C&BT reefer roof


ed_mines
 

What was the objection to the roof in the first place?

 

Ed Mines


SUVCWORR@...
 

It sits too high off the sides

Rich Orr



-----Original Message-----
From: ed_mines
To: STMFC
Sent: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 4:22 pm
Subject: [STMFC] C&BT reefer roof



What was the objection to the roof in the first place?
 
Ed Mines



Andy Sperandeo
 

And it's too wide. – Andy


From: "SUVCWORR@..."
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] C&BT reefer roof

 
It sits too high off the sides

Rich Orr



-----Original Message-----
From: ed_mines
To: STMFC
Sent: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 4:22 pm
Subject: [STMFC] C&BT reefer roof



What was the objection to the roof in the first place?
 
Ed Mines





Bill Welch
 

I remember well the article Keith Jordan had in RMJ in the 1990's about what he felt were the fixes needed for these kits and in the article he said he planned to offer a set of resin parts to make the fixes easier. The InterMountain kit obviated the need the parts, although they might have been nice to have since C&BT's kits went beyond the IM offering in terms body styles, which in turn gave Sunshine through the pattern work of Charley Slater the opportunity to flesh the rest of the SFRD rebuilt fleet, and then some.


If I remember correctly, Keith even resorted to body putty to re-sculpt the ends, pretty daunting in my opinion.


I bought 3 kits when they first came out but after Keith's article and IM issuing their kit, I gave them away.


Bill Welch




hayden_tom@...
 

I first became aware of these SFRD models from C&BT about 5 years ago and bought 5 or 6 old, decorated, "Style A" kits on e-bay. I also bought an IM kit for comparison.. And I obtained copies of several magazine articles including Richard Hendrickson's extensive article in Nov 94 RMJ. That's the article that included the body putty mod to the ends. I had a difficult time understanding the error that the mod was correcting. Then a few months ago Keith Jordan expressed satisfaction that IM had,indeed,, corrected the error.on the ends.


After looking closely at the  C&BT end, the IM end, and finally finding a good photo that shows the end or edge detail on the ends, I conclude that the Richard Hendrickson putty mod probably best represents the correct shape. Here's a link to a picture that shows how the ends of the reverse Dreadnaught shapes blend into the edges of the ends.:

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/atsf/atsf21790akg.jpg

Although this is not an SFRD car this IS an inverse dreadnaught end.  You can clearly see that all surfaces: large and small raised surfaces, as well as the sunken surfaces do smoothly blend into the vertical edge of the end, which is the aim of Richard's body putty mod.  In the C&BT end, the sunken surfaces end abruptly at that vertical edge. On the IM model, the ending of the sunken surface is indeed brought smoothly to the surface of the edge. But, in my opinion, the IM version is faulty in that it makes all the surface details of all the end edge segments flat, well before meeting the vertical with a very prominent repeating "W" pattern that is highly visible. Looking at this photo, it seems to me that none of the end segments are actually flat prior to the point where they actually blend to the vertical. I'm not convinced that the IM version of the end is an overall improvement over the C&BT version. 


Tom Hayden

. . 


Tony Thompson
 

Tom Hayden wrote:

 
Although this is not an SFRD car this IS an inverse dreadnaught end.  

     Small nit on nomenclature: the end is not, in my view, "reversed." It is simply inset. The ribs and edge darts stick up from the background on the end. A reverse end, and such did exist even on house cars, have this relationship reversed. It was common on gondolas with dreadnaught ends, to face the outward ribs INTO the car (it's the stiffer side), and then what you seen on the OUTSIDE of the end is indeed a reverse end. That is not what is shown in the photo on Tom's link.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Tim O'Connor
 


Tony, he said INVERSE, not REVERSE. You are right, they are two different
things. A REVERSE end is just an end that is essentially turned around. An
INVERSE end is the one you are describing, which is more like a mirror image
of the normal outward stampings. At least, that's what makes sense to me.
YMMV. 8-)

Tim O'


Although this is not an SFRD car this IS an inverse dreadnaught end. 

     Small nit on nomenclature: the end is not, in my view, "reversed." It is simply inset. The ribs and edge darts stick up from the background on the end. A reverse end, and such did exist even on house cars, have this relationship reversed. It was common on gondolas with dreadnaught ends, to face the outward ribs INTO the car (it's the stiffer side), and then what you seen on the OUTSIDE of the end is indeed a reverse end. That is not what is shown in the photo on Tom's link.

Tony Thompson


Tony Thompson
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Tony, he said INVERSE, not REVERSE. You are right, they are two different things. A REVERSE end is just an end that is essentially turned around. An INVERSE end is the one you are describing, which is more like a mirror image of the normal outward stampings. At least, that's what makes sense to me. YMMV. 8-)


         You are entirely right, Tim, he DID say "inverse." But the reason I objected, and continue to object, is that people readily confuse inverse and reverse. In many situations, "inverse" means "turned upside down," top to bottom, which is not what we mean with freight car ends. We can understand "reverse" as rotated 180 degrees, and that is how I would describe an end, whether corrugated or Dreadnaught, which has its major  corrugations inward to the car instead of outward. "Inverse" could be taken to mean the same thing, thus the risk of confusion. 
         My own usage is to call the ends with outward-facing corrugations, but set inward to the plane of the end, "recessed" or "inset." This avoids the confusion between reverse and inverse. I try not to use "inverse" at all for car ends.
         But as Tim wisely says, YMMV.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Don <riverman_vt@...>
 

And the ribs are too high as well.

Don Valentine

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...> wrote:

And it's too wide. â€" Andy


________________________________
From: "SUVCWORR@..." <SUVCWORR@...>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] C&BT reefer roof



 
Itsits too high off the sides

Rich Orr




-----Original Message-----
From: ed_mines <ed_mines@...>
To: STMFC <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 4:22 pm
Subject: [STMFC] C&BT reefer roof





What was the objection to the roof in the first place?
 
Ed Mines


Robert kirkham
 

Just a comment. 
 
Tony’s approach – (which, if I follow correctly, describes the inset and protruding corrugations in relation to the end panel, rather than describing the end panels themselves) – makes sense to me. 
 
The corrugations may go inward, outward or a bit of both.  But all the while, the edges of the ends (which wrap over the car sides) always go one way.   It makes sense to me to determine the plane on which the corrugations lay by the edges of the end panels (i.e. where they bend to attach to the car sides).  To “reverse” such an end would defeat the designed attachment of the end to the car sides.  
 
That said, I generally understand what is meant if we refer to a reverse Murphy end.
 
Rob Kirkham
 
 
 

Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2013 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] C&BT reefer roof
 


Tim O'Connor wrote:

Tony, he said INVERSE, not REVERSE. You are right, they are two different things. A REVERSE end is just an end that is essentially turned around. An INVERSE end is the one you are describing, which is more like a mirror image of the normal outward stampings. At least, that's what makes sense to me. YMMV. 8-)

 
         You are entirely right, Tim, he DID say "inverse." But the reason I objected, and continue to object, is that people readily confuse inverse and reverse. In many situations, "inverse" means "turned upside down," top to bottom, which is not what we mean with freight car ends. We can understand "reverse" as rotated 180 degrees, and that is how I would describe an end, whether corrugated or Dreadnaught, which has its major  corrugations inward to the car instead of outward. "Inverse" could be taken to mean the same thing, thus the risk of confusion.
         My own usage is to call the ends with outward-facing corrugations, but set inward to the plane of the end, "recessed" or "inset." This avoids the confusion between reverse and inverse. I try not to use "inverse" at all for car ends.
         But as Tim wisely says, YMMV.
 
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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history
 




ed_mines
 

Yes, I recall that now. Any suggestions on how to correct it?

 

Ed Mines


Andy Sperandeo
 

Hello Ed,

I made a jig to hold the C&BT roof for a lengthwise cut with a razor saw, then used an NWSL True Sander to sand half the excess width from each roof section. After cementing the roof back together, I used a chisel blade to scrape the ledge under the eaves to a more realistic height. All of this really improved the car's proportions, and the running board hid the seam at the peak of the roof. But after I'd done two or three cars this way, I learned that the InterMountain car was coming and stopped building the C&BT kits. (Anybody want to buy some? I'll make you a good price!)

It occurs to me now that since InterMountain sells parts, you could buy its roofs to put on C&BT carbodies. But I think I'll stick to the IM kits and r-t-r cars.

Merry Christmas,

Andy
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (10)                       


tyesac@...
 

Andy,
 
Nothing like a modeler making a jig to "gear up for production" a homemade fix to illustrate a "what's wrong" with this picture, which is why the IM cars buried the CB&T's   Like you, I have a small supply of these unfinished kits.  The one, and perhaps only thing going for them is that the sides are really good, and the bottom of the mold is virtually blank.  As such, that blank underbody makes for a nice starting point for creating Rr-21 & Rr-29's from these by adding a Duryea underframe, and replacing or tossing most all of the rest of it, including the ends.  When the Sunshine Rr-21 & Rr-29 kits came out, they included a third end, so, every second Sunshine reefer has supplied me with the ends to fix the C&BT body with replacement resin ends.   Almost like the story about my grandfather's axe, except dad replaced the handle, & I replaced the head.  (original C&BT box though!)
 
Tom Casey

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sperandeo To: STMFC
Sent: Sat, Dec 7, 2013 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] C&BT reefer roof

 
Hello Ed,

I made a jig to hold the C&BT roof for a lengthwise cut with a razor saw, then used an NWSL True Sander to sand half the excess width from each roof section. After cementing the roof back together, I used a chisel blade to scrape the ledge under the eaves to a more realistic height. All of this really improved the car's proportions, and the running board hid the seam at the peak of the roof. But after I'd done two or three cars this way, I learned that the InterMountain car was coming and stopped building the C&BT kits. (Anybody want to buy some? I'll make you a good price!)

It occurs to me now that since InterMountain sells parts, you could buy its roofs to put on C&BT carbodies. But I think I'll stick to the IM kits and r-t-r cars.

Merry Christmas,

Andy
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (10)                       


hayden_tom@...
 

Tony,   Thanks for the clarification on nomenclature. I spent hours searching on this forum to understand Dreadnaught, Improved Dreadnaught, Inverse Dreadnaught , and Reverse Dreadnaught and had concluded that Inverse and Reverse were the same. 


And yes, Richard does refer to the ends of the SFRD rr19 etc cars as Inverse Dreadnaught. The most distinguishing feature being that the horizontal row of rivets connecting the upper and lower panels is on one of the "bulges", rather than in the valley. 


So this photo I linked is indeed an Inverse Dreadnaught, identical to that used on the SFRD rr19 etc. 


My main point is that neither the C&BT nor the IM ends really replicate the prototype perfectly. It seems Richard's body putty mod on a C&BT end comes closest. The C&BT end is next best, and the IM end is farthest from the prototype because the flattening of the ribs and darts 6-8 inches before  the actual vertical edge is quite prominent on the model and non existent on the prototype. 


Tom



---In STMFC@..., <tony@...> wrote:

Tom Hayden wrote:

 
Although this is not an SFRD car this IS an inverse dreadnaught end.  

     Small nit on nomenclature: the end is not, in my view, "reversed." It is simply inset. The ribs and edge darts stick up from the background on the end. A reverse end, and such did exist even on house cars, have this relationship reversed. It was common on gondolas with dreadnaught ends, to face the outward ribs INTO the car (it's the stiffer side), and then what you seen on the OUTSIDE of the end is indeed a reverse end. That is not what is shown in the photo on Tom's link.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history