Accurate STMFC freight car list


Paul Hillman
 

Is there being a list kept/generated by anyone listing all of the
currently available freight cars being produced which are accurate to
the STMFC period, as they become available?

I mean, when kits or RTR's are presented by any company, are their
accurate productions being verified and listed by someone on this list?

Westerfield, F&C and Sunshine are a "given" for accuracy, but it is
often stated ,in this list, that "so and so's" cars only apply to RR's
X & Y, but not their A, B or C RR's, as the manufacturer has advertised.

If this hasn't yet been accumulated, I would think that it would be a
very helpful thing, for both us modelers & the manufacturers to have
reference to.

Thanks, Paul Hillman


Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Paul Hillman writes:

"Is there being a list kept/generated by anyone listing all of the
currently available freight cars being produced which are accurate to
the STMFC period, as they become available?"

Not on the STMFC.

"I mean, when kits or RTR's are presented by any company, are their
accurate productions being verified and listed by someone on this list?"

No.

"Westerfield, F&C and Sunshine are a "given" for accuracy, but it is
often stated ,in this list, that "so and so's" cars only apply to RR's
X & Y, but not their A, B or C RR's, as the manufacturer has advertised."

True enough.

"If this hasn't yet been accumulated, I would think that it would be a
very helpful thing, for both us modelers & the manufacturers to have
reference to."

A VERY good idea, Paul. And, of course, I'll make STMFC resources available to you to store your results. We may have to generate another associated group to store the stuff, however. Have you decided what format to build it in yet? Let me know what you need. BTW, I think you may have to define some kind of scale indicating how accurate a car is. IOW, UP box cars with the alternate rivets would not be as accurate as, say, a Santa Fe box car without. And, of course, you will need to pay special attention to the trucks. Anyhow, good luck.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Martin McGuirk <mjmcguirk@...>
 

Did I miss something?? I can easily list a dozen flat-out mistakes I've found on F&C models, as can others. So, when did F&C kits get an automatic "given" for accuracy???

Paul, we've toyed around with rating systems for years on this, and predecessor freight car, lists . The problem remains the same -- a rating system is going to be subjective by its very nature. My "A" (or whatever type of rating is used) model may be your "C" -- which in turn may be the next person's "D". This "relative accuracy" is, of course, impacted by the era each individual is modeling. Take for example a boxcar painted in NYC/PC Jade Green. the model may be dead on accurate for the car, as it was built, (an "A") -- but does not include shortened ladders, steel (or no) running boards and platforms, ACI labels, etc . . . (would that make it a "C" or "D"???? In any event, not having the all details to match the later patin scheme (or vice-versa) doesn't mean the model is "wrong," it simply needs to be detailed.

It's better to find out what is right or wrong with a particular model, relative to the body style, and era you model. Then decide if it's (1) Close Enough, (2) Dead on, or (3) Something that's worth "fixing."

I hope my comments make sense.

It's always fun to discuss this sort of thing (anyone remember the "accuracy label" discussions from 1997 or so . . .??), but I seriously doubt you're going to get a number of model railroaders to arrive at a consensus on how accurate each model is, or isn't.

Marty McGuirk


al_brown03
 

If we view "relative accuracy" in terms of how one need modify
commercial model X to accurately model prototype Y, the judging scale
is even more contextual. I remember someone saying a boxcar model was
totally off, but meaning it had the wrong running board, door, brake
gear, and trucks; and there were ladders not ladder *grabs*. To me
those are all matters of applying the right detail parts: but I want
the right height, width, ends, roof, side framing, rivet pattern if
it's a steel car. Underframes (even truck spacing) can be modified
surprisingly easily if they're separate plastic parts, much less so
if the frame is cast integrally with the car floor. So, to me the
useful form of "ratings" would be notes about what features are
accurate and what aren't.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Martin McGuirk <mjmcguirk@...> wrote:


Did I miss something?? I can easily list a dozen flat-out
mistakes
I've found on F&C models, as can others. So, when did F&C kits get
an
automatic "given" for accuracy???

Paul, we've toyed around with rating systems for years on this,
and
predecessor freight car, lists . The problem remains the same --
a
rating system is going to be subjective by its very nature. My
"A" (or whatever type of rating is used) model may be your "C" --
which in turn may be the next person's "D". This "relative
accuracy"
is, of course, impacted by the era each individual is modeling.
Take
for example a boxcar painted in NYC/PC Jade Green. the model may
be
dead on accurate for the car, as it was built, (an "A") -- but
does
not include shortened ladders, steel (or no) running boards and
platforms, ACI labels, etc . . . (would that make it a "C"
or "D"????
In any event, not having the all details to match the later patin
scheme (or vice-versa) doesn't mean the model is "wrong," it
simply
needs to be detailed.

It's better to find out what is right or wrong with a particular
model, relative to the body style, and era you model. Then decide
if
it's (1) Close Enough, (2) Dead on, or (3) Something that's worth
"fixing."

I hope my comments make sense.

It's always fun to discuss this sort of thing (anyone remember the
"accuracy label" discussions from 1997 or so . . .??), but I
seriously doubt you're going to get a number of model railroaders
to
arrive at a consensus on how accurate each model is, or isn't.

Marty McGuirk


Paul Hillman
 

Marty,

Well, maybe a list like that would turn out to be rather small, about
which model cars were very true replicas of the prototypes. But,
perhaps one (or more) of the prototype masters on this list could
produce such a book or booklet for SALE on the subject.

Our fellows like Richard Hendrickson, Ted Culotta, Mike Brock, Tony
Thompson, yourself and many others contibute to such a source, yet
one apparently is not compiled.

Like you stated, models could be listed as, "Close enough", "Dead
on", or "Worth fixing". Then the potential "purchaser" could decide
what route to take with the model.

One case in point. I impetuosly purchased Walthers, Proto 2000 Series;

Mather 40ft Stock Car, GM&O
Mather 40ft boxcar, C&IM
Mather 40ft Boxcar, C&EI

It was late, I'd had a couple of beers, I liked the way the cars
looked and assumed that PROBABLY (?) the manufacturer had done their
prototype research duty. (Or "close" enough)

Now, I have to do some research, as to how close I'd come to
my "guess" at such accuracy.

Also, F&C models at least LOOK very good and seem to have followed
deep prototype research?

Thanks, Paul Hillman


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Martin McGuirk <mjmcguirk@...> wrote:


Did I miss something?? I can easily list a dozen flat-out
mistakes
I've found on F&C models, as can others. So, when did F&C kits get
an
automatic "given" for accuracy???

Paul, we've toyed around with rating systems for years on this,
and
predecessor freight car, lists . The problem remains the same --
a
rating system is going to be subjective by its very nature. My
"A" (or whatever type of rating is used) model may be your "C" --
which in turn may be the next person's "D". This "relative
accuracy"
is, of course, impacted by the era each individual is modeling.
Take
for example a boxcar painted in NYC/PC Jade Green. the model may
be
dead on accurate for the car, as it was built, (an "A") -- but
does
not include shortened ladders, steel (or no) running boards and
platforms, ACI labels, etc . . . (would that make it a "C"
or "D"????
In any event, not having the all details to match the later patin
scheme (or vice-versa) doesn't mean the model is "wrong," it
simply
needs to be detailed.

It's better to find out what is right or wrong with a particular
model, relative to the body style, and era you model. Then decide
if
it's (1) Close Enough, (2) Dead on, or (3) Something that's worth
"fixing."

I hope my comments make sense.

It's always fun to discuss this sort of thing (anyone remember the
"accuracy label" discussions from 1997 or so . . .??), but I
seriously doubt you're going to get a number of model railroaders
to
arrive at a consensus on how accurate each model is, or isn't.

Marty McGuirk


rfederle@...
 

In some cases I think the info on the following link may be of use (and it may not be,. You decide).

http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/oldsite/rolling-stock/Kits/Kit-Guide.php

Robert Federle
---- Paul & Bernice Hillman <chris_hillman@msn.com> wrote:

Marty,

Well, maybe a list like that would turn out to be rather small, about
which model cars were very true replicas of the prototypes. But,
perhaps one (or more) of the prototype masters on this list could
produce such a book or booklet for SALE on the subject.

Our fellows like Richard Hendrickson, Ted Culotta, Mike Brock, Tony
Thompson, yourself and many others contibute to such a source, yet
one apparently is not compiled.

Like you stated, models could be listed as, "Close enough", "Dead
on", or "Worth fixing". Then the potential "purchaser" could decide
what route to take with the model.

One case in point. I impetuosly purchased Walthers, Proto 2000 Series;

Mather 40ft Stock Car, GM&O
Mather 40ft boxcar, C&IM
Mather 40ft Boxcar, C&EI

It was late, I'd had a couple of beers, I liked the way the cars
looked and assumed that PROBABLY (?) the manufacturer had done their
prototype research duty. (Or "close" enough)

Now, I have to do some research, as to how close I'd come to
my "guess" at such accuracy.

Also, F&C models at least LOOK very good and seem to have followed
deep prototype research?

Thanks, Paul Hillman


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Martin McGuirk <mjmcguirk@...> wrote:


Did I miss something?? I can easily list a dozen flat-out
mistakes
I've found on F&C models, as can others. So, when did F&C kits get
an
automatic "given" for accuracy???

Paul, we've toyed around with rating systems for years on this,
and
predecessor freight car, lists . The problem remains the same --
a
rating system is going to be subjective by its very nature. My
"A" (or whatever type of rating is used) model may be your "C" --
which in turn may be the next person's "D". This "relative
accuracy"
is, of course, impacted by the era each individual is modeling.
Take
for example a boxcar painted in NYC/PC Jade Green. the model may
be
dead on accurate for the car, as it was built, (an "A") -- but
does
not include shortened ladders, steel (or no) running boards and
platforms, ACI labels, etc . . . (would that make it a "C"
or "D"????
In any event, not having the all details to match the later patin
scheme (or vice-versa) doesn't mean the model is "wrong," it
simply
needs to be detailed.

It's better to find out what is right or wrong with a particular
model, relative to the body style, and era you model. Then decide
if
it's (1) Close Enough, (2) Dead on, or (3) Something that's worth
"fixing."

I hope my comments make sense.

It's always fun to discuss this sort of thing (anyone remember the
"accuracy label" discussions from 1997 or so . . .??), but I
seriously doubt you're going to get a number of model railroaders
to
arrive at a consensus on how accurate each model is, or isn't.

Marty McGuirk


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 16, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Paul & Bernice Hillman wrote:

One case in point. I impetuosly purchased Walthers, Proto 2000 Series;

Mather 40ft Stock Car, GM&O
Mather 40ft boxcar, C&IM
Mather 40ft Boxcar, C&EI

It was late, I'd had a couple of beers, I liked the way the cars
looked and assumed that PROBABLY (?) the manufacturer had done their
prototype research duty. (Or "close" enough)
Often a risky assumption. However, the Proto 2000 line was carefully
researched from the outset. That's not to say that every model is 100%
accurate, but errors were generally minor and inadvertant. All three
of the Mather models you purchased are prototypically correct for some
point in time, but whether they're correct on your model RR depends on
the date it represents – another of the dimensions that render
producing a master list of "correct" models difficult.

Also, F&C models at least LOOK very good and seem to have followed
deep prototype research?
Uh, I wouldn't call F&C's prototype research "deep." Many of their
models are essentially correct, but the prototype data that accompanies
them is often less than adequate and sometimes just plain wrong
(unlike, for example, the prototype data in Westerfield's kits, which
is typically voluminous and notably free of errors).

Richard Hendrickson


Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton <smokeandsteam@...>
 

In many cases railroad books are done because the author and/or publisher
have a particular interest in the subject. I'm not suggesting that there is
*no* profit in the deal, but that for many authors the return can represent
an hourly rate of something representing just a few percent of the minimum
wage; to do something like this requires enthusiasm beyond simple financial
reward.

The other point to consider is that a book is limited to what was available
when it went to press and that can be some very considerable period of time
before it hits the shelves in your local store or library.

Online information can be updated more quickly if there is the time and
enthusiasm to do it. However it sometimes suffers from being widely spread
over the internet - the archives of this list, the search page old
Freightcars list, and resources located www.steamfreightcars.com are all
very useful.

You just need to be prepared to do some clicking and reading and to be
prepared to read the whole thread of any email discussions - earlier posts
may contain errors which are corrected later in the thread.

Aidrian


From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
& Bernice Hillman


Well, maybe a list like that would turn out to be rather small, about
which model cars were very true replicas of the prototypes. But,
perhaps one (or more) of the prototype masters on this list could
produce such a book or booklet for SALE on the subject.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.18.0/689 - Release Date: 2/15/2007
5:40 PM


Paul Hillman
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On Feb 16, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Paul & Bernice Hillman wrote:
*****************************************************************
One case in point. I impetuosly purchased Walthers, Proto 2000
Series;

Mather 40ft Stock Car, GM&O
Mather 40ft boxcar, C&IM
Mather 40ft Boxcar, C&EI
******************************************************************
Richard wrote:

The Proto 2000 line was carefully researched from the outset.
That's not to say that every model is 100% accurate, but errors were
generally minor and inadvertant. All three of the Mather models you
purchased are prototypically correct for some point in time, but
whether they're correct on your model RR depends on the date it
represents.
******************************************************************

Thanks Richard for your input & verification of these car's accuracy.

I model around 1947, the last year for C&EI steam, and the car-types
are current for that period.

Of course it's true that the car's build/rebuild date is highly
relevant to the period one's modelling and has to be considered when
purchasing, painting & building a model car.

To the bottom left of the car's side doors there's a date, IE) C.R.5-
43. What does that literally mean? I presume it's the rebuild date,
as "Car Rebuilt 5-43"?

Thanks, Paul Hillman


jaley <jaley@...>
 

On Feb 17, 1:54am, Paul & Bernice Hillman wrote:
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Accurate STMFC freight car list
Marty,

Well, maybe a list like that would turn out to be rather small, about
which model cars were very true replicas of the prototypes. But,
perhaps one (or more) of the prototype masters on this list could
produce such a book or booklet for SALE on the subject.

Paul,

John Nehrich has published such a guide through the RPI Club. I
will leave it to you and Google to come up with a citation.

I will note two things:
1) Not everyone on this list will necessarily agree with John's
classification of what is accurate and what is not.
2) We have covered this topic several times before, and no consensus has
ever been reached. That should not preclude you, however, from making the
attempt, if you so desire.

If you'd like to see how big a quagmire this really is, take just
one "accurate" car and make a statement about it. For example, "The
Intermountain 'PFE R-40-23' is an accurate model of a PFE R-40-23 reefer."

Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jeff Aley wrote:
John Nehrich has published such a guide through the RPI Club . . .
1) Not everyone on this list will necessarily agree with John's classification of what is accurate and what is not.
Truer words were never spoken. (!)

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Paul Hillman
 

Jeff,

I checked out the RPI and am sending them the $8.00 for a month's
access. Nehrich has presented quite a list and it should prove
helpful. I've always liked his work in mag articles that he's done.
I'm sure he's tried to do some serious and accurate work.

It's strange how one seemingly indisputable, dependable source will
list it's info, then another indisputable source presents opposite
info rebuking the first's. So, who can one believe until, in the end,
we ultimately verify everything for ourselves??? I myself kind of go
for the, "that's close enough" approach, sorta???

Thanks, Paul Hillman

*******************************************************************

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, jaley <jaley@...> wrote:

Paul,

John Nehrich has published such a guide through the RPI
Club. I
will leave it to you and Google to come up with a citation.

I will note two things:
1) Not everyone on this list will necessarily agree with John's
classification of what is accurate and what is not.
2) We have covered this topic several times before, and no
consensus has
ever been reached. That should not preclude you, however, from
making the
attempt, if you so desire.

If you'd like to see how big a quagmire this really is, take
just
one "accurate" car and make a statement about it. For example, "The
Intermountain 'PFE R-40-23' is an accurate model of a PFE R-40-23
reefer."

Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@...
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


rfederle@...
 

Hello Paul,

I too joined RPI last week and at present they are changing webpages and software. They are experiencing login problems and as such I have not had access yet. I have been assured though that my subscription will not start until I have full access to material. Just thought I would give you a heads up. If you have problems e-mail John Nehrich and / or William Hill (John can forward e-mail for you to William).

Robert Federle
---- Paul & Bernice Hillman <chris_hillman@msn.com> wrote:

Jeff,

I checked out the RPI and am sending them the $8.00 for a month's
access. Nehrich has presented quite a list and it should prove
helpful. I've always liked his work in mag articles that he's done.
I'm sure he's tried to do some serious and accurate work.

It's strange how one seemingly indisputable, dependable source will
list it's info, then another indisputable source presents opposite
info rebuking the first's. So, who can one believe until, in the end,
we ultimately verify everything for ourselves??? I myself kind of go
for the, "that's close enough" approach, sorta???

Thanks, Paul Hillman

*******************************************************************

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, jaley <jaley@...> wrote:

Paul,

John Nehrich has published such a guide through the RPI
Club. I
will leave it to you and Google to come up with a citation.

I will note two things:
1) Not everyone on this list will necessarily agree with John's
classification of what is accurate and what is not.
2) We have covered this topic several times before, and no
consensus has
ever been reached. That should not preclude you, however, from
making the
attempt, if you so desire.

If you'd like to see how big a quagmire this really is, take
just
one "accurate" car and make a statement about it. For example, "The
Intermountain 'PFE R-40-23' is an accurate model of a PFE R-40-23
reefer."

Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@...
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Douglas Harding
 

I purchased copies of John's various publications at the time (mid 90's).
Thought I had discovered the magic answer to accurate information about
models and freight cars. The books were essentially photocopies of material
he and members of the RPI club assembled, from much research focusing
primarily on existing models while answer the question of how accurate is
it. Being photocopies the photos were dark and muddy, difficult to discern
much good information. As soon as a book was published, they began doing
updates, and just as quickly discovered how futile it was. Manufactures
continued turning out new product. More accurate information continued to
see the light of day. They kept finding more information and more cars and
more models, .... Etc. I think it was about that time they went to a Website
format, concluding they could not keep books up to date. And don't forget
this was started as a labor of love using volunteers.

Today those books gather dust on the shelf and I depend upon this list and
RPM events for the latest up to date and accurate information. I do not
subscribe to the RPI website, but other members of this list do and they
share information gleamed from that list. As do many who are
studying/researching their favorite railroad, freight car, or subject
matter. Add to that we have authors like Tony Thompson who are producing
excellent books, finely printed, with tremendous research and photographs. I
may not model the SP, but I have the books along with many others for many
other railroads.

Doug Harding
www.iowacentralrr.org