Date
1 - 9 of 9
Wabash USRA Hoppers
Justin Kahn
Perhaps because they were worn out before color film was in common use? I think some of them had their lives extended by being rebuilt with panels.
Jace Kahn, General Manager
Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
Jace Kahn, General Manager
Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.
Group I need to get some phootos of a Wabash USRA 2 BAY open hopper. I_________________________________________________________________
have looked but was unable to find a satisfactory color photo. They
are needed for a weathering project.
Dave Schroedle
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
Dave Schroedle wrote:
"...I need to get some photos of a Wabash USRA 2 BAY open hopper. I
have looked but was unable to find a satisfactory color photo. They
are needed for a weathering project."
Jace Kahn replied:
"Perhaps because they were worn out before color film was in common
use? I think some of them had their lives extended by being rebuilt
with panels."
Wabash received 1,000 USRA twin hoppers in 1920 as WAB 35000-35999.
Some were converted to panel side cars during the 1930s, retaining
their original numbers; however, as Jace surmised, by January 1952,
only 2 cars remained, and they were scrapped that year. The Andrews
trucks for these cars were reused under the new larger panel side
hoppers built 1948-1951.
Additionally, Wabash acquired copies of the USRA twin hoppers during
the 1920s in the 34000 series. These were scrapped by the end of
1953.
Dave Schroedle wrote:
"I also found out that the Tichy/IM car is not correct for this car."
http://www.imrcmodels.com/distrib/tichy/html/T452910.htm
The biggest discrepancy of the Tichy USRA twin is the center two
panels of the car, which are wider than the prototype to increase
the wheelbase of the model to account for oversized model wheel
flanges. Is this why you're calling the model incorrect? If not,
on what basis are you judging it?
It's really a shame - the Tichy model is exquisitely tooled but has
that flaw; the Accurail car has the correct width panels but molded-
on details. It again falls to what compromises the indvidual
modeler is willing to live with.
Ben Hom
"...I need to get some photos of a Wabash USRA 2 BAY open hopper. I
have looked but was unable to find a satisfactory color photo. They
are needed for a weathering project."
Jace Kahn replied:
"Perhaps because they were worn out before color film was in common
use? I think some of them had their lives extended by being rebuilt
with panels."
Wabash received 1,000 USRA twin hoppers in 1920 as WAB 35000-35999.
Some were converted to panel side cars during the 1930s, retaining
their original numbers; however, as Jace surmised, by January 1952,
only 2 cars remained, and they were scrapped that year. The Andrews
trucks for these cars were reused under the new larger panel side
hoppers built 1948-1951.
Additionally, Wabash acquired copies of the USRA twin hoppers during
the 1920s in the 34000 series. These were scrapped by the end of
1953.
Dave Schroedle wrote:
"I also found out that the Tichy/IM car is not correct for this car."
http://www.imrcmodels.com/distrib/tichy/html/T452910.htm
The biggest discrepancy of the Tichy USRA twin is the center two
panels of the car, which are wider than the prototype to increase
the wheelbase of the model to account for oversized model wheel
flanges. Is this why you're calling the model incorrect? If not,
on what basis are you judging it?
It's really a shame - the Tichy model is exquisitely tooled but has
that flaw; the Accurail car has the correct width panels but molded-
on details. It again falls to what compromises the indvidual
modeler is willing to live with.
Ben Hom
Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
--- In STMFC@..., "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@...> wrote:
I'll take this opportunity to point out that the two kits actually
model different prototypes. The Tichy kit models the panels that
Standard Railway Equipment Co. sold to be riveted to the cars existing
side stakes. The Accurail kit models what Standard Railway Equipment
called "panel side with integral stakes." These panels had their edges
flanged, then flanged again outward to form a channel section on each
edge of the sheet. When fitted to the car, a bead of weld in each side
of the joint unified this into an "I" section post, with no rivets
along it, since it was actually part of the sheets. The spotting
feature of this style panel is, other than the lack of rivets, the
tops and bottoms of the flanges are clipped back at an angle a couple
inches from the top chord and side sill, a feature that Accurail
captured in the model.
There was a third design shown in the 1940 Cyc. that used bulb angle
for posts, and this type DID have an odd post spacing; the panel just
left of center was 3" wider than the rest. I'm not sure that this last
variation was ever used by any railroad, but given the variety of
design changes available (one could also order these panel sides for
cars of other than USRA design), I wouldn't be so quick to say that
there is absolutely no prototype for the Tichy car.
Dennis
Ben,
It's really a shame - the Tichy model is exquisitely tooled but has
that flaw; the Accurail car has the correct width panels but molded-
on details. It again falls to what compromises the indvidual
modeler is willing to live with.
Ben Hom
I'll take this opportunity to point out that the two kits actually
model different prototypes. The Tichy kit models the panels that
Standard Railway Equipment Co. sold to be riveted to the cars existing
side stakes. The Accurail kit models what Standard Railway Equipment
called "panel side with integral stakes." These panels had their edges
flanged, then flanged again outward to form a channel section on each
edge of the sheet. When fitted to the car, a bead of weld in each side
of the joint unified this into an "I" section post, with no rivets
along it, since it was actually part of the sheets. The spotting
feature of this style panel is, other than the lack of rivets, the
tops and bottoms of the flanges are clipped back at an angle a couple
inches from the top chord and side sill, a feature that Accurail
captured in the model.
There was a third design shown in the 1940 Cyc. that used bulb angle
for posts, and this type DID have an odd post spacing; the panel just
left of center was 3" wider than the rest. I'm not sure that this last
variation was ever used by any railroad, but given the variety of
design changes available (one could also order these panel sides for
cars of other than USRA design), I wouldn't be so quick to say that
there is absolutely no prototype for the Tichy car.
Dennis
benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
Dennis Storzek wrote:
"I'll take this opportunity to point out that the two kits actually
model different prototypes. The Tichy kit models the panels that
Standard Railway Equipment Co. sold to be riveted to the cars
existing side stakes. The Accurail kit models what Standard Railway
Equipment called 'panel side with integral stakes.'"
Dennis, I was actually referring to the original cars, not the
rebuilds. Thanks for bringing up the differences in the two panel
side models; one thing that many modelers don't realize is the subtle
variations between the various rebuilds, and knowing that there are
two different kits out there is useful information indeed.
Ben Hom
"I'll take this opportunity to point out that the two kits actually
model different prototypes. The Tichy kit models the panels that
Standard Railway Equipment Co. sold to be riveted to the cars
existing side stakes. The Accurail kit models what Standard Railway
Equipment called 'panel side with integral stakes.'"
Dennis, I was actually referring to the original cars, not the
rebuilds. Thanks for bringing up the differences in the two panel
side models; one thing that many modelers don't realize is the subtle
variations between the various rebuilds, and knowing that there are
two different kits out there is useful information indeed.
Ben Hom
armprem
Dennis Storzek wrote:
"I'll take this opportunity to point out that the two kits actually
model different prototypes. The Tichy kit models the panels that
Standard Railway Equipment Co. sold to be riveted to the cars
existing side stakes. The Accurail kit models what Standard Railway
Equipment called 'panel side with integral stakes.'"
Dennis, I was actually referring to the original cars, not the
rebuilds. Thanks for bringing up the differences in the two panel
side models; one thing that many modelers don't realize is the subtle
variations between the various rebuilds, and knowing that there are
two different kits out there is useful information indeed.
Ben Hom
Now gentlemen all that is left is to match these cars to specific roads
Armand Premo
Yahoo! Groups Links
benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
Dave (?) wrote:
"Ben yes that is the reason why I did state that it was incorrect.
As a newcomer to prototype modeling I am willing to learn."
Dave, as I posted before, there's incorrect, and then there's what
you're willing to live with. Do you want the finer details of the
Tichy car and are willing to put up with the wider center panels, or
do you want to put in the work to bring the Accurail kit up to the
standards of the Tichy kit? In a perfect world, all kits would be
correct and modelers can rely on an absolute "this model is right"
or "this model is wrong" and we wouldn't have to make compromises
based on what's available; unfortunately, that's not the case.
Often the best we can do is make a educated choice based on the
options available, and only you can make the final decision for your
layout as you're the one who has to live with it.
After all, it could be worse. You could be modeling in N scale, who
inexplicably don't have a model of this significant prototype. (The
Micro-Trains ribbed twin doesn't count - it's the functional
equivalent of the Athearn HO scale model.)
Ben Hom
"Ben yes that is the reason why I did state that it was incorrect.
As a newcomer to prototype modeling I am willing to learn."
Dave, as I posted before, there's incorrect, and then there's what
you're willing to live with. Do you want the finer details of the
Tichy car and are willing to put up with the wider center panels, or
do you want to put in the work to bring the Accurail kit up to the
standards of the Tichy kit? In a perfect world, all kits would be
correct and modelers can rely on an absolute "this model is right"
or "this model is wrong" and we wouldn't have to make compromises
based on what's available; unfortunately, that's not the case.
Often the best we can do is make a educated choice based on the
options available, and only you can make the final decision for your
layout as you're the one who has to live with it.
After all, it could be worse. You could be modeling in N scale, who
inexplicably don't have a model of this significant prototype. (The
Micro-Trains ribbed twin doesn't count - it's the functional
equivalent of the Athearn HO scale model.)
Ben Hom
hummerdaves
--- In STMFC@..., "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@...> wrote:
made either way.
Thanks for your help
Dave Schroedle
or
Dave (?) wrote:
"Ben yes that is the reason why I did state that it was incorrect.
As a newcomer to prototype modeling I am willing to learn."
Dave, as I posted before, there's incorrect, and then there's what
you're willing to live with. Do you want the finer details of the
Tichy car and are willing to put up with the wider center panels,
do you want to put in the work to bring the Accurail kit up to theyour
standards of the Tichy kit? In a perfect world, all kits would be
correct and modelers can rely on an absolute "this model is right"
or "this model is wrong" and we wouldn't have to make compromises
based on what's available; unfortunately, that's not the case.
Often the best we can do is make a educated choice based on the
options available, and only you can make the final decision for
layout as you're the one who has to live with it.who
After all, it could be worse. You could be modeling in N scale,
inexplicably don't have a model of this significant prototype.(The
Micro-Trains ribbed twin doesn't count - it's the functionalso to speak. I like the fact that a ''more'' accurate model can be
equivalent of the Athearn HO scale model.)
Ben Hom
Thanks Ben I would be inclined to do both versions. I'm on the edge
made either way.
Thanks for your help
Dave Schroedle