Sandy has had us in the dark since Monday so I sat in the dark last night
reading the latest RPCYC this is motivated me to build a few of the
Intermountain Modified AAR kits that I have as ATSF Bx-37 (I know they have
an IH that is 2" too tall). So my first question is the 1937 AAR kit more
appropriate? Second what is the Microscale decal part number appropriate
for the straight line map (Pre 1947) scheme.



Thanks for you help.



Mark Stamm

<mailto:mark@...> mark@...

Modeling the Mighty Pennsy in 1949

Mark Stamm asked:
"Sandy has had us in the dark since Monday so I sat in the dark last night
reading the latest RPCYC this is motivated me to build a few of the
Intermountain Modified AAR kits that I have as ATSF Bx-37 (I know they have
an IH that is 2" too tall). So my first question is the 1937 AAR kit more
appropriate?"

No.  The height difference is more pronounced (10 ft IH vs. 10 ft 4 in) and is
especially noticeable in the context of a train.  2" is much less noticeable.


Ben Hom

Mark Stamm asked:
"Sandy has had us in the dark since Monday so I sat in the dark last night
reading the latest RPCYC this is motivated me to build a few of the
Intermountain Modified AAR kits that I have as ATSF Bx-37 (I know they have
an IH that is 2" too tall). So my first question is the 1937 AAR kit more
appropriate?"

I responded:
"No.  The height difference is more pronounced (10 ft IH vs. 10 ft 4 in) and is
especially noticeable in the context of a train.  2" is much less noticeable."

The ends are incorrect as well (4/5 Dreadnaught vs. 5/5 Dreadnaught of the
Bx-37) 


Ben Hom

Let's see, 2" in HO scale is 2/87" or roughly 1/44." Something tells me that
just does not matter.



On the maps, be sure to match the Santa Fe scheme to your modeling date. The
curved map, straight map, and Ship and Travel all represent different years.




______________________________________________

J. Stephen (Steve) Sandifer

mailto:steve.sandifer@...

Home: 12027 Mulholland Drive, Meadows Place, TX 77477, 281-568-9918

Office: Southwest Central Church of Christ, 4011 W. Bellfort, Houston, TX
77025, 713-667-9417



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Mark
at Euphoriatt
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:21 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] ATSF Bx-37 40' Box Car decals





Sandy has had us in the dark since Monday so I sat in the dark last night
reading the latest RPCYC this is motivated me to build a few of the
Intermountain Modified AAR kits that I have as ATSF Bx-37 (I know they have
an IH that is 2" too tall). So my first question is the 1937 AAR kit more
appropriate? Second what is the Microscale decal part number appropriate
for the straight line map (Pre 1947) scheme.

Thanks for you help.

Mark Stamm

<mailto:mark@... <mailto:mark%40euphoriatt.com> >
mark@... <mailto:mark%40euphoriatt.com>

Modeling the Mighty Pennsy in 1949

Steve Sandifer wrote:

Let's see, 2" in HO scale is 2/87" or roughly 1/44." Something tells me that just does not matter.

As an absolute dimension, absolutely not. BUT. In a train, the height variation of as little as two inches IS noticeable and should be present in transition-era consists. To me, the height difference DOES matter in this way, even if in a free-standing car it would not be visible.

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 question is, what is the extreme height of the Bx-37? Several railroads built AAR standard
1940 (modified 1937) box cars with advertised 10'4" IH and yet they all had 5/5 dreadnaught ends.
I question whether the Santa Fe cars were actually shorter than cars built for other railroads.
Maybe Santa Fe used thicker floors?

On the other hand I think CP or perhaps CN built some 1937 10'0" cars with 5/5 ends, but AFAIK
no one else did that -- and the 5/5 ends actually do look shorter (very little space above the top
rib).

Best decals I've seen for these cars are the Champ "blueprint" sets.

Tim O'Connor

But you are probably better off using Microscale decals (498, 505, 506) since Champ decals might be a bit tough to find since they closed a year or so ago...

Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA
On Nov 1, 2012, at 4:19 PM, timboconnor@... wrote:

The question is, what is the extreme height of the Bx-37? Several railroads built AAR standard
1940 (modified 1937) box cars with advertised 10'4" IH and yet they all had 5/5 dreadnaught ends.
I question whether the Santa Fe cars were actually shorter than cars built for other railroads.
Maybe Santa Fe used thicker floors?

On the other hand I think CP or perhaps CN built some 1937 10'0" cars with 5/5 ends, but AFAIK
no one else did that -- and the 5/5 ends actually do look shorter (very little space above the top
rib).

Best decals I've seen for these cars are the Champ "blueprint" sets.

Tim O'Connor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Sandifer" <steve.sandifer@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:43:13 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] ATSF Bx-37 40' Box Car decals

Let's see, 2" in HO scale is 2/87" or roughly 1/44." Something tells me that
just does not matter.

On the maps, be sure to match the Santa Fe scheme to your modeling date. The
curved map, straight map, and Ship and Travel all represent different years.

______________________________________

Sandy has had us in the dark since Monday so I sat in the dark last night
reading the latest RPCYC this is motivated me to build a few of the
Intermountain Modified AAR kits that I have as ATSF Bx-37 (I know they have
an IH that is 2" too tall). So my first question is the 1937 AAR kit more
appropriate? Second what is the Microscale decal part number appropriate
for the straight line map (Pre 1947) scheme.

Thanks for you help.

Mark Stamm

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

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