Date
1 - 20 of 35
RC PFE R-30-12-9
|
Armand Premo
How accurate is the Red Caboose PFE R-30-12-9 reefer?Armand Premo
|
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Armand Premo wrote:
How accurate is the Red Caboose PFE R-30-12-9 reefer?I'd say excellent. 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@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
The -car- itself is excellent as Tony says, but watch out
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
for the paint schemes. Also if you get hold of the oldest original kits, the bodies were incorrect, and were later retooled. Tim O'Connor At 5/12/2009 06:39 PM Tuesday, you wrote:
Armand Premo wrote:How accurate is the Red Caboose PFE R-30-12-9 reefer?I'd say excellent. |
|
|
|
Armand Premo
Thank you Tony .This begs other questions,RC-4101-1has ladders on sides and ends and a power hand brake.RC 4101-2 has side ladders and end grabs with a stem winder hand brake.Both cars have K brakes,T section trucks and both had reweigh dates of 1939.With those differences are they both correct?How long were they carried on the roster in those configurations.Armand Premo
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson To: STMFC@... Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] RC PFE R-30-12-9 Armand Premo wrote: > How accurate is the Red Caboose PFE R-30-12-9 reefer? I'd say excellent. 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@... Publishers of books on railroad history ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Armand Premo wrote:
Thank you Tony .This begs other questions,RC-4101-1has ladders on sides and ends and a power hand brake.RC 4101-2 has side ladders and end grabs with a stem winder hand brake.Both cars have K brakes,T section trucks and both had reweigh dates of 1939.With those differences are they both correct?How long were they carried on the roster in those configurations.I'm sorry, I don't have those kits myself and don't know exactly which bodies they are. But AFAIK all of the -9 rebuilds received steel ladders, sides and ends, along with power handbrakes, when rebuilt during 1938-1940. Most kept their T-section trucks until after WW II, when many got AAR trucks. The earlier cars in the class kept their original KC brakes, but soon after WW II they began to get AB brakes. For a 1939 reweigh date, I'd say a -9 should NOT have grab iron rows or vertical-staff handbrakes. But if it's an R-30-12 car, it certainly could have. What class lettering is on the car bodies? 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@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Armand
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The first model Red Caboose did was neither an R-30-12 or an R-30-9 (i.e. R-30-12-9) -- it was the height of an R-30-12 but had some R-30-9 features. RC quickly redid the car with the correct height and door etc, and this was the R-30-9 (-12-9) and in addition later did the lower height R-30-12 body. As Tony notes the prototype cars received various modifications and changes in their service lives and the classes co-existed for a long time as well. Many cars were rebuilt without the hatch platforms and received modern ice hatches too -- so it's best to have a good book on this subject! (i.e. the PFE book) A quick Google Desktop search shows me most of the emails on this subject happened before STMFC, back in the "freightcars" mailing list era, at the dawn of time... Tim O'Connor At 5/12/2009 08:57 PM Tuesday, you wrote:
Armand Premo wrote:Thank you Tony .This begs other questions,RC-4101-1has laddersI'm sorry, I don't have those kits myself and don't know exactly |
|
|
|
Armand Premo
Thanks again Tony.Both cars are R-30-12-9.Both were "completely reconditioned",repacked and light weighted on 7-39.Armand Premo
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson To: STMFC@... Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] RC PFE R-30-12-9 Armand Premo wrote: > Thank you Tony .This begs other questions,RC-4101-1has ladders > on sides and ends and a power hand brake.RC 4101-2 has side ladders > and end grabs with a stem winder hand brake.Both cars have K > brakes,T section trucks and both had reweigh dates of 1939.With > those differences are they both correct?How long were they carried > on the roster in those configurations. I'm sorry, I don't have those kits myself and don't know exactly which bodies they are. But AFAIK all of the -9 rebuilds received steel ladders, sides and ends, along with power handbrakes, when rebuilt during 1938-1940. Most kept their T-section trucks until after WW II, when many got AAR trucks. The earlier cars in the class kept their original KC brakes, but soon after WW II they began to get AB brakes. For a 1939 reweigh date, I'd say a -9 should NOT have grab iron rows or vertical-staff handbrakes. But if it's an R-30-12 car, it certainly could have. What class lettering is on the car bodies? 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@... Publishers of books on railroad history ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2111 - Release Date: 05/12/09 18:03:00 |
|
|
|
Armand Premo
Thanks Tim.Quess I am out of my neighborhood again.Armand Premo
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor To: STMFC@... Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] RC PFE R-30-12-9 Armand The first model Red Caboose did was neither an R-30-12 or an R-30-9 (i.e. R-30-12-9) -- it was the height of an R-30-12 but had some R-30-9 features. RC quickly redid the car with the correct height and door etc, and this was the R-30-9 (-12-9) and in addition later did the lower height R-30-12 body. As Tony notes the prototype cars received various modifications and changes in their service lives and the classes co-existed for a long time as well. Many cars were rebuilt without the hatch platforms and received modern ice hatches too -- so it's best to have a good book on this subject! (i.e. the PFE book) A quick Google Desktop search shows me most of the emails on this subject happened before STMFC, back in the "freightcars" mailing list era, at the dawn of time... Tim O'Connor At 5/12/2009 08:57 PM Tuesday, you wrote: >Armand Premo wrote: >> Thank you Tony .This begs other questions,RC-4101-1has ladders >> on sides and ends and a power hand brake.RC 4101-2 has side ladders >> and end grabs with a stem winder hand brake.Both cars have K >> brakes,T section trucks and both had reweigh dates of 1939.With >> those differences are they both correct?How long were they carried >> on the roster in those configurations. > > I'm sorry, I don't have those kits myself and don't know exactly >which bodies they are. But AFAIK all of the -9 rebuilds received steel >ladders, sides and ends, along with power handbrakes, when rebuilt >during 1938-1940. Most kept their T-section trucks until after WW II, >when many got AAR trucks. The earlier cars in the class kept their >original KC brakes, but soon after WW II they began to get AB brakes. >For a 1939 reweigh date, I'd say a -9 should NOT have grab iron rows >or vertical-staff handbrakes. But if it's an R-30-12 car, it certainly >could have. > What class lettering is on the car bodies? > >Tony Thompson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2111 - Release Date: 05/12/09 18:03:00 |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Armand Premo wrote:
Thanks again Tony.Both cars are R-30-12-9.Both were "completely reconditioned",repacked and light weighted on 7-39.One's right, one's wrong. Now you know which <g>. 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@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:
Actually, aren't both wrong? I have the R-30-12-9 and R-30-12 at home and I did a little looking in the archives. I believe the 4101 kits may be the original run of low height carbodies. If so, the carbody height actually represents an R-30-12, not the taller rebuilt R-30-12-9 (aka R-30-9). As such, both would be wrongly painted, but you could strip the one with ladder grabs and paint it for an appropriate R-30-12 scheme. As for the car with ladders, I looked in the PFE book and could not find any R-30-12 (or -13) reefers with ladders on the original body, so that one is a bust, if these are the lower carbodies... Armand - are the bodies the same height? Can you measure them and let us know? I can compare to the RCs I have at home Regards Bruce Smith Auburn, AL |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Bruce Smith wrote:
Actually, aren't both wrong? I have the R-30-12-9 and R-30-12 at home and I did a little looking in the archives. I believe the 4101 kits may be the original run of low height carbodies. If so, the carbody height actually represents an R-30-12, not the taller rebuilt R-30-12-9 (aka R-30-9). As such, both would be wrongly painted, but you could strip the one with ladder grabs and paint it for an appropriate R-30-12 scheme. As for the car with ladders, I looked in the PFE book and could not find any R-30-12 (or -13) reefers with ladders on the original body, so that one is a bust, if these are the lower carbodies...You are right, Bruce, and since I don't have either kit I couldn't check. For the one with grabs, I think you would only have to strip the class number (and the "reconditioned" legend) and the car number. 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@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Armand Premo
Gentlemen,RC -4101-1 and 4101-2 are identical.Stated IH is 7' 3" Actual measurement is 8' 3".car numbers are 92809 and 92814 CU FT 1288.Do you need additional measurements ?.Armand Premo
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson To: STMFC@... Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: RC PFE R-30-12-9 Bruce Smith wrote: > Actually, aren't both wrong? I have the R-30-12-9 and R-30-12 at > home and I did a little looking in the archives. I believe the 4101 > kits may be the original run of low height carbodies. If so, the > carbody height actually represents an R-30-12, not the taller > rebuilt R-30-12-9 (aka R-30-9). As such, both would be wrongly > painted, but you could strip the one with ladder grabs and paint it > for an appropriate R-30-12 scheme. As for the car with ladders, I > looked in the PFE book and could not find any R-30-12 (or -13) > reefers with ladders on the original body, so that one is a bust, if > these are the lower carbodies... > > Armand - are the bodies the same height? Can you measure them and > let us know? I can compare to the RCs I have at home You are right, Bruce, and since I don't have either kit I couldn't check. For the one with grabs, I think you would only have to strip the class number (and the "reconditioned" legend) and the car number. 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@... Publishers of books on railroad history ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2111 - Release Date: 05/12/09 18:03:00 |
|
|
|
Mike Brock <brockm@...>
First, Armand...Welcome to the world of PFE. Before you become too involved be aware that I know of at least two modelers who, attempting to learn the PFE reefer car mods, their numbering changes, their paint schemes along with when they existed, are now in places like Sunnybrook Rest Home. One of them has to be kept in a separate guarded facility because he tried to bite an attendant when the attendant asked him if he had ever seen the Pacific Ocean.
Bruce Smith says about the Red Caboose R-30-12 and R-30-12-9: Actually, aren't both wrong? I have the R-30-12-9 and R-30-12 at home and I did a little looking in the archives. I believe the 4101 kits may be the original run of low height carbodies. If so, the carbody height actually represents an R-30-12, not the taller rebuilt R-30-12-9 (aka R-30-9).I think that is correct. "As such, both would be wrongly painted, but you could strip the one with ladder grabs and paint it for an appropriate R-30-12 scheme." I'm not sure why the R-30-12 would be wrongly painted. While the R-30-13's were apparently renumbered prior to scrapping [ PFE book, pg 100 ], there is no such statement with regard to the 12's. PFE book, pg 98 indicates 284 12 and 13's made it to 1950 under their original numbers. There is no telling what paint scheme these survived with...although one might assume few would be in the Overland scheme but I wouldn't want to bet my Key Big Boys on that. In fact, the Big Boy Collection video...which contains the infamous train of 36 SP box cars...also has a train with a wood PFE reefer with the single UP medallion in 1953. Is it the Overland? I'll check. The PFE book, pg 387 shows an Overland medallion in 1948. Now, that's only 6 yrs after the Overland [ without "System" ] was removed from the medallion. Red Caboose kit # 4001, R-30-12 has the Overland medallion without "System". So, I would think an R-30-12 with an Overland medallion could be found in 1950. "As for the car with ladders, I looked in the PFE book and could not find any R-30-12 (or -13) reefers with ladders on the original body, so that one is a bust, if these are the lower carbodies..." Hmmm. More study may be needed. Now, I notice that R-30-12 kit # 4001-2 has holes and bolt heads for individual grabs but does not include the grabs, having ladders instead. It would be easy to build the 12 with individual grabs...or ladders. OTOH, WP kit # 4201 [ R-30-12 ] has no such holes and bolt heads and the paint scheme of 1939. The prototype has ladders. Armand - are the bodies the same height?I'm betting the R-30-12-9 has a side 8 ft high as does the 12. The R-30-9 has an 8.5 ft height. Mike Brock |
|
|
|
Armand Premo
Mike et al ,Admittedly I am over my head wandering around in the dark.Like Pennsy box cars I have to have PFE reefers.Geeez, Just when I was beginning to trust manufacturers.Quess I'll just have to stick with resin kits, and even then with my guard up.Armand Premo
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Brock To: STMFC@... Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:00 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: RC PFE R-30-12-9 First, Armand...Welcome to the world of PFE. Before you become too involved be aware that I know of at least two modelers who, attempting to learn the PFE reefer car mods, their numbering changes, their paint schemes along with when they existed, are now in places like Sunnybrook Rest Home. One of them has to be kept in a separate guarded facility because he tried to bite an attendant when the attendant asked him if he had ever seen the Pacific Ocean. Bruce Smith says about the Red Caboose R-30-12 and R-30-12-9: > Actually, aren't both wrong? I have the R-30-12-9 and R-30-12 at home and > I did a little looking in the archives. I believe the 4101 kits may be > the original run of low height carbodies. If so, the carbody height > actually represents an R-30-12, not the taller rebuilt R-30-12-9 (aka > R-30-9). I think that is correct. "As such, both would be wrongly painted, but you could strip the one with ladder grabs and paint it for an appropriate R-30-12 scheme." I'm not sure why the R-30-12 would be wrongly painted. While the R-30-13's were apparently renumbered prior to scrapping [ PFE book, pg 100 ], there is no such statement with regard to the 12's. PFE book, pg 98 indicates 284 12 and 13's made it to 1950 under their original numbers. There is no telling what paint scheme these survived with...although one might assume few would be in the Overland scheme but I wouldn't want to bet my Key Big Boys on that. In fact, the Big Boy Collection video...which contains the infamous train of 36 SP box cars...also has a train with a wood PFE reefer with the single UP medallion in 1953. Is it the Overland? I'll check. The PFE book, pg 387 shows an Overland medallion in 1948. Now, that's only 6 yrs after the Overland [ without "System" ] was removed from the medallion. Red Caboose kit # 4001, R-30-12 has the Overland medallion without "System". So, I would think an R-30-12 with an Overland medallion could be found in 1950. "As for the car with ladders, I looked in the PFE book and could not find any R-30-12 (or -13) reefers with ladders on the original body, so that one is a bust, if these are the lower carbodies..." Hmmm. More study may be needed. Now, I notice that R-30-12 kit # 4001-2 has holes and bolt heads for individual grabs but does not include the grabs, having ladders instead. It would be easy to build the 12 with individual grabs...or ladders. OTOH, WP kit # 4201 [ R-30-12 ] has no such holes and bolt heads and the paint scheme of 1939. The prototype has ladders. > Armand - are the bodies the same height? I'm betting the R-30-12-9 has a side 8 ft high as does the 12. The R-30-9 has an 8.5 ft height. Mike Brock ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.28/2113 - Release Date: 05/13/09 18:04:00 |
|
|
|
Armand, Red Caboose 4100, 4101-x, 4200, and 4201-x are all
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
incorrect PERIOD -- they are not correct for any version of a PFE reefer. The worst error is the doors. If were just a question of height, you could use this body to build the R-30-12. Tim O'Connor Gentlemen, RC 4101-1 and 4101-2 are identical. Stated IH |
|
|
|
Armand wrote
ArmandMike et al, Admittedly I am over my head wandering around You certainly must be on guard at all times. Sunshine has done models with incorrect underframes, incorrect doors, incorrect decals, and even incorrect PFE carbody width (the R-50-5 model). Not to mention packing errors -- I have received kits with parts missing, or packed with the wrong parts! Trust, but verify! :-) Tim O'Connor |
|
|
|
Mike Brock wrote
Probably, yes.Red Caboose kit # 4001, R-30-12 has the Overland medallion without I'm pretty sure if you check this kit, it has the original carbodyWP kit # 4201 [ R-30-12 ] has no such holes and bolt heads and the and is neither an R-30-12 nor an R-30-9. Moreover, it is simply not correct for the WP cars. Tim O'Connor |
|
|
|
On May 14, 2009, at 5:17 AM, Armand Premo wrote:
Mike et al ,Admittedly I am over my head wandering around in the dark.Like Pennsy box cars I have to have PFE reefers.Geeez, Just when I was beginning to trust manufacturers.Quess I'll just have to stick with resin kits, and even then with my guard up.Armand PremoNever ever trust either RC or IM with respect to paint and lettering ;^) While I agree with Tim's assessment for Sunshine, with these companies, it isn't "Trust but Verify" but "Verify before you buy"! The subsequent corrected RC releases of the R-30-12 and R-30-9 (R-30-12-9) are excellent kits. Both kits can be improved by shaving off the brake levers and adding free-standing ones. In addition, the R-30-9 (R-30-12-9) is good fodder for other cars such as the R-30-12-16 (R-30-16)and R-30-12-18 (R-30-18) conversions and for those feeling more adventurous, the R-30-13 and R-30-13-16 with the use of the Tichy underframe (note that the R-30-13-18 is available as a plastic kit already). Regards, From the Sunnybrook Rest Home ;^) Bruce Bruce F. Smith Auburn, AL http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2 "Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield." __ / \ __<+--+>________________\__/___ ________________________________ |- ______/ O O \_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ | | / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 \ | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__|| |/_____________________________\|_|________________________________| | O--O \0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0 |
|
|
|
Armand Premo
WOW ! Thank you Tim. .Anyone need some nearly new second hand reefers? Armand Premo
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor To: STMFC@... Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:39 AM Subject: [STMFC] Re: RC PFE R-30-12-9 Armand, Red Caboose 4100, 4101-x, 4200, and 4201-x are all incorrect PERIOD -- they are not correct for any version of a PFE reefer. The worst error is the doors. If were just a question of height, you could use this body to build the R-30-12. Tim O'Connor >> Gentlemen, RC 4101-1 and 4101-2 are identical. Stated IH >> is 7' 3" Actual measurement is 8' 3" car ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.28/2113 - Release Date: 05/13/09 18:04:00 |
|
|
|
Let me just add: Sunshine's R-30-9 and other wood bodied
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
PFE reefer kits are significantly better detailed than the Red Caboose plastic kits. So much detail is missing from the plastic cars that I almost regard them as "stand in" models. And of course, the Red Caboose cars only come with the single I-beam Bettendorf 30 ton underframe. Sunshine offers you three different underframes. Tim O'Connor The subsequent corrected RC releases of the R-30-12 and R-30-9 |
|
|