Let's talk brass train cars!

Just a few examples where I don't see an issue.. Depends on the engineering of the model. In 1:1 reality we don't use screws with centering springs. Reality strikes the miniature that lacks the mass of its 1:1 counterpart. We still need a centering spring and a screw to retain the truck to the body and allow the toy to operate on a three rail track. Clever ways have been devised to hide such "imperfections" in our toys as illustrated below.

 

Most of the details under the caboose can probably be seen from the side at eye level on the track so it has to be there. The screws under the trucks and coupler box could have been handled better. On most of my cars the truck screws are countersunk up in the trucks out of site.

 

Cool cars, Erik. I would not call other people's stuff toys, though. Whether something is toy or not is different for everyone. It is like one person's junk is another man's treasure type of thing.

Most of the models I know of hide the truck screw where the kingpin would be.

 

As for the "coupler pocket" this is one gripe of mine that a few manufacturers have solved.   Steve Grabowski of KMW offered both scale draft gear and Kadee compatible versions of all of his cars. 

 

And Gene Deimling recently had a posting on the P:48 list of upcoming Protocraft scale width/size draft gear boxes ("coupler pockets".  

 

The draft gear area is one place that O scale models could be improved upon since there are things such as Duryea  or Cardwell draft gear/cushioning that are pretty obvious.

 

But considering that O scale took until last year to get mass-produced assembled scale sized couplers (discounting the decades-old Bill Clouser scale coupler) much of this is simply because many O scalers don't care about the little details (notwithstanding that oversized "coupler pockets" are often necessary so that the coupler can slew to allow sharp radius model curves). 

Remember "Cal-Scale" detail parts?  The HO scale AB freight and and passenger UC brake sets had a piping diagram and a list of what the components are... all in the tiny little parts bag that they came in

Rob,  I have purchased many Cal-Scale detail parts in "O", but have never seen the diagrams you mention. I am fairly sure US Hobbies offered little add on kits to upgrade the underside of their cars back when. One of these days when I have a bit more free time (Ha!), I will undertake the task of getting some more edjumication  on the subject.

 

Simon

The other side of this is that one can easily replace these screws.  If the look of slots and/or phillips sockets bothers you, Micro Fasteners sells socket head aircraft quality steel screws In both metric and SAE.

 

I am with Chris here - I put just enough underbody detail on so I can see it at eye level.  As you no doubt can tell, my biggest problem with O Scale 2-rail is the gauge.  It is for me an appearance thing, and not the old "anything Russian cannot be good" business I learned as a kid.

 

I do screw replacement on steam - where Lobaugh supplied a slotted brass 0-80 crankpin screw you will find alloy steel flat head socket head screws.  You really have to have good glasses to see it, and they do not make Allen wrenches as good as they used to, but still, that is what i do.

Back to brass trains.  Chris, this one is for you.  A caboose to go with the SD45 coming that will surpass all other models to date.  Custom decals made for model.

 

Stephen

 

 

 

 

Now I know why I had been hesitating to ask the question.  But, then I have enjoyed reading the responses and responses to responses.  No harm meant.

 

To answer my own question based on the responses, I think it is true that under certain conditions on a layout one can see most of the underside detail and not see the big funky truck screws. 

 

But, I also still believe that it's partially an industry/hobbiest accepted standard resulting in just ignoring the big funky screw while looking at all the other detail. Call it a selective blind spot. We do it all the time in other ways to our engines and rolling stock and of course, the O5W track scale being wrong.  The human eye beautifully adapts.

 

The reason I think this is because the top end model rolling stock builders and truck builders could mount the funky screw from the inside almost all hollow cars and/or counter sink it deeper and provide a plug to hide it.  I'm referring to the top end here.    

 

To paraphrase Frank Ellison (I think he said it first).  My train room is my theatre.  The layout is my stage.  The buildings and scenery are the props.  The engines and rolling stock are my main and supporting actors.  There is a back stage crew doing lighting and providing the other technologies like DCC.  I am the Director and Producer.  I strive to put on a reasonably authentic play that pleases myself and the audience.

 

I have a sign on the box office that requests nit-pickers and rivet counters to please remove their glasses before entering the show  -- as the management is insecure  -- and the overriding objective is fun and enjoyment.

 

To meet this need I'm comfortable with the Sunset 3rd Rail engines and rolling stock level of detail and price point -- and reliability out of the box. This using Sunset only as an example and not to the exclusion of others and not to get a row going on comparing all the mid level mfgrs.  I have items from them all. 

 

 

This is a great topic and I have thoroughly enjoyed looking at the superior photos of all the eye candy whether called a model or a toy.  Didn't mean to rob it with my question.

 

Hope to see more inspiring photos.

 

Bill

Bill,

I think you got it. Function is a big issue. Scaled down the physics don't work the same. It is a creative approach and I love your paragraph...

"Like Frank Ellison said.  My train room is my theatre.  The layout is my stage.  The buildings and scenery are the props.  The engines and rolling stock are my main and supporting actors.  There is a back stage crew doing lighting and providing the other technologies like DCC.  I am the Director and Producer.  I strive to put on a reasonably authentic play that pleases myself and the audience.  I have a sign on the box office that requests nit-pickers and rivet counters to please remove their glasses before entering the show  -- as the management is insecure."

This is a theater production by artists and play writes. I love the history and the recreation of model building that is why I am into this hobby.

Erik,

Yes, certainly the infringement in our disagreement is a circular one. I wouldn't let the disagreement get in the way, though. I do appreciate your thoughtful response and participation, not just in this post but others as well.

 

Bill, I don't have a problem at all with your question about the screws. 

 

I have to get down to the basement to see if I can find a nice brass piece to post tomorrow.

Hey Guys....I had SEVERAL alerts complaining about how this topic got "off topic"...so I edited and deleted the best I could to get it back on track.  Took me about 20 minutes and honestly don't want to have to do it again....please!!  This is a great thread, lets keep it that way.

 

Thanks,

Alan

Are you certain about that? What if we could take the old 'ACME' shrink ray and shrink a prototype car and some track. Any reason to think performance (under scale identical circumstances) would not be the same?  

 

I am guessing one of the key factors is weight, and I'm also guessing a typical "O" model is a lot lighter than a miniaturized (both size and weight wise) car would be. Don't know if it has ever been done, but the results might be interesting.

 

Simon

 

Take for example. a Big Boy is listed as weighing 540,000 lbs.

 

Divide by 48 and you get 11,280 lbs!

 

Should stick to the track nicely.

 

I have often wondered about all that, but not enough to do the math.

 

N Scale seems to work just fine with very teeny wheel tread and flange depth.  Folks say that O Scale also works just fine with .115 tread width and small flanges, but I had only moderate success with it.  My tracklaying skills are no doubt at fault, but still - why do we need such giant wheels and flanges for reliable operation?

The math was not that tough and I can't help but think that the weight does not play an important role. I'm sure there are pros and cons.

 

Simon

Scaling down weight involves scaling down volume and goes as the cube as there is length, width and height to scale down.  48X48X48=110,592

 

560,000 lbs divided by 110,592 = 4.88 lbs for an O scale Big Boy.  But if the 560K is dry weight and a loaded BB weighs around 1,000,000 lbs then the weight would be about a scale 9 lbs.

 

My Sunset Big Boy weighs 12.25 lbs. Bet if I shaved the boiler lead weight?? Hmmm.

I'm sure the weight plays a role. But maybe we are not as far off as you think. I suspect the weight is more akin to a "3D" measure like volume when it comes to scaling down. So 540,000lbs/48 cubed = 4.9lbs

 

Although I think the Big Boy was more like 1.25 million lbs with tender in operation. So that's more like 11lbs for engine and tender. Certainly I experience much better operations when all my cars are weighted to NMRA plus ~50%.

 

But I think the fact that none of the physics such as momentum, inertia, "stiction", friction etc. scales down nicely all contribute to our challenges.

 

OOPS, sorry Austin Bill, you were ahead of me!

 

Pete 

Big Whoops on the weight.....I was in a hurry and misread and got the weight on Drivers figure.

 

Not sure if all the physics would apply if a real item could actually be shrunk. My main point is, I seriously doubt a model is going to behave like the real thing.

 

Simon

Pete is on the right track.  Ask yourself why HO is so reliable in operation, while we have problems with the same wheel tread profiles?  Or why the 3-railers need those giant flanges?  There is more to the math than a simple ratio and proportion.  Some things do not scale down well - gravity and friction come to mind.

 

Yeah, I have done math like that.  I wrote a computer program for the 737 at various weights and flap settings, computing takeoff run and climb angles for our Orange County departures.  I shall skip that in my hobby, and stay with .172 wheels.

Last I checked, gravity does not scale - tends to be pretty constant on this planet.

Stephen,

The caboose is very nicely done. I'm assuming it is the 0 scale version.

 

Guys,

Here are some images of the Yoder battleship gon. I know it was commented on earlier, but if I were the one actually soldering all of these pipes together, I'd probably mix a few up just to see if anyone noticed. These images are not nearly as good as Erik's and others but I think they show off some of the junk on these things well enough if you click on them.

 

The model isn't warped as it might appear in the photo. That is the fault of the photographer who would like to blame it on the camera.

 

Hey now that is some mighty cool looking equipment there buddy!

Wow

One must be cautious about warped photographers.....

Yeah well he may be a warped photographer, but your pig runs backwards.

 

Joke!

Thanks for the caboose photo compliments Chris. I'll post more O scale brass project photos.

Stephen

Chris, here's a few more photos of N&W brass projects.

Please tell us more about the transfer caboose; scale and source/importer.  Don't believe that I've seen that one before

All photos are O Scale. The Transfer caboose is an early Atlas O scale caboose that was cut down and spliced together. Everthing else is scratched built from styrene. Done in the late 80s. Cude till I get time to do a better one, but works for now.

Stephen

Excellent!  Nice use of the early Atlas stuff which make great raw materials.

 

Any more pictures of it available? 

Very nice stuff Stephen. I particularly like the Virginian 44 tonner.

 

Simon

Simon: When I researched the VGN paint scheme, I found 4 different variations.

The 44t has dual speakers with lok sound. I am near completetion of a correct N&W Alco T6.

Haven't decided on Sound or not.

Stephen

Stephen you do have nice stuff. Beautiful

Thank you for the compliments Erik.

Stephen

Yeeehaw!

 

Just got shipping confirmation - the first of the Protocraft 1937 GN Wood sheathed ARA boxcars are shipping!!!

 

Hey that's great news

The plywood side cars with the Camel composite doors are already sold out! They will look great in Omaha orange or for some of the post-1956 cars, Vermillion.

 

WONDERFUL time to be in O scale.    

OK, here's one to ponder. Several years back the late Larry Muir and Mike Hill imported tank cars. As best I recall there were 8,000 and 10,000 single domers. There was no prototype for these cars, so I'm told, but they sold well and still do to this day. What did the builders use to construct them, and considering how whacked out some folks get when something is not "correct", why did they sell so well?

 

Simon

The non- whacked out folks bought them?

 

I sort of missed them, even though I know/knew both guys.  Got a photo?  These aren't the very expensive Drake cars, are they?

I haven't seen them for a while (they listed at $199.99 if I recall) but they were just a standard ACF type 27 I think, taken right from the ACF drawings.  Not that different from the PSC car.

 

There are very few accurate tank cars in O scale other than the "Gramps" cars or the Drake cars... and even those are ACF cars.  Not very much standardization in the prototype cars and lots of different manufacturers make it tough to do a brass tank car.

 

The scale really needs a series of UTLX A3 cars but since they aren't anything but basic black it is unlikely to see them.  Hope springs eternal though.

No, they were not the Drake cars....I think most of the Drakes had multiple domes. Pretty sure they (the Hobbyhills) retailed at $299.99. I know Bob Anson painted many of them. Hobbyhill also brought in a line of very colorful reefers, which I think were also decorated here in the states.

 

Simon