50 foot boxcar

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby j p » Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:28 pm

Tom Dempsey wrote:That "typical Pennsy brown" is called Tuscan, for your undecorated boxcar (and I'd recommend you also think of a dimensional data only car in addition), I'd think you'd want to go with Oxide Red, Freight Car Red, or Rich Oxide Brown which would all be far for appropriate colors for a non-PRR owned car. Of course, the best way to put an undecorated plastic car on the market in my opinion is raw plastic, then the color suits everybody.


No, you missed the point.
1. You mix two different things together. Pennsy car is not necessarily the same color as the painted but not printed car. It can be the SP car without print - that's why I used more general "boxcar red". (Some of the Pennsy cars can be also left without print for making different PRR lettering schemes.)
2. Pennsy color for freight cars was not Tuscan. Tuscan was the color for passenger equipment, or rather Tuscan were the colors for PRR passenger equipment because several colors were used for passenger equipment during the years, all of them called Tuscan.
The color for freight cars was "Freight Car Color - FCC" and it was different from Tuscan.
Check http://pennsyrr.com/index.php/data/86-modeling/172-paints
(It is a very good list. The only drawback for me is that it does not have the corresponding automotive colors. I have to ask my supplier of spray paint if they can make the paint according to Munsell numbers.)
3. The painted but not printed is not instead of undecorated. It is just a different option. Painting the cars takes me several days, so why not let the professional painter do the job when he is painting the same color on hundreds of other cars (which get pad printed)? He has all those fixtures for making it fast, he has a better paint box, safety equipment etc.
Use undecorated cars for color schemes which do not match this (NYC, Reading, MKT, THB...).
Dimension data only car does not make much sense to me. You'd save application of 2 decals (one on each side) and risk mismatch of the lettering color (print vs. decal) + further limit the possible use of such car because the lettering style was not the same for all railroads.

- Jan
j p
 
Posts: 1276
Images: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm
Location: Struer, Denmark

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby gerhard_k » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:30 pm

j p wrote:Dimension data only car does not make much sense to me. You'd save application of 2 decals (one on each side) and risk mismatch of the lettering color (print vs. decal) + further limit the possible use of such car because the lettering style was not the same for all railroads.

- Jan


The Accurail company (US) makes most of their (HO) car types available in Data Only, some in several color options. I wonder whether the Accurail people would answer a question about how popular these choices are? I think not many modelers would notice, or be troubled by, that this minor lettering is not totally correct for a particular railroad; after all, in TT it might be barely legible.
On the other hand, Accurail do hundreds times the volume anyone could hope for in TT, so, since Ron needs to be realistic about the numbers of versions, several complete lettering schemes would likely be the best sellers, and anyone who feels strongly about a custom job would probably be able to repaint the car side.
While several here on the board have shown models of interesting minor railroads, we generally need typical major-railroad cars for our layouts to be realistic. Our own MarqueTTe has a series of postings on the typical freight car fleet (although from a Canadian viewpoint) at
intro-to-us-freight-car-fleets-or-what-should-be-modelled-t1013.html
and railroad historian Tony Thompson has some fascinating and thorough information on his blog at
http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2010/ ... eet-2.html
as well as an introductory summary in the December 2011 issue of the on-line mag Model Railroad Hobbyist
http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/maga ... tting_real

So I would encourage you to concentrate on choosing from the major 10-12 US railroads, especially the ones for which the particular version of the 50' boxcar that you have chosen happens to be correct :dance:
although at this stage of our hobby, a bit of early-Athearn foobie paint should not be too objectionable.

Btw, I also would definitely buy the SP version. (For your next venture, would you consider a PFE R40-23 reefer? :drool: )

Wishing you great fame and riches (and me some nice new models) - Gerhard
Sometimes you win... sometimes you learn.
gerhard_k
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Location: Annapolis MD USA

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby gerhard_k » Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:07 pm

rdikken wrote: I will select at least SP, the rest is open.

Rob

Since you are looking for SP, a good choice might be the SP’s Class B-50-22 box car, a 50-foot single-door car. If starting with an HO model is helpful, Tony Thompson recommends "the Proto-2000 model of this car type, having a correct roof, door, six side panels on each side of the door, and W-corner-post ends. It also has free-standing details, particularly evident on the car ends (i.e., no cast-on ladders etc). The only evident things needing replacement are the running board, which should be Apex steel grid (I used Detail Associates Part no. 6204 for this), and the hand brake, which should be Klasing. As there is no decent HO scale Klasing hand brake at present, I used a similar-appearing Equipco by Kato." – Ref. http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2013_ ... chive.html -

The level of accuracy (running boards, brake wheels) Tony desires may be overly picky for this stage of TT, but at least the major body features would all be correct.

Marquette may be able to weigh in with an optimum choice of prototype for you.
Sometimes you win... sometimes you learn.
gerhard_k
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Location: Annapolis MD USA

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby j p » Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:13 pm

Ah. You still don't understand. How to explain it..?
It is not about able or not able to paint the car. Paint + lettering one car takes the same time as only lettering 10 cars. If you don't like it, you can buy undecorated and paint it self. For me getting the cars painted is a fast way of increasing the variety with a possibility of making more identical cars as a very limited edition and let Zeuke-TT sell them. There is no way for me to make the same out of an undecorated car (nobody would buy).
Making the decal set with or without the data makes no difference in saved time - repack and BLT is just under the data, so you have to apply a decal there anyway. As Rob mentioned already, this has to be correct if the target is to get more people from H0 and N to TT. No "Alternate History paints", they have enough of those in their scales - and we have some of those in TT too.

When you sell thousands of cars every month you'd be able to afford a luxury of making models only for a minor segment of the market. We are not in that situation, not yet. Therefore the models have to be suitable for all. Not only for those who don't care, but also for those who want to have their models correct. I hope that the people who don't care would not have any problem in having their models lettered correctly.
j p
 
Posts: 1276
Images: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm
Location: Struer, Denmark

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby ConducTTor » Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:02 am

I'm fine with anything as long as it's in the diesel era (which obviously this is).
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the ruling class know: divide and conquer
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8594
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby Arseny » Sat Apr 25, 2015 3:19 am

rdikken wrote:What about crowd funding?


Crowd funding is good (and fashionable :wink: ) idea, but what sort of money are you talking about?
$100? $1000? $100.000? :smile:
User avatar
Arseny
 
Posts: 2697
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:42 am
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby rdikken » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:45 am

@arseny, Crowd funding
With injection molding I have to make minimal 1500 a 2000 pieces, not to be sold in one year! The sales price would be around 50€ incl VAT in Europe, 46$ incl VAT in the US. With crowd funding I mean in this case more a kind of pre-sales. If I could sell on forehand 200 a 250 pieces for 41 a 43$ a pcs, I would be happy.

But is still too early for this. I come back to it in December 2015. And again the decision to go or no go will be around the 3rd week of January 2016 in other words after closing 2015.

Back to the SP car. I would suggest the following, let 's take B-50-30, from this car I have some technical drawings and discuss it part by part. If we have a go, I would also like to discuss the production drawings of the model, but that would be in 2016. Is there somebody on TT-nut who is a specialist on SP 50 foot boxcars?

When we have defined the boxcar, I would like to look to other railroad companies to check if we can use the definition. And I also would like to look if we can use parts of the boxcar for the creation of other cars within SP or other companies. I like the 40' wide-door cars form the B-50-33 class, etc. It would be nice if we could use the dreadnought end of the B-50-30.

But there is one thing to start the discussion with:

trucks
I am not that happy with the NMRA standard regarding the truck connection to the car bottom. Using MTB trucks, where tank cars taken out of the box have driven around 1 km in 5 days without problems between all kind of derailing other cars, prove that these trucks are stabil and well connected to the car. In other words the tecnical solution from MTB is better. Why not make it the standard?

And yes of course in this case it will be solid bearing trucks with a pressed spring groups. Perhaps a bit more detail, "Barber" on the trucks or whatever. And because these boxcars where used till the eighties/nineties, we could simply replace the trucks with the Barber S2 trucks from MTB. With a few more modifications they would be rather modern.

Cheers,
Rob

PS, next time I will open a project document with a link below my name with the planning and decisions taken regarding this project.
rdikken
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:10 pm
Location: Smilde, The Netherlands

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby j p » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:28 pm

The height of the bolster is wrong on MTB trucks. Anyway, please wait with any conclusion and let more people test the trucks. Maybe the technical solution is good and needs only the height adjustment - which would be easy if the sides of the trucks were made correctly. Remember that the MTB truck without adjusting the height is impossible to use for many cars.
If you want to talk about making a standard, you may need to discuss it with other manufacturers. Would they adjust their trucks to the new standard? Would they pay for new molds? Derailing of other cars is most likely not the trucks' fault. You'd have to compare the same car with MTB trukcs and other trucks to be able to make any conclusions. (wrong weight of the car is more likely to cause derailment)
If the majority of the manufacturers agrees with that then it can become a new standard. (Lok-n-roll/Gold Coast, Art&Detail, Peresvet, who else?)

I am in for the funding.
j p
 
Posts: 1276
Images: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm
Location: Struer, Denmark

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby ConducTTor » Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:29 pm

I think the truck connection to the car should be left to the manufacturer. I think it's stupid to standardize something like that.
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the ruling class know: divide and conquer
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8594
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby gerhard_k » Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:52 pm

ConducTTor wrote:I think the truck connection to the car should be left to the manufacturer. I think it's stupid to standardize something like that.

Alex - with all due respect, I don't think I will be the only one to disagree vehemently with you on this. Being able to replace trucks on a model for better accuracy or detail is fundamentally important. Looking at the history of the major scales, all of which have an NMRA standard for the truck interface, which is followed by the major manufacturers, validates the importance of uniformity in this aspect.

Back on topic, I'm in for 2 SP 50-footers and 2 more in some other major railroad livery.
Sometimes you win... sometimes you learn.
gerhard_k
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Location: Annapolis MD USA

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests