----- Original Message -----
From: cf5250
To: STMFC@...

Are there any HO kits or kitbashes out there that would be
suitable models for these SP cars?

Yes, the old Front Range riveted double door cars are the best
starting point. This tooling was sold to Accurail who now makes
a version with cast-on details. Some classes of SP box cars in
this era had hybrid roofs (4 rectangular panels, the rest were
diagonal panels) to accomodate auto loaders. The door opening
on the FR/Accurail may be too large (16') but you may be able
to narrow it. The cars have fewer side panels than Branchline's
cars but this is correct for almost all riveted 50' SP cars
of the mid to late fifties. (In other words, the Accurail car
is incorrect for almost every paint scheme that's been applied
to it.) Accurail makes an SP kit with gothic lettering that is
correct for one of the SP cars, but I think it's a B-50-36...
----- Original Message -----

Thanks Tim! Is this it?

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/art/5200/5206.jpg

If so, one problem I see is that it is numbered as a B-50-35, but renumbering as 211836 should be easy enough. It also needs gussets under the door tracks, I think. Were the doors 7-1/2 foot each, 8 + 7, or two 8s over a 15-ft opening?

Actually there are a number that would work (A-50-12, -14, -15, -17, -18; B-50-22, -30, -36, -38, -41, -51, -53; and these unknown types: 219206-219805, 606000-606003, 620085-620100) as they are all 50-6 x 9-4 x 10-6, the most common size of 50-footers on the SP at the time. The -38 and -41 were the most common of the common though.

Thanks again,
KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson

Kurt Laughlin wrote:

Actually there are a number that would work (A-50-12, -14, -15, -17,
-18;
B-50-22, -30, -36, -38, -41, -51, -53; and these unknown types:
219206-219805, 606000-606003, 620085-620100) as they are all 50-6 x
9-4 x
10-6, the most common size of 50-footers on the SP at the time. The
-38
and -41 were the most common of the common though.

Um, Kurt, there were roof and end differences. It ain't all about
interior dimensions, you know. And to go further, the B-50-41, -51 and
-53 were plug + corrugated door cars. These are hardly interchangeable
with the regular 50-foot double doors. Modeling the -38 vs. the -41
would require a bunch of different modifications.
If you look in the box car book, you can see all these details,
as well as the fact that the car numbers listed can be defined
(B-50-40: 219206-219805; the 620,000-series were various XAP cars
equipped for auto engines, etc.). Not sure why you left out B-50-35,
but certainly the -38 cars were the most common of the ones listed.
----- Original Message -----

Hi Tony:

Yeah, I assumed that these cars were all different in some way, else there wouldn't be much use in distinct designations, eh?

For my layout's non-PRR, non-P&LE cars I realized I'm not going to buy the Morning Sun color guides, class diagram books, or even ID every boxcar type of every road that might be seen on the Marginal Branch - I don't have the money or the interest, to be frank. Instead, I determined which roads had the most boxcars and proportioned my XM/XML/XME fleet accordingly. (As it turns out I need one SP 40-footer and one SP 50-footer.) I then looked at the ORER recapitulation tables and saw which inside lengths were most common (50-6 in this case), then found which basic dimensions with that length were most common (50-6 x 9-4 x 10-6), and decided to get a car of that inside size. Sure, it ain't all about the inside, but it's _reasonable_ for my purposes.

I figured the size of car was as good a basis on which to select "the most likely seen car" as the types or classes or whatever. It had an added advantage in that it gave me a range of possible cars to find models for, rather than being stuck looking for an OOP resin or brass item. So, as far as I'm concerned, if I want to represent a 50-foot SP car in Beaver Falls, PA, a de-racked A-50-17 is as good as a B-50-36 is as good as a B-50-41. Granted, one of the two A-50-12 XMs with combo doors and increased inside dimensions would not really be "representative", but I allow myself some input in the decision so as to eliminate outliers. My method seems to catch the "highly probable" cars of most roads, if not the "most probable".

In my period the four 600000 cars I listed were limited to sulphur loads (and really not under consideration) while the four 620000 XMs were swimming in a sea of XAPs.

The B-50-35, 210556-211305, cars were listed as 50-6 x 9-4 x 10-5 in my book, so they didn't make the cut. I realize that from the outside these might not be distinguishable from others I chose, but my alternative was to learn the history of every SP XM and group things based on factors probably just as subjective. I just wasn't willing to spend the effort to do that, choosing instead to pick a plausible subject and improve the quality of that model, whatever it is.

Thanks,
KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson

That's fine, Kurt, but not my point: I was talking about
interchangeability of MODELS.

Sure, that what I figured.

. . . if I want to represent a 50-foot SP car in Beaver Falls, PA, a
de-racked A-50-17 is as good as a B-50-36 is as good as a B-50-41.

No argument, just keep in mind that these three cars are NOT
modeled the same way. If your only intention is to choose ONE of those
classes, and model it, fine.

Yup, that's what I'm doing. I would not use the same kit to make an A-50-17, B-50-36, and B-50-41 any more than I would consider the Proto2000 Greenville GB a suitable kit for every 52-6 GB ever made.

Okay, I understand your criterion--weird as it seems; why
care about that missing inch in height when externals are changing all
over the map [?]

Simply because I had to draw the line somewhere. Like I said, I could've researched each type - for 30-odd roads and private owners - bought more books, posted more messages, scrutinized more photos, and grouped and sorted things by any number of factors, but in the end I doubt I would've come up with a significantly different roster, nor enjoyed the process any more. There's only so much hobby time and budget that researching - vice building and operating - warrants.

Thanks,
KL