Date   

Re: Ann Arbor Hutchins End (was FW&D 7231 Accurail kitbash)

Robert kirkham
 

I wish I had drawings Dennis - my version is scaled from photos.  But to answer the panel question, I simply went with what I could see in photos.   When my project started, I referenced the Jim Parker photo in the list photos: https://realstmfc.groups.io/g/main/photo/43681/65?p=Name,,parker,20,1,60,0.   Since then I have found a number of other images in Rob Adams article in Prototype Railroad Modelling Vol. 2.  http://speedwitchmedia.com/product/prototype-railroad-modeling-volume-two/

Rob

 

On Nov 16, 2020, at 1:35 PM, Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...> wrote:

Rob, where did you find a reference that shows two pressings per panel? Any drawing or photo I've seen shows only one, and lots of separate panels combined to make up the end.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Photos: Bangor & Aroostook Flat Car 71710 With Army Tanks (Undated)

Bruce Smith
 

Steve,

You can broaden that shipping time frame a bit. M3 tanks were used for training in several locations around the United States. In addition, some M3 Lees were rebuilt into other types of vehicle, for example M31 tank recovery vehicles, so traffic in M3s continued well beyond the end of production and to a more limited extent could probably be seen through the end of the war. I do plan to have a couple M3s being shipped to Baldwin Locomotive works for conversion to M31s.

The common M3 variant sold to the British was the Grant, which had a different turret with no commanders cupola and a bigger bustle (for the radio) although the brits did also get some Lees. The Soviets also received M3 Lees via lend lease, both by Atlantic and Pacific routes. 

All of which make excellent flat car loads. 

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith            

Auburn, AL

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."




On Nov 16, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Steve Summers via groups.io <summers1218@...> wrote:

The tanks are US M3 Lee tanks.  They were built late 1941 to the end of 1942.  They began to be replaced by the better M4 Sherman tanks (a lot were sold to the British). The Lee was not a very good tank but that’s beyond the scope of this group, but it gives a time frame, late 1941- 1943, that they would have been expected to be shipping on a flat car.


On Nov 16, 2020, at 12:41 PM, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb@...> wrote:


Photos: Bangor & Aroostook Flat Car 71710 With Army Tanks (Undated)
Photos from the National Archives of Canada:
These photos can be enlarged quite a bit.
Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Re: [Non-DoD Source] [RealSTMFC] Was there ever a clinic on Delano-based paint and weathering?

Bruce Smith
 

Bill,

Sorry, but you’ve “triggered” me. Please save us from the pseudo-science babble of people like your optometrist friend. Bottom line, the emission and absorption wavelengths of refracted and reflected light from a surface (ie, the “color” of that surface) are determined by physics and are what makes any given “color” that color. That is not subject to interpretation. It is thought that individual optical receptors (rods and cones in the eye) may respond to the same wavelength differently in different individuals. Here’s where it get tricky and your friend left out a lot of details. However, even though different eyes respond differently, your brain then “learns” that the input it receives for that wavelength is say PRR, 1930’s Freight car color. My brain learns the same thing even though the input from my receptors may differ some. When given samples to select from, we will both be able to pick the ones that match. We will both think that these are an oxide red. Here’s where it gets weird, and maybe where your friend is trying (and failing) to capture the weirdness. If you were to provide my brain with the input from your optical receptors, that 1930’s freight car color might look blue to me (as an extreme example), because now my brain is getting input from receptors that are tuned differently. The color of the object has not changed, it is the PERCEPTION of the color that has changed. 

So, while our biochemical perception of those may differ, our ability to perceive those colors in context is pretty much the same. I’m afraid that there is no excuse here for getting your freight car colors wrong. 

Regards,
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

On Nov 16, 2020, at 1:52 PM, erieblt2 <williamfsmith22@...> wrote:

My optometrist friend rightly points our eyes ‘see’ different colors from  others peoples eyes. This color thing is important to me too. We need to allow a more relaxed definition. For example weathered PRR ‘Brunswick Green’ is ‘a shade of blackish’  Period. Respectfully, Bill S


On Nov 16, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@...> wrote:


Bruce;
 
Of course I agree with you, but what else do we have to go by?  Kodachrome looks more accurate than any other film I ever took.  OK, warmer, but warm is good.
 
If I look at a photo or model, and it looks wrong, I will always feel it is wrong.  Vice versa.  We are only modeling a reality we want to look right.
 
And you cannot tell me the PRRT&HS “paint chips” we worked on as a group for so many years did not get consensus agreement that they look phenomenally correct!
 
Elden Gatwood
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bruce Smith
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 10:18 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Was there ever a clinic on Delano-based paint and weathering?
 
Elden sez:


"Kodachrome…..they are the only slides I took that looked like the real thing."


Actually, Elden, they are the only slides that look like your MEMORY of the real thing 😉. Memory is a notoriously tricky thing and tends to "warm" colors, just like Kodachrome. Kodak, or, as we from Rochester like to say, "The Great Yellow Mother to Us All" knew what they were doing. People are pleased when their photos look even better than their memories!


Regards,
Bruce 
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL



Re: Ann Arbor Hutchins End (was FW&D 7231 Accurail kitbash)

Dennis Storzek
 

Rob, where did you find a reference that shows two pressings per panel? Any drawing or photo I've seen shows only one, and lots of separate panels combined to make up the end.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Suggestions? - Livestock Cars & Operations Books

John Riddell
 

 

Here is an ad for THE FOWLER CAR printed in the 1916 issue of Car Builder’s Dictionary and Cyclopedia.

 

John Riddell

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Re: Chicagoland 2019 Minikit

Eric Hansmann
 

Your secret is safe with me, Bob.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bob Chapman
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 12:06 PM
To: STMFC E-List <main@Realstmfc.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Chicagoland 2019 Minikit

 

Eric H asks: What Carmer hardware used?

 

Eric -- This is one of those "don't try this at home" answers. Lacking a clear proto photo of the Carmer, I used what I had -- Yarmouth's #400.

 

Regards,

Bob Chapman

 


Re: Photos: Bangor & Aroostook Flat Car 71710 With Army Tanks (Undated)

Bruce Smith
 

Garth, Folks,

This set of photos is a companion to a set of photos of NC&St.L FM-7 #70035 with a similar load. We discussed BOTH loads back in April of 2017. This appears to have been a load test with full rigged M3A1 tanks and as I said then "of which 300 were produced by the American Locomotive Company between February and August 1942.  272 were powered by Wright radial aircraft engines, while 28 were powered by Gurberson T-1400-2 diesels.”


The M3A1 variants on both can be recognized as early to mid production by the presence of the side doors with pistol ports. The M3A1 on the BAR car being a slightly later variant than those on the NC&St.L car as shown by the counterweight noted by Elden. 

Regards,
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

On Nov 16, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Garth Groff and Sally Sanford <mallardlodge1000@...> wrote:

Friends,

Am I seeing a distinct dip in the BAR flat car with the tank?

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🦆

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:58 PM Steve Summers via groups.io <summers1218=icloud.com@groups.io> wrote:
The tanks are US M3 Lee tanks.  They were built late 1941 to the end of 1942.  They began to be replaced by the better M4 Sherman tanks (a lot were sold to the British). The Lee was not a very good tank but that’s beyond the scope of this group, but it gives a time frame, late 1941- 1943, that they would have been expected to be shipping on a flat car.


On Nov 16, 2020, at 12:41 PM, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb=verizon.net@groups.io> wrote:


Photos: Bangor & Aroostook Flat Car 71710 With Army Tanks (Undated)
Photos from the National Archives of Canada:
These photos can be enlarged quite a bit.
Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Re: Suggestions? - Livestock Cars & Operations Books

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford
 

Don,

I'm just going by the titles of the articles, and yield to your knowledge of history in this matter.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:47 PM Donald B. Valentine via groups.io <riverman_vt=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Hi Garth,

     Please name even one stock car built that used the Fowler Patent. This nonsense began with my old friend Al Westerfield.
The fact of the matter is that fewer than 10,000 BOX CARS were constructed that utilized this patent before it was found to
be an unneeded extra expense and was dropped from use in construction of all further cars of this type that are more
properly known as Dominion Cars based upon the fact that Dominion Car & Foundry was the initial builder of such cars.
How long is this ridiculous misnaming of the type going to continue?

Cordially, Don Valentine


Re: Photos: Bangor & Aroostook Flat Car 71710 With Army Tanks (Undated)

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford
 

Friends,

Am I seeing a distinct dip in the BAR flat car with the tank?

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🦆

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:58 PM Steve Summers via groups.io <summers1218=icloud.com@groups.io> wrote:
The tanks are US M3 Lee tanks.  They were built late 1941 to the end of 1942.  They began to be replaced by the better M4 Sherman tanks (a lot were sold to the British). The Lee was not a very good tank but that’s beyond the scope of this group, but it gives a time frame, late 1941- 1943, that they would have been expected to be shipping on a flat car.


On Nov 16, 2020, at 12:41 PM, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb=verizon.net@groups.io> wrote:



Photos: Bangor & Aroostook Flat Car 71710 With Army Tanks (Undated)

Photos from the National Archives of Canada:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=3285352

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=3285353

These photos can be enlarged quite a bit.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: [Non-DoD Source] [RealSTMFC] Pool Service into California

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford
 

Elden,

I second your comments on the complexity of pools. And when it comes to sub-assemblies, one also should consider that some parts were made by contractors. For instance, American Metal Products supplied seat frames and springs to a number of manufacturers. We usually think only of the Big Three manufacturers today, but Willys/Kaiser/Henry J/Frazier/Allstate, Hudson, Packard, Studebaker, Nash and others were still in the game into the 1950s, and these smaller marques likely used many more sourced products than Ford, GM or Chrysler. And remember, every car made in the US came with five tires, and AFAIK, none of auto manufacturers were making their own tires (though Ford had tried). There must also have been pools from the tire manufacturers to auto assembly plants.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:03 AM Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@...> wrote:

Fred;

 

Unfortunately, not yet.  I know a guy that has been working on this for 30+ years with the intention of doing a book(s), but he is overwhelmed with data. 

 

Every RR did their own version of how they handled it, and I am personally overwhelmed with just the PRR part of this, in the moment.

 

In addition, the pools changed almost yearly, with new models, changed models, and the whims of the auto makers.  I can attest to the numerous code changes, stencil changes, rack changes, and classes in use, from what I’ve dug up.

 

For your edification, you may want to look up the various auto and parts plants on-line, to see the enormous number of same in play over the years.

 

Elden Gatwood

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Fred Swanson via groups.io
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 10:41 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [RealSTMFC] Pool Service into California

 

Many cars serving the auto industry were in pool service.  Are there listings or other information on what lines to and from where, when?
Fred Swanson


Re: Decals for scale locations and light weights just need the B&O

Charlie Duckworth
 

Thanks for the confirmation. 
--
Charlie Duckworth 
Omaha, Ne.


Re: Decals for scale locations and light weights just need the B&O

Dave Parker
 

Charlie:

I am not aware of any exceptions to the 3" height as long as you are talking about the 1927+ ARA standard (which was when the LD LMT stencil was added).  Prior, there was more variation in how various roads handled the light weight stenciling (includng 4" lettering), but I assume that is not an objective of this decal project.
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Re: Decals for scale locations and light weights just need the B&O

Mont Switzer
 

Charlie,

 

Reweigh data applied by the Monon was the same size as on newly painted cars, 3 inches.

 

Background colors could be either black or brown depending on a number of things at any given time.

 

Mont Switzer


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] on behalf of Charlie Duckworth [omahaduck@...]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 11:10 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Decals for scale locations and light weights just need the B&O

Garth
I have all the major railroads covered.  So I’m good. I just want to ensure the light weigh, location and date were three inches high on all roads. 
--
Charlie Duckworth 
Omaha, Ne.


Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Was there ever a clinic on Delano-based paint and weathering?

erieblt2
 

My optometrist friend rightly points our eyes ‘see’ different colors from  others peoples eyes. This color thing is important to me too. We need to allow a more relaxed definition. For example weathered PRR ‘Brunswick Green’ is ‘a shade of blackish’  Period. Respectfully, Bill S


On Nov 16, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@...> wrote:



Bruce;

 

Of course I agree with you, but what else do we have to go by?  Kodachrome looks more accurate than any other film I ever took.  OK, warmer, but warm is good.

 

If I look at a photo or model, and it looks wrong, I will always feel it is wrong.  Vice versa.  We are only modeling a reality we want to look right.

 

And you cannot tell me the PRRT&HS “paint chips” we worked on as a group for so many years did not get consensus agreement that they look phenomenally correct!

 

Elden Gatwood

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bruce Smith
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 10:18 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Was there ever a clinic on Delano-based paint and weathering?

 

Elden sez:



"Kodachrome…..they are the only slides I took that looked like the real thing."



Actually, Elden, they are the only slides that look like your MEMORY of the real thing 😉. Memory is a notoriously tricky thing and tends to "warm" colors, just like Kodachrome. Kodak, or, as we from Rochester like to say, "The Great Yellow Mother to Us All" knew what they were doing. People are pleased when their photos look even better than their memories!



Regards,

Bruce 

Bruce Smith

Auburn, AL


Re: Group of automobile boxcars May 31, 1949

Charlie Duckworth
 

Lee
Thanks for all the input. 

Charlie 

On Nov 15, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Lee Singletary via groups.io <LEKASING@...> wrote:


Also be aware that in Pensacola that Frisco interchanged cars with the L&N for the Port of Pensacola.  Could be cars headed for the docks.

Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Singletary via groups.io <LEKASING@...>
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Sun, Nov 15, 2020 1:57 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Group of automobile boxcars May 31, 1949

Charlie,
Being a Pensacola native, I believe that is the old Newport Industries plant. They made some type of products using tree stumps. They were adjacent to the Frisco yard and actually had an 0-4-0 fireless made by Heisler for interplant switching.

Lee 



-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Duckworth <omahaduck@...>
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Sun, Nov 15, 2020 1:46 pm
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Group of automobile boxcars May 31, 1949

While I was sorting photos for the reweigh project I can across this small shot (2 3/4” by 4 1/2”) Art Johnson taken at Pensacola, Florida.  Behind the Frisco VO-660 is from left to right a PRR, ATSF, Soo Line, T&NO, MP and CoG 50 boxcars.  Anyone know of the industry in the background and why the wide assortment of road names?

Charlie Duckworth 


<AutocarsFlorida002.jpg>


--
Charlie Duckworth 
Omaha, Ne.
<AutocarsFlorida002.jpg>

--
Charlie Duckworth 
Omaha, Ne.


Re: Car ID just for fun

Bill McClure
 

Eric, 

The C&O 82000-82999 series double door auto boxes were built 1924-25 by Illinois Car, and the 83000-83999 in 1924 by Pullman Car. The latter series was originally Hocking Valley cars.

The source material comes from the excellent Chesapeake & Ohio Freight Cars 1937-46, Shaver, Kresse and Parker, published by the C&O Historical Society, last reprinted 2104, pages 140-141.

In 1941-42 1184 cars were rebuilt with steel sheathing and various door configurations, and renumbered into the 12k and 13k series. In 1954 three cars had their roofs removed for coke service. I have never seen a photo of one of these.

Bill


Re: Suggestions? - Livestock Cars & Operations Books

Pierre Oliver
 

Don,

Can you provide documentation to support your assertion of only 10,000 being built before the construction was altered?
As well as can you support your assertion that the label "Domion Car" was the "label", when they were built by C.C.F., Eastern Car & Foundry, National Steel car, as well.
And frankly, I doubt very much that the purchasing railroads refered to this design as anything other than 36', steel frame, 30/40 ton boxcars.
Fowler boxcar and Dominion Car are, in my opinion, labels generated my modelers and historians

Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 11/16/20 5:55 a.m., Donald B. Valentine via groups.io wrote:

Hi Garth,

     Please name even one stock car built that used the Fowler Patent. This nonsense began with my old friend Al Westerfield.
The fact of the matter is that fewer than 10,000 BOX CARS were constructed that utilized this patent before it was found to
be an unneeded extra expense and was dropped from use in construction of all further cars of this type that are more
properly known as Dominion Cars based upon the fact that Dominion Car & Foundry was the initial builder of such cars.
How long is this ridiculous misnaming of the type going to continue?

Cordially, Don Valentine


Re: Suggestions? - Livestock Cars & Operations Books

Donald B. Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
 

Hi Garth,

     Please name even one stock car built that used the Fowler Patent. This nonsense began with my old friend Al Westerfield.
The fact of the matter is that fewer than 10,000 BOX CARS were constructed that utilized this patent before it was found to
be an unneeded extra expense and was dropped from use in construction of all further cars of this type that are more
properly known as Dominion Cars based upon the fact that Dominion Car & Foundry was the initial builder of such cars.
How long is this ridiculous misnaming of the type going to continue?

Cordially, Don Valentine


Re: Photo: Intercolonial Railway Flat Car 15377 (Undated)

Donald B. Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
 

Since when does an early Lidgerwood become a "flat car"? These things were around for years to unload ballast 
from ballast cars with sides that opened though I yet to figure out how it was done on curves. A cable was wound onto
the drum on the right and pulled a plow down through a string of cars to unload them. The Rutland had one for years 
and the B&M may have had one at one time as the Rutland sold the B&M some ballast cars of the type used and bought
100 new ballast cars to replace them.

Though no longer headquartered in NYC Lidgerwood is stilll around.

Cordially, Don Valentine


Re: [Non-DoD Source] [RealSTMFC] Photo: Reading Well Hole Flat Car 99009 (Undated)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Bob, Guys;

 

Fabulous photo, fabulous car, fabulous load.

 

I think these cars were well cars, not well hole cars, though.  I have not seen documentation that the floor was removable, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

 

This class of RDG well flats is a great counterpoint to those made by NYC, P&LE and PRR, among others.  The use of a well strapped to the side sills (as well as to inner members), and use of various steel shapes, all heavily riveted together in various ways, is fascinating.  One can compare similar design thinking to PRR’s F25 and FN & F37 designs.

 

I LOVE well cars! 

 

Elden Gatwood

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bob Chaparro via groups.io
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 12:43 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [RealSTMFC] Photo: Reading Well Hole Flat Car 99009 (Undated)

 

Photo: Reading Well Hole Flat Car 99009 (Undated)

A photo from the National Archives of Canada:

Blockedhttps://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=3607476

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

Car built 1924, photo taken 1938 or later.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA

1961 - 1980 of 181100