The Scent Of Ozone...

@laming posted:

All:

Did any mfg'er make a traditional-sized outside braced boxcar?

Andre

 

Crown models? I looked on Ebay with the info that you are looking for and that brand showed up. They had an outside braced PRR box car that looked like some of the postwar starter type cars that Lionel might have had. It looked like it had fixed molded in freight doors with very simple molded in detailing. Seems like Weaver should have made something as well, but I am not sure.

I think Crown models are just repainted Weaver cars like Buffalo Creek graphics. If so they would be scale size. Maybe MTH Railking?

Pete

Crown  models were scale models of smaller cars.

Weaver made an outside-braced boxcar.  It was a scale model, but I'm pretty sure that the prototype was only a 40' car, so it will blend in just fine with postwar "O27."  What you're trying to do is art as much as science.  There are no rules.  You might just have to try a bunch of stuff, and keep what you think looks good.

Andre since you are druthering and apparently in no hurry, you might want to check Industrial Rail. The O gauge blue box.  An old thread https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...d-to-industrial-rail provides some info.

I and others looked at them for S but except for the caboose they are a tad large and would require hacking. They are within O27, traditional or whatever they are called these days sizes.  They were relatively inexpensive when they came out.

Fair warning starting to explore this topic could keep you busy until suppertime.

Thanks all for your input!

I've taken a look at the Crown offerings (OB boxcar and the reefer). Those are indeed nice looking models. I think I now recall looking at these models years ago and concluded they were too "scale" to mix with my "traditional" stuff that I was messing with at the time. However, I do not clearly recall.

I do believe Ted shared a thought that I need to remind myself of:

"What you're trying to do is art as much as science.  There are no rules." 

I think he's onto something there. What I will be doing isn't "scale" modeling, in fact, that's one of the reasons this project is appealing: Instead of trying to stay as faithful to "scale" as possible (which can get exasperating), I get to set the standards. 

In that vein, it will indeed be akin to an impressionistic painting only in that I hope the elements compliment one another to the point that the overall result of various layout scenes (as well as the layout as a whole) are "acceptable" at a glance. But, like a photograph of any layout (even "scale" layouts), under closer scrutiny, even with the best layouts it becomes more apparent it's a model. Just that it won't take a microscope to spot it's a model for my "Traditional" layout! Besides, the only way any layout can ever look "real" is with excellent modeling within an excellent photo. That is, it will never be mistaken for "real" when standing looking at the actual layout.

I'm also beginning to suspect that I'm way overthinking some elements. (Me?? Overthink?? Surely you jest. )

SO...

Me thinks I need to chill, do the things that I enjoy that can be done in the immediate future, and any outside braced boxcars or "027" reefers (etc) I want to address, can be done at a later time.

Cheers!

Andre

Wiseman makes an On3 outside braced boxcar. Trucks/couplers not included. I suspect its about the same size as a Lionel 6454 9" car.

https://wisemanmodelservices.c...H-BOTTOM-BOX-CAR-KIT

Pete

Change of subject...

In this thread...

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...artwork-in-magazines

...We had been discussing train artwork (primarily scale drawings, but also some artist's paintings) with a "side discussion" of photo software and their use. I was getting ready to post what follows below to that thread, but then decided that doing so was going to take the OP's post even further away from what was originally being discussed.

SO... I decided I'd just post it here in my own thread so I won't be guilty of drifting someone else's thread!

PHOTOFLATS

In this thread, and other of my threads, I've made mention of my "PhotoFlats" that I will be using (have used in the past). Often when talking about "PhotoFlats", I get asked "what all is involved in doing that?"

So, I thought I would offer up a primer on what is involved, and provide some sample illustrations.

First the very basics:

* You would need "photo software" installed on your machine that can perform editing functions for digital images. There are several available, I'm sticking with "legacy" programs that I know well, such as "iPhoto4" (archaic by today's standards) and "Paint Shop Pro 7".

* You'll need to learn the basic skills, such as cut/paste, mirror, blending (via the "Clone" tool and such), how to remove "keystone" (the skewed distortion found in almost all photos of geometric shapes such as buildings). These skills aren't difficult to learn, but like any "art form", it can take a while before you're proficient enough that you can perform wonders with the software.

That so, seeing that photos are supposed to be worth 1000's of words, what follows are a few photos w/annotations that help to explain some of what is involved in taking raw photos and altering them within the software so they're usable as a flat on a layout.

This first one I saw while out exploring a town in Kansas I was stuck in while on an extended "loan out" by the RR company I worked for at the time. I knew it had potential... but it also had "issues"...

Next is one that I saw in my modeling "target area" in what's left of the historic West Bottoms industrial district in KC MO...

Some examples I snagged while on extended loan-outs out in OK (In these examples, Tulsa area and OKC)...

This one was another doozie...

However, I prevailed! And this is what I ended up with...

Eventually, you get adept enough at manipulating images that you can literally construct buildings using only portions of a photograph. Here's one example of that:

Lastly, with careful planning and with an eye toward reuse, I can use building blocks to create some truly gigantic "PhotoFlats", such as this one for one of my previous KC Lines layout iterations:

(Note there are no dock doors in place. This is because the dock doors are printed separately, cut out, and applied where needed in order to line up with a string of 40' boxcars, or 6464/etc!)

However, just like the ones that got away when fishing or rail fanning, going out on a structure hunt in far away locations, invariably ends up with fraught with that same "the ones that got away" syndrome! To wit, though I shot the foreground building... once home and the photo imported to my computer...

So, there you have it. A discussion you didn't ask for, but I decide to share anyway!!

Andre

On30, eh?

Now that's thinking outside the box! (Punny!)

As for reefers...

Really, about all that would be needed is some reefer "hard ware" (door paraphernalia) and using Evergreen styrene for sides, an appropriate 027 shell could be hacked and used for 36' wooden reefers. 36' reefers were still plentiful in the late-40s/early-50s.

Andre

@Caldwell posted:

Andre since you are druthering and apparently in no hurry, you might want to check Industrial Rail. The O gauge blue box.  An old thread https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...d-to-industrial-rail provides some info.

I and others looked at them for S but except for the caboose they are a tad large and would require hacking. They are within O27, traditional or whatever they are called these days sizes.  They were relatively inexpensive when they came out.

Fair warning starting to explore this topic could keep you busy until suppertime.

Missed this until just a few minutes ago.

Thanks for the input, Cal!

Yes, those industrial rail cars are great. I've owned some in the past. However, my "GnC*" syndrome kicked in.

* Gnats n' Camels. You know, that syndrome we modelers have, where we'll gag at a gnat and swallow a camel? Yeah, that one.

My "gnat" with the Industrial Rail cars was their questionable decision to use roller bearing trucks under them. Darn. Perfect for representing the transition era... but with roller bearings? Roller bearings were not in wide spread use during the late-40s/early-50s, especially on such cars as "every day" boxcars, cattle cars, etc.

However, I had several (sold off years ago):

Of course, now I feel pretty stupid.

Case in point, in the boxcars above? Livery wise, all but the Jade Green NYC car would have been right at home (okay, maybe the billboard MILW road car, too) in a late-40s/early-50s setting. I could have figured something out on the roller bearing trucks, or just gone ahead and ignored it. (Sort of hard to do once something draws your eye to it, though.)

And, of course, all the liveries in the tank/hoppers picture were good to go for my "transition" era that I'm now interested in portraying. 

BUT, in spite of precieved shortcomings, all of the above rolling stock were "birds in the hand", so to speak. Even that Jade Green NYC car (and the MILW?) could have been stripped and repainted/re-lettered!

Nuther "feeling stupid" thought point: I purchased the above Industrial Line cars for about 10 bucks each "then". Now? Try $35+.

Ah well... spilled milk and all that jazz.

Andre

All:

I ignorantly "assumed" that Library of Congress photos were "public domain". Well, apparently that is not the case, or at least some entity owns copyrights to the Delano collection.

Thus, I put OGR in a tough spot by posting the photos directly in a previous post here in my thread.

Lesson: Going forward, it's best to link to any illustrative pictures that may have copyright attached to them and thus avoid creating issues for our gracious host: OGR.

Just goes to show, you can't fix stupid (me!), but you can dull somewhat with a deft application of a 2x4!

Andre

They are public domain. You did nothing wrong Andre. 

Pete

UPDATE:

Yes, OGR (Alan) followed up and advised me that the LoC photos were fine.  All is good. Great, even.

I think what flagged my post is that I posted additional LoC photos from my folder that might not have come directly off the LoC site. (Instead Flickr perhaps?) 

Anyway, the main points I learned are:

* Insure there are NO copyrights to photos being posted directly into a thread.

* Make it CLEARLY NOTED for any LoC photos that they are indeed LoC photos.

Andre

ONE OF MY "GIVENS 'N DRUTHERS"...

Is coming under closer scrutiny.

For years, I've always intended that any 3-rail layout I attempt would be theme specific: "KC Lines". That so, as is common with "theme" layouts, some of my "PhotoFlats" would be adorned in signage that sets "locale". That is, such things as "Kansas City Wholesale Grocers", or "West Bottoms Storage Co.", etc.

Well....

Now I'm not so sure.

Instead, I wonder if I would be better served to keep the layout's "locale" more generic and avoid location setting names?

Why you ask?

Well, doing so would allow me to run equipment that is very cool (like the cast frame "ERIE" FA's or a tender with "PENNSYLVANIA" on its side, and other such engines), and they would look right at home in an urban/industrial setting.

Wow.

That's a radical thought for this KC kid.

What'cha thunk of this ideer???

All fer now. Gonna' head off to Fort Smith and snag a gallon of 99% isopropyl alcohol for use as paint stripper. (If all goes well, you'll see why later. )

Andre

I think that's a great ideer to run Erie FA's and that tender with Pennsylvania on its side. 

Thats the beauty of traditional toy trains. Its all in your imagination. This 5 year old kid had no idea, nor cared that his 2035 K4 came with a NYC style tender nor that the 2046 NYC style engine in the catalog came with a PRR tender. Only that the headlight came on, the whistle blew, and the engine puffed smoke.

Pete

I too think it's a great ideer to go a little more generic on the locale.  That way, anything and everything should look right at home until you get a chance to re-paint and decal/letter for your KC Lines. 

I knew I could count on you bunch of enablers to encourage me to feed my addiction.

The thought definitely has merit. I could definitely enjoy seeing Erie FA's and perhaps some custom painted NYC "Lightning Stripe" FA's, etc. Speaking of the NYC, was this simplified "freight" scheme also seen on the NYC FA's?

However, it could be a mite hard to turn loose of my KC Lines concept. Time will tell. No hurry, really.

Isopropanol...

Just got back with a gallon of what the solvent dealer says is industrial grade 99% Isopropanol. Alas, I don't see "99%" anywhere on the jug, thus I'm left to trust that it is indeed. Anyway, given the way 91% isopropyl alcohol will continue to be made of unobtainium at Walmart for the long term, I turned to other sources. Hopefully, it's strong enough to strip paint.

Now, just why would I want to strip paint?

Well, that's 'cause I just made an offer on these:

According to the description the pair "runs excellent no battery leakage". although somewhere in their life's journey, they were hand painted. SO...

Assuming we can work a deal, and assuming I can strip them, they will be repainted "FRISCO" using rattle can satin black and an appropriate yellow shot through my airbrush.

If they can't be stripped with the alcohol I now have, then I reckon I'll have to get more drastic and go for an "air eraser" type approach.

Anyway, if my offer is accepted, I'll get them at a fair price, considering their "custom" painted condition.

We shall see!

Andre

On a roll, I guess...

Just purchased this for $6 (no box).

Here's what it looks like as per the box art from a Bachmann/Plasticville kit box:

(FWIW: For some strange reason, I always enjoy seeing well done box art. I like the nostalgic "warm fuzzy" I get when I see imagination-stirring box art from way back when. (Yup... I'm a weirdo.)

Now why in the world would I purchase this when I have less than a handful of equipment, and a long way off from even having a layout??

Well, I want to see what I can do with it in view of making it look "good 'enuf" for what I envision with an eye on how much time and effort investment there will be.

OH, and also, I may use the above Switch Tower on an experimental "diorama" that I'm considering undertaking. This "diorama" would be nothing fancy, just a couple feet length (or two) of GarGraves track, a piece of scrap Homasote I have on-hand (or a ceiling tile if I want to save my Homasote pieces), and using the couple bottles of Woodland Scenics "Cinder" ballast I also have on-hand (along with some other on-hand scenery odds n' ends), make a little scene to see how my ideas look "in the flesh". Plus, the mini-diorama could be used as a display base on which to place equipment and photograph it.

Hey, what can I say? It's another of them ideer's I'm 'a havin'!

I think sometimes my brain has a mind of its own.

Andre

I saw on another topic that N5cjonny received his copy of the Bantam book "Model Railroading" yesterday. I also received mine from the same source, All Aboard Train Shoppe. Mine is a 1950 edition, second printing in very nice condition. Great little book. Thank you Andre and N5Cjonny.