Railroad Line Forums - Promised Update...
Railroad Line Forums
Username:
Password:
Save Password


Register
Forgot Password?
  Home   Forums   Events Calendar   Sponsors   Support the RRLine   Guestbook   FAQ     Register
Active Topics | Active Polls | Resources | Members | Online Users | Live Chat | Avatar Legend | Search | Statistics
Photo Album | File Lister | File Library
[ Active Members: 6 | Anonymous Members: 0 | Guests: 116 ]  [ Total: 122 ]  [ Newest Member: neiler ]
 All Forums
 Model Railroad Forums
 Early Rail Forum
 Promised Update...
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic |   Reply to Topic | 
Author Previous Topic: The freelance California Railway & Navigation Co Topic Next Topic: Early Railroad Equipment into the 50s
Page: of 22

OK Hogger
Engine Wiper

Posted - 01/01/2018 :  2:21:11 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Oh, by the way, I measured that gap from the center line of the coupler to the deck of the flat: Right at 2'.

I'm not staying hooked up too much today, so great deal of progress might not get made, but I do think I over-reacted on the time it will take to convert flats/gons. Like you say, though, big improvement and thus to me it's worth it.



Country: | Posts: 414 Go to Top of Page

OK Hogger
Engine Wiper

Posted - 01/06/2018 :  1:07:40 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Taking a break from the workbench. Work continues on a batch of gondolas. Here's what I'm tinkering with today. What you're seeing:

Left: Bachmann 34' cut down to 28'.

Center: Mantua re-trucked and lowered.

Right: AHM/Pocher 34' cut down to 30'.



For a while now, I have reluctantly been "okay" with my Mantua boxcar mods (modded on left, stock on right)...



...until I re-visted this article by Harold Minkowitz:

http://www.chainsawjunction.com/1879/cars/lowering_mantua/

His end result is a really nice looking little car for the cheap.

Sooo... I may start cutting down most of my Mantua boxcars from here on out!

All fer now!

Andre






Edited by - OK Hogger on 01/06/2018 1:09:23 PM

Country: | Posts: 414 Go to Top of Page

Michael Hohn
Fireman



Posted - 01/06/2018 :  4:29:16 PM  Show Profile  Visit Michael Hohn's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Andre,

The April 1999 MR has an article by Don Ball on modifying Mantua cars.



Might give you some ideas.

I like what you did with the gons. Very appropriate. I checked an 1888 ORER and flat cars on the UP, CP and SP were generally 30í in length.

Mike


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Nobody living can ever stop me, as I go walking that freedom highway -- Woody Guthrie

Country: USA | Posts: 3951 Go to Top of Page

railman28
Fireman



Posted - 01/06/2018 :  8:36:03 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Andre, The flats look good and I also feel that 30' is a typical length for the 1880's flatcar. Lowering the boxcar makes a good looking boxcar IMHO. IN Dons article he also show how adding new roof walks and under-body details add to the car. Again I do believe that with the same time invested you could scratch build one of these cars and get better results but not as good as a laser cur kit.

It's only make-believe

Country: USA | Posts: 4690 Go to Top of Page

OK Hogger
Engine Wiper

Posted - 01/06/2018 :  9:23:20 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Mike:

Thanks. And thanks on your input about that article on those little Mantua cars. It would much faster if I could simply be okay with re-wheeling, adding coupler boxes and Kadee's... but I'm not happy with the "sameness" that all of the cars would have. Thus, for me to have harmony and balance in my modeling universe, implementing such changes is pretty much a given.

Rob:

Healed up yet from all the cuts/scratches of remodeling? <g>

Don's car: Doubt I will go the lengths Don went at this time, instead being okay with simply changing the things about the train set cars that I'm not happy with. It's true that I'm putting in more time than doing what I mentioned to Mike just above... but it's things I want to do. Saving time? Maybe, maybe not. Saving money? Absolutely. LOTS of it. AND... I'm having fun, even if I am feeling a bit of self-imposed pressure to make progress in a timely manner.

All fer now!

Andre



Country: | Posts: 414 Go to Top of Page

OK Hogger
Engine Wiper

Posted - 01/10/2018 :  11:36:34 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Those interested:

Did you make the jump from my "Stacked" thread okay? Great... let's continue!

ChrisS:

Ah, so you're building those Railmaster kits! Those can built into some REALLY nice looking locomotives.

Here is a pic of one of mine that I built back during my Sn3 experiment:



That particular engine is still serving its current owner well. (I sold it to Sn3/model RR friend Bill Hobbs. He personalized it, painted it, and put it service.) I can't remember who I sold my other RM's to.

As for me not wanting to adulterate the KP:

Well... I just learned (tonight) that the KP (along with the Denver Pacific) was officially merged into the Union Pacific in 1880. Seeing as I will be modeling the "1880s", that poses a bit of a predicament for me. Simply put: There ain't no way on God's green earth I want my C&P's primary eastern connection to be (shudder) the UP. So, now I'm faced with a dilemma:

A. Tamper with history and let the KP retain its independence.

Or...

B. Create a new fictional road for the C&P to connect with on the eastern end.

I guess I COULD theorize that IF there had been a REAL C&P, and IF it had been successful until the end of the gold/silver era, and IF it had connected with the KP while the KP was still independent, it is POSSIBLE that the additional income the KP would derive from the C&P's mineral/etc traffic might have helped it to stay independent and pursue it's own expansions? That doesn't tamper TOO bad with the KP, for it avoids adulterating their the KP's physical plant (didn't add a fictional branch), but only tampers a bit with their corporate history.

Lot of "ifs" there even on a fictional C&P concept!

So, who knows?

Truth be known, previously I DID consider taking AHM's lead and simply extend the "Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago*" (AHM used that name on several of their "old time" offerings) westward past KC toward the Front Range (to Denver?), and along the way they connect with the C&P. However, I really like the name "Kansas Pacific" better.

* The KC, St.L & C was indeed a prototype railroad.

The C&P's 4-4-0's...

Actually, the C&P's 4-4-0's were demoted from the varnish runs and Redball freights, etc, and were being used wherever they could be of use. In the case of my layout: On a short, steep, helper grade section. So, they weren't being relegated to the flatland sub-division only... instead they went where they could be used in some way until replaced by bigger power.

In reality, my on-layout 4-4-0's will essentially suffer the same fate as they will be used less and less as I get bigger power built and on-layout. BUT, getting bigger power on-layout will take quite a while.

Okay... this post has gotten long enough. Better pinch it off and hit the sack. Gotta go earn my keep, 'ya know.

All fer now!

Andre



Country: | Posts: 414 Go to Top of Page

Michael Hohn
Fireman



Posted - 01/11/2018 :  09:23:24 AM  Show Profile  Visit Michael Hohn's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Andre,

Whatís wrong? Got something against Jay Gould? Itís going to be hard to create an economically viable fictional railway while avoiding the UP. But thatís part of the fun Iím sure.

I have happy memories of visiting grandparents in Abilene KS back in the 50ís. Their house was near the UP tracks, formerly KP.

Beautiful locomotive.

Mike


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Nobody living can ever stop me, as I go walking that freedom highway -- Woody Guthrie

Country: USA | Posts: 3951 Go to Top of Page

railman28
Fireman



Posted - 01/11/2018 :  11:24:55 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Andre,
I choose to change history for my railroad's story. Historically the Oregon Steamship Company and then the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company were a aggressive monopoly that did everything they could to strangle competition. Their corrupting influence including getting Oregon to pass a state law stating that the O.R.&N. could refuse to exchange freight with anybody. Since both Willamette Valley railroads were owned by the O.R.&N. it was extremely difficult for other companies (like the Oregon Pacific) to develop. It's why my prototype didn't get far too. So in my story the law that Oregon passed prohibited a carrier from refusing to interchange freight and passenger from another company.


It's only make-believe

Edited by - railman28 on 01/11/2018 11:26:26 AM

Country: USA | Posts: 4690 Go to Top of Page

OK Hogger
Engine Wiper

Posted - 01/11/2018 :  7:11:12 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Mike asked:

"Whatís wrong? Got something against Jay Gould?"

Um... actually... YES!

I think it's more my feeling that the UP wasn't a good thing to have happened early on in the DSP&P's life. I could be wrong... but how will we ever know? I WILL admit that the early UP had some pretty neat looking power.

Plus, I like the sound of "Kansas Pacific" better than "Union Pacific". I think "Kansas Pacific is more descriptive and sets locale better for my theme than the than the generic sounding name "Union Pacific". I also like the idea that the KP was a "Kansas City" road. (I was born and raised in KC.)

You also said:

"I have happy memories of visiting grandparents in Abilene KS back in the 50ís. Their house was near the UP tracks, formerly KP."

Again, I think the UP had EXCELLENT late steam and first generation engine rosters. Their FA1's wore the Armour Yellow excellently. In fact, I'll even grant you that the UP had interesting diesel power on into the mid-late 1960s.

HOWEVER... I like the KP better for an eastern connection for my C&P theme. (See above!) I guess I would be better off to get the C&P to Denver somehow... but all this is just a mind game, anyway. We shall see!

And yes, it's all part of the fun of it!

Bob:

Understood on the mental escapades we play with our themes.

Personally, I'm more "okay" with changing naming convention, laws, etc, than I am imagineering an entirely new division/what have you for a historical prototype.

At this point, I'm leaning toward simply allowing the KP to remain independent, seeing as how it was receiving substantial high-dollar traffic by virtue of the C&P's gold and silver traffic.

Ah the fun of it all!

FWIW: Supplies and stuff continue to arrive. Over the past few days a batch of Mantua train set cars arrived, a Bachmann train set car, another bulk pack of Kadee 153's, a pin vice, and a stack or "Railroad" magazines. Still to come is my order from Hobbylinc that includes more couplers, wheels, cement, etc.

Still need to put together an order for beams/queenposts and K brake castings and such.

So much to do, so little time to do it!

All fer now!

Andre



Country: | Posts: 414 Go to Top of Page

Michael Hohn
Fireman



Posted - 01/11/2018 :  8:34:59 PM  Show Profile  Visit Michael Hohn's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Andre,

Maybe you need to model 1879.

Mike


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Nobody living can ever stop me, as I go walking that freedom highway -- Woody Guthrie

Country: USA | Posts: 3951 Go to Top of Page

OK Hogger
Engine Wiper

Posted - 01/11/2018 :  9:30:27 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I seem hopeless, eh Mike?

Actually, the deliberating and weighing of options IS part of the fun of developing a concept for me. I enjoy it.

I'll likely stay with the 1880s to allow more latitude in rolling stock and such. (Mainly because there were more refrigerator cars... and I DO want refrigerator cars ONE OF THESE DAYS. The refreshing spirits need to get to those mining towns and boom towns out in the Rockies along the C&P, you know!)

When it's all said and done and I've firmed up the imaginary details of my concept, there WILL be MUCH pure, good ol' unadulterated, fiction involved.

That is, I decided long ago I will NOT be using names of "real places" for any of the layout features, and will use very few (if any) on the non-modeled portions of the C&P. Those that may appear on any company map and/or timetable I come up will only be used for "place setting".

The fictional name usage will even extend to the Native American tribes that will be represented on the layout as well. Said tribes will not be "real", either, for again, I don't want to touch base with reality in regards to an actual tribe's history/etc, preferring to create my own so I can determine their history, traits, etc!

(FWIW, there will be two tribes dwelling in the region the C&P passes through: The Runamucca's and the Minnitonka's. The Runamucca's were quite the warring tribe before the pale faces arrived, but the Minnitonka's were quite peaceful prior to the arrival of the white man. However, the Runamucca's discovered they liked many of the goods the pale faces brought for trading purposes, so they adapted quickly to more peaceable living with their surrounding neighbors. Plus, they're quick learners and learned how to best exploit pale faces, too. Chief Ootay is a sly old fox.)

ANYWAY... after all the above drivel...

The scales are tipping in favor of retaining the KP's independence, AND a C&P branch to Denver. It's all fun!

All fer now!

Andre




Country: | Posts: 414 Go to Top of Page

OK Hogger
Engine Wiper

Posted - 01/13/2018 :  4:53:56 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Just finished my first chop-top job on a Mantua boxcar. WELL worth the extra effort. Here's a pic of the paint-ready chop-top Mantua sandwiched in-between a modified Bachmann 34' car on the left, and a box-stock "Hi-Cube" Mantua on the right:



All fer now!

Andre



Country: | Posts: 414 Go to Top of Page

railman28
Fireman



Posted - 01/13/2018 :  5:10:33 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Very nice, it looks good Andre!

It's only make-believe

Country: USA | Posts: 4690 Go to Top of Page

OK Hogger
Engine Wiper

Posted - 01/13/2018 :  5:58:31 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks Bob.

Consider it a poor man's BC kit!

I really like its stance/etc, too.

I will be putting different trucks under almost all the rest that will be added to the fleet.

FWIW: Just started on a Mantua "water car" that I was going to de-watertank and turn into a common gondola. Well, the glue holding the trio of tanks in place was so thick and so deep into the plastic floor that the floor started to fracture. (It was going to pull a complete chunk out of the floor!)

Guess there will be at least ONE "water car" on the layout... haven't a clue what a Colorado line would need a water car for, but there it is bigger n' Dallas.

I reckon in the future I will shy away from purchasing the water car versions of the Mantua gondola.

All fer now!

Andre



Country: | Posts: 414 Go to Top of Page

Michael Hohn
Fireman



Posted - 01/13/2018 :  7:04:08 PM  Show Profile  Visit Michael Hohn's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Andre,

Big improvement to the Mantua cars!

Mike


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Nobody living can ever stop me, as I go walking that freedom highway -- Woody Guthrie

Country: USA | Posts: 3951 Go to Top of Page
Page: of 22 Previous Topic: The freelance California Railway & Navigation Co Topic Next Topic: Early Railroad Equipment into the 50s  
 New Topic |   Reply to Topic | 
Previous Page | Next Page
Jump To:
Railroad Line Forums © 2000-17 Railroad Line Co. Go To Top Of Page
Steam was generated in 0.34 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000