Topics

Gould/Tichy Tank Car (was Re: [RealSTMFC] OMI 1930-built double dome tank car)

Benjamin Hom
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
"Many people hate Tichy tank cars because they're not right. I love them because they are among the finest examples of styrene freight car kit design."

"Hate" isn't quite right...more like "bitterly disappointed".

Richard Hendrickson wrote in post #48856 dated 12/15/2005:
"More than one prototype researcher, on learning through the grapevine that Gould was in the process of developing a tank car model, offered assistance and was rebuffed. Bill Gould told me personally that the identity of the prototype was a secret but that he had all the prototype information he needed (and, by implication, would I please go away and stop bothering him). Egged on by Bob Hundman, he thought the drawings were all he needed and neither Gould nor Hundman realized until after the model was completed that there was no prototype for it."

In this case, it wasn't the fact that we were still learning about the prototype, but more obstinate and willful disregarding of the facts.


Ben Hom  

Richard Townsend
 

OTOH, the Tichy tank car, IMHO, is a very good approximation of the many Sinclair 4-course tank cars.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Nov 5, 2019 10:31 am
Subject: Gould/Tichy Tank Car (was Re: [RealSTMFC] OMI 1930-built double dome tank car)

Tim O'Connor wrote:
"Many people hate Tichy tank cars because they're not right. I love them because they are among the finest examples of styrene freight car kit design."

"Hate" isn't quite right...more like "bitterly disappointed".

Richard Hendrickson wrote in post #48856 dated 12/15/2005:
"More than one prototype researcher, on learning through the grapevine that Gould was in the process of developing a tank car model, offered assistance and was rebuffed. Bill Gould told me personally that the identity of the prototype was a secret but that he had all the prototype information he needed (and, by implication, would I please go away and stop bothering him). Egged on by Bob Hundman, he thought the drawings were all he needed and neither Gould nor Hundman realized until after the model was completed that there was no prototype for it."

In this case, it wasn't the fact that we were still learning about the prototype, but more obstinate and willful disregarding of the facts.


Ben Hom  

Dennis Storzek
 

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:31 AM, Benjamin Hom wrote:
In this case, it wasn't the fact that we were still learning about the prototype, but more obstinate and willful disregarding of the facts.
 
To give Bill Gould his due, the fact that the drawings showed a car with a four course tank is what made the project possible in the first place, because the four course tank made it possible to do as a 'flat kit', which is what Gould wanted to do. This all transpired a little before my time in the industry, but I wonder if the discussion ever got to the point where the experts were told, "I need a four course tank. Find me a prototype with a four course tank that has decent drawings available, and I'll do that instead." I think we all forget just how hard it was to get accurate information AND DRAWINGS back in those days. Even Irv Athearn boned up big time while following "Real railroad drawings" as the ads used to say.

Dennis Storzek

Tony Thompson
 

Dennis Storzek wrote:

I think we all forget just how hard it was to get accurate information AND DRAWINGS back in those days. Even Irv Athearn boned up big time while following "Real railroad drawings" as the ads used to say.

   No argument, Dennis, but there are also plenty of instances from those days of dedicated modelers providing very complete info packages, and the manufacturer going ahead with something very different, usually simpler and often quite avoidably wrong.

Tony Thompson



Tim O'Connor
 

Tony

There's also plenty of good examples of BAD information being provided to vendors!
I think there is MORE good information that is available now than in the past, but
there's still plenty of incorrect info out there too. I'm just thankful that some
times, everything is exactly right.



On 11/5/2019 3:03 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
Dennis Storzek wrote:

I think we all forget just how hard it was to get accurate information AND DRAWINGS back in those days. Even Irv Athearn boned up big time while following "Real railroad drawings" as the ads used to say.

   No argument, Dennis, but there are also plenty of instances from those days of dedicated modelers providing very complete info packages, and the manufacturer going ahead with something very different, usually simpler and often quite avoidably wrong.

Tony Thompson


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts

Donald B. Valentine
 

  I'd have to agree with you Tony based on my experience in working with Dick Truesdale on the
original B&M version of the So. Pac. 2-8-4's, with Mort Mann on the B&M Class K-8 2-8-0's, and
with Nick Ries on the B&M 2-10-2's. Those experiences were driving the factors in my deciding to
import brass under the New England Rail Service label.

My best, Don Valentine

brianleppert@att.net
 

I worked for Bill Gould for about 8 years.  During those years Bill's business had three people:  Bill, his wife Geri and me.  Business activities included lots of industrial model making, making some patterns for PFM and Chooch, tooling for Dimi-Trains' line of N-scale plastic kits, an HOn3 D&RGW stock car for E&B Valley and Bill's own line of HO freight car kits (later sold to Tichy).  I was laid off shortly after starting the PFE reefer tooling.

While having lunch and morning and afternoon breaks we all sat in the same office, eating and almost always talking about something.  During the USRA tank car project, Bill never mentioned any phone conversation with Richard Hendrickson or any one else about tank cars, and I'm sure he would have asked for my opinion if anyone had.  It wasn't until after Richard's review of our kit that Bill asked, and I answered, who Richard Hendrickson was and why he was so respected.
 
And I don't recall there being any secret about what car we were doing.  I certainly had loose lips.

Due to our limited experience of mold making and the lack of some important machinery, everything had to be flat kits, so a four coarse tank was a must.  USRA drawings from a Train Shed reprint were used, but we first learned of the USRA tank car from drawings in Model Railroader magazine.  In that MR issue, they stated that thousands of these car were built.  Neither Bill nor I had any reason to doubt the MR staff.  Now please, please remember this was about 37 years ago!

It wasn't until I mentioned to Robert Grandt, one of Cliff's sons, that we were almost finished with tooling and I still hadn't come across a prototype photo, and  Robert almost fell on the floor laughing, that I had a clue we might be in trouble.

So I guess my point is I don't agree with what Mr. Hendrickson wrote about Mr. Gould.  And I was there.


Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
Carson City, NV

Tony Thompson
 

Brian Leppert wrote:

So I guess my point is I don't agree with what Mr. Hendrickson wrote about Mr. Gould.  And I was there.

     Not sure I see where your account, Brian, differs from what Richard wrote. If Gould was brushing off offers of assistance, why would you have heard about it?

Tony Thompson



brianleppert@att.net
 

Because Bill wasn't brushing off offers because he never got any.

Brian Leppert

Tony Thompson
 

Because Bill wasn't brushing off offers because he never got any.
So you're stating that Richard made it up? Of all his character traits, that is about the last thing I would imagine. He sometimes dramatized events, but I can't recall any imaginary ones.

Tony

brianleppert@att.net
 

So Tony, you're accusing me of making it up?

Brian Leppert

Tony Thompson
 

So Tony, you're accusing me of making it up?
Not at all, I'm suggesting maybe you don't know as much of what happened as you think you do.

Tony