Restoring an old Ulrich hopper car

I was recently browsing in my stash of old or unused freight cars, and came across an Ulrich metal hopper car from my teenage years. Among other things, it has Devore couplers in Devore draft gear boxes. The wire grab irons and lettering looked pretty good, so I decided to see what could be done with it — and to check whether it was a model of an actual prototype. Back in those days, there were relatively few commercial freight car models, and many were lettered for pretty much any popular railroad. 

(I have worked on a number of old Ulrich HO scale freight cars over the years, and have reported some of the projects in past blog posts. To find them, if you’re interested, use “Ulrich” as the search term in the search box at right. The Ulrich company, founded in the late 1940s by Charles J. Ulrich, was a mainstay of HO scale modeling the 1950s, and later became part of the Walthers line.)

Below is the model. Aside from the heavy sill steps, cast onto the white-metal car sides, it doesn’t look too bad. The model, unlike Ulrich hopper cars in later years, did not have cast-on grab irons at the right of each car side, but had free-standing Athearn metal ladders, not a bad idea under the “three-foot distance” rule. This is an immediate clue that this is an early Ulrich hopper.

Is this prototype? It sure is. Norfolk & Western built 12,500 cars like this in the 1930s, and the Ulrich model is a definite match. Below is a prototype photo (N&W photo), showing the first of these cars at Roanoke in 1936. You can just see the angled heap shields, just like the Ulrich model. Incidentally, anyone with even a faint interest in coal hoppers should own Bob Karig’s superb book, Coal Cars (University of Scranton Press, 2007), where I found this photo.

In 1953, the year I model, there were more than 8700 cars of these dimensions, though Class HL is not called out separately. That certainly means that an N&W hopper chosen at random might well be a car like this model.

Now I expect that at least some readers will be thinking, “What on earth is he thinking about, coal hoppers in California?” And in some ways, that’s true. But coal was certainly used in a number of ways in California at the time I model, as I discussed in an earlier blog post (see it at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2018/02/coal-in-california.html ). 

As mentioned in that post, little coal was ever found in California, and none of it very good, a natural result of California’s geologic history (marvelously explained for laymen in John McPhee’s excellent book, Assembling California, 1993). Accordingly, lots of it was imported, usually by rail, and sometimes from far away: thus an N&W hopper could be okay.

For those not familiar with the Ulrich models, they had cast white metal sides, ends, interior braces, and hopper gates, with sheet brass slope sheets. Thus it’s not surprising that the model weighs over 3 ounces, above the NMRA recommended weight for this car length. The model has metal sprung trucks, nice looking but with pre-RP 25 wheel flanges, so I will replace the entire truck.

The familiar Ulrich hopper kit of later years had a cast metal underframe, so that the assembly process would be as shown in the instruction sheet below (from the HOseeker website, https://hoseeker.net/Ulrich.html ). It is clear how the parts go together, and it makes a sturdy model. But this is not my model. (You can click to enlarge if you wish.)

My hopper, instead, happens to be the original Ulrich hopper, which had a pine center sill and balsa bolster/slope sheet supports. It also has applied ladders instead of the cast-on grab irons seen in the directions above. The directions for this somewhat different kit (sides and ends are like the later kits) is shown below (again, HOseeker). The wood parts are in the drawing at the top of the directions.

I will disassemble the underframe parts that support the draft gear, replace the balsa with styrene, and modify to accept a Kadee coupler box. I’ll describe that work in a future post.

Tony Thompson

Early HO scale couplers, Part 2

 In my first post on this topic, I described a number of the early couplers available in HO scale, from the Varney dummy coupler (an accurately shaped and sized coupler), to the other extreme, the Mantua loop coupler, and the good-looking but not very reliable Devore coupler. You can read that post here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2024/07/early-ho-couplers.html .

If you do read that post, you’ll find a discussion point by my friend Arved Grass, stating his belief that the initial Kadee metal coupler was the model MK. As I replied, that’s not true. It certainly is true that the MK coupler was the first Kadee magnetic coupler, and it was first advertised (as far as I can determine) in the December 1959 issue of Model Railroader, or MR.

But years earlier, the Kadee metal coupler head had been introduced, with a variety of coupler shanks, with model numbers from 4 to 7 (and later to 10), all called “K” couplers, not MK (probably “K” stood for Kadee). These had a straight trip pin, as you can see below (ad from page 12, October 1956 MR). I imagine the “good lookin’ ” phrase was with reference to the Mantua loops.

Or for a view of several cars with these straight pins, there is this photo (page 46, October 1957 MR):

And just to cinch the point, here is Kadee’s announcement of their new Model 10 or K-10 coupler (the same one shown above) for Athearn’s plastic freight cars, but in a very clear drawing (page 16, July 1957 MR):

In the previous post about early couplers (link in top paragraph of the present post), I had misremembered what the Kadee uncoupling ramp was like. I thought it was a converging throat to push the pins together. Actually, it was the opposite: a diamond shape that pushed the pins apart to uncouple the couplers. It could be raised electrically. Here’s a photo (page 41, May 1957 MR):

There were the familiar types K-4 and K-5 “for general use,” as the ad below says, along with several other types for specific rolling stock, up to type K-8 (ad from page 7, May 1956 MR):

But finally they did introduce the “Magna-matic” coupler, the one we have used ever since. As mentioned above, I believe this is the initial announcement in the December 1959 MR, page 25; it isn’t obvious here, but this coupler has the curved trip pin that is so familiar now.

So the straight-pin Kadees were all “K” models, and didn’t become “MK” (as shown above) until the end of 1959, when the above announcement was published. In what I hope isn’t  excessive clarity, this should now be a complete story.

Tony Thompson

Early HO couplers

Looking at some freight cars I’ve picked up at swap meets, and seeing the variety of couplers on some of them, led me to reflect on these components in the early years. The standard of practically all HO modelers today, the excellent Kadee coupler, was just arriving on the scene before 1960, and was different from today’s version.

In the 1950s,one had three kinds of choices. A number of kit makers gave you dummy couplers, some of them poorly shaped, which were white metal castings. But Varney gave you a black plastic dummy which was scale size and shape. These are so good looking and accurate that I have installed them in contest models, just for appearance, though of course they aren’t very suitable for layout use.

If you operated with these couplers, you had to lift one of the cars to be coupled, and lower it down to engage the coupler on the other car. Not a big deal, but hardly prototypical, and it slowed down all switching moves.

For operating couplers, what seems to have been the original design was the Devore coupler. These were white metal, and had an operating rod that was designed to look like an air hose. When the rod was raised, it freed the knuckle to open, much like the prototype coupler pin. Note that this is the “new 1950” coupler.

These could be remotely uncoupled with a physical ramp, a slight incline which would put upward pressure on the rod and open the knuckle. When it worked, this was nice. And when knuckles were open, two of them would automatically close and couple when brought together.

The problems were several-fold. First, when one of these was really operating right, it was quite a pleasure to use. But for every one like that, you had a couple that weren’t consistent, and sometimes didn’t work well, and at least one that was stubborn and hardly ever cooperated. Also, as they were white metal, you had to paint them, and paint hardly ever improved operation. After a time, this coupler was sold by Devore to Model Die Casting, and for a number of years was included in Roundhouse kits.

Devore, incidentally, made all kinds of other castings and even freight cars. I have one of their 36-foot depressed center flat cars, and still have its original box. I posted awhile back about restoring this car for operational use (see the post at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2020/08/restoring-devore-kit-part-2.html ).

But for the serious operating modeler, there was a far better choice than dummies or Devore couplers: the Mantua coupler. This was a hook and loop design, made of brass, and it too required a ramp; but its operation was entirely dependable and consistent. Its operating pin, under the coupler box area and thus largely invisible, simply raised the hook and allowed uncoupling.

From beneath an installation, you can see the single screw used for attachment, and at a slight angle, the large operating pin. Here the hook part is barely visible, seen within the loop.

From above, the coupler could be painted black, minimizing its rather grossly unprototypical appearance. Here, the hook part is more visible. Still, for many modelers, the appearance of this was really not okay on otherwise realistic models.

The first Kadee coupler in the late 1950s looked much like its later appearance, but with an important exception: the operating pin was long and straight, sticking down below the coupler, and the reason was that a ramp was needed to operate it: a converging pair of, usually, wires which pressed the two coupler pins toward the center and opened both couplers. 

Even so, the new Kadee was very dependable and reasonably similar in appearance to a prototype coupler, and quickly made inroads among those who wanted to be able to operate freight cars. The later introduction of magnetic rather than mechanical ramp uncoupling was a further improvement.

Today, we are accustomed to extremely reliable operation of Kadee couplers, and when they are installed throughout a fleet, Accumate couplers, but back in the early days, choices were more complex.

Tony Thompson

Heavyweight sleepers, conclusion

I have been describing a conversion of an AHM (Rivarossi) heavyweight Pullman sleeper, from its original 12-1 configuration (12 sections, 1 drawing room) to a 10-1-1 floor plan (10 sections, 1 compartment, 1 drawing room). In the last post about the project, I showed completion of the roof with its air-conditioning ducts (it’s here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2022/10/heavyweight-sleepers-part-3-roof.html ).

Now only completion of the car remains. I’ll begin with trucks. The AHM trucks are a decent representation of the prototype truck used by Pullman, what they called “Style 2411A,” so their appearance is all right. But there are some operational problems that do need to be corrected. The photo below shows them (the trucks shown are lightweight-car four-wheel trucks, but the principles are the same). The photo is a repeat from an earlier post (see it at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2021/04/modeling-sp-passsenger-cars-part-10.html ).

First of all, the Talgo-like coupler tongue, shown above at left, is molded with a horn-hook coupler. These are, of course, grossly poor in having not even a ghost of prototype appearance, but also problematic in that they don’t behave well if the car has to be pushed instead of pulled at any point. 

My solution is to cut off the horn-hook and drill and tap the tongue for a 2-56 screw (center). Then the Kadee box is attached with a flat-head screw (arrangement at right in the photo). This is the ideal arrangement: a Kadee coupler in its own box. I recommend a flat-head or pan-head screw for clearance under the diaphragm.

Note also in the photo above the AHM wheelsets. They comprise half-sets, a wheel and half an axle each, connected with an internal steel rod. The good news about this arrangement is that it is easy to correct an out-of-gauge wheelset; the bad news is that the wheelsets are free to get out of gauge. And the flanges are oversize. 

I often replace AHM wheelsets with Kadee wheelsets. Prototype passenger cars normally used 36-inch wheels, while classic-era freight wheels, like the Kadee ones, are 33 inches in diameter. But the original AHM wheels are also 33-inch size, so to keep the coupler tongue at the correct height, using freight wheelsets is in fact the correct answer. And of course you get better flanges.

I should also mention the attachment of the AHM Pullman trucks. It’s a friction pin, which can work well when new, but inevitably gives trouble after some time in service. As I have mentioned for the AHM lightweight cars, the simplest solution is to drill out the pin attachment holes with a No. 30 drill, glue in a short length of 1/8-inch styrene tubing (Evergreen No. 224), tap for 2-56, and then use a screw of that thread to attach the trucks.

I have used a remarkable variety of diaphragms on my model passenger cars over the years, including a variety of home-made ones (to see examples, you can use “diaphragm” as the search term in the search box at upper right of this post). For the Lake Merritt, I combined a diaphragm folds from one in the scrapbox, with a new striker plate. I also replaced the poor AHM brake wheel with a brass Cal Scale one.

That completed the project. You can note in the photo above that both the roof and the diaphragm striker plate are weathered. This was done with my usual method based on acrylic washes. Most railroads washed their passengers cars fairly regularly, but that wash only involved the car sides, not roof or ends, so those areas should certainly show some dirt. Here’s the final product, shown on my layout.

This was a fun addition to my fleet of heavyweight passenger cars, and probably concludes my conversions of the old AHM cars to different floor plans. I have enjoyed doing them all, but likely already roster more such cars than are needed on my present layout, so I don’t expect to do any more.

Tony Thompson

Those peaky coupler screws for brass models

 All of us who deal with brass models of railroad equipment (mine are HO scale), eventually deal with the metric screws that they have. Sometimes this is a hassle, sometimes not. Last year (partly at the request of an email inquiry), I wrote about modifying models to use or avoid the truck screws on these models. (that post is here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2020/09/those-pesky-truck-screws-for-brass.html ).  

(And incidentally, in the post just cited, I showed how I have made washers when replacing brass model truck screws of the shouldered variety, with straight screws. In fact, NorthWest Short Line offers quite a nice thrust washer which will work with most brass trucks, 2.0 mm ID and 4.2 mm OD, and they cost $1.29.)

Today I want to turn to coupler screws. Usually brass models have these screws in the box, but I have purchased second-hand brass that does not have any screws. And in at least one case, I carefully put the coupler screws for a brass model in a “safe place,” which was indeed very safe, because I haven’t found it yet. Either situation requires knowing what size these screws are so that you can replace them.

I thought to myself, “Well, this is a common problem, so it must be well covered on the Internet, one of the many times that ‘Google is your friend,’ no doubt, and I can just look it up.” Wrong. I could only find a couple of mentions of specific models, nothing in general. That’s why I wrote this post. 

Let’s begin with what you see. What you hope to find when you look at the coupler pad of a brass model is a combination of screw holes, both a pair of holes for the side shoulders on the Kadee coupler box, and a center hole. An example is shown below (a Challenger brass GS gondola). There is also a hole at the back of the coupler pad, which I’m told is for a European coupler box, but that’s hearsay.

Personally, I always prefer the center-hole mounting, and usually cut off the Kadee side-mount protrusions. That center screw is usually a 2.0 x 4 mm screw, preferably pan head. In the photo below, you see a Kadee coupler box, with “ears” cut off, installed with a 2.0 x 4 mm screw. The coupler is a #58.

I should mention that I have encountered locomotive tenders that did not have this 2.0 x 4 mm-size screw, but most brass models in my experience have this size center screw hole in the coupler pad.

Unless, of course, they don’t have a center hole, but just the two side holes (and that rear hole). An example of this is shown below. It happens to be a Precision Scale tank car, but I should hasten to add that many PSC brass models do have center coupler-mount holes. This particular one didn’t.

The screws for these “side” holes are usually 1.7 x 4 mm or 1.7 x 5 mm screws. The drawback now is that this coupler pad requires use of the Kadee coupler box side mounts, and on some model cars, they interfere with truck swing. Here is my installation, again a #58 coupler.

One solution, of course, is to drill and tap the center of the pad for a 2.0 mm screw. Now I know at least some readers who are asking themselves, where the heck would I get metric screws and taps and all that. For the 2.0 mm size, a 1/16-inch drill is the tap drill, but you still need a tap. 

NorthWest Short Line has sold these types of screws, along with tap drills and metric taps, for many years, and they still do (the screw offerings are here: https://nwsl.com/collections/screws ). The assortments are the bargain. But many on-line hardware suppliers sell metric screws and taps, so shop around.

I should also mention that I know U.S. modelers who hate metric screws and simply drill out the 2.0 mm hole and tap it for 2-56. That’s your call, of course. I confess to having done that on the brass locomotive tender I mentioned above, the coupler screw for which I just could not identify (and it wasn’t 1-72 or 0-80, either). But ordinarily I prefer using the screw holes that are provided. 

Tony Thompson

Modeling SP passenger cars, Part 10: trucks

 A number of my model sleepers, both heavyweight and lightweight, are stock or modified AHM (Associated Hobby Manufacturers) plastic cars, manufactured by Rivarossi. In the latter part of the 20th century, these were ubiquitous in hobby shops and swap meets, and can be modified beyond their original form. 

Earlier parts of my series of blog posts on SP passenger cars showed my conversions of some of the heavyweight Pullman  cars to various different floor plans (the easiest way to find all of the series is to use “modeling SP passenger” as the search term in the search box at right).

An important part of these conversions is couplers. Although I body-mount couplers on shorter cars, on 80-foot cars there can be problems on curves sharper than about 36 inch radius. My solution has been to modify the original AHM Talgo-like arrangement. I mentioned this briefly in one prior post (see it at this link: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2014/09/modeling-sp-passenger-cars-sleepers.html ), but want to expand on that description here.

The photo below shows the sequence. At left is the truck as produced by AHM, with a long, spring-loaded tongue, terminating in a molded-in-place horn-hook coupler.  I simply cut off the horn-hook coupler, then drill and tap the tongue for a 2-56 screw, as shown at center. Then a regular Kadee coupler box is attached on top of the tongue, using a screw, right. I continue to use Kadee #5 couplers on passenger cars because of their wider gathering range, though nearly all of the rest of my rolling stock is being converted to Kadee #58 couplers.

The trucks shown above happen to be 4-wheel trucks, but of course the exact same process is used with 6-wheel trucks. Shown below is one truck of each type, drilled and tapped. The length of the tongues appears different at first glance, but in fact, the distance from bolster center to the drilled hole is the same for both trucks.

An advantage of this kind of mounting for couplers is that they are then located just about ideally at the car end. Shown below is a car end without diaphragms, so the coupler can be clearly seen.  The car here is a Lark sleeper.

Another issue with the Rivarossi design is that trucks are attached with friction pins. This works all right when the models are new, but after a few truck removals and replacements, for painting, maintenance or whatever, the pins are no longer doing their job very well. The simple solution that I’ve used is to drill out the body bolster hole with a No. 30 drill, insert 1/8-inch Evergreen styrene tubing and glue with Plastruct “Plastic Weld,” and then tap the inside of the tube for a 2-56 screw. Then it looks like this:

I have several of these 10-6 sleepers, reasonable stand-ins for Southern Pacific’s post-war Pullman-Standard sleepers, assigned to several trains, including the Coasdt Route’s Lark. I will say more about the paint and lettering, and my layout uses of the cars, in a future post. 

Tony Thompson

Workin’ on the fleet

 In a number of posts over several years, I have talked about maintaining a fleet of freight cars: my own fairly large fleet. What happens from time to time, in essence, is that cars that have been pulled off the layout for any kind of poor performance gradually accumulate until they are in the way. Then it’s time to work out the kinks and return them to service — if possible. The background here is what I call my “rookie test” for freight cars (see my description at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-rookie-test.html ).

The worst offenders are the cars that only misbehave occasionally. This makes you pull your hair out. But they still have to be fixed. The most common type in my experience is derailment due to misbehavior of the trucks. I postulate that occasionally a wheelset gets cocked or jammed in the sideframe, leading of course to derailment, but because this rarely happens, it’s hard to find. Simple solution: replace trucks. Here’s one of my misbehavers, shown right where it derailed

I replace lots of trucks nowadays. Back in the day, I always tried to use the kit trucks, sometimes with Kadee replacement wheelsets. Now I’m realizing that it can be the fault of the sideframes, and that replacing the truck can correct the problem. It can also be the wheelsets, if I used the kit ones, and nowadays I tend to replace with InterMountain wheelsets when they fit the sideframes.

Replacement of trucks can easily throw off the coupler height, as some manufacturers of model freight cars have designed models so that they have to be mated with the company’s own trucks. I always carefully check coupler height after truck change (for more about this, you can see my post on coupler maintenance, at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/10/maintaining-model-couplers.html ), and verify on the layout.

There are also problems that arise when a kit coupler arrangement is entirely replaced. Careful checking of the new coupler is essential. As always, I use the Kadee gauges, shown here with a Thomas Trains wine tank car from the 1950s:

Lastly, I have mentioned before that I also make “dynamic” checks of freight cars that have been repaired or upgraded with new couplers or trucks, deliberately pushing and pulling a group of suspect cars, often mixed with correct cars, through a sequence of turnouts (I described this process in an earlier post: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/06/rolling-stock-upkeep.html ). The photo below shows such a test at Shumala on my layout. I continue to do that with cars that have had trucks replaced, since it was truck misbehavior that caused replacement in the first place.

A large fleet of model freight cars like mine simply requires maintenance, there’s no way around it. What works for me is to have an established procedure for this work, as I’ve described in the present and previous posts, and to stick to it whenever a batch of repairs/upgrades is being done.

Tony Thompson

Maintaining model couplers

I have posted comments from time to time in this blog about the various needs for maintenance of freight cars to make sure they operate as they should. This is potentially a really wide-ranging topic. Probably the broadest recent post like this addressed several kinds of maintenance issues (you can read the post at this link: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/06/rolling-stock-upkeep.html ).
     My recent experience with the operating weekend at VanRail in Vancouver, British Columbia showed me some compelling examples of how well this can work. (For an overview of that event, you may wish to read the post about it, which is at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/09/vanrail-2019.html .)
     In particular, I was struck by the good operation at Mike Chandler’s layout, because he uses Kadee magnetic uncoupling ramps, often in layout locations that you really cannot comfortably reach from the aisle. This means that couplers must operate flawlessly, and they did. I came away with the determination to re-examine my own fleet and try to correct any couplers that are off in height or were even a little bit sticky or not free-swinging.
     Shown below is an example of couplers that almost line up perfectly, the one on the right being a Kadee #5. But even though a coupler pair like this will work fine on the main line, it many not behave as desired in tight switching locations, or in the presence of any trackwork shortcomings.

Below is a second example, this time showing two cars with #58 couplers, but here they are matching perfectly and accordingly will operate all right. It’s always best to strive for complete height matching, and I am working on my fleet to get there.

The cars above are a Westerfield AC&F reefer at left, and an InterMountain SP covered hopper at right.
     Coupler height is most easily adjusted with washers at the truck bolster, and that is what I usually do to make cars match the Kadee gauge as exactly as I can. (I have written about use of the Kadee gauge before, partly because I am surprised when modelers tell me they don’t even have one; for example, the post at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-rookie-test.html ). In my opinion, you simply cannot compromise on coupler height.
     Let me add some specifics having to do with the mixture of Kadee #5 and #58 couplers, like I have on my layout. I have said several times that I find that these operate very well together, provided that they are operating properly and that one recognizes the simple fact that the scale-head coupler necessarily has less gathering range and is less forgiving on vertical curves. But how about using the Kadee coupler gauge with mixed couplers?
     I contacted Sam Clarke at Kadee to ask him about this point, because I was uncertain how I should use the gauge with two different couplers such as the #5 and #58. He began by pointing out that the definition of coupler height is from the top of the rail to the centerline of the coupler. The Kadee couplers have a horizontal mold parting line that can be discerned on the coupler face (and on the coupler horn at bottom in this image), that locates this line for you.

     Sam went on to say that the best way to set coupler height is with the coupler center lines matching, such as  with the #5 and #58 combinations. But because they are close, he suggested that matching the top surfaces of the two couplers should also be okay, as long as you are consistent.
     One other point. Especially on the layout, you may need to search a little bit for good background to evaluate your couplers when gauging them. The photo below illustrates a less than terrific choice, using my old Kadee 205 gauge (there is a new 206 plastic gauge).

Putting a piece of white paper behind the gauge and car makes it far easier to see clearly what you are evaluating (the same is true, of course, at the workbench). Note also that the trip pin correctly clears the “shelf” at the bottom of the Kadee gauge.

     One last point: you will note above that the cars are not coupled to the gauge. Coupling them may lift one coupler relative to its rest position, so you need to move the car close to, but not coupled to, the Kadee gauge.
     I am working through my car fleet, a few cars every time I get the impulse, to set coupler heights to the gauge, and of course keeping notes as to which cars have been done. It might be an ongoing project you would like to attack also.
Tony Thompson

The 36-foot box car

As early as the turn of the 20th century, there were some railroads that began building 40-foot box cars and never looked back. These included the Harriman roads, Southern Pacific and Union Pacific. But other major railroads, such as the New York Central, built many thousands of 36-foot box cars in the early 20th century, and some roads continued to build them into the 1920s.
     But most of these cars had wood superstructure frames and many had wood ends, which would shorten their lives. Already by the beginning of World War II, much of the 36-foot fleet nationwide had been scrapped or rebuilt into other forms, and by 1950, few were still in service.
     Still, there were cars like this in service in my modeling year of 1953. Why am I mentioning this? Because my car fleet should contain at least a couple of these cars. Rarities by 1953 they might well be, but certainly not all vanished. Thus my interest in the Accurail offering of a variety of 36-foot box car models in HO scale.
     These models were first announced at Trainfest in Milwaukee in the fall of 2015. At first, only a limited number of paint schemes were made available, but gradually there have been more and more of them introduced. Within the Accurail 36-foot car offering are four body types: the 1300 series, with steel outside metal roof, steel ends, and an underframe with a fishbelly center sill; the 1400 series, the same as the 1300s but with a straight steel center sill; the 1700 series, with the steel outside metal roof, wood ends, and a fishbelly center sill; and the 1800 series, the same as the 1700s but with a straight center sill. You can see current paint scheme offerings at the Accurail website, at: http://www.accurail.com/accurail/ .
     Ray Breyer has done a superb job of summarizing each of the Accurail series, in terms of the prototypes that used the cars, and their lifetimes. These reviews are available as PDF documents at Eric Hansmann’s site, which is located here: http://designbuildop.hansmanns.org/accurail-prototype-data/ . You will see separate PDFs for each of the Accurail number series just listed. These are great sources of information, and I recommend them highly. And thank you, Ray, for the help!
     I approached the potential acquisition of one of these Accurail cars in just the way I described in an earlier post about choosing new cars for the fleet (you can read that post at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/06/choosing-new-cars-for-your-fleet.html ). But the number of useful cars for modelers of 1950 or later comprise a rather short list. Moreover, perusal of Ray’s document shows that very few Western railroads were indulging in 36-foot cars of this kind.
     Anyway, I went ahead and studied Ray’s information, and then I could list the following prospects for my 1953 modeling year: 1300 series, Missouri Pacific (photo below); 1400 series, L&N and maybe D&RGW (the latter requiring a bit of a time warp); 1800 series, D&H. But as it happens, Accurail to this day has only listed the L&N and D&H paint schemes as future releases; neither has actually appeared. So that leaves me with this prototype (photo from Ted Culotta collection):

A distinctive feature here is the reverse corrugated end, nicely modeled in the Accurail kit.
     The Accurail kit for this car is no. 1303, and as Ray Breyer points out, it is a fairly close match except for the fascia board on the MP car. I acquired one and assembled it, a simple process with Accurail kits (aided by the Ray Breyer “tutorial” on the underframe, on the same Hansmann-site page as the car summaries). I installed Kadee no. 158 “whisker” couplers to avoid the reported size problems with the Accurail coupler box.
     I then proceeded to weather the car in three stages. First, a light weathering with acrylic washes, and a coat of flat. Then, some very slight emphasis of individual boards, suing Prismacolor art pencils, followed by another grayish wash.

Completing the car included reweigh and repack data patches and a few chalk marks. The route cards remain to be added in the photo above.
     I also have one other 36-foot box car in my fleet, an L&N model inherited from Richard Hendrickson. I don’t know how he modeled it except that I remember he had mentioned once that he had kitbashed it. It’s from a group of L&N cars that was rapidly shrinking in Richard’s model year of 1947, and in fact gone by 1953, the year that I model. But I’m keeping it anyway, at least for now (there’s that time warp again).

     So what’s next? I may choose to build the Accurail 1800-series car lettered for D&H, whenever it’s released, or I may decide that two 36-foot cars is about the limit for 1953. But in either case, I have a very small representation in my fleet of the disappearing 36-foot box car in 1953, and that was my goal.
Tony Thompson

Rolling stock upkeep

Upkeep? Isn’t a rolling stock model, once completed and in service, all set to operate for quite a while? Can we not apply the immortal comment, “what could go wrong?”
     I have written in earlier posts about what I called a “rookie test,” meaning that a piece of rolling stock that had not been in service before, or was newly maintained in some way, needed thorough testing before entering service. Otherwise, such issues as truck swing, coupler swing, coupler height, coupler knuckle spring operation, and so on, could come back and bite you. That post can be found at this link: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-rookie-test.html .
     I followed up awhile later with commentary on how rigorous this kind of test needed to be, in a post entitled “Lessons learned,” which is available at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2018/09/lessons-learned.html . In fact, re-reading that post now makes me realize that the term “rookie test,” though entirely appropriate for cars entering service, is misleading in that it seems to imply that only the new rolling stock presents problems. As that second post, just cited above, states, the same standards may need to be applied to cars already in service.
     One sign of that, as an ongoing process that I have had to recognize, can be found in the post I wrote recently about correcting problems with the friction-fit coupler box lid on Athearn tank cars. That post is here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/05/fixing-athearn-tank-car-coupler-pockets.html . There are plenty of other examples that have emerged in my ongoing maintenance tasks at the workbench.
     Here’s one instance: I continue to search out and replace non-Kadee couplers on my rolling stock. I don’t mean to imply that only Kadees can do the job, only that I have come to believe that having all one kind of coupler does  make a difference in reliability and consistent coupling and coupled-up train continuity. I find the knock-off Kadee copies that are added to some Chinese-manufactured cars especially annoying, as they look very much like a real Kadee (though usually very shiny, which Kadees are not), and simply do not perform as well as the design they are copied from.
     Now let me say a few words about a topic familiar to many modelers: Kadee no. 5 vs. no. 58. The photo below shows one of each, happily coupled and working fine.

     I should explain that I continue to hear the idea that Kadee no. 5 and no. 58 couplers do not work well together. My experience is that this claim is entirely untrue. I have lots of both types on my layout, and they are generally just fine. Why do I qualify that words “just fine” with “generally”? The no. 58 does have some limitations compared to the no. 5. It does not have the overall height (in elevation view), so is less forgiving on vertical curves, and less tolerant of coupler height mismatch with adjoining cars. It is smaller, and in particular has less “gather” (in plan view), so is less capable for coupling on sharp curves (actually a prototypical feature).
     But these issues are not because there is any mismatch between no. 5 and no. 58, only that the two are different. If you are used to how no. 5s behave in model operation, you will certainly find that no. 58s are different, usually in a less convenient way. But let me repeat: in my experience, the two coupler types work just fine together, whether in train service or in switching, even if it is true that the no. 58 does not offer all the operating convenience of the no. 5. For me, that is more than balanced by the better appearance of the smaller no. 58.
     One thing I now often do as part of a “rookie test” or “return-to-service test” is to couple up a string of some cars that have been worked on, and use a locomotive to run them back and forth through a sequence of the diverging sides of No. 5 turnouts, at slow speed and then at faster speeds, to see if they behave. And when that test goes all right, I rearrange their order and repeat, and maybe create a third ordering of the cars and repeat again.

I should observe that even this testing is not always sufficient, because coupling a particular car to some other car may bring a whole new problem into view. But this test is a good starting point.
     I am occasionally asked my view on the Accumate couplers from Accurail. When these were first introduced, I bought five pairs and installed them on five freight cars, each from a different manufacturer, and then operated them intensively in switching and in train service.  I operated them all together, and then operated them all in mixtures with Kadee no. 5 and no. 58 couplers. My conclusions? Operated together, Accumates are just fine, and are small enough to look good. Operated with Kadees? Just not nearly as dependable. I suspect that an entire car fleet equipped with Accumates would be fine, but I don’t want them mixed in with Kadees. As I said, I have chosen the latter.
     One other maintenance task that keeps on happening: I find myself replacing the plastic sill steps on some models. Though I often replace such steps with A-Line metal sill steps before the cars even enter service, I don’t always get to it before wanting to use the cars in an operating session. But inevitably those plastic steps start to break off, and then the car ends up back on the workbench, to receive the A-Line steps. To do this, I usually have to add some blocking behind the side sill, to make a sturdier platform to drill for sill steps. (I have shown this method in use in several blogs, for example this one: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/12/modeling-project-m-box-car.html .)
     And of course there are always the maintenance tasks of replacement of missing or broken grab irons, brake wheels, and other parts. I don’t really feel bothered by this, because if a layout is operated, some things are going to get damaged. That’s just a fact of nature. So, because I do want to have guests operate the layout, occasional damage is not only predictable but unavoidable. I just fix it and move on.
Tony Thompson

Modern couplers in an Ulrich gondola

Older modelers are certainly familiar with the cast white-metal Ulrich freight cars, including their early-style GS (General Service) drop-bottom gondola. Younger modelers have probably seen them on layouts, at swap meets, or on eBay. They are really a pretty good representation of the Enterprise GS gondola design of the 1920s, purchased by a number of railroads. Southern Pacific was prominent among those railroads, thus my interest, but UP and several other roads acquired similar if not identical gondolas. Here is an original Ulrich kit box for those who might not have seen one.

As the box lid shows, they also made hopper cars, box and stock cars, flat cars, and a War Emergency outside-frame gondola. They also made an extensive line of nice highway trucks.
     One of the challenges of many of these freight car models is couplers. If built according to the kit directions, they are supplied with a cover plate to fit the coupler box that is cast onto the car body. In early Ulrich kits, this cover was a sheet-metal part, but later was a white-metal casting. This cover plate has a small hole in it, which fits over a slender post (with a hollow end) in the coupler box, and the modeler is instructed to rivet the end of the post over the plate, securing it in place. Step 5 of the GS kit directions shows this.

     Shown below is this coupler box before a cover plate (shown resting on the underbody next to the coupler box) is added. You can see how slender is the post inside the coupler box.

     But modern couplers depend on a considerably larger post, so using the original coupler box as-is doesn’t work well. There are a couple of approaches that can  be taken. One is to start with a Kadee coupler box lid, and remove the center post, placing that post over the Ulrich post, then installing the Kadee coupler and riveting on the cover plate. This is simple, but has the drawback that the riveted cover plate precludes any further adjustments or repairs.
     Another approach is to remove the Ulrich post, drill and tap the base of the coupler box for a 1-72 or 2-56 screw, open the cover plate hole to clear this screw, add that center post from the Kadee lid, and then assemble the Kadee coupler with its normal spring. Here’s an example.

     The method shown above does work, but an even simpler method occurred to me. I took the Kadee box lid with its post, and simply fitted it upside down. That is, the lid is intended to be on the top of the box, when the freight car is upright, but I placed it like the Ulrich cover plate, so that on the upright car it is on the bottom of the coupler box. I used a Kadee whisker coupler here (No. 158) to avoid any issues with fitting the sheet bronze spring.
     Next, I glued on the box lid with canopy glue, which might seem to defeat the desire to have access to the coupler for maintenance, but the glue is readily cut with a razor blade or softened with water, so if access becomes necessary, it can readily be accomplished. Here is such an installation, before painting boxcar red.

     Either the screw closure using the original Ulrich box lid and a Kadee post, or the Kadee box lid, work well and are a way to provide modern couplers in this older model, while avoiding the permanence of riveting on the cover plate.
Tony Thompson

Fixing Athearn tank car coupler pockets

I have modified a fair number of Athearn "Blue Box” tank cars over the years, both the ordinary type with a single dome (but which I raised in height to make it prototypical — see for example my post about SP cars at this link: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/05/modeling-sp-tank-cars.html ) and the “chemical” tank, as Athearn calls it, the insulated high-pressure car.
     These models are an artifact of an earlier era, and cry out for lots of upgrades, many of which I’ve made. But in the present post, I am only discussing one aspect of these cars. The Achilles heel of these models for operation is the coupler box arrangement. It often develops into “coupler droop,” not at all good for operation.
     Let me begin with the underframe itself. This is probably familiar to most modelers, a two-part design in which the cover plate, as we may call it (the upper part in the photo), mates with the main frame (lower part) and, among other things, forms the couple box lids at each end. The ends of the cover plate are a friction fit between the support braces at the car end, which is the source of the problem. That friction is not always maintained over time.

What is needed is a positive closure to the coupler box lid, so that it maintains its location, and also will also permit maintenance of the coupler, if needed.
     Below is a close-up of the coupler box when built as Athearn intends (though with a Kadee coupler). When new, this arrangement usually works fine. It is what develops over time that becomes a problem.

     Doubtless there are many solutions to this problem, including installation of a completely new coupler box to fit the chosen brand of new coupler. My choice is to fix the Athearn box. First, I use a razor saw to saw through the cover plate, somewhere between the car’s body bolster, and the back of the rivet row which “defines” a coupler box. That gives me a separate box cover.
     Next, I carefully center punch (or scriber indent) the center of the coupler post in the box, and drill it out. Usually I drill it No. 75, then follow with a No. 51 drill, and tap 2-56. This gives me the threaded hole that will accept the future screw closure.

Note here that you can see right through the drilled and tapped hole, and the tank handrail is in fact just visible through the hole. The Kadee spring is in place here also.
     Next, I drill the now-separate coupler box lid with a hole for a 2-56 screw. The hole center, of course, must be located first. There are two ways to do this. One is to use an existing drilled box lid, and just use it as a template. But how do you create the first one?
     That’s the second way to locate the hole. I disassemble the model and remove the underframe from the car, after drilling the coupler post as described above. Then placing the coupler box lid in its normal position in the frame, I drill down through it No. 51 from the top, that is, from the top of the frame as seen on an upright car. Then the hole can be enlarged to a No. 42 clearance drill with the cover away from the frame, or it can be left as No. 51 and tapped 2-56 so that the closure screw holds everything together. Either method seems to work.
     I then reassemble the coupler, the box lid, and a 2-56 screw closure, and paint the screw head black or dark gray or whatever color suits the model. When all this is finished, the only clues to the change are the screw head, of course, and the saw cut where the box lid was separated from the rest of the cover plate. That cut is just visible here as a dark line between the rivet row at the back of the “box” and the bolster.

     Nowadays I would do this conversion as part of any work on an Athearn “Blue Box” tank car. But back in the day, I didn’t always do this part of the project, and have had to go back to some of the older Athearn tanks in my fleet and fix them. But it’s worth the effort. The couplers then stay where they are supposed to be, and the cars operate as they should.
Tony Thompson