I'll be picking up some .060x.125 and .060x.250 styrene strip to extend the bracing layer this week, it might work and won't look like a gon on flat or itll look like a heavy gondola, either way I'll find out!
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
To me, it does not look anything like the prototype. It looks like way-too-heavy of a load added to a relatively light flat car.
.
Time to forget about KCS, and paint it up for NSWP instead.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Ohh ok, yes they were good enough but the problem was 1 they weren't beefy enough to go with the length of the car and they didn't line up right with the side braces, like I said this car is a prototype, hence an experiment, I think I'll try extending the braces down and painting the car all the same color and see if that makes a difference! Thanks for the input though guys!
NWP SWP the roundhouse thrall coal gondola underframes?
Yes.
Mike.
My You Tube
I also think that you need to ditch the flat car. I thought you were going for a prototypical look?
Chuck - Modeling in HO scale and anything narrow gauge
Mike, thanks for your thoughts, by the "donor" car bottoms do you mean the roundhouse thrall coal gondola underframes?
You're not the only one that has said that, I think the orange paint is contributing to this, my next project will be extending the bracing onto the flatcar, perhaps that will solve the gon on flatcar appearance, perhaps not, we shall see!
Right now, it looks like the upper structure of a high side gon, sitting on a flat car. Wouldn't scratch building a bottom, or using the bottom of the "donor" cars work better? instead of re-working flat cars?
I can see not going with the drop center, but with the bottom of the "donor" cars, it would maintain the high side gon "look".
Just my thoughts,
So long time between posts but I finally got around to messing with the car again, I ended up shortening a 89 foot TOFC flat to around 76 feet then attached the gondola body it looks pretty decent, tonight I relocated the bolsters and mounted the trucks, I'm experiencing derailment issues with the triaxle Buckeye trucks, seems the middle wheelset is acting as a teetering point, I'm thinking a 28" wheelset for the center axle and the 36" outer wheelsets will prevent the teetering.
Next project is possibly making the braces extend to the bottom of the car.
I think I've mentioned it before but one of the guys at the club who is really big into KCS built the high side woodchip version of the car, the way he built his was he started with a woodchip gon, filed down the external braces and then replaced them with strip styrene ones, he didn't go so far as to drop the center of the car and all that he just did the flat bottom.
He also said some other guys he knows have tried scratch building the depressed center but usually got close enough and called it good and then never made another car, I intend to build at least a 12 car train for the club, this prototyping phase has taken longer but it will allow me to do the next one to a level that will not only be a close replica but also be able to be resin molded, a friend has all the resin casting stuff.
Heres the car before relocating the bolsters and mounting the trucks,
To do it the "right" way I probably wouldn't bother with the depressed center right now but rather take the crossbracing off the underframe then come in with strip styrene to extend the bracing under the car, or alternately (depending on how much money and work I want to put in) I could take two of the TOFC underframes, cut all the bracing off then mount one on each side edge of the car then strip styrene ro extend the bracing.
I'm leaning more towards the first choice because between the C beam profile of the side of the TOFC frame and the center frame I think with the braces ran all the way down the car will look pretty good, not an exact copy but a reasonable facsimile thereof with some modelers licence applied.
What do you guys think?
Sadly I have not been able to attain a photo from a perpendicular angle, the are some at sharper angles to the car, but 99% of those photos are of the cars in woodchip service with either their 3 axle trucks removed and replaced by 2 axle trucks, 75% of the photos are this, and the remaining few are of the extended side ones with their 3axle trucks.
NWP SWP My plan as far as the body is to basically take the gondola, THE GONDOLA, it has a flat bottom! Cut as I did before but instead of using the stock underframes I glue it onto a flat car also cut to length. The side sill and stuff will be sanded off the flat car so that it blends in with the gondola.
My plan as far as the body is to basically take the gondola, THE GONDOLA, it has a flat bottom! Cut as I did before but instead of using the stock underframes I glue it onto a flat car also cut to length.
The side sill and stuff will be sanded off the flat car so that it blends in with the gondola.
Butchering a Rio Grande hi side gon? Heresy I say!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
NWP SWP This is what I'm going for.
This is what I'm going for.
Do you have any other pictures of the car? A straight on side view will help a lot.
NWP SWPSeems like an easy thing, sand down the flat car deck and sides and glue the gondola shell onto that, what is your concern with that idea? Perhaps you're seeing something I'm missing.
I think we are all seeing something you are missing, but do not let that stop you. Maybe you can make it work. Maybe it will not work. Either way you will learn a lot. Keep working.
NWP SWPIf you're worried about the joint lines not looking good I'm planning to rattle can paint the cars anyways so those minute details will get covered to a degree.
Have you painted this car yet? If not, break out the rattle can and get to it. I really want to see it finished.
NWP SWP Seems like an easy thing, sand down the flat car deck and sides and glue the gondola shell onto that, what is your concern with that idea? Perhaps you're seeing something I'm missing. The tough part is going to be making the "struts" or braces on the sides of the flat car and on its underside, I guess use styrene strip in the dimensions of the original braces?
Seems like an easy thing, sand down the flat car deck and sides and glue the gondola shell onto that, what is your concern with that idea? Perhaps you're seeing something I'm missing.
The tough part is going to be making the "struts" or braces on the sides of the flat car and on its underside, I guess use styrene strip in the dimensions of the original braces?
Yup, that's it. Extending the ribs downwards. IF you can do that cleanly, that's good. Because it will make the car body taller, which was a concern of mine.
If you're worried about the joint lines not looking good I'm planning to rattle can paint the cars anyways so those minute details will get covered to a degree.
"Minute", indeed. 20-40 years from now, dig this car out and re-evaluate the work. But we all gotta start somewhere. And here you are.
Back to work, dude.
Ed
I think that using a flat car would be simpler than fabricating my own underframe or lowering the car (which isn't ideal because the car is short now so lowering it would make it look too short.)
My styrene cutting isn't the best yet either so I can make basic shapes but even they're a little wacky.
The flat car is going to be a good fit because the sideframes are 1.25" across and the gondola shell is that at the bottom from each side, not including the braces.
Steven,
I don't think I'd do it the way you're talking about (You, obviously, CAN.).
I think I'd raise the section above the trucks. That would create a look similar to the photo. All the vertical ribs would go down to the bottom of the side. The problem/irritation, though, is that model won't have the same height as the prototype--it will be lower.
Also, if I moved the floor of the car upwards (about a foot, it looks like), then I would build a whole new floor in that area, and the coupler and truck mounting would then be replaced in a manner that suited me.
I think my approach would produce a car that looks more like the prototype than yours does. But, then, I'm not totally knowing exactly where you're going. I just somehow have doubts about grafting a flatcar onto the bottom.
The vertical walls of the sides are mostly what acts to keep the body from bending. This is why so many flatcars have fishbelly underframes, and so many gondolas do not.
It IS a long car. Making the top chord heavier would likely handle it. Also it would be good to have some ties between the two top chords.
MAYBE thicken the side sheets by 1/16", which would add 4500 pounds to the car weight.
I agree, the inside of the wheel flange is hitting the coupler box. On wide radius curves this would not be a problem, but its obvious the curves on the layout are too tight for this long car.
I can't say for sure, but perhaps the trucks are mounted too close to the end of the car - especially as they are 3 axle trucks.
In the prototype world, the span between those trucks is awfully long, and the car better have a really strong underframe or it would sag from any significant weight.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
7j43k maxman Looks like to me like the lead axle is hitting the coupler box with the truck almost pointed straight ahead. If the coupler is at the right height, it's pretty difficult for the axle to hit the coupler box, even if it's right under it. Ed
maxman Looks like to me like the lead axle is hitting the coupler box with the truck almost pointed straight ahead.
Looks like to me like the lead axle is hitting the coupler box with the truck almost pointed straight ahead.
If the coupler is at the right height, it's pretty difficult for the axle to hit the coupler box, even if it's right under it.
Sorry, I meant the wheel, not the axle.
NWP SWP One problem, as of May I became a high school graduate, also I was home schooled so no machining classes there!
One problem, as of May I became a high school graduate, also I was home schooled so no machining classes there!
As I said, when people who don't HAVE to attend a class show up and ask teachers questions, they love it. If your local high school, junior college, or city college has such a class, drop by for a chat with the teacher. I doubt you HAVE to be enrolled to do such a thing.
It's a thought.
NWP SWP Here's the photos.
Here's the photos.
Looks like to me like the (edit) wheels on the lead axle are hitting the coupler box with the truck almost pointed straight ahead.
NWP SWP The problem radius is like 30" radius!
The problem radius is like 30" radius!
That IS a surprise. Oh, well. The two mods I describe will likely get down towards 24". Maybe.
You should also check clearances for the wheels (see Kevin's comment above).
All this MAY be beyond your abilities, right now. Like many things, it's easy if you have the tools and the experience--NOT easy if you don't. "Been there. Done that."
If available, I'd suggest checking out a class in machining. Or even take your project to the teacher for guidance. Teachers LOVE it when someone shows up who doesn't HAVE to!
When I was in school, I had a job at a machine shop; and I learned a LOT. I even (eventually) got to design a model BART train for them. THAT was about the most fun getting paid ever.
trwroute Looking at the truck mounting, i think the truck screws should be in the outer hole.
Looking at the truck mounting, i think the truck screws should be in the outer hole.
You should also remove the crossmembers near the inner axles. Our oversized flanges and wheel tread width need extra clearance.
Also... it is always the best idea to use Kadee coupler boxes if at all possible. Manufacturer cast-in coupler boxes tend to have thicker walls and coupler lids.
Looking at the truck mounting, i think the truck screws should be in the outer hole. That would give more swing of the truck towards the center of the car. I feel that there would be less truck to coupler box contact.
This would also help a little with adding stirrup steps!