The “Shake ’n’ Take” project at the Prototype Rails meeting in Cocoa Beach, Florida in January, 2006 was a rebuilt 40-foot Kansas City Southern box car. These cars were rebuilt by KCS in 1949 from USRA 40-ton double-sheathed box cars, with 1950s steel sides, roofs and ends. Accordingly, they had the usual kind of underframe of USRA rebuilds, with inset side sills supporting the wider body of the newer carbody design.
The number series for these KCS cars was 15500–15599. The cars were an original allocation from the USRA, built by Keith Car & Manufacturing Company (per the standard reference on USRA freight cars, James E. Lane’s article in the R&LHS publication, Railroad History, No. 128, Spring 1973). In 1940, there were still 95 cars on the roster. In 1949, the 92 remaining cars were rebuilt as described, and retained their original car numbers. By 1953, when I model, all 92 rebuilds remained on the roster.
The background on modeling this car can be found in an article by Greg Martin in the Railroad Model Craftsman issue for March 2009 (“KCS post-war, rebuilt 40-foot box car,” pages 52–56), with additional information from Joe Pennington’s modeling article in Mainline Modeler, April 1992. The directions that came with the kit for this “Shake ’n’ Take” project are also available on Google Docs, with Greg Martin’s permission. Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz_ctrHrDz4wenUyOEphUE9ndDg/edit .
Below is a photo of one of the prototype rebuilt cars (George Sisk photo, Charles Winters collection, courtesy Rob Evans). Though not a good copy, it shows the main features.
In this photo, it appears that the roof is black and the ends are the same color as the sides. This is how the model was painted in Greg Martin’s article in RMC (cited above).
I had started this project soon after the 2006 meeting but was not happy with my success in scratchbuilding the side sill details for the car, and, as so often happens, set it aside until a time when motivation might increase sufficiently to overcome this problem. Until recently, that time had not come. I hate to admit it, but this is not the only project in my “project boxes” with this status. (On the other hand, I know that a few other modelers suffer from the same disease.)
The stimulus to get going again was indirectly the 2012 “Shake ’n’ Take” project at Cocoa Beach, the Southern Pacific Class B-50-12-A cars similarly rebuilt from USRA box cars, though in SP’s case they were 50-ton single-sheathed box cars. There too, the side sill had to be created, and so the stimulating event that happened recently was the announcement by Chad Boas that he was going to make resin castings of this USRA-rebuild side sill, with all details.
Chad doesn’t really stock these parts, but has the masters and tells me that he will keep these available. Accordingly, it should be possible to order them at any time. His address is 30 N. 30th St., Lafayette, IN 47904, and his e-mail is <chadboas@yahoo.com>. He charged $6 for a pair of the side sills, plus $2 shipping and handling, when I bought mine. They are really nice parts, and would be a great deal of work to duplicate from scratch.
The overall KCS car project was fully described and illustrated in Greg Martin’s article, cited above, as well as in the “Shake ’n’ Take” kit directions (link above), so I won’t go into detail on most of the project. Instead I will try to indicate what is not shown or not clear in Greg’s description, including of course the use of Chad Boas’s fine side sill castings.
The basic idea behind this project is to combine the Accurail USRA style underframe (for example, from series 4600 cars) with an Accurail postwar steel box car body (series 3500). That body has slightly the wrong Improved Dreadnaught ends (they are a design from a few years later), but this will be a “main line” model for me, so exact ends aren’t crucial.
An important first step in using the Accurail car body is to make sure its sides are parallel. As you get them, many of these bodies bow inward quite substantially. Greg’s suggestion at Cocoa Beach was to use two lengths of 0.25-inch styrene tubing, 1.25 inches long, to brace the body inside and locate the sides properly. Here is a view of my body (which was severely bowed) with the internal braces added.
The body also needs to have the side sill cut to a straight configuration, which means essentially cutting off the projecting “tabs” and narrowing the under-door support to 7 feet, 3 inches. Here, roughly indicated with white lines, is what I mean:
The next step is to attach the brake gear to the underframe. As Greg’s article clearly showed (and as is visible in the prototype photo above), all three elements of the AB brake hardware are on the same side of the car, the left side. (The convention for the side nomenclature describes what you would see standing between the rails at the B or brake end of the car: to your left is the left side, etc.)
I mounted the AB parts using their own mounting posts, in holes drilled #43 in the new locations. The vital part of this visually is the transverse reservoir, an unusual but far from unique placement. Brake levers are 1 x 6-inch (scale) styrene strip. I used some of the styrene rod provided in the “Shake ’n’ Take” kit, something Greg Martin swears by for brake piping and rodding, as well as ladder rungs, etc. The rod size used here is 0.015-inch diameter. You can click to enlarge the image.
In this photo, the underbody-floor piece is merely resting on the car body (the cuts indicated above have not been made yet). The gap of about one-eighth of an inch on either side of the floor, inside the car body edge, will be filled by the new side sills. So to complete this part of the model, the Boas side sills will be attached along either side with CA.
This is as much as I wanted to present of the project in this post. Addition of side sills and the body detailing is fairly simple. That work, and painting and lettering, will be included in the following segment.
Tony Thompson
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Monday, July 9, 2012
Modeling SP’s bulkhead flat cars
In an earlier post, I wrote about the early bulkhead cars SP built in 1949 at its own Los Angeles shop from existing flat cars of Class F-70-6. Here’s a link to that post: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/09/early-sp-bulkhead-flat-car.html . My emphasis in that post was on the HO scale models of the 1949 cars, then being introduced by the Southern Pacific Historical & Technical Society (SPH&TS). Now I want to carry the subject further.
I will begin by showing the prototype 1949 bulkhead on the left, and on the right the as-built but unpainted SPH&TS bulkhead, constructed from the kit. Grab irons and ladders had not been added to this model bulkhead, so that the construction arrangement would be as clear as possible. This is the bulkhead style shown in my prior post, with the link above.
The SPH&TS offered the combined F-70-6 flat car, and the 1949 bulkheads, as a ready-to-run car at one time. Just to show how this looks as a completed car, here is the superb photo taken by Paul Lyons of one of these models. Society members will have seen this photo as part of the promotion for the models.
In the years after 1949, SP found demand increasing for bulkhead cars, and continued to convert flat cars in its own shops for this use. Originally intended to carry plasterboard, and heavily used for that traffic, the cars also soon found use for a wide variety of other cargoes, including lumber.
There were minor changes to the design of the bulkheads in the years between 1949 and 1956, but in that year an entirely new bulkhead design was introduced, completely of welded steel except for the vertical face of the bulkhead.
The SPH&TS has commissioned a kit for the 1956 bulkhead, and this kit is about to be announced. Here again is the prototype car end on the left, and the SPH&TS kit bulkhead, unpainted, on the right. Grabs and ladder are installed. Note the odd-looking angled grab iron at the right edge of the bulkhead, on both prototype and model. (You can click on this to enlarge it.)
This was followed in 1962 by an SP design which was structurally similar but considerably taller, 8 feet, 6 inches above the car deck, instead of the previous height of 6 feet, 4 inches. (Some 1949 bulkheads were less than 6 feet high.) Not only did SP build this 1962 design in its own shops, but later provided blueprints to Gunderson and others to construct new, not rebuilt, cars with this same bulkhead. Accordingly, it’s an important bulkhead for 1960s and later SP modelers.
In the same pattern as shown above, I compare below the prototype 1962 bulkhead on the left, and the SPH&TS bulkhead kit, with grabs and ladder, on the right. (Both the 1956 and 1962 model bulkheads shown here were built by me.)
As I’ve stated above, the SPH&TS is about to introduce kits for both the 1956 and 1962 bulkheads. These are much like the 1949 bulkhead kits which are still available (see link above) in that they comprise styrene parts which are easily glued together and attached to a styrene car deck (they are not designed to be attached to wooden model decks). For modelers of a range of eras, these fine bulkhead kits permit creation of a distinctive Southern Pacific freight car.
Tony Thompson
I will begin by showing the prototype 1949 bulkhead on the left, and on the right the as-built but unpainted SPH&TS bulkhead, constructed from the kit. Grab irons and ladders had not been added to this model bulkhead, so that the construction arrangement would be as clear as possible. This is the bulkhead style shown in my prior post, with the link above.
The SPH&TS offered the combined F-70-6 flat car, and the 1949 bulkheads, as a ready-to-run car at one time. Just to show how this looks as a completed car, here is the superb photo taken by Paul Lyons of one of these models. Society members will have seen this photo as part of the promotion for the models.
In the years after 1949, SP found demand increasing for bulkhead cars, and continued to convert flat cars in its own shops for this use. Originally intended to carry plasterboard, and heavily used for that traffic, the cars also soon found use for a wide variety of other cargoes, including lumber.
There were minor changes to the design of the bulkheads in the years between 1949 and 1956, but in that year an entirely new bulkhead design was introduced, completely of welded steel except for the vertical face of the bulkhead.
The SPH&TS has commissioned a kit for the 1956 bulkhead, and this kit is about to be announced. Here again is the prototype car end on the left, and the SPH&TS kit bulkhead, unpainted, on the right. Grabs and ladder are installed. Note the odd-looking angled grab iron at the right edge of the bulkhead, on both prototype and model. (You can click on this to enlarge it.)
This was followed in 1962 by an SP design which was structurally similar but considerably taller, 8 feet, 6 inches above the car deck, instead of the previous height of 6 feet, 4 inches. (Some 1949 bulkheads were less than 6 feet high.) Not only did SP build this 1962 design in its own shops, but later provided blueprints to Gunderson and others to construct new, not rebuilt, cars with this same bulkhead. Accordingly, it’s an important bulkhead for 1960s and later SP modelers.
In the same pattern as shown above, I compare below the prototype 1962 bulkhead on the left, and the SPH&TS bulkhead kit, with grabs and ladder, on the right. (Both the 1956 and 1962 model bulkheads shown here were built by me.)
As I’ve stated above, the SPH&TS is about to introduce kits for both the 1956 and 1962 bulkheads. These are much like the 1949 bulkhead kits which are still available (see link above) in that they comprise styrene parts which are easily glued together and attached to a styrene car deck (they are not designed to be attached to wooden model decks). For modelers of a range of eras, these fine bulkhead kits permit creation of a distinctive Southern Pacific freight car.
Tony Thompson
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Open-car loads: forest products
I mentioned in my description of the BAPM (Bay Area Prototype Modelers) meet, which was held on June 23, that I had been struck by Paul Chandler’s display of fine-looking lumber loads, and an impressive, well-thought-out method of making them (if you’d like to look, here is a link: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/06/bapm-bay-area-prototype-modelers-2.html ).
I stated then that I hoped Paul’s article about the method would be published in the Southern Pacific Historical & Technical Society magazine Trainline. I guess I should have checked with the magazine before posting, because it was indeed in the process of being published, in the issue then at the printers! That issue (No. 112) has now been delivered to members, and non-members can buy it at hobby shops which carry it, or directly from the Society on its web site: http://www.sphtsstore.org/servlet/the-Trainline-back-issues/s/105/Categories . The latest issue (which is dated Summer 2012) hasn’t been added to the catalog yet, but no doubt it will appear there within a week or so, as soon as the overprint copies arrive at SPH&TS.
Paul was generous enough to share some of his photos for my use. Here’s a perspective view of one of his loads. You can see the “crayon” markings on the sides of the load.
Here’s a view of two loaded bulkhead flat cars on Paul’s layout. These cars originally had the bulkheads added by SP for plasterboard service, but it was not long before lumber shippers discovered their utility for lumber loads.
These bulkhead cars, with SP’s 1949-design bulkheads, are SPH&TS special run cars in HO scale. You can buy both the cars and the bulkhead kits from the Society at: http://www.sphtsstore.org/servlet/the-Models–Misc/Categories .
The range of forest product loads that a person may wish to model obviously depends on the region being modeled, and the era. In places far distant from logging territory, railcar loads will be restricted to cut lumber, either rough or finished. The rough lumber was shipped on flat cars, and finished material mostly moved in box cars in the 1950s, but both rough and finished lumber moved on flat cars once packaging of lumber loads became commonplace.
In the logging territories, however, there can be a full range of loads. I know of no better example than this photograph of the Eugene, Oregon yard in July 1943. It’s an SP photo, and this print was provided by Arnold Menke, though I know other collectors have copies also.
The footpath alongside the ladder track is an interesting detail to model (and notice those handsome high switchstands along the lead). A close-up may help, so let’s look at a larger view. You can click on either image to enlarge it.
Note the logs in gondolas, seen almost end-on at photo center, and the numerous loads of poles (or pilings) on flat cars at right. At left, by contrast, are two flat cars of cut lumber, one carrying very large timbers, the other more conventional building material sizes. There is also a gondola of pretty large cut lumber just to the right of the log car string.
This photo appears to be the far west end of the yard. If you would like to learn more about the Eugene yard, there is no better source than the book by Ed Austin and Tom Dill, The Southern Pacific in Oregon, page 108b and following, published by Pacific Fast Mail, Edmonds, Washington, in 1987, and often available from used book dealers, on line and otherwise.
This 1943 photo suggests a wide range of forest products loads which might be appropriate for modeling, if your modeled location is anywhere near logging areas; and even if you are not in such an area, all these loads but the logs can be realistic loads for your cars. And by the way, modelers who have built lumber loads board-by-board will be especially pleased to see those big timbers in a couple of the loads.
Tony Thompson
I stated then that I hoped Paul’s article about the method would be published in the Southern Pacific Historical & Technical Society magazine Trainline. I guess I should have checked with the magazine before posting, because it was indeed in the process of being published, in the issue then at the printers! That issue (No. 112) has now been delivered to members, and non-members can buy it at hobby shops which carry it, or directly from the Society on its web site: http://www.sphtsstore.org/servlet/the-Trainline-back-issues/s/105/Categories . The latest issue (which is dated Summer 2012) hasn’t been added to the catalog yet, but no doubt it will appear there within a week or so, as soon as the overprint copies arrive at SPH&TS.
Paul was generous enough to share some of his photos for my use. Here’s a perspective view of one of his loads. You can see the “crayon” markings on the sides of the load.
Here’s a view of two loaded bulkhead flat cars on Paul’s layout. These cars originally had the bulkheads added by SP for plasterboard service, but it was not long before lumber shippers discovered their utility for lumber loads.
These bulkhead cars, with SP’s 1949-design bulkheads, are SPH&TS special run cars in HO scale. You can buy both the cars and the bulkhead kits from the Society at: http://www.sphtsstore.org/servlet/the-Models–Misc/Categories .
The range of forest product loads that a person may wish to model obviously depends on the region being modeled, and the era. In places far distant from logging territory, railcar loads will be restricted to cut lumber, either rough or finished. The rough lumber was shipped on flat cars, and finished material mostly moved in box cars in the 1950s, but both rough and finished lumber moved on flat cars once packaging of lumber loads became commonplace.
In the logging territories, however, there can be a full range of loads. I know of no better example than this photograph of the Eugene, Oregon yard in July 1943. It’s an SP photo, and this print was provided by Arnold Menke, though I know other collectors have copies also.
The footpath alongside the ladder track is an interesting detail to model (and notice those handsome high switchstands along the lead). A close-up may help, so let’s look at a larger view. You can click on either image to enlarge it.
Note the logs in gondolas, seen almost end-on at photo center, and the numerous loads of poles (or pilings) on flat cars at right. At left, by contrast, are two flat cars of cut lumber, one carrying very large timbers, the other more conventional building material sizes. There is also a gondola of pretty large cut lumber just to the right of the log car string.
This photo appears to be the far west end of the yard. If you would like to learn more about the Eugene yard, there is no better source than the book by Ed Austin and Tom Dill, The Southern Pacific in Oregon, page 108b and following, published by Pacific Fast Mail, Edmonds, Washington, in 1987, and often available from used book dealers, on line and otherwise.
This 1943 photo suggests a wide range of forest products loads which might be appropriate for modeling, if your modeled location is anywhere near logging areas; and even if you are not in such an area, all these loads but the logs can be realistic loads for your cars. And by the way, modelers who have built lumber loads board-by-board will be especially pleased to see those big timbers in a couple of the loads.
Tony Thompson
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Waybills, Part 26: prototype documents
Over the past months, I have received from time to time questions about prototype documents having to do with freight shipments and waybills, or in some cases I’ve been sent examples. This post is to clarify which documents are which, and what they mean.
The primary document of value to most of us who are interested in operation is the Waybill. This is a contract between shipper and railroad for the carriage of the cargo, provides all routing and billing information, and states specifics about the cargo. Sometime in the 1930s, this became standardized through the auspices of the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Certainly for anyone studying model operations from, say, 1940 to the 1960s, that standard form is essential and was used with few variations of any significance by every railroad in North America. After the mid-1960s, Waybills underwent various changes but did remain standardized.
Here’s an example of an actual waybill. It was sent to me by Frank Hodina, is dated 1961, and is for a Wabash box car carrying bulk soybeans. It would have been collected by the conductor of the train picking up the box car, and would have traveled with conductor after conductor until it reached its destination.
But there are other documents out there too, similar to the Waybill in some ways but not the same. The commonest one which people seem to find is the Freight Bill. This document was used to collect freight charges after delivery of the cargo. And whereas the Waybill is prepared by the railroad which picks up the load and sends it on its way, the Freight Bill is normally prepared by the railroad which delivers the cargo. That might be the same railroad, or one at the other end of the country. The Freight Bill format was not standardized and one can find many different shapes, sizes and content in these bills. Here is a 1952 example for a crate of machinery, sent to me by Dave Salamon:
It can be seen at once that this is an entirely different document than a Waybill. I guess it is the fact that its name contains the words “Freight” and “Bill” that people jump to the conclusion that it is a Waybill, but clearly it is something different.
Lastly, there is a document which is more like a Waybill and in fact acts as a predecessor to a Waybill, but is nevertheless distinctly different, the Bill of Lading. Here’s a Soo Line example provided by Bob Sterner:
This was also a standard document, and like the Waybill, has its reverse entirely covered with very fine print, most of it dense legalese, and like the Waybill, functions as a legal contract. But its format and content are significantly different than a Waybill.
What can you learn from these? Of course, only the Waybill gives us the core information about freight shipments. But all three of these can provide the distinctive railroad headers for each railroad company, all are certainly collectible, and if you have no other source, they can begin to acquaint you with the content of these freight documents. (Word of warning: typography of one document, such as a Freight Bill, may not be the same as Waybills from the same company.) But for most of us, the Waybill is the one that provides the most and best information, and rightly so, since it is the one that documents the rail movement fully.
Tony Thompson
The primary document of value to most of us who are interested in operation is the Waybill. This is a contract between shipper and railroad for the carriage of the cargo, provides all routing and billing information, and states specifics about the cargo. Sometime in the 1930s, this became standardized through the auspices of the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Certainly for anyone studying model operations from, say, 1940 to the 1960s, that standard form is essential and was used with few variations of any significance by every railroad in North America. After the mid-1960s, Waybills underwent various changes but did remain standardized.
Here’s an example of an actual waybill. It was sent to me by Frank Hodina, is dated 1961, and is for a Wabash box car carrying bulk soybeans. It would have been collected by the conductor of the train picking up the box car, and would have traveled with conductor after conductor until it reached its destination.
But there are other documents out there too, similar to the Waybill in some ways but not the same. The commonest one which people seem to find is the Freight Bill. This document was used to collect freight charges after delivery of the cargo. And whereas the Waybill is prepared by the railroad which picks up the load and sends it on its way, the Freight Bill is normally prepared by the railroad which delivers the cargo. That might be the same railroad, or one at the other end of the country. The Freight Bill format was not standardized and one can find many different shapes, sizes and content in these bills. Here is a 1952 example for a crate of machinery, sent to me by Dave Salamon:
It can be seen at once that this is an entirely different document than a Waybill. I guess it is the fact that its name contains the words “Freight” and “Bill” that people jump to the conclusion that it is a Waybill, but clearly it is something different.
Lastly, there is a document which is more like a Waybill and in fact acts as a predecessor to a Waybill, but is nevertheless distinctly different, the Bill of Lading. Here’s a Soo Line example provided by Bob Sterner:
This was also a standard document, and like the Waybill, has its reverse entirely covered with very fine print, most of it dense legalese, and like the Waybill, functions as a legal contract. But its format and content are significantly different than a Waybill.
What can you learn from these? Of course, only the Waybill gives us the core information about freight shipments. But all three of these can provide the distinctive railroad headers for each railroad company, all are certainly collectible, and if you have no other source, they can begin to acquaint you with the content of these freight documents. (Word of warning: typography of one document, such as a Freight Bill, may not be the same as Waybills from the same company.) But for most of us, the Waybill is the one that provides the most and best information, and rightly so, since it is the one that documents the rail movement fully.
Tony Thompson
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Another milestone
The first post in this blog was in early December, 2010, and a year later I posted a comment to memorialize the anniversary (here’s a link to that post: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/12/one-year-and-counting.html ). Among other things, I noted in that post that—to my amazement—there had been more than 50,000 page views in that first year, enormously beyond anything I had expected.
It’s now been about six and a half months since that first anniversary, and I just noted in the statistics that Google provides its bloggers, that my total page views now exceed 100,000. For me, this is even more amazing, in a year and a half, to have doubled already what happened the first year. I can recall my own expectations for the blog (something like “maybe a few guys out there will read it occasionally”), so I guess I should just say “thanks” to everyone who’s still reading it.
In the earlier days of the blog, there were several comments posted to some of my posts, but more recently most comments have come in the form of personal e-mail to me. That’s fine as feedback for me, but other readers don’t see the comments, so whenever it’s appropriate, I add a comment or post an update of my own to reflect the substance of the commentary, and my response, if any. I hope this broadens the original posts in helpful directions.
Tony Thompson
It’s now been about six and a half months since that first anniversary, and I just noted in the statistics that Google provides its bloggers, that my total page views now exceed 100,000. For me, this is even more amazing, in a year and a half, to have doubled already what happened the first year. I can recall my own expectations for the blog (something like “maybe a few guys out there will read it occasionally”), so I guess I should just say “thanks” to everyone who’s still reading it.
In the earlier days of the blog, there were several comments posted to some of my posts, but more recently most comments have come in the form of personal e-mail to me. That’s fine as feedback for me, but other readers don’t see the comments, so whenever it’s appropriate, I add a comment or post an update of my own to reflect the substance of the commentary, and my response, if any. I hope this broadens the original posts in helpful directions.
Tony Thompson
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Helium cars, Part 2
In my first post on helium cars, I provided a brief summary of historical background, including some photos, and showed how I approximately reproduced the distinctive 100-ton trucks which were used under these cars. At that point the next step on the AHM model was that the body needed some upgrading of details. (Here’s a link to that previous post: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/04/helium-cars-part-1.html .)
To complete the model truck comments in the prior post, I used Reboxx wheelsets in the trucks, and found for these Model Die Casting trucks that I had to use the rather short 0.980-inch axle length to get free-rolling performance.
For upgrading, I replaced the grab irons on sides and ends with wire. Side grabs are standard, meaning that the molded-on bolt heads are 18 inches apart, which is a widely used grab iron size. However, each end of these cars had distinctively different locations and styles of grab irons, as can be seen below in a photo of a B end from the clinic handout by Jay Miller. (His page is at: http://www.atsfrr.org/Reviews/HO/Freight/Helium/Index.htm and at that site you can also download his handout.) Note that the grabs are painted black, in contrast to the medium gray body. All my model grabs were made from brass wire and secured with CA; side grabs were standard Westerfield 18-inch width but a few end grabs had to be custom-fitted using 0.012-inch wire.
Not all details visible here will match the AHM model, as this photo shows the end of a 1960-built car, but safety appliances appear to be the same. The Universal brake wheel in this photo is not typical of cars built before 1960, when most helium cars seem to have had Ajax hand brakes. I used a Kadee Ajax wheel.
Sill steps were replaced with A-Line “Style A” steps, using the bracing block technique I described in an earlier post on installing metal sill steps (if interested, see: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/12/modeling-project-m-box-car.html ).
In the 1950s, these cars still had wood running boards. I used a surplus Red Caboose “wood” running board, which just barely fits the AHM car body. The model was now ready for painting. (I will remove the lame lettering before doing any painting.)
In this next view you can see the end grab irons and brake gear better.
Since my modeling year is 1953, well within the Navy ownership period of the helium cars, I will be painting my car light gray (with black accents, as noted).
I have been jockeying several projects to set up efficient use of spray booth and airbrush time, so hope to get this model painted in the next few days.
Tony Thompson
To complete the model truck comments in the prior post, I used Reboxx wheelsets in the trucks, and found for these Model Die Casting trucks that I had to use the rather short 0.980-inch axle length to get free-rolling performance.
For upgrading, I replaced the grab irons on sides and ends with wire. Side grabs are standard, meaning that the molded-on bolt heads are 18 inches apart, which is a widely used grab iron size. However, each end of these cars had distinctively different locations and styles of grab irons, as can be seen below in a photo of a B end from the clinic handout by Jay Miller. (His page is at: http://www.atsfrr.org/Reviews/HO/Freight/Helium/Index.htm and at that site you can also download his handout.) Note that the grabs are painted black, in contrast to the medium gray body. All my model grabs were made from brass wire and secured with CA; side grabs were standard Westerfield 18-inch width but a few end grabs had to be custom-fitted using 0.012-inch wire.
Not all details visible here will match the AHM model, as this photo shows the end of a 1960-built car, but safety appliances appear to be the same. The Universal brake wheel in this photo is not typical of cars built before 1960, when most helium cars seem to have had Ajax hand brakes. I used a Kadee Ajax wheel.
Sill steps were replaced with A-Line “Style A” steps, using the bracing block technique I described in an earlier post on installing metal sill steps (if interested, see: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/12/modeling-project-m-box-car.html ).
In the 1950s, these cars still had wood running boards. I used a surplus Red Caboose “wood” running board, which just barely fits the AHM car body. The model was now ready for painting. (I will remove the lame lettering before doing any painting.)
In this next view you can see the end grab irons and brake gear better.
Since my modeling year is 1953, well within the Navy ownership period of the helium cars, I will be painting my car light gray (with black accents, as noted).
I have been jockeying several projects to set up efficient use of spray booth and airbrush time, so hope to get this model painted in the next few days.
Tony Thompson
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
BAPM (Bay Area Prototype Modelers) - 2
I wanted to add a few model photos to my previous post about the BAPM event on June 23. These are only a few of the models I admired and photographed. Three other people, Rob Sarberenyi, Harry Wong and Cyrus Gillespie, all took more extensive photos, so if you want to see more comprehensive coverage of the model displays, their photo sets are at, respectively: http://www.pbase.com/espeef5/bapm_meet_2012 (Rob); http://www.pbase.com/tracktime/bapm2012 (Harry); and http://www.pbase.com/cg_shops/bapm_2012 (Cyrus).
As I mentioned in the first post on BAPM (which you can view at: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/06/bapm-bay-area-prototype-modelers.html ) there was a good crowd all day, circulating among the displays and schmoozing in the aisles. I really liked seeing Paul Chandler’s method for building lumber loads in an efficient manner (I won’t go into it here because it may be appearing in the Southern Pacific Society’s magazine Trainline). Here is a flat car with two of Paul’s lumber stacks:
Notice the markings crayoned onto the loads, a familiar sight on the prototype. The car carries the SP Society’s 1949 bulkheads.
I really liked Mike Faletti’s Milwaukee mill gondola, modified from the recent Athearn offering, with terrific representation of rust on the interior. The photo conveys the overall impression, but in person it was extremely realistic.
Dave Pires showed some nice open-car loads, pipe and so forth, and here is just a sample of what was there:
Harry Wong had an in-progress SD9 to show, and I wanted to include this as a representative of what many modelers do at RPM meets: bring in-progress models. Such models are of course most revealing in that they show all the detail parts and modifications which have been made (so far) to the base model. (Click to enlarge.)
Tim Keohane has been duplicating prototype graffiti on modern freight cars for some time. He showed a number of fine examples, in each case with the prototype photo right next to the model. I will just show one example, from an Athearn kit:
Finally, I wanted to show one of the few non-HO scale models displayed (the paucity of N scale was especially surprising). This is Bo Liljeberg’s O scale hopper, built from a Henry T Productions epoxy kit.
This small sampling can only suggest the richness of the entire display, and if you want to see more, I urge you to visit any of the three links provided in the first paragraph at the top of this post, where very many more photos are available.
Tony Thompson
Notice the markings crayoned onto the loads, a familiar sight on the prototype. The car carries the SP Society’s 1949 bulkheads.
I really liked Mike Faletti’s Milwaukee mill gondola, modified from the recent Athearn offering, with terrific representation of rust on the interior. The photo conveys the overall impression, but in person it was extremely realistic.
Dave Pires showed some nice open-car loads, pipe and so forth, and here is just a sample of what was there:
Harry Wong had an in-progress SD9 to show, and I wanted to include this as a representative of what many modelers do at RPM meets: bring in-progress models. Such models are of course most revealing in that they show all the detail parts and modifications which have been made (so far) to the base model. (Click to enlarge.)
Tim Keohane has been duplicating prototype graffiti on modern freight cars for some time. He showed a number of fine examples, in each case with the prototype photo right next to the model. I will just show one example, from an Athearn kit:
Finally, I wanted to show one of the few non-HO scale models displayed (the paucity of N scale was especially surprising). This is Bo Liljeberg’s O scale hopper, built from a Henry T Productions epoxy kit.
This small sampling can only suggest the richness of the entire display, and if you want to see more, I urge you to visit any of the three links provided in the first paragraph at the top of this post, where very many more photos are available.
Tony Thompson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
























