Date
1 - 20 of 32
Significance of the P&LE / PMcK&Y USRA single sheathed rebuilds ?
|
Can I ask generally what the significance of the P&LE / PMcK&Y USRA single-sheathed rebuild was ?
It seems a very popular car, but I am struggling to see it as much of a game changer. I note there's a modest increase in capacity over the original car but not as much as many of the DS rebuilds or the C&O's contemporary SS rebuilds, and far less than what PRR and SP would achieve with their rebuilding of single-sheathed cars post-war. I don't know that it is a car that resembles prototypes used by other railroads either ; I have a few times seen it suggested as a stand-in for the Georgia RR's USRA SS rebuilds (it only takes one look at a photo of a Georgia car to see why that's not so.) Was it very widespread in sphere of operation? Or particularly long-lived? Sometimes celebrity status accrues by just hanging on when everyone else has carked it. ;-) Best regards, Ben Scanlon Tottenham, England |
|
|
|
|
|
David
It was a "unique" car, compared to what was commercially available in the '80s when the tooling was cut, and photos and information were readily available.
David Thompson |
|
|
|
|
|
radiodial868
It was an obscure prototype that had good information available to a talented die-cutter. Same story with the tank cars.
-- ------------------- RJ Dial Mendocino, CA |
|
|
|
|
|
RJ,
I don't think it was the "same story" with the tank cars. IF there was a prototype for
the tank cars, beyond a drawing (and it now appears a very small number of similar cars were built), it was definitely not "available"
to the die-cutter. The tank car was based on the die-cutter being supplied information (including a drawing) and the concerns of a number of people being ignored. There's plenty in the archives on this. OTOH, the P&LE car was a real car that was known by fans
and modelers, one of a plethora of rebuilt USRA cars.
Regards,
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of radiodial868 <radiodial57@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 8:46 AM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Significance of the P&LE / PMcK&Y USRA single sheathed rebuilds ?
-- ------------------- RJ Dial Mendocino, CA |
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 05:01 AM, Benjamin Scanlon wrote:
Can I ask generally what the significance of the P&LE / PMcK&Y USRA single-sheathed rebuild was ?It wasn't significant at all in the greater scheme of things. Tichy made the kit because it gave his line another 'body style' with a minimum investment in tooling, since he already made the USRA single sheathed car it was converted from. Dennis Storzek |
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 09:02 AM, Bruce Smith wrote:
I don't think it was the "same story" with the tank cars. IF there was a prototype for the tank cars, beyond a drawing (and it now appears a very small number of similar cars were built), it was definitely not "available" to the die-cutter. The tank car was based on the die-cutter being supplied information (including a drawing) and the concerns of a number of people being ignored. There's plenty in the archives on this.Most of which misses the point. The creator of that kit, Bill Gould, was a talented, but limited, toolmaker. He was 'self taught', his only training was apparently working for Cliff Grandt of Grandt Line. At that point in his development he had only done 'flat kits', the injection molded equivalent of the resin kits of the day. To do the tank car, Gould needed a prototype with a tank composed of FOUR longitudinal sheets, and that was provided by the drawings of the proposed USRA design published in the 1919 CBD. It's not that Gould didn't want to change prototypes, he couldn't. It was going to be that tankcar or nothing. For added intrigue, Bob Hundman, publisher of Mainline Modeler magazine, was on a crusade to change the direction of plastic kit development to the 'many little bits' model, and Gould was his poster child who was going to prove the point, so Hundman ran interference. The end result was Bill Gould, disappointed with the poor sales of his line, eventually left the field, selling out to Don Tichy. Dennis Storzek |
|
|
|
|
|
And the C of G rebuilt car gave them a 3rd car
along the same lines... and the cement car a 4th... I thought that they also did another USRA rebuild, but it is not on their site. Maximal utilization of available resources
🙂
Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Dennis Storzek via groups.io <soolinehistory@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 9:17 AM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Significance of the P&LE / PMcK&Y USRA single sheathed rebuilds ?
Can I ask generally what the significance of the P&LE / PMcK&Y USRA single-sheathed rebuild was ?It wasn't significant at all in the greater scheme of things. Tichy made the kit because it gave his line another 'body style' with a minimum investment in tooling, since he already made the USRA single sheathed car it was converted from. Dennis Storzek |
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Scanlon
What Central of Georgia rebuilt car did they do, Bruce?
-- Ben Scanlon Tottenham, England |
|
|
|
|
|
Kenneth Montero
Bruce,
Tiichy has a Georgia Railroad box car in its line (4032D - its rebuilt USRA single sheathed boxcar with Georgia Railroad decal). I don't see a Central of Georgia (C of G) in their current catalog. Did Tichy previously have a Central of Georgia boxcar? If so, do you recall its catalog number?
Ken Montero
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many other HO plastic kits represent rebuilt revenue freight cars ? Not many.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I think this may have been the first one. And there is still no USRA DS rebuild plastic kit to encompass all the design variants of those cars. On 1/4/2023 6:25 AM, David via groups.io wrote:
It was a "unique" car, compared to what was commercially available in the '80s when the tooling was cut, and photos and information were readily available. --
*Tim O'Connor* *Sterling, Massachusetts* |
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia, not CofG. And I think it may only approximate the Georgia rebuilds, because of their roofs. Did Speedwitch offer a corrected version? On 1/4/2023 11:34 AM, Benjamin Scanlon
via groups.io wrote:
What Central of Georgia rebuilt car did they do, Bruce? --
Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts |
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't Mr. Gould also produce the 120 ton Brownhoist crane ? That's one of the finest kit models out there. He may have been 'limited' but the engineering of the kits was fabulous, imo, and no one until Tangent produced as high a quality tank car kit as his stillborn USRA tank car. (Which I have seen good numbers of them built and running at train shows.) On 1/4/2023 10:48 AM, Dennis Storzek
via groups.io wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 09:02 AM, Bruce Smith wrote: --
Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts |
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Scanlon
Tim, good point, if it was the first to represent a rebuild, I agree, that makes it significant for the hobby.
Cheers, Ben -- Ben Scanlon Tottenham, England |
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 12:22 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
Didn't Mr. Gould also produce the 120 ton Brownhoist crane ? That's one of the finest kitYes, but let me explain. Gould was very skilled at engraving cavities, as was Cliff Grandt, but both pretty much limited themselves to simple 'open and close' tooling that could be done by engraving flat plates, rather than more complicated tooling that requires side actions that must fit together and fit the wedges that lock them closed. This is specifically what is needed to do bodies that incorporate sides, ends, and roof, or sides, ends, and floor into one part, which eases the assembly and decorating of a model. Sometimes the simplest part requires a really complex tool. Case in point is the running board that Kadee designed for their PS-1. A simple enough part, until you notice the free standing grab irons are molded integral with the open grid walkway. That requires side actions that slide over part of the open grid. Look closely at that part and note that the direction of the draft on the grid is reversed on the portion of the grid under the slide, yet the openings are all the same size. That mold took not only skill to make, but also skill to design, and balls to approve, since if it didn't work a LOT of money would be down the drain. Ask the old Branchline Trains crew just how easy it is to tool an open grid running board. Anyway, I've been told that the wrecker was directly responsible for Bill Gould leaving the model railroad industry. After it was released he started the PFE reefer, the watched the sales of the wrecker wither, became disenchanted, and put the line up for sale. Dennis Storzek |
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph
I have built the rebuild, the tank, the crane, the R40-4, and the boom car. Pretty nice kits from a modeler (assembly only) point of view. Did manage to screw up keeping the boom movable…. Joe Binish On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 2:26 PM Dennis Storzek via groups.io <soolinehistory=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote: On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 12:22 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis,
You are suggesting that he chose a tank with longitudinal lines to help disguise the mold split lines?
-- Ted Larson trainweb.org/mhrr/ -------- NASG.org -------- https://www.nasg.org/Clubs/RegionsMinnesota.php GN in 1965 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek
Dennis,No, because the tank in the Gould tankcar kit came in four pieces which the modeler had to assemble, then add the tank heads. The four parts of the cylinder were all molded flat in a simple 'open and close' tool, the thickness of the parts governed by the curve of the tank. In theory the same could have been done with a three part tank, but the upper parts would have been overly thick and prone to sinks, otherwise the part of the mold that cored out the inside surface of the tank would have had to go 'across parting line' and that would have required fussy fitting of the angular surfaces that 'shut off' against the other half of the mold, which Gould apparently did not want to do. The most critical surfaces of any mold are not those that keep the plastic in (and form the surface of the part) rather it's the surfaces that fit together to keep the plastic OUT. Easiest by far is to keep them all in one flat plane. Dennis Storzek |
|
|
|
|
|
Kenneth Montero
Speedwitch kit K-127 Georgia RR USRA 50 Ton Boxcar rebuilt w/Murphy radial roof
Ken Mnotero
|
|
|
|
|
|
lrkdbn
I believe the P&LE rebuild might have been the original application of the Youngstown rebuild kits for USRA cars
Also, it is very close to GTW and Wabash cars done a year or so later, the main difference being the underframe which a modeler of any ability at all should be able to cope with. I think Gould/Tichy does some fine stuff, and I wish their approach to kits would have more support than it seems to have. Larry King |
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Hansmann
Larry,
Please note the P&LE/PMcK&Y cars were rebuilt from USRA single-sheathed box cars. The GTW and Wabash rebuilt their USRA double-sheathed box cars. Beyond the underframes, there were some differences in the hardware that were used.
There may also be different hardware used on the roof as that was another area that several railroads upgraded over time on their USRA box cars. I do not know what the GTW or Wabash upgraded on their cars beyond the steel sides.
BTW, a USRA freight car assignments resource is available on my blog. The tables cover original car assignments. Post-USRA clones or sales are note noted on the data. You can see what lines received the different USRA car designs.
Eric Hansmann
Media, PA
|
|
|
|