Date
1 - 20 of 23
Apology and Gypsum running boards
|
Mark
First of all, my apologies to Mr. Hawkins. I forgot to use uppercase in my previous email about the SCL B-9 class boxcar.
After posting the email I looked in a 1940 and 1957 Car Builders Cyclopedias. No mention of us gypsum in the early one and two pages in the 1957 issue. I am surprised they had more than one pattern, always thought the had holes! Sincerely, Mark Morgan |
|
|
|
Ed Hawkins
On Jul 15, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Mark Morgan wrote:
First of all, my apologies to Mr. Hawkins. I forgot to use uppercaseMark, Apologies to me? I don't see any reason for them, but thanks. To help with your question, the earliest CBC with any coverage on U.S.G. running boards appeared in 1943 (one photo). The 1946 CBC had a U.S.G. ad with good information about them on page 429. The expanded metal design changed to rectangular grid occurred circa 1954, so U.S.G. parts on SAL B-9 box cars were of the type shown in the 1946 CBC. In case you aren't aware, my article in RP CYC Vol. 16 (shameless plug) devoted nearly 50 pages on the subject of various running boards and brake steps used in the steam era. Included is information about how & when the different types of steel running boards & brake steps changed from the late 1930s to 1960. For modeling purposes in HO scale, unfortunately, there's not much in the way of accurate U.S.G. expanded metal running boards to choose from. I hope that one day that changes, but I can understand the reasons why due to the complexity of the tooling that will be required. As you may already know, it was the Morton running boards & brake steps with the holes. Regards, Ed Hawkins |
|
|
|
Mark
Mr. Hawkins, your previous email gave the class and number series with doors, R/W and B/S.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
My car is 19797 which falls in group 19700-19799. This bugger should have a US Gypsum r/b. Is this good for this class: http://www.planomodelproducts.com/192.htm Sincerely, Mark Morgan PS would like to buy issue 16 but better not ask the wife! --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:
From: Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> Subject: Re: [STMFC] Apology and Gypsum running boards To: STMFC@... Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 6:02 PM On Jul 15, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Mark Morgan wrote: First of all, my apologies to Mr. Hawkins. I forgot to use uppercase in my previous email about the SCL B-9 class boxcar. After posting the email I looked in a 1940 and 1957 Car Builders Cyclopedias. No mention of us gypsum in the early one and two pages in the 1957 issue. I am surprised they had more than one pattern, always thought the had holes! Sincerely, Mark Morgan Mark, Apologies to me? I don't see any reason for them, but thanks. To help with your question, the earliest CBC with any coverage on U.S.G. running boards appeared in 1943 (one photo). The 1946 CBC had a U.S.G. ad with good information about them on page 429. The expanded metal design changed to rectangular grid occurred circa 1954, so U.S.G. parts on SAL B-9 box cars were of the type shown in the 1946 CBC. In case you aren't aware, my article in RP CYC Vol. 16 (shameless plug) devoted nearly 50 pages on the subject of various running boards and brake steps used in the steam era. Included is information about how & when the different types of steel running boards & brake steps changed from the late 1930s to 1960. For modeling purposes in HO scale, unfortunately, there's not much in the way of accurate U.S.G. expanded metal running boards to choose from. I hope that one day that changes, but I can understand the reasons why due to the complexity of the tooling that will be required. As you may already know, it was the Morton running boards & brake steps with the holes. Regards, Ed Hawkins [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
|
Ed Hawkins
On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Mark Morgan wrote:
Mr. Hawkins, your previous email gave the class and number series withMark, Yes, the Plano Gypsum running board & brake step is the best one currently available in HO scale as far as I know, and I have used them on models representing prototype cars having U.S.G. appliances. I would like to see Kadee produce U.S.G. running boards & brake steps, but I can appreciate the tooling cost that would be required to produce accurate scale models of them. Regards, Ed Hawkins |
|
|
|
Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
Ed and friends,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
A Gypsum running board from Kadee would be nice, but I would really love a Morton. I've been begging them for several years, and they've been interested in the idea, but . . . . you know. Most of the Western Pacific's fleet of PS-1s had Morton running boards. Kind regards, Garth G. Groff Ed Hawkins wrote: On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Mark Morgan wrote: |
|
|
|
Not to mention Morton running boards!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Ed if I understand you correctly, after 1954 there was no visual difference between Gypsum and Apex and other grid type running boards? Tim Yes, the Plano Gypsum running board & brake step is the best one |
|
|
|
Garth
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Other owners of Morton rb's: AT&SF, B&O, BAR, C&NW, D&H, IC, L&N, LV, N&W, NP, NYC, RF&P, SAL, SOO, SOUTHERN, SP&S, SP -- and I'm sure there are others. Tim O'Connor A Gypsum running board from Kadee would be nice, but I would really love |
|
|
|
Ed Hawkins
On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
Not to mention Morton running boards!Tim, There were physical differences between Apex, the post-1954 U.S.G., and other running boards and brake steps as outlined in RP CYC Vol. 16. The differences can be determined when looking at close-up photos or the actual running boards & brake steps on surviving steam-era cars. For example, the tabs around the perimeter of Apex running boards & brake steps are a spotting feature on the prototype components that none of the other types had. A reasonably sharp photograph can either confirm the use of an Apex or rule it out. Some of the other types are more difficult to determine in a typical photograph of a car taken from the ground. Morton and the expanded metal U.S.G. can be often determined when viewed in a good 3/4 photograph. Identifying post-1954 U.S.G., Blaw-Knox, and Kerrigan are much more difficult, if not impossible using photographs so I rely on available freight car diagrams, bills of materials, railroad specification documents, etc. Because the differences are pretty subtle, for all practical purposes on HO scale models the Apex, post-1954 U.S.G., Blaw-Knox, and Kerrigan rectangular open-grid running boards & brake steps are "the same." Regards, Ed Hawkins |
|
|
|
Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...>
Garth, Tim,
Add PRR to the list. Morton was used on the H30a class covered hopper. IIRC, Plano makes these available. Fred Freitas ________________________________ From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> To: STMFC@... Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:29 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Apology and Gypsum running boards Garth Other owners of Morton rb's: AT&SF, B&O, BAR, C&NW, D&H, IC, L&N, LV, N&W, NP, NYC, RF&P, SAL, SOO, SOUTHERN, SP&S, SP -- and I'm sure there are others. Tim O'Connor A Gypsum running board from Kadee would be nice, but I would really love [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
|
Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
Tim,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks for the additional information. I have, or plan, cars from just about every road you've listed there, though obviously only certain classes from each road would have had Mortons. The WP was a big user (and I believe subsidiary Sacramento Northern's 100 50' double-door PS-1s also had them, plus the Tidewater Southern's small group of 50' single-door PS-1s). I could use a bunch of them. Kadee has marketed otherwise excellent models of both 40 and 50' WP boxcars, and most (if not all) of them have had the wrong running boards. Kind regards, Garth G. Groff Tim O'Connor wrote: Garth |
|
|
|
Frank Greene
The Southern almost exclusively used Morton running boards, etc., from their earliest use around 1942 on new cars and mid-1950s to replace wood running boards. One notable exception were the 50' double door cars in series 34903 - 34917 and 262865 - 262899, the only Southern box car Kadee has produced, in their pursuit of "accurate running boards on an accurate model without tooling more than one running board."
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Garth G. Groff wrote: ... obviously only certain classes from each road would have had Mortons. --
Frank Greene Memphis, TN |
|
|
|
Frank, common errors on Kadee cars are running boards, trucks,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
and underframes. Sounds like they got lucky with the Southern cars you mentioned! :-) Tim O'Connor At 7/16/2009 02:35 PM Thursday, you wrote:
The Southern almost exclusively used Morton running boards, etc., from |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Tim O'Connor wrote:
Other owners of Morton rb's: AT&SF, B&O, BAR, C&NW, D&H, IC, L&N, LV, N&W, NP, NYC, RF&P, SAL, SOO, SOUTHERN, SP&S, SP --and I'm sure there are others.PFE was a big user of Morton. 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 |
|
|
|
Tony, I know, but I was trying to stick to box cars... Mortons
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
are very popular on covered hoppers for example. At 7/17/2009 01:15 PM Friday, you wrote:
Tim O'Connor wrote:Other owners of Morton rb's: AT&SF, B&O, BAR, C&NW, D&H, IC, L&N,PFE was a big user of Morton. |
|
|
|
Walter M. Clark
My internet connection has been down for the past two weeks so I'm getting to this discussion a little late. My question is: What was the thickness of the various steel running boards/brake steps in use circa 1941? I've seen some comments over the years that the Plano etched products are too thin and I've seen good comments about the various Kadee cast plastic items. I have some of both, as well as the RPCyc, and can't find anything anywhere on prototype thickness.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks, Time stopped in November 1941 Walter M. Clark Pullman, Washington, USA --- In STMFC@..., Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Walter M. Clakr wrote:
My internet connection has been down for the past two weeks so I'm getting to this discussion a little late. My question is: What was the thickness of the various steel running boards/brake steps in use circa 1941? I've seen some comments over the years that the Plano etched products are too thin and I've seen good comments about the various Kadee cast plastic items. I have some of both, as well as the RPCyc, and can't find anything anywhere on prototype thickness.There are drawings in most postwar Cycs, but the article by Ed Hawkins in _Railway Proto. Cyc._ no. 16 is an excellent summary. You will see there that it varies by make of running board, but one inch is common. This is indeed more than a Plano etched part, but FAR less than plastic ones like Kadee. In my opinion, the Kadee boards look far more "wrong" than a Plano board. But the biggest problem with all these attempts to model a metal grid running board is that, in plan view, the ratio of air to substance is FAR too small. The laciness of a real part would be pretty hard to duplicate, of course, but that aspect is by far the most "wrong" aspect of our models to me. If you doubt this, look at any rooftop photo which shows a "down-on" view of the running board, then look at your models. But here again, the Plano boards come closer than a Kadee board. 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 |
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
--- In STMFC@..., "wmcclark1980" <walterclark@...> wrote:
Just happen to have the 1940 CBC open on the desk. Here's what they list: Alan Wood (stamped steel) 1.25", .0144" in HO scale Blaw Knox (fabricated grating) 1.25", .0144" in HO scale Apex (fabricated grating) 1.125", .0129" in HO scale Dennis |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Dennis Storzek wrote:
Just happen to have the 1940 CBC open on the desk. Here's what they list:In Hawkins' article, rooftop running boards are mostly 1 inch (Exclusive of the attachment pieces to the roof). Tank car running boards are deeper. This may reflect later technology. 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 |
|
|
|
And if consistency in modeling matters to you, then Plano also
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
makes Gypsum and Morton and even Transco running boards, so they are all the same thickness. Kadee and Bowser (who makes a quite nice see through rb for their ACF covered hoppers) only do Apex. Tim O'Connor There are drawings in most postwar Cycs, but the article by Ed |
|
|
|
In the 1953 & 1961 CBC's, Apex is 1" exactly (pages 402 & 408 resp)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Tim O'Connor Just happen to have the 1940 CBC open on the desk. Here's what they list: |
|
|