Date   

Driveshat Tubing Re: coreless motors again

Craig Symington
 

Hi Craig Linn et al,

You only need a friction fit with the tubing.  Not too tight but not too loose.  Too tight and it looses it's flexibility at the joint and too loose and it slips on the shafts.  No glue.

It's also important that the shafts be the same or very close in size too.  I often have to shim one shaft or the other.  NWSL has the bushings and with luck sometimes those fishing crimps in the article will size right and work.  The fishing crimps aren't machine perfect so it might take a couple orders to find the right ones.  Eldon Shirey used to sell metal surgical tubing at one time for shims too.  I'm not sure where he got it but it might be found on the net somewhere.

I bought a bunch of different sizes of rubber tubing before I figured out what I needed.  If you read the green tape in the pictures in the article it shows the sizes that I found work with 1.5mm, 2.0mm and 2.4mm shafts.  They sell in on ebay in meter lengths.

Another really neat trick I've tried based on seeing someone else do it, is creating a driveshaft out of tubing.  If you have a long gap between the motor and gear box (for example 1 inch) you can use an 1.5" piece of tubing with a .9 inch length of shaft material in the middle to stiffen the tubing.  It basically creates a driveshaft with two universal joints.  Surprisingly, this works quite well.

On another subject.  I've written a lot of articles over the years.  I just write about what I'm currently working on and share techniques that I think other people might be interested in.  I never know if people actually read the articles or are even interested in the content.  It's always flattering to find that people actually read what I've written.  But on that subject....I'm working on a few brass bashing articles right now.  With the insane prices and growing scarcity of blackstone equipment it seems that this hobby might be coming full circle back to where we have to rework older brass.  I do a lot of this work in HOn3 and HO.  I don't profess to be an expert at it, but I've learned a lot and can come out with some decent results.  If you have any ideas for articles on any subject or questions about brass bashing please drop me a personal note at craig at rio grande southern dot com.  I can't guarantee it will fit into my plans but I do appreciate the input.

Cheers!

Craig Symington.


Re: coreless motors again

Mark Kasprowicz
 

I would not be the first time that the D&RGW alterations were done ad hoc. The main reason for the difference in board patterns in the 1926 stock car rebuild program, was that the first cars were rebuilt without any plans being available. So the designs were down to the individuals. Only later when plans were produced did a constant pattern emerge.

But the C-18's, and I suspect other locomotives, had differences within the class. When the 315's replacement cab was being drawn up, comparisions were made between the 315 with the measurements taken off 318, as well as visual comparisons through photos of the other locos. It became apparent that no two cabs were exactly the same. Perhaps after a hundred plus years, you wouldn't expect them to be.

Mark K
Oxon England


Re: coreless motors again

Mark Kasprowicz
 

The CRRM 318/ 346 swap becuase of a leaking tender is generally the accepted story, I think the 340 was at Knotts Bury Farm at the time. The obvious thing to do was to get hold of a first run 346 and swop them back again! Didn't improve that 318's running though.

Mark K
Oxon, England


Re: Old Brass/ME Turnouts

Robert Herrick
 

Yes, I have, Mick. The flanged drivers are what get hung up on the frog. I checked and they are correctly gauged.

Bob


Re: coreless motors again

Dale Buxton
 

According to Steve, the standard D&RGW C- Class / T-12 tender width was 8 feet or sometimes 8' 6". And 17 to 18 feet long. There were some longer ones though. Oddly enough, these all seemed to have originated out the of the Gunnison Shops. This is where the 207's and 278's came from. Really long and tall tenders for C-16's! There were many coal board and collar variations and rivet patterns. There is some though given to the idea that these tender cisterns might have been apprentice sheet metal workers projects with only certain specifications required as mandatory. This would certainly account for the wide range  and variations in physical appearance for them. The frames on the other hand came from the carpentry shop and followed a pretty much set design. 

Steve has may note books and photo albums dedicated to D&RGW locomotives and rolling stock. I think he has a photo of every C-16! He has boiler cards on all of the locomotives. He has the important data recorded in some way or another. But none of it is really indexed from what I can tell. His memory is quite remarkable. He can recall most anything you ask him about the D&RGW narrow gauge without having to look it up in his files. I have been after him for the last year or so to index and figure out where all of his research should eventually go. What he knows is just mind boggling.

D. Buxton



On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:06 AM Lawrence Wisniewski via groups.io <lwreno=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I never acquired a PBL 319  C-18, so I never saw Bill's version of it.  I have a vague recollection of overhearing a conversation at the Original Whistle Stop that I now realize was about those dimensional screw ups.  This was back in 1985 after they had first come out, and I was too new to narrow gauge and its entertaining cast of characters to pursue it any further. Well, another C-18 mystery demystified. Thanks.  Definitely a big opps.   Always wondered why my Key 319 had such a big butt. I was content to attribute that feature to some poorly recorded tender swapping by the prototype and was too lazy to check out what the 315 Restoration book (and others) had to say on the subject other than their efforts to nail down what that engine's particular history was not all that easy to do.. I've noticed a lot more tender swaps in Grandt's photo books now that I've become more fixated on the prototype for authenticity in my modeling. The 318-340 swap seems to be regarded by many folks as just a screw up by Key, but I recall a story by Richardson (I think) about 318's tender having derailment issues and the crew persuading the Montrose guys to substitute 340's tender for it due to it's superior reputation in service, and that Key, in recognition of all this, eventually released 318 versions with either tender.  Has Steve Swanson ever published any sort of guide as to who had what and when?  That would be a valuable reference to have.     


-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Buxton <dbtuathaddana@...
To: HOn3@groups.io
Sent: Thu, May 14, 2020 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: [HOn3] coreless motors again

Yup!

When Bill drew up the plans for the 319's tender he didn't have any exact dimensions to work off of. He just drew what he thought looked good. He later admitted this to Steve Swanson (my personal Guru of D&RGW tenders). The 319 tender he drew is too wide, too tall, too long! It's wider than the cab on the locomotive. Dan McKey repeated this error in the HOn3 run. Oops!

D. Buxton

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 9:11 AM Lawrence Wisniewski via groups.io <lwreno=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Amen to your comment on the small Sagami's.   I suppose there was some sort of supply and demand problem back then that led Key to allow their use in otherwise great HOn3 loco's.  I've gone the Faulhaber route with my small Keys, and except for pulling gears on the C&S consolidations, found the work pleasant and the reward huge.  I can see the value of your comment about the utility of some degree of vertical travel.  I am wondering what you mean by :drumming".  I'm not familiar with that term. Can you shoot us a quick e-mail with a definition?

 Ah yes, Bill Peter and his plans.  I noticed the resemblance between Bill's Sn3 C-18's and the later Key products when they first arrived.  .  Found out later that Bill was beginning to supply other importers with his plans.  Didn't seem like a problem at first, but  Jack at Division point has used them rather uncritically.  Worst example being that damage and loss prone removable roof Bill used on his K-28's  These also gave the BooRim people fits trying to deal with the resulting joint problems.  Bad move and Division Point blindly copied it from the photos I've seen of his K-28's.  You'd think that everyone would have learned from the Westside K-36 experience.  The Anniversary run of K-37's Bill had Boo Rim do included a huge ashpan casting that made it impossible to get that engine to balance properly.  That mistake was inexplicable given the experience of both importer and builder.  That one pretty much put the kabosh on my interest in Sn3.  I haven't seen or heard anything about whether or not Jack caught that one or not.  I've seen comments about the motor "fit" employed in the 36's from others too. I'm of the opinion that either Bill or BooRim made a dimensional error on the second run K-36.  The cab looks too sqwatt (sp) to my eyes.  Don't know if PSC used Bill's C-21 plans but the similarity is remarkable, as are some of the mechanical problems.   Eyebrows tend to go up far too often with stuff like this and it certainly isn't helpful for the future of HOn3.  Boo Rim is a solid master craftsman but seems to do what he is told.  Bill Peter almost singlehandedly put Sn3 on the map but has a problem with overcompensation.  Still, we still have some new products coming in and it would be really unjust to deny credit to these folks for all the good they have done.  .  I'm of two minds about these matters and I hope the future of narrow gauge will seek out new solutions rather than merely duplicating past efforts.  
-----Original Message-----
From: Mick Moignard <mick@...>
To: HOn3@groups.io
Sent: Thu, May 14, 2020 5:34 am
Subject: Re: [HOn3] coreless motors again

I'm not so sure I agree with Dale and Lawrence about springing small Hon3 locos; I'm more with Mark.  My experience is a small amount of resilience - maybe 0.25mm controlled vertical travel makes a lot of difference to a loco: pick up better, pull better and cause less drumming when in motion.  And if there is just a tiny amount of movement, the fact that the rods aren't jointed doesn't matter because the movement of the wheel and axle is within the slop at the crankpin.  Not only the Key C-18s work like that but do do the 2nd run PSC T-19 which Samhongsa also made - and they run just fine, too, once you bin the awful Sagami motor and replace with a Mashima or anything else that will fit.

I note Dale also said that the C-18 was made from a PBL data pack. So apparently were the Division Point K-36 and K-37, and there's quite a few errors in those.   Their 492 doesn't have the vertical tender rivet pattern (check PSC's 492 to see what I mean), all the K-36 tenders have the extended coal raves, but for some inexplicable reason the weld seam was left off some of them - so they went to the expense of three tender wrappers (the square rave 488 tender is the third) when almost certainly two would have done, and all of them, 36 and 37 have combination levers that are too long meaning that the front end of the union link dangles down when it should be basically horizontal - not that that error is limited to just these locos, I've seen other Boo-Rim locos with danly union links.  I also changed the superexensive and annoyingly noisy Maxon motor in my 36 for a £2 Minebea, and ended up with a slower and more powerful loco that is mechanically a lot quieter, too (I have increased its weight to 340 grams).   I also noticed that even having selected a specific "custom" motor, they still cut a chunk off the plastic end cap around the brushes (now exposed) to get the motor in. I guess they hoped few people would pull the boiler off and see it.

Mick
______________________________________________________________________
Mick Moignard
Specialising in DCC Sound
p: +44 7774 652504
e:
mick@...
skype: mickmoignard
The week may start M,T but it always ends up WTF!


Re: coreless motors again

Mick Moignard
 

Lawrence

I think the Key tender screwup was 318/346, not 318/340. The story I heard was that the Key team turned up at the CRRM to measure the locos one day, but on the previous steaming of 346 the tender leaked, so  they'd swapped tenders with 318, and the measuring team never noticed.  So the two models were made each with the other tender - that was for the first runs, the one where the only C-18 they did was the 318, rigid frame and with the 346 tender.  One of those was the first brass loco I bought, way back in about 1978 when they first appeared. I still have it, but in deference mostly to its poor running, and that tender, it's on the shelf and likely to stay there.

Mick
______________________________________________________________________
Mick Moignard
Specialising in DCC Sound
p: +44 7774 652504
e:
mick@...
skype: mickmoignard
The week may start M,T but it always ends up WTF!


Re: coreless motors again

Lawrence Wisniewski <lwreno@...>
 

I never acquired a PBL 319  C-18, so I never saw Bill's version of it.  I have a vague recollection of overhearing a conversation at the Original Whistle Stop that I now realize was about those dimensional screw ups.  This was back in 1985 after they had first come out, and I was too new to narrow gauge and its entertaining cast of characters to pursue it any further. Well, another C-18 mystery demystified. Thanks.  Definitely a big opps.   Always wondered why my Key 319 had such a big butt. I was content to attribute that feature to some poorly recorded tender swapping by the prototype and was too lazy to check out what the 315 Restoration book (and others) had to say on the subject other than their efforts to nail down what that engine's particular history was not all that easy to do.. I've noticed a lot more tender swaps in Grandt's photo books now that I've become more fixated on the prototype for authenticity in my modeling. The 318-340 swap seems to be regarded by many folks as just a screw up by Key, but I recall a story by Richardson (I think) about 318's tender having derailment issues and the crew persuading the Montrose guys to substitute 340's tender for it due to it's superior reputation in service, and that Key, in recognition of all this, eventually released 318 versions with either tender.  Has Steve Swanson ever published any sort of guide as to who had what and when?  That would be a valuable reference to have.     


-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Buxton <dbtuathaddana@...> 
To: HOn3@groups.io
Sent: Thu, May 14, 2020 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: [HOn3] coreless motors again

Yup!

When Bill drew up the plans for the 319's tender he didn't have any exact dimensions to work off of. He just drew what he thought looked good. He later admitted this to Steve Swanson (my personal Guru of D&RGW tenders). The 319 tender he drew is too wide, too tall, too long! It's wider than the cab on the locomotive. Dan McKey repeated this error in the HOn3 run. Oops!

D. Buxton

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 9:11 AM Lawrence Wisniewski via groups.io <lwreno=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Amen to your comment on the small Sagami's.   I suppose there was some sort of supply and demand problem back then that led Key to allow their use in otherwise great HOn3 loco's.  I've gone the Faulhaber route with my small Keys, and except for pulling gears on the C&S consolidations, found the work pleasant and the reward huge.  I can see the value of your comment about the utility of some degree of vertical travel.  I am wondering what you mean by :drumming".  I'm not familiar with that term. Can you shoot us a quick e-mail with a definition?

 Ah yes, Bill Peter and his plans.  I noticed the resemblance between Bill's Sn3 C-18's and the later Key products when they first arrived.  .  Found out later that Bill was beginning to supply other importers with his plans.  Didn't seem like a problem at first, but  Jack at Division point has used them rather uncritically.  Worst example being that damage and loss prone removable roof Bill used on his K-28's  These also gave the BooRim people fits trying to deal with the resulting joint problems.  Bad move and Division Point blindly copied it from the photos I've seen of his K-28's.  You'd think that everyone would have learned from the Westside K-36 experience.  The Anniversary run of K-37's Bill had Boo Rim do included a huge ashpan casting that made it impossible to get that engine to balance properly.  That mistake was inexplicable given the experience of both importer and builder.  That one pretty much put the kabosh on my interest in Sn3.  I haven't seen or heard anything about whether or not Jack caught that one or not.  I've seen comments about the motor "fit" employed in the 36's from others too. I'm of the opinion that either Bill or BooRim made a dimensional error on the second run K-36.  The cab looks too sqwatt (sp) to my eyes.  Don't know if PSC used Bill's C-21 plans but the similarity is remarkable, as are some of the mechanical problems.   Eyebrows tend to go up far too often with stuff like this and it certainly isn't helpful for the future of HOn3.  Boo Rim is a solid master craftsman but seems to do what he is told.  Bill Peter almost singlehandedly put Sn3 on the map but has a problem with overcompensation.  Still, we still have some new products coming in and it would be really unjust to deny credit to these folks for all the good they have done.  .  I'm of two minds about these matters and I hope the future of narrow gauge will seek out new solutions rather than merely duplicating past efforts.  
-----Original Message-----
From: Mick Moignard <mick@...>
To: HOn3@groups.io
Sent: Thu, May 14, 2020 5:34 am
Subject: Re: [HOn3] coreless motors again

I'm not so sure I agree with Dale and Lawrence about springing small Hon3 locos; I'm more with Mark.  My experience is a small amount of resilience - maybe 0.25mm controlled vertical travel makes a lot of difference to a loco: pick up better, pull better and cause less drumming when in motion.  And if there is just a tiny amount of movement, the fact that the rods aren't jointed doesn't matter because the movement of the wheel and axle is within the slop at the crankpin.  Not only the Key C-18s work like that but do do the 2nd run PSC T-19 which Samhongsa also made - and they run just fine, too, once you bin the awful Sagami motor and replace with a Mashima or anything else that will fit.

I note Dale also said that the C-18 was made from a PBL data pack. So apparently were the Division Point K-36 and K-37, and there's quite a few errors in those.   Their 492 doesn't have the vertical tender rivet pattern (check PSC's 492 to see what I mean), all the K-36 tenders have the extended coal raves, but for some inexplicable reason the weld seam was left off some of them - so they went to the expense of three tender wrappers (the square rave 488 tender is the third) when almost certainly two would have done, and all of them, 36 and 37 have combination levers that are too long meaning that the front end of the union link dangles down when it should be basically horizontal - not that that error is limited to just these locos, I've seen other Boo-Rim locos with danly union links.  I also changed the superexensive and annoyingly noisy Maxon motor in my 36 for a £2 Minebea, and ended up with a slower and more powerful loco that is mechanically a lot quieter, too (I have increased its weight to 340 grams).   I also noticed that even having selected a specific "custom" motor, they still cut a chunk off the plastic end cap around the brushes (now exposed) to get the motor in. I guess they hoped few people would pull the boiler off and see it.

Mick
______________________________________________________________________
Mick Moignard
Specialising in DCC Sound
p: +44 7774 652504
e:
mick@...
skype: mickmoignard
The week may start M,T but it always ends up WTF!


Carter box car kits

Mark Kasprowicz
 

Steve,

Do you still sell those Carter Box Car kits?

Mark K
Oxon England.

PS. Nice work on the railroad. You must have the patience of a saint to do all that spiking.


Re: coreless motors again

Mark Kasprowicz
 

Heck, don't worry about it Dale, my fault for getting it round my neck in the first place.

Mark


Re: Old Brass/ME Turnouts

Mick Moignard
 

Have you checked the locos themselves?  Older brass is notorious for off gauge wheel sets, particularly but not limited to the tender and loco truck wheels, but occasionally drivers too. Mostly set too narrow by an NMRA gauge.

Mick

________________________________
Mick Moignard
m: +44 7774 652504
Skype: mickmoignard

, so please excuse the typos.


FS; Grandtline little blue packages of various parts+ cal scale and more

lloyd lehrer
 

All grandt $2 pkg:  
eyebolts #5085, 9 pkgs $2 each 
DRGW turnbuckles #5039, 4 pkgs 
watertank hoop fasteners # 5038, 1 pkg
hinge set for NG side dump gons #5118, 2 pkgs
 

Cal-Scale:
pilot std coupler #Pi344 $7 brass. 1pkg
pilot commonwealth drop coupler Pi261 $7ea. brass, 2pkgs
tender hatch rounded base TH233 $3 brass 1 pkg
1870 domes steam and sand, rogers DO342 $5 brass 1pkg
bell w/angle brkt, front mounting BE299, $3 brass, 2 pkgs

details west:
airtank set AT146 roof mount non dynam. 1st gen EMD,Lead $3ea 2 pkgs 

All plus shipping, Paypal F& F or checks.

lloyd lehrer, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA (310)951-9097

--
lloyd lehrer


Re: coreless motors again

Russ Norris
 

I have used tubing to link the can motor to the gearhead.  I just use a slightly tight piece of tubing -- no glue.  Works fine.

Russ


On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:29 PM Craig Linn <drgw346@...> wrote:

Hey Craig (and everyone else)

I read your article as well and I have a few questions on surgical tubing as motor links to the drive train. 

How are you typically adhering the tubing to the shafts?  Any special glue or no glue?

Do you also get the tubing slightly undersized so it is a tight fit?

I’ve been looking for info like this so it came at a great time!  Thanks for sharing this info. 


Another Craig (Linn)
FoCo up in NoCo


--
Russ Norris, MMR
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
http://blacklogvalleyrailroad.blogspot.com/


Re: coreless motors again

Craig Linn
 

Hey Craig (and everyone else)

I read your article as well and I have a few questions on surgical tubing as motor links to the drive train. 

How are you typically adhering the tubing to the shafts?  Any special glue or no glue?

Do you also get the tubing slightly undersized so it is a tight fit?

I’ve been looking for info like this so it came at a great time!  Thanks for sharing this info. 


Another Craig (Linn)
FoCo up in NoCo


Re: What is it?

Andrew Thompson
 

Cliff

  I agree with Ken.  It sounds like an early Ulrich kit.  HO Seeker has instructions for the car at https://hoseeker.net/Ulrich/ulrichoutsidebracedboxcar1pg1.jpg, and have [Charles] C. J. Ulrich as the manufacturer.  Does this look like your instructions?  If so, it is probably late 40s to mid 50s (Ulrich started in 1947).  A later release eliminated the nails.

Andy Thompson


From: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io> on behalf of Ken Martin via groups.io <kmartin537@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 6:50 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [HOn3] What is it?
 
Cliff,

I am no sure about the box but it sounds like an early Uhrich kit. 
I have a couple of old kits and it sounds like the same cast outsside brace and the instructions call for “cement and nail” the body together.
My boxes are a dark yellow but are marked Ulrich as are the directions.

Ken Martin



On May 14, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Clifford Mestel via groups.io <troutckeng@...> wrote:

In the past few days I built a box car from a kit.  I don't remember where or when I got it.  It came in a yellow box with no printing on it and the instructions had no company name on it.  The instructions were were very sparse so I believed the kit came from the 50's.  The basic body  of the car was wood.  One interesting thing in the instructions was it said to glue "and nail" the roof and floor to the end blocks.  The car is an outside braced car.  The outside bracing was cast and painted and the wood sides (silk screened) fit behind the casting.  The underframe, ends and roof walk were all cast as were the doors, and the doors were painted. It was interesting to put together.

Does anyone know who made the kit and a possible time frame?

Cliff Mestel_,_


Re: Old Brass/ME Turnouts

Robert Herrick
 

Great idea! Thanks.


Re: Old Brass/ME Turnouts

Climax@...
 

use a short section of hack saw blade.  just go down straight and slow.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Herrick
Sent: May 14, 2020 6:18 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: [HOn3] Old Brass/ME Turnouts

I've got enough track down at Espanola using Micro Enginerring Code 70 turnouts. I'm running a Balboa T-12 and C-19 and a Westside C-16 and all of them get stuck on the frog. The clearances are a little tight using the NMRA gauge and I've tried to clear them out with a file, but the problem persists. I wondered about the flange depth on this old brass, but the locomotives are fine elsewhere. Have you encountered this problem?

Bob Herrick


Re: What is it?

Ken Martin
 

Cliff,

I am no sure about the box but it sounds like an early Uhrich kit. 
I have a couple of old kits and it sounds like the same cast outsside brace and the instructions call for “cement and nail” the body together.
My boxes are a dark yellow but are marked Ulrich as are the directions.

Ken Martin



On May 14, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Clifford Mestel via groups.io <troutckeng@...> wrote:

In the past few days I built a box car from a kit.  I don't remember where or when I got it.  It came in a yellow box with no printing on it and the instructions had no company name on it.  The instructions were were very sparse so I believed the kit came from the 50's.  The basic body  of the car was wood.  One interesting thing in the instructions was it said to glue "and nail" the roof and floor to the end blocks.  The car is an outside braced car.  The outside bracing was cast and painted and the wood sides (silk screened) fit behind the casting.  The underframe, ends and roof walk were all cast as were the doors, and the doors were painted. It was interesting to put together.

Does anyone know who made the kit and a possible time frame?

Cliff Mestel_,_
_._,_._,_



Re: What is it?

Don Peterson
 

Cliff,
Could it be Suydam? I know they used to come in yellow boxes when they used to make trolley stuff way back when.

Don Peterson

On Thursday, May 14, 2020, 04:32:28 PM MDT, Mark Lewis <narrowrails12@...> wrote:


Cliff, 
Sounds very interesting. 
How about a photo of your project?

Mark Lewis 
Narrow gauge modeling in N.C.

On Thu, May 14, 2020, 6:13 PM Clifford Mestel via groups.io <troutckeng=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
In the past few days I built a box car from a kit.  I don't remember where or when I got it.  It came in a yellow box with no printing on it and the instructions had no company name on it.  The instructions were were very sparse so I believed the kit came from the 50's.  The basic body  of the car was wood.  One interesting thing in the instructions was it said to glue "and nail" the roof and floor to the end blocks.  The car is an outside braced car.  The outside bracing was cast and painted and the wood sides (silk screened) fit behind the casting.  The underframe, ends and roof walk were all cast as were the doors, and the doors were painted. It was interesting to put together.

Does anyone know who made the kit and a possible time frame?

Cliff Mestel_,_


Re: What is it?

Mark Lewis
 

Cliff, 
Sounds very interesting. 
How about a photo of your project?

Mark Lewis 
Narrow gauge modeling in N.C.

On Thu, May 14, 2020, 6:13 PM Clifford Mestel via groups.io <troutckeng=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
In the past few days I built a box car from a kit.  I don't remember where or when I got it.  It came in a yellow box with no printing on it and the instructions had no company name on it.  The instructions were were very sparse so I believed the kit came from the 50's.  The basic body  of the car was wood.  One interesting thing in the instructions was it said to glue "and nail" the roof and floor to the end blocks.  The car is an outside braced car.  The outside bracing was cast and painted and the wood sides (silk screened) fit behind the casting.  The underframe, ends and roof walk were all cast as were the doors, and the doors were painted. It was interesting to put together.

Does anyone know who made the kit and a possible time frame?

Cliff Mestel_,_


Old Brass/ME Turnouts

Robert Herrick
 

I've got enough track down at Espanola using Micro Enginerring Code 70 turnouts. I'm running a Balboa T-12 and C-19 and a Westside C-16 and all of them get stuck on the frog. The clearances are a little tight using the NMRA gauge and I've tried to clear them out with a file, but the problem persists. I wondered about the flange depth on this old brass, but the locomotives are fine elsewhere. Have you encountered this problem?

Bob Herrick