Gould/Tichy tank car


Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

I remember when the kit first can out when I was about 10 years old. A
question have had for years not since learning the kit is not correct for
anything out of the box is why was such a detailed kit produced of a car
never built? Why was the time and money spent to bring the kit to market?
Surely photographs and information were shared with the moldmaker back then.
I realize there wasn't an internet group like this then, but surely the
freight car researcher's/historians of the era were consulted. Were no
flags raised?

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


armprem
 

Back then the kit was welcomed in spite of the problem of accuracy.The
other tank cars available were the Mantua (Tyco) and the Athearn both very
poor representations of any tank car.The emphasis on accuracy was not as
important to most modelers at the time. Gould released an excellent model,
albeit of a non prototype.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian J Carlson" <brian@bluemoon.net>
To: <stmfc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:36 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Gould/Tichy tank car


I remember when the kit first can out when I was about 10 years old. A
question have had for years not since learning the kit is not correct for
anything out of the box is why was such a detailed kit produced of a car
never built? Why was the time and money spent to bring the kit to market?
Surely photographs and information were shared with the moldmaker back
then.
I realize there wasn't an internet group like this then, but surely the
freight car researcher's/historians of the era were consulted. Were no
flags raised?

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY





Yahoo! Groups Links







Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Brian J Carlson" <brian@b...> wrote:

I remember when the kit first can out when I was about 10 years old. A
question have had for years not since learning the kit is not
correct for
anything out of the box is why was such a detailed kit produced of a car
never built? Why was the time and money spent to bring the kit to
market?
Surely photographs and information were shared with the moldmaker
back then.
I realize there wasn't an internet group like this then, but surely the
freight car researcher's/historians of the era were consulted. Were no
flags raised?

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY
That is what happens when the process becomes the main determinate of
what model will be done. The Gould / Tichy tank car is unique in that
it uses a tank molded in sections in simple (well, highly detailed but
mechanically simple) "open and close" tooling, that is, tooling
without any complicated side pulls. To do this successfully, the
toolmaker needed a prototype with a "four course" tank, a tank made
from four sheets of steel that had seams at the proper points to hide
the model's joints. I'm sure Bill Gould hit upon this idea when he saw
the drawings of the USRA design tank car in the old "Train Shed
Cyclopedia" reprint of the 1919 Car Builders' Cyc. This then was the
prototype that he was going to follow, even when later told that it
hadn't actually ever been constructed.

To Bill Gould's credit, it was a gutsy move. Irv Athearn had held the
price of HO freight cars so low for so long that no one was willing to
risk money on new tooling for freight car models, because there was no
way that models from new tooling would be able to sell at anywhere
near the established price for HO freight cars. Using simpler tooling
allowed Gould to bring a really nice kit (of a nonexistent prototype)
to market at a price where it at least had a chance. Through the
efforts of Gould, Bill McKean, and a few others, the conventional
wisdom of the day was shown to be wrong, even if these guys who stuck
their necks out in some cases lost another part of their anatomy, and
the typical price for new freight car models today is approaching TEN
TIMES what it was in 1980, but there is no lack of new models coming
to market.

Dennis Storzek


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 15, 2005, at 5:21 AM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

That is what happens when the process becomes the main determinate of
what model will be done. The Gould / Tichy tank car is unique in that
it uses a tank molded in sections in simple (well, highly detailed but
mechanically simple) "open and close" tooling, that is, tooling
without any complicated side pulls. To do this successfully, the
toolmaker needed a prototype with a "four course" tank, a tank made
from four sheets of steel that had seams at the proper points to hide
the model's joints. I'm sure Bill Gould hit upon this idea when he saw
the drawings of the USRA design tank car in the old "Train Shed
Cyclopedia" reprint of the 1919 Car Builders' Cyc. This then was the
prototype that he was going to follow, even when later told that it
hadn't actually ever been constructed.
Dennis's account, as well as his further reflections on the history of toolmaking for injection molding, are entirely accurate and insightful, except for one thing. More than one prototype researcher, on learning through the grapevine that Gould was in the process of developing a tank car model, offered assistance and was rebuffed. Bill Gould told me personally that the identity of the prototype was a secret but that he had all the prototype information he needed (and, by implication, would I please go away and stop bothering him). Egged on by Bob Hundman, he thought the drawings were all he needed and neither Gould nor Hundman realized until after the model was completed that there was no prototype for it.

Richard Hendrickson


tyesac@...
 

In a message dated 12/15/2005 11:25:15 AM Central Standard Time,
rhendrickson@opendoor.com writes:
on by Bob
Hundman, he thought the drawings were all he needed and neither Gould
nor Hundman realized until after the model was completed that there was
no prototype for it.
That line of dialog used by Don Adams' character in that 60's TV spy spoof
"Get Smart" comes to mind here: "missed it by just that much"!

At least it's a good thing that Gould/Tichy didn't repeat that error with
their later cars. Makes me wonder why they couldn't salvage some of the tank car
by reissuing the frame under a correct tank.

Tom C


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:33 PM, Tom Casey <tyesac@aol.com> wrote:

... Makes me wonder why [Gould] couldn't salvage some of the tank car
by reissuing the frame under a correct tank.
As Dennis Storzek pointed out, Gould's clever approach to "flat-molding" a tank required a four-course prototype tank. There weren't very many of those, and none that would have been correct on the USRA underframe. So there really was no way to salvage the tooling so that it would model a prototypically correct car. The tragedy was that at the time the Gould tank car model first appeared, it was by far the best engineered and most detailed HO scale freight car ever done, and we would still be singing its praises if only it had represented a prototype that had actually been built, instead of one that never got off the drawing board.

Richard Hendrickson


Tim O'Connor
 

Richard, and other tank car fans:

If Don Tichy could be persuaded to make a new underframe for
the tank car, to model the War Emergency cars, would that be
a worthwhile effort?? I think if such a car were correct that
Intermountain could have them assembled in China and they
just might be a great success. What do you think? Is the tank
body salvageable for this use?

Tim O'Connor


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 16, 2005, at 7:52 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

Richard, and other tank car fans:

If Don Tichy could be persuaded to make a new underframe for
the tank car, to model the War Emergency cars, would that be
a worthwhile effort?? I think if such a car were correct that
Intermountain could have them assembled in China and they
just might be a great success. What do you think? Is the tank
body salvageable for this use?
That's an interesting idea, Tim. In fact, since most of the War Emergency tanks were mounted on standard AC&F Type 27 underframes, it might only be necessary to modify the tooling for the tank saddles and such so the Tichy tanks could be combined with IM underframes. It might be worth looking into.

Richard Hendrickson