Flat car underbody question


Chad Boas
 

What is the general census of the group as to the details for the underbody of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out the smaller cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross members. Would this make it easier to add the weight?
Thanks for the input.
Chad Boas


Tim O'Connor
 

Chad

My personal preference is for well detailed underframes. People
who don't care can easily add lead weights (and I have done this
on some models), but in general, LOADS fulfill the weight requirement.

Because of their low centers of gravity, I have found that flat cars
and gondolas can be underweight and still operate perfectly well.

Tim O'

What is the general census of the group as to the details for the underbody of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out the smaller cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross members. Would this make it easier to add the weight?
Thanks for the input.
Chad Boas


Rich C
 

Chad, I personally would leave it the same. Some guys at train shows like showing underbodies of flat cars. I don't know whether it is cost effective to just leave them as a seperate detail.
 
Rich Christie


________________________________
From: Chad <chadboas@yahoo.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2011 10:47 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Flat car underbody question


 
What is the general census of the group as to the details for the underbody of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out the smaller cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross members. Would this make it easier to add the weight?
Thanks for the input.
Chad Boas




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Staffan Ehnbom <staffan.ehnbom@...>
 

I kind of hate the idea that something is left out (even if not readily visible). "Surplus" details can always be removed by the modeler, who wants to put in bigger weights.

Staffan Ehnbom

----- Original Message -----
From: Chad
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 5:47 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Flat car underbody question



What is the general census of the group as to the details for the underbody of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out the smaller cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross members. Would this make it easier to add the weight?
Thanks for the input.
Chad Boas


Jim Hayes
 

Make the model as accurate as possible. Unwanted detail can be removed by
the buyer.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon
www.sunshinekits.com

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Chad <chadboas@yahoo.com> wrote:

**


What is the general census of the group as to the details for the
underbody of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out the
smaller cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross members.
Would this make it easier to add the weight?
Thanks for the input.
Chad Boas



jerryglow2
 

If it was easy, everyone would have one. IMO these are for the more discriminating modeler and should not be "thumbed down" for those less so.

* thumbed down - MRRing version of dumbed down for the all thumbs modeler.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Chad" <chadboas@...> wrote:

What is the general census of the group as to the details for the underbody of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out the smaller cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross members. Would this make it easier to add the weight?
Thanks for the input.
Chad Boas


David Sieber
 

Chad, I couldn't say it better than Tim did; please leave all the underbody detail in place. I am quite pleased with the five flatcars I bought from you, and would buy future offerings with full detail. Flatcars are meant to carry loads; I have enough well-weighted flats (P2K, IMRC, etc.) to represent non-loaded cars that aren't earning money for their owners! Dave Sieber, Reno NV

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor wrote:
My personal preference is for well detailed underframes. People
who don't care can easily add lead weights (and I have done this
on some models), but in general, LOADS fulfill the weight requirement.
Because of their low centers of gravity, I have found that flat cars
and gondolas can be underweight and still operate perfectly well.
--- In response to Chad Boas' question:
What is the general census of the group as to the details for the underbody of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out the smaller cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross members. Would this make it easier to add the weight? Thanks for the input.


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 4, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Chad wrote:
What is the general census of the group as to the details for the
underbody of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave
out the smaller cross members and just do the center sill and
larger cross members. Would this make it easier to add the weight?
In my opinion, it is pointless to model underframe details which are
invisible when the car is on the track, and essential to weight
models (especially flat cars) properly. So I'd say yes. YMMV, of
course.

Richard Hendrickson


John Degnan <Scaler164@...>
 

I second what Rich says... leave the details as is... or add more, just don't remove any. They can be easily removed if not wanted or needed, but not quite so easily added.

And by the way... a DOUBLE pat on the back for making the draft gear opening on the ends a perfect fit for Accurail's scale gearboxes. I use these with Sergent Engineering's EN87 couplers for an UNBEATABLE prototypical look! I'm so pleased with this one feature that I'll probably end up ordering about four more of the SAL version.

Now... off to order some code 88 wheels for my flats! Not quite brave enough for code 87 (P:87) yet...


John Degnan
Scaler164@comcast.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Rich C
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Flat car underbody question


Chad, I personally would leave it the same. Some guys at train shows like showing underbodies of flat cars. I don't know whether it is cost effective to just leave them as a seperate detail.

Rich Christie


> What is the general census of the group as to the details for the underbody
> of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out the smaller cross
> members and just do the center sill and larger cross members. Would this
> make it easier to add the weight?
> Thanks for the input.
> Chad Boas


Tim O'Connor
 

Richard, that covers a LOT of ground, especially since most layouts
do not offer eye-level views of freight cars. Your argument makes the
case for the elimination of nearly all underframe details of any
kind, including the underframe itself!!! (The one exception probably
being tank cars.)

Fortunately, yours is not a popular idea with most modelers. :-)

Tim O'



In my opinion, it is pointless to model underframe details which are
invisible when the car is on the track, and essential to weight
models (especially flat cars) properly. So I'd say yes. YMMV, of
course.

Richard Hendrickson


O Fenton Wells
 

I'm with Richard on this one. Flat cars and Gons expecially.
Fenton Wells
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>wrote:

**



Richard, that covers a LOT of ground, especially since most layouts
do not offer eye-level views of freight cars. Your argument makes the
case for the elimination of nearly all underframe details of any
kind, including the underframe itself!!! (The one exception probably
being tank cars.)

Fortunately, yours is not a popular idea with most modelers. :-)

Tim O'

In my opinion, it is pointless to model underframe details which are
invisible when the car is on the track, and essential to weight
models (especially flat cars) properly. So I'd say yes. YMMV, of
course.

Richard Hendrickson




--
Fenton Wells
3047 Creek Run
Sanford NC 27332
919-499-5545
srrfan1401@gmail.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Tim O'Connor
 

Fenton

In that case, please mail me all your house car underframes and brake
details. I will be happy to pay the postage. :-)

Tim

At 12/4/2011 03:09 PM Sunday, you wrote:
I'm with Richard on this one. Flat cars and Gons expecially.
Fenton Wells


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 4, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
Richard, that covers a LOT of ground, especially since most layouts
do not offer eye-level views of freight cars. Your argument makes the
case for the elimination of nearly all underframe details of any
kind, including the underframe itself!!! (The one exception probably
being tank cars.)
Tim, I'm not concerned with what's visible on "most layouts." My
operating diorama IS at eye level, so I model all underframe details
that aren't concealed behind the side sills. However, on a model of
a flat car or gondola with fishbelly side sills, I will typically
model only the brake rods to the trucks, as everything else below the
floor is entirely invisible. Now, if you expect to be having
frequent train wrecks where the cars end up upside down, that's
another story....

Richard Hendrickson


O Fenton Wells
 

Sorry Tim, I keep the underframes 'mostly' and fit the weight in between.
I built the Seaboard flatcar by Chad and the car totaled out right at 4.8oz
without a load. Really tracks well. I just don't spend time adding
levers, piping and other details not seen by the viewer. Other cars I do.
I'm starting to build a series of modernized Southern coaches to go with
the book I've written and will do lots of piping, levers etc etc.because
the modeler or viewer can see it with the car on the tracks. If fact
studying the Steam Ejector AC systems I may be doing lots of pipe and more
research. It seems that SEAC were a lot like steam enginies as not many
were alike.
Fenton Wells
PS Chads underframes are an integral part of the falt car.
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>wrote:

**


Fenton

In that case, please mail me all your house car underframes and brake
details. I will be happy to pay the postage. :-)

Tim

At 12/4/2011 03:09 PM Sunday, you wrote:
I'm with Richard on this one. Flat cars and Gons expecially.
Fenton Wells



--
Fenton Wells
3047 Creek Run
Sanford NC 27332
919-499-5545
srrfan1401@gmail.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
In that case, please mail me all your house car underframes and brake details. I will be happy to pay the postage. :-)
As happens from time to time, Tim creates a straw man and then kicks the stuffing out of it. <g> Richard most assuredly did not say he ignores underframes, and if Tim had had the pleasure of seeing a bunch of Richard's freight cars, he would know that Richard DOES include brake rigging on any car for which a side view makes it visible, and also includes complete piping on cars where it can be seen.
I would not like to see freight car kits (or RTR) with detail- less underframes, but on house cars I too often omit brake PIPING if the only way it can be seen is by inverting the car. I do generally add all brake levers and rods, because usually they can be seen. And on fishbelly-side-sill cars, I may only install the reservoir and cylinder. For me, it DOES depend on the individual car.

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


Larry Sexton
 

Chad,



I agree with those that want to leave the level of u/f detail alone, If one
doesn't want the detail, it removes easily whereas adding it would be an
undesired bother.



Larry Sexton



From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chad
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 11:48 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Flat car underbody question





What is the general census of the group as to the details for the underbody
of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out the smaller
cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross members. Would
this make it easier to add the weight?
Thanks for the input.
Chad Boas


Schuyler Larrabee
 

I agree with Jim.

Schuyler

Make the model as accurate as possible. Unwanted detail can be removed by
the buyer.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon
www.sunshinekits.com


On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Chad <chadboas@yahoo.com> wrote:

**


What is the general census of the group as to the details for the
underbody of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out
the
smaller cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross
members.
Would this make it easier to add the weight?
Thanks for the input.
Chad Boas







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links







=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.18820)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======




=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.18820)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======


Tim O'Connor
 

Tony

What straw man would that be, exactly?

Richard wrote: "... it is pointless to model underframe details
which are invisible when the car is on the track"

I responded to that. In my English language, Richard's statement
is crystal clear. When house cars are on the track, in MOST cases
you cannot see the crossbearers, bolsters, center sill, draft gear
(except for the ends of the draft gear). They are invisible.

This is true even when you are looking at the car from the side,
unless you are actually looking UP at the car's underbody, which is
quite rare on most layouts, although it may be true on Richard's
layout.

As for your CHOICE not to install the rods etc, truthfully I do
not always install those details. But I already said that. I have
done the lead weights in the center sill of flat cars (Sunshine),
and other such cases. And some models preclude proper underframe
details (e.g. Tangent and Proto 2000 gondolas), because the vendor
has already made the choice to omit a proper underframe for you!

I know Richard adds these details to most of his models -- hence
my consternation that he would make such a broad statement! He's
a very influential guy, and if Athearn or another manufacturer read
what he wrote they could EASILY interpret it as literally as I do.

Cars that do conform to Richard's statement include all of the old
Model Die Casting 50 foot FMC box cars for example. The underbody
on those models is basically a slab of plastic, sans detail. Please
let's not go back to those bad old days!

Tim O'Connor

---------------------------------------------

As happens from time to time, Tim creates a straw man and then
kicks the stuffing out of it. <g> Richard most assuredly did not say
he ignores underframes, and if Tim had had the pleasure of seeing a
bunch of Richard's freight cars, he would know that Richard DOES
include brake rigging on any car for which a side view makes it
visible, and also includes complete piping on cars where it can be seen.
I would not like to see freight car kits (or RTR) with detail-
less underframes, but on house cars I too often omit brake PIPING if
the only way it can be seen is by inverting the car. I do generally
add all brake levers and rods, because usually they can be seen. And
on fishbelly-side-sill cars, I may only install the reservoir and
cylinder. For me, it DOES depend on the individual car.

Tony Thompson


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
What straw man would that be, exactly?
That would be your sweeping statement, and I quote, "Your argument makes the case for the elimination of nearly all underframe details of any kind, including the underframe itself!!!"
Richard, of course, said no such thing.

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


Tim O'Connor
 

Tony

But that is EXACTLY how to interpret Richard's statement. Since
the underframe on house cars is invisible from most viewing angles,
it can be eliminated. That is what Model Die Casting did on their
FMC box cars (a half dozen different models), and I think those
models are 100% in conformance with Richard's statement. This is
not a straw man -- it is a fact that found it's way to hobby
shelves for almost 20 years. For Chad to do the same thing with
his flat cars would be a giant leap backwards, IMO.

Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor wrote:
What straw man would that be, exactly?
That would be your sweeping statement, and I quote, "Your argument
makes the case for the elimination of nearly all underframe details of
any kind, including the underframe itself!!!"
Richard, of course, said no such thing.

Tony Thompson