, and if known, the
correct number series?

Bill Welch


Ladders for CN Dominion 36 ft boxcars w/5 ft doors

lnbill <bwelch@...>
 

I note from the few photos I have of the Canadian National's 36 foot
Dominion boxcar with a 5 foot door, side ladders with 6 rungs are
present while some had 7 rungs. I assume they were built like this and
one style is not a replacement for the other. Can someone fill me in
about the numbers of cars built with each style, and if known, the
correct number series?

Bill Welch


Re: Painted wheelsets...

Manfred Lorenz
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Burgess" <jack@> wrote:

...I was under the impression that wheelsets were painted (most
likely
the same color as the trucks) back in the steam era. Is that a
correct
assumption? When did the non-paint practice start?

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com
Off country and (due to time period constraints) off topic:

In Germany wheels are painted. Mostly some kind of medium grey. Look
here for some loco wheelsets:
http://www.klein-aber-fein.de/zeitraum/german/gefertigtes-01-5.htm

Manfred
(packing the parachute for getting pushed over the plank by the
moderator)


Re: Kadee's new offset twin hopper

Tim O'Connor
 

Doug Brown wrote

ERTL cars were over-priced and under-quality, with a joke of weathering.
No argument. I said the analogy only went so far -- to illustrate the
importance of choosing a marketable prototype. ERTL had many problems
which there is no need to go over again.

Tim O'

P.S. I have seen Kadee cars go for $12 on Ebay now and then. Doesn't mean
they're no good -- that's just what happens when the limit is reached. A
few late buyers get great bargains.


Painted Wheels Banned in 1948

Jim Betz
 

Jack,
I have the date that banning of painting of trucks and wheels as
1948. I believe that date is actually when they were no longer
allowed to apply paint to new/reworked cars. I do not have a date
when painted wheels/trucks were banned no matter what. Anyone
have a date for that?


Re: Kadee's new offset twin hopper

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

for less than ERTL cost many years ago, all RTR<
Many of the ERTL cars were dumped at prices of a few bucks.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Re: Kadee's new offset twin hopper

Doug Brown <g.brown1@...>
 

The ERTL cars were over-priced and under-quality, with a joke of weathering.
The boxcar cost more than Kadee's, had grosser details, and was made of
inferior materials. Some had styrene sideframes and styrene axles.
Eventually the axle cones looked more like a Towers of Hanoi game.

Some of ERTL's earlier products became collectors' items, but it is the
market that determines collect-ability, not the manufacturer. ERTL
predetermined they were collectable and charged a premium for them. The
marketplace wasn't convinced.

Today you can buy Red Caboose, Kadee, InterMountain, Athearn Genesis, Atlas
and others for less than ERTL cost many years ago, all RTR.

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:27 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kadee's new offset twin hopper


Ben Hom wrote

<< ... again you read without fully comprehending and you quote me
totally out of context. >>

You're much more comprehensible than you imagine. Believe it or not,
some people simply don't agree with everything you say.

<< While they did offer distinctively different prototypes than what was
available at the time on the mass market, Ertl didn't offer a markedly
superior product, and they utterly failed to coherently market their
product line. <<

That is your opinion, but I would add: Ertl chose THE WRONG CAR. Kadee
didn't, in the case of the PS-1. That's about as far as my analogy goes
regarding Kadee. The point is that the choice is FUNDAMENTAL.

As for a sense of humor, it's time you found yours again.

Tim O'




Yahoo! Groups Links









--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/295 - Release Date: 3/28/2006


Re: Another PFE reefer....

espeefan@juno.com <espeefan@...>
 

Paul and List,
I made a mistake in my last post on PFE Reefers.
The reefers located at the former ATSF Capistrano depot are 3 R-40-25's and 4 R-40-26's.
All of these have the same ends, the ends that should be on the Amarillo R-40-25's.
Also, Martin's R-40-26 plugs have these same wrong ends.
Sincerely,
Dan-needing to go back to PFE kindergarten-Smith

132761 - 132780 of 186051