L&NE and CNJ 50 ton hoppers -- appropriate models?


Brian LaManna
 

Hello List,
As a prototypical freelance modeler of the post WWII northern New Jersey railroad scene, I realize it would be in my interest to have some anthracite road hoppers. Looking at the '36 AAR standard and related 50 ton hopper overview in RRPCYC #25, I'm curious if the Kadee model is appropriate for either CRP/CNJ and/or LNE? My apologies if this has been discussed before and I overlooked it.
Thank you,
Brian LaManna/Moncton, NB


Ed Hawkins
 

On May 25, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Brian LaManna wrote:

As a prototypical freelance modeler of the post WWII northern New
Jersey railroad scene, I realize it would be in my interest to have
some anthracite road hoppers. Looking at the '36 AAR standard and
related 50 ton hopper overview in RRPCYC #25, I'm curious if the Kadee
model is appropriate for either CRP/CNJ and/or LNE? My apologies if
this has been discussed before and I overlooked it.
Brian,
Kadee's model is correct for CRP/CNJ AAR 50-ton cars having rolled
angle end posts extending from the end sills to the top of the ends. It
was just a short time before Vol. 25 was published that an end view of
a CNJ car was located to confirm the end arrangement. Kadee is aware
they can produce this car accurately for both as-built CRP and the CNJ
version with their existing model.

While the LNE had some cars with the same sides, they used a different
end arrangement than the Kadee model. It would require a new pair of
ends having closely-spaced Z-section end posts. With the same new pair
of ends, the Kadee model would be also accurate for several thousand
B&O N-41/N-44 cars with conventional AAR-type underframes in addition
to one series for P&S.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Brian Carlson
 

Ed: I don't know if you have Kadee's ear but I for one would love to see
them produce the closely spaced Z section end. I'd buy lots of the B&O cars,
and the P&S.



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY




While the LNE had some cars with the same sides, they used a different
end arrangement than the Kadee model. It would require a new pair of
ends having closely-spaced Z-section end posts. With the same new pair
of ends, the Kadee model would be also accurate for several thousand
B&O N-41/N-44 cars with conventional AAR-type underframes in addition
to one series for P&S.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Brian LaManna
 

Ed and list,
Thank you very much for the thorough response! I realized that the answers were probably already in the article in RRPCYC Vol 25, but I'm still learning all the terminology and minutiae of classic freight cars and sometimes I get lost in the details.
I'm pleased to hear that the Kadee model IS good for the CRP/CNJ hoppers and I'll pick some up as they become available. Regarding the LNE car, I'm not sure if Kadee would be interested in tooling up a new end for a car that was found on three roads, but I think I'll fire them off an email anyway and see.
Again, I appreciate all the amazing amount of research and knowledge the members of this list bring to the party and I'm grateful to take it all in.
Brian LaManna/Moncton, NB
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
From: prrk41361@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 20:53:49 -0400
Subject: RE: [STMFC] L&NE and CNJ 50 ton hoppers -- appropriate models?


























Ed: I don't know if you have Kadee's ear but I for one would love to see

them produce the closely spaced Z section end. I'd buy lots of the B&O cars,

and the P&S.



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.



Cheektowaga, NY



While the LNE had some cars with the same sides, they used a different

end arrangement than the Kadee model. It would require a new pair of

ends having closely-spaced Z-section end posts. With the same new pair

of ends, the Kadee model would be also accurate for several thousand

B&O N-41/N-44 cars with conventional AAR-type underframes in addition

to one series for P&S.

Regards,

Ed Hawkins























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