broken plastic parts (was charter revision)


Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

I've begun replacing all my Branchline roofwalks with Kadee, Plano or DA parts.

The see-through effect is much better.  Based on the thickness of the Branchline roofwalks

I do not believe Branchline intended for their roofwalks to be see-through.

When I have missing or broken Branckline parts the replacemnts were sent in a paddeed envelope.

Brian C

Cheektowaga NY

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:02:03 -0700, Tim O'Connor wrote
Manfred wrote

Last year I got my sample of the quality when I bought the NP
convention car. I had to dig through 5 boxes before I found one with
acceptable roofwalks whose grids were not partly filled and then I
later discovered that I only exchanged that for broken, bent and
short-shot ladders and brake lines and a not too good a decal
(printing) job.
Although I have never had any paint or printing problems with
Branchline cars, I guess I have low expectations when it comes
to plastic detail parts -- I am never surprised to find broken
ladders, flash-filled running boards, etc. But it doesn't bother
me because for years I replaced so much stuff that I have a good
supply of spare parts -- in most cases, better than what comes
in the kits. And since I always use etched parts to represent
metal running boards, I have a huge supply of plastic boards. I
am surprised they shipped replacement parts in a soft envelope.
Sounds like somebody screwed up.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/
 
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@...
 
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)




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


Andy Harman <andy10@...>
 

At 12:44 PM 7/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:

I do not believe Branchline intended for their roofwalks to be see-through.
I saw some early samples which would have been see-through, but too many problems filling the mold. Kadee's method must be a trade secret. BL compromised by tooling a see-thru overhang on the ends and making the rest solid. But I still prefer to use the Kadee walks when I take the time to change them.

Andy


Manfred Lorenz
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Brian J Carlson" <brian@b...> wrote:
I've begun replacing all my Branchline roofwalks with Kadee, Plano
or DA parts.

The see-through effect is much better.  Based on the thickness of
the Branchline roofwalks
-----------------

There was once a discussion "Kadee vs. Plano" in which it was
reasoned that Plano is too thin.

----------------
I do not believe Branchline intended for their roofwalks to be see-
through.

When I have missing or broken Branckline parts the replacemnts were
sent in a paddeed envelope.
----------------

Padding is useless if the envelope gets bent. The nice and thin brake
rods don't take this.

Manfred


armprem
 

It may be the material that Branchline uses .It doesn't seem to be
the same as Red Caboose or Interrmountain or Kadee.Armand premo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Harman" <andy10@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: broken plastic parts (was charter revision)


At 12:44 PM 7/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:

I do not believe Branchline intended for their roofwalks to be
see-through.

I saw some early samples which would have been see-through, but too many
problems filling the mold. Kadee's method must be a trade secret. BL
compromised by tooling a see-thru overhang on the ends and making the rest
solid. But I still prefer to use the Kadee walks when I take the time to
change them.

Andy





Yahoo! Groups Links






Brian Paul Ehni <behni@...>
 

Mine came in a padded envelope, too, but the parts were taped to some heavy
cardstock.

Sounds like a Branchline error to me. I would have requested another pair,
telling them to pack better.
--
Brian Ehni



From: Manfred Lorenz <germanfred55@...>
Reply-To: <STMFC@...>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:12:07 -0000
To: <STMFC@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: broken plastic parts (was charter revision)

--- In STMFC@..., "Brian J Carlson" <brian@b...> wrote:
I've begun replacing all my Branchline roofwalks with Kadee, Plano
or DA parts.

The see-through effect is much better.  Based on the thickness of
the Branchline roofwalks
-----------------

There was once a discussion "Kadee vs. Plano" in which it was
reasoned that Plano is too thin.

----------------
I do not believe Branchline intended for their roofwalks to be see-
through.

When I have missing or broken Branckline parts the replacemnts were
sent in a paddeed envelope.
----------------

Padding is useless if the envelope gets bent. The nice and thin brake
rods don't take this.

Manfred


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


Tim O'Connor
 

Manfred wrote

Last year I got my sample of the quality when I bought the NP
convention car. I had to dig through 5 boxes before I found one with
acceptable roofwalks whose grids were not partly filled and then I
later discovered that I only exchanged that for broken, bent and
short-shot ladders and brake lines and a not too good a decal
(printing) job.
Although I have never had any paint or printing problems with
Branchline cars, I guess I have low expectations when it comes
to plastic detail parts -- I am never surprised to find broken
ladders, flash-filled running boards, etc. But it doesn't bother
me because for years I replaced so much stuff that I have a good
supply of spare parts -- in most cases, better than what comes
in the kits. And since I always use etched parts to represent
metal running boards, I have a huge supply of plastic boards. I
am surprised they shipped replacement parts in a soft envelope.
Sounds like somebody screwed up.


Andy Harman <andy10@...>
 

At 01:13 PM 7/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
It may be the material that Branchline uses .It doesn't seem to be
the same as Red Caboose or Interrmountain or Kadee.Armand premo
Branchline seems to make everything from styrene - the only successful see-thru plastic walks I've seen have been delrin. Styrene at least can be painted.

Andy


Tim O'Connor
 

There was once a discussion "Kadee vs. Plano" in which it was
reasoned that Plano is too thin.

Manfred, the Plano parts are .010" or .87" HO scale. A prototype
APEX running board is 1.00" thick. If you can see a 1/8" HO scale
difference then you've got much better eyesight than me! I think
the Kadee, like all plastic running boards, are too thick.

Open grid tank cars runways, on the other hand, are 2" thick. It
would be nice to have etched metal parts for those.


Ed Hawkins
 

On Thursday, July 8, 2004, at 10:06 AM, Andy Harman wrote:

I saw some early samples which would have been see-through, but too many
problems filling the mold. Kadee's method must be a trade secret. BL
compromised by tooling a see-thru overhang on the ends and making the rest
solid. But I still prefer to use the Kadee walks when I take the time to
change them.
Andy and Brian,
Regarding the HO scale running boards, both Kadee's and Branchline Trains' running boards best represent the Apex Tri-Lok, which was the most common type used during the 1940s and '50s. Having done some research for an upcoming article on the subject of running boards for RP CYC, I have learned some interesting stuff about them. The Apex running boards had 13 longitudinal members that were 1" high with a 1/8" serrated top edge for footing. The 1/8" serrations are lost when reduced to HO scale.

While I agree wholeheartedly that the Kadee R/B looks terrific (I also use them extensively), it is actually not prototypically correct as it has only 11 longitudinal members. The BT R/B has the correct amount of 13. Kadee must have chosen to compromise the prototype design in order that the mold would fill. Kadee's crosswise members measure just over 4" apart and the BT crosswise members measure 6" apart.

Apex R/B built from 1938 to approximately 1953 had crosswise members spaced 3-1/2" apart. Apex changed by 1953 and increased the spacing to 5-7/8". Blaw-Knox, who had running boards that were similar in appearance (from a distance) to the Apex also increased their crosswise member spacing by circa 1949/51 (per the CBC) from 4" to 6". There were more changes but these were the most significant from an appearance standpoint.

Kadee uses acetal plastic that flows better and fills easier than styrene. I understand that BT uses a form of styrene. Kadee's detail parts made of acetal plastic are virtually indestructible. The downside to acetal plastic is that it doesn't hold paint and that is why Kadee molds the parts with color rather than painting them. The BT running boards and other detail parts are paintable. The BT running board mold must be getting worn because I've noticed more flash on the running board detail compared to a few years ago when the 40'-6" box cars were first introduced.

Jack Spencer showed me a method that he uses to remove material from the bottom of the BT running board such that the remaining portion is scale thickness and open-grid. The process is labor intensive, but it yields an excellent running board when the job is completed. Even after all this work, the BT running board is accurate for cars built 1953 and later with the 6" crosswise spacing. While in HO scale I don't get overly concerned about all this, I believe the visual differences in O scale (and even S scale) would be quite noticeable.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Paul Lyons
 

Ed, How about sharing Jack Spencer technique for thinning out BT roofwailks so they are see through.
Paul Lyons
Oceanside, CA

In a message dated 7/8/2004 5:34:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> writes:


On Thursday, July 8, 2004, at 10:06 �AM, Andy Harman wrote:

I saw some early samples which would have been see-through, but too
many
problems filling the mold. �Kadee's method must be a trade secret. �BL
compromised by tooling a see-thru overhang on the ends and making the
rest
solid. �But I still prefer to use the Kadee walks when I take the time
to
change them.
Andy and Brian,
Regarding the HO scale running boards, both Kadee's and Branchline
Trains' running boards best represent the Apex Tri-Lok, which was the
most common type used during the 1940s and '50s. Having done some
research for an upcoming article on the subject of running boards for
RP CYC, I have learned some interesting stuff about them. The Apex
running boards had 13 longitudinal members that were 1" high with a
1/8" serrated top edge for footing. The 1/8" serrations are lost when
reduced to HO scale.

While I agree wholeheartedly that the Kadee R/B looks terrific (I also
use them extensively), it is actually not prototypically correct as it
has only 11 longitudinal members. The BT R/B has the correct amount of
13. Kadee must have chosen to compromise the prototype design in order
that the mold would fill. Kadee's crosswise members measure just over
4" apart and the BT crosswise members measure 6" apart.

Apex R/B built from 1938 to approximately 1953 had crosswise members
spaced 3-1/2" apart. Apex changed by 1953 and increased the spacing to
5-7/8". Blaw-Knox, who had running boards that were similar in
appearance (from a distance) to the Apex also increased their crosswise
member spacing by circa 1949/51 (per the CBC) from 4" to 6". There were
more changes but these were the most significant from an appearance
standpoint.

Kadee uses acetal plastic that flows better and fills easier than
styrene. I understand that BT uses a form of styrene. Kadee's detail
parts made of acetal plastic are virtually indestructible. The downside
to acetal plastic is that it doesn't hold paint and that is why Kadee
molds the parts with color rather than painting them. The BT running
boards and other detail parts are paintable. The BT running board mold
must be getting worn because I've noticed more flash on the running
board detail compared to a few years ago when the 40'-6" box cars were
first introduced.

Jack Spencer showed me a method that he uses to remove material from
the bottom of the BT running board such that the remaining portion is
scale thickness and open-grid. The process is labor intensive, but it
yields an excellent running board when the job is completed. Even after
all this work, the BT running board is accurate for cars built 1953 and
later with the 6" crosswise spacing. While in HO scale I don't get
overly concerned about all this, I believe the visual differences in O
scale (and even S scale) would be quite noticeable.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins





Yahoo! Groups Links






Garrett W. Rea <Garrett.Rea@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Brian Paul Ehni <behni@c...> wrote:
Mine came in a padded envelope, too, but the parts were taped to
some heavy
cardstock.

Sounds like a Branchline error to me. I would have requested
another pair,
telling them to pack better.
--
Brian Ehni
I had a run in with the now infamous DT&I cars. All the well known
problems, so I will spare everyone. I wrote them a nice (i.e., not
bitching or nasty), well detailed letter detailing the problems.
They sent me replacements for everything, by Fed-Ex, in a nice box.

Branchline get all As from me for supplying us with kits, if they go
RTR, I do not know what I would do....probably back to European
prototype modelling, especially if the dollar ever gets stonger.

Garrett Rea
Nashville, TN