Carter Brothers 24’ 8t Flat


Kent Hinton
 

Thought I would post a few pic’s of a project I am working on.



Kent Hinton
Sent from my iPad


Richard Johnson
 

Nice, are those 3d printed or cast urethane?
Are you making them yourself or are they a kit?
Nice stuff.
Rich Johnson

www.RichardSJohnson.net 

"Those who enjoy freedom must endeavor to preserve it."


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
Thomas Jefferson




From: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io> on behalf of Kent Hinton via groups.io <keh_bier@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 10:24 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io>
Subject: [HOn3] Carter Brothers 24’ 8t Flat
 
Thought I would post a few pic’s of a project I am working on.



Kent Hinton







Kent Hinton
 

Thanks, these are 3D printed.  I drafted the artwork using TurboCAD for Mac.  This model is derived from a 24’ 8t boxcar which I drew about two years ago.  I printed these on my new Uniz IBEE printer using their zMud resin.  I am still learning how far I can push this printer and resin.  The resin is softer than most when printed but becomes brittle if over-cured during post processing, but it prints exceptional detail.  The brake ratchet and lower staff bracket accept 0.015” wire without needing to be drilled out.  There are also 0.015” channels under the bolsters to accept the ends of the truss rods.  This variant is setup to accept N-scale Micro-Trains 1025 couplers.

I also have a variant with an enclosed draft gear box but it may need to be modified to accept a Sergent’s Sharon coupler.  I need the shank height and width dimensions to know for sure.

Next I want to try printing 8t trucks. May need to use a different resin to have enough flexibility to allow axle insertion and removal without snapping.  Or I may need to blend resins with differing qualities.

Kent Hinton


On Apr 28, 2021, at 10:29 PM, Richard Johnson <killroy321@...> wrote:


Nice, are those 3d printed or cast urethane?
Are you making them yourself or are they a kit?
Nice stuff.
Rich Johnson

www.RichardSJohnson.net 

"Those who enjoy freedom must endeavor to preserve it."


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
Thomas Jefferson




From: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io> on behalf of Kent Hinton via groups.io <keh_bier@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 10:24 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io>
Subject: [HOn3] Carter Brothers 24’ 8t Flat
 
Thought I would post a few pic’s of a project I am working on.



Kent Hinton







Dave Eggleston
 

Kent, 

I really like the detail quality you've gotten. They look great. You aren't gonna like to hear this but: I believe the Carter flats were 6-stick cars, not 4-stick like the boxcars--at least the early 24' cars like those for the M&SV, SC&F, etc. The walls of the boxcars acted as trusses that supported the load so boxcars didn't need six sills. The flatcars however needed two more sills to take the loads.

Dave 


_._,_._,_


Kent Hinton
 

Dave,

Thanks for the info on the sills.  Knew that they had 4 truss rods whereas the boxcars had only 2.  Will go back and recheck Birth of California Narrow Gauge regarding the sills question.  Best confirmation will be the photo of the circus train wreck on the NCNG.  Easy enough to add as long as they won’t interfere with truck swing.  Biggest task is redoing all the manual supports in the print slicing software.  Might also solve the tendency of these models to snap cleanly in half if bowed too much.

Kent


On Apr 29, 2021, at 9:31 AM, Dave Eggleston via groups.io <degg13@...> wrote:


Kent, 

I really like the detail quality you've gotten. They look great. You aren't gonna like to hear this but: I believe the Carter flats were 6-stick cars, not 4-stick like the boxcars--at least the early 24' cars like those for the M&SV, SC&F, etc. The walls of the boxcars acted as trusses that supported the load so boxcars didn't need six sills. The flatcars however needed two more sills to take the loads.

Dave 



Dave Eggleston
 

Kent, the intermediate sills may have been lighter in profile which may help on swing. And worse case, you can file away a section for the wheels to swing through. 

Can't recall if the earliest flats had 4 truss rods but you're probably correct on that. My knowledge is M&SV and SC&F...at that timeframe Tom Carter was doing a lot of experimenting.

On a FWIW sideline, the Santa Cruz & Felton boxcars were built on top of flatcar kits delivered by Carter, so they are an unusual instance of 6 stick boxcars at that timeframe.


John Stutz
 

Kent 

Instead of Microtrains 1025 couplers, take a look at their 1015 and 1016 couplers.  These have a revised centering spring that both eliminates coupler bounce when pulled, but also make it easier to couple without pushing cars down the track. 

John Stutz

On April 29, 2021 8:46 AM Kent Hinton via groups.io <keh_bier@...> wrote:

... This variant is setup to accept N-scale Micro-Trains 1025 couplers. ....


Kent Hinton
 

Dave, the photos of overturned NCNG 7 on page 421 of The Birth of California Narrow Gauge by MacGregor clearly shows it at least was a four sill - four truss rod car. Presumably these photos are what Hermann Darr based his drawing upon. Granted the wreck was in 1893, but the car was kitted in 1875 sometime between the M&SV cars in July 1874 and the SC&F cars in November 1875. The 1876 photo on page 423 shows almost identical end sill details, including four truss rod nuts, leading me to believe the NCNG cars were always four stick. This is what I based my model on.

I am open to whatever references you have that the early 8-ton flats as built for the M&SV, NPC and SC&F were six stick cars. On the NPC flats I do notice two variations in end stake placement and end sill nut/washer placement, some photos showing the location similar to NCNG 7 and other photos showing the end stakes tucked in against the center sills and highly placed nut/washers which may have been used to secure ultralight intermediary sills. But half the NPC fleet were Barney & Smith cars and those may be the ones which differ from my model. The SC&F boxcars you referenced were converted from 8-ton to 10-ton cars by the SPC, which may explain the extra sills on those cars. The SPC also inherited flatcar kits from the SCV, which were originally listed as 24’, 8-ton but later listed as 28’, 10-ton. Extra sills on these cars likely were the result of conversion to or replacement by 10-ton cars.

Kent Hinton


Kent Hinton
 

John, thanks. I will definitely check out the 1015/1016 series couplers. Do you find the short or medium shank length to work better for HOn3? Or do you use both depending on the car?

Kent Hinton


Dave Eggleston
 

Kent,
Thanks for sharing the sources for your car's design.

Let me correct myself on the sills: there had been a lot of discussion about the frame design of the flats amongst the historians at SPCRR and other museums back when I was researching the M&SV and SC&F and these conversations were the source for my comment. I'm afraid I mixed two items, truss rods and sills, when making my comment to your post. Four sills for all cars, yes, but 2 truss rods on boxcars (except SC&F) and 4 truss rods on flatcars. Mea culpa. This is what I get for spending the last 10 years researching the early SF Belt and the DSP&P rather than sticking to the M&SV, SC&F and Nevada Central. 

The NCNG wreck photo was the key item used to conclude four sills for the 8 ton design--I recall some great conversations about this at SPCRR in the 90s. The photo is conclusive for that car on that line at that time but the extension to original Carter design on the other early lines, when comparing to what other other manufacturers did at the same time, is a theory carrying a lot of weight. Sadly, odds are we'll never know fully what the non-NCNG cars looked like. If only one 1874 Nevada Central Carter flat had been saved in 1938...

I'll still argue the SC&F boxcars were unique to the early 8 ton Carter boxcars because with the bodies being added to new flatcars they had four truss rods instead of the normal two. My understanding is the 10-ton upgrade was more about installing larger journals, not adding sills, if I'm to believe a past staff historian at SPCRR. I also believe that the six SC&F boxcars surviving on the N&C were still 24' when retired in the early 1900s. 

All that said, sorry for my creating any confusion on this. 


Kent Hinton
 

Dave, no worries and all good. The thing which I know best is there is a lot I do not know. I am glad to see discussion on the list about modeling and history, rather than some of the detours the list has gone down in the past.

Agree that the evidence points to those six SC&F boxcars being repurposed flatcar kits. Thanks, now I have another variant of my boxcar model to print. :-)

Also, a bit more photo research has me leaning toward the NPC flats with the inboard stakes being the Barney & Smith cars assembled by Carter. Need to figure out what other differences might be discernible in HO scale and then I have one more variant.

Kent Hinton


Dave Eggleston
 

Kent,

Well you've chosen to model prototypes for which there is a lot we don't know! A handful of photos, one surviving boxcar from 1874, some newspaper references and paperwork and a lot of speculation/reverse engineering--that's it. It's a brave space to push into. And, as I just found out, it's easy to mis-remember things in the churn of discussions and changing understanding that marked the fast-paced discoveries and heated discussions in the 1990s that led to Bruce's book.

I like to remain cautiously skeptical on things so ancient. While the circus wreck photo appears to answer many questions about the earliest products of Thomas Carter and Carter Brothers, I still wonder a lot about what exactly the evolution of woodwork from the July 1874 NPC cars to the August 1874 M&SV cars to the 1875 NCNG cars to the 1875 SC&F cars, etc., was, if anything. Thanks to that circus wreck photo, modeling that specific NCNG flatcar is one of the safest models possible, followed by modeling other NCNG flatcars, then next up is an M&SV boxcar; things quickly become speculative after that. Even the experts still don't agree on all the details.  

This thread had me do what I shoulda done to start, namely pull out my old SC&F notes, written up in 1996 after researching newspapers in the Santa Cruz library, CA State RR Commission records, then-newly discovered photographs, and a copy of Fowler Pope's diary loaned to me. These simply reinforce the sad truth: The information on early Carter products we have is often lacking, suspect, conflicting! We had to make a LOT of leaps of faith based on period practices and be willing to change our beliefs as new data surfaced.

I still stick with all the SC&F cars being shipped as flats with six being immediately converted into boxcars in Jan 1876 (to carry lime safely). Who did that conversion is lost to history, but we know Tom Carter was in Santa Cruz in 1874 (sourcing carpenters and iron work for the M&SV cars) and possibly again in 1875. My source: Several Santa Cruz articles of 1875 specifically call the cars being received as "flatcars" and "platforms," not boxcars. And at least three articles talk of boxcars being built in January 1876, specifically for the lime traffic. But...there is a small spanner to toss in the works! An article in a Gilroy paper of April 1875 reports the cars' woodwork (the first 10 cars for the line) being constructed for shipment in Saucelito (original spelling) and mentions the order including boxcars. So there you have it, an inkling of doubt added into an otherwise strong argument that all the cars shipped were flatcars. So I'll leave it there. Do what you will with that SC&F car should you build it! 

A big question: How much do those tiny prints weigh? And how do you plan to weight them?


John Stutz
 

Kent

My choice between the Microtrains 1015 and 1016 is based on how far back I need to go to get a screw in.  Note that the 1019 offset mount version may be better in some situations.   The centering arrangement of all three are identical, and just the opposite of the MT 1025 and Kadee 714, so they bounce when pushed, but not when pulled.  But the real advantage is that the coupler head can yield slightly when being coupled, without the car moving, so there is less chance of a car being pushed along without coupling.  Which last is my principal problem with the 1025 and 714.

John Stutz

On April 29, 2021 10:13 PM Kent Hinton via groups.io < keh_bier@...> wrote:


John, thanks. I will definitely check out the 1015/1016 series couplers. Do you find the short or medium shank length to work better for HOn3? Or do you use both depending on the car?

Kent Hinton




chris Schmuck
 

I make flatcars and gondolas with a recess in the underframe to glue in a 1/16" tungsten welding rod. This is for weight, but mostly it is to keep the cars straight. 

This is HOn30:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/cDuDcwLjCdcKDZ8P8
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7mVTxqcHmtyvNXHv5

Chris


Mark Lewis
 

Chris,

What do you use to cut the Tungsten welding rod to length, since Tungsten is so hard and destroys most cutting tools?

Mark Lewis
Narrow gauge modeling in N.C.


On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 5:20 PM chris Schmuck via groups.io <schmuck804_99=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I make flatcars and gondolas with a recess in the underframe to glue in a 1/16" tungsten welding rod. This is for weight, but mostly it is to keep the cars straight. 

This is HOn30:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/cDuDcwLjCdcKDZ8P8
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7mVTxqcHmtyvNXHv5

Chris


chris Schmuck
 

Score it around with a cut off wheel and snap. It is very hard, but brittle. You can use diamond coated discs if you have them.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/pT3Cb5j43Ju2rcE7A
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oLCBaUywxeTEycf17

Chris


Bill Lugg
 

And how do you get the rod into the carbody?  Does it flex enough to slide them past the end sills into the queen posts?

Thanks
Bill Lugg

On 4/30/21 3:52 PM, Mark Lewis wrote:
Chris,

What do you use to cut the Tungsten welding rod to length, since Tungsten is so hard and destroys most cutting tools?

Mark Lewis
Narrow gauge modeling in N.C.

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 5:20 PM chris Schmuck via groups.io <http://groups.io> <schmuck804_99=yahoo.com@groups.io <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io>> wrote:

I make flatcars and gondolas with a recess in the underframe to
glue in a 1/16" tungsten welding rod. This is for weight, but
mostly it is to keep the cars straight.

This is HOn30:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/cDuDcwLjCdcKDZ8P8
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/cDuDcwLjCdcKDZ8P8>
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7mVTxqcHmtyvNXHv5
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/7mVTxqcHmtyvNXHv5>

Chris


Mark Lewis
 

Thanks, Chris.

Mark Lewis
Narrow gauge modeling in N.C.


On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 6:24 PM chris Schmuck via groups.io <schmuck804_99=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Score it around with a cut off wheel and snap. It is very hard, but brittle. You can use diamond coated discs if you have them.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/pT3Cb5j43Ju2rcE7A
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oLCBaUywxeTEycf17

Chris


Kent Hinton
 

Dave,

My prints weigh 0.112oz/3.2g as printed and 0.347oz/9.9g painted with Kadee trucks (stand-ins for now) and MT1025 couplers.  Plan is to try to dial in a three-point suspension as advocated by Steve Hatch so as to not add weight, but if I have to will probably follow Chris' lead and add tungsten rods between the center sills.  May need to add strike plates/bumpers to one of the bolsters to keep one truck from yawing.

Kent Hinton


Kent Hinton
 
Edited

Did a bit of test running yesterday on Dave Sheber's KD&VJ Railroad.  Ran on the point both downhill and uphill, as well as cut-in between a pair of much heavier log cars.  Tracked great, but it was a short consist.  Still want to take the yaw out of one of the trucks.  May widen the bolster surface the truck sits on but leave the other end free to yaw as is.  Also need to get a string of these setup and then see how well they play together before I worry about dead weight.

You may notice this is a 'post-wreck' model.  It is one of two so I snapped in half while testing the post-cure flex.  I glued it back together with a few dabs of resin and some UV light before painting.