Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

What non-auto model did you get today?


chunkypeanutbutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

1992 issue of Rail Model Journal, Freight Car Models Vol.II,  Box Cars...Book 1.

Image 1 - Book~Freight Car Models,Vol 2~Box Cars, Book 1~RailModel Journal~Schleicher~OOP

Also a set of 4 Pennsy 8-wheel tender truck sideframes, 4 modern Buckeye plain-bearing truck sideframes, and some beautiful fine-grain walnut sheet and strip wood

Precision Scale Co/PSC~HO~3396~Sideframes (4)~Buckeye 6-Wheel Truck~Loco Tender    Precision Scale Co/PSC~HO~3531~Sideframes (4)~PRR 8-Wheel Tender Truck~

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

1992 issue of Rail Model Journal, Freight Car Models Vol.II,  Box Cars...Book 1.

Image 1 - Book~Freight Car Models,Vol 2~Box Cars, Book 1~RailModel Journal~Schleicher~OOP

Also a set of 4 Pennsy 8-wheel tender truck sideframes, 4 modern Buckeye plain-bearing truck sideframes, and some beautiful fine-grain walnut sheet and strip wood

Precision Scale Co/PSC~HO~3396~Sideframes (4)~Buckeye 6-Wheel Truck~Loco Tender    Precision Scale Co/PSC~HO~3531~Sideframes (4)~PRR 8-Wheel Tender Truck~

 

Ace,

I have that book on my shelves too. Very useful reference.

What plans do you have for the truck side Frames?

steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Earl Marischal said:

What plans do you have for the truck side Frames?

I have some otherwise decent looking tenders that have either toylike trucks or none at all (a while back I was buying a lot of cheap, damaged HO equipment).

These sideframes require drilling the holes to receive axle ends, and fabricating the rest of the structure though, so I'll have to look into that first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2021 at 2:19 PM, unclescott58 said:

This one takes the cake. I've now seen everything. It was too strange to pass up. I found this at a local hobby store a few hours ago. At first I thought, "why?" But, the more I looked at it, the more I thought I had to buy it. It's going to be fun explaining this to people when they see it! 

 

IMG_4392.JPG

I was going to order this but then I read that the noodles are out of scale and totally inaccurate and that kind of noodle wasn't even ever offered by the manufacturer in that design pot :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CabDriver said:

I was going to order this but then I read that the noodles are out of scale and totally inaccurate and that kind of noodle wasn't even ever offered by the manufacturer in that design pot :D

I mean, I guess I could remake the noodles, but where am I going to find a material that looks exactly like 1:1 scale noodle?  I hope one of the resin manufacturers comes up with an upgrade kit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CabDriver said:

I mean, I guess I could remake the noodles, but where am I going to find a material that looks exactly like 1:1 scale noodle?  I hope one of the resin manufacturers comes up with an upgrade kit

And we will be needing better 3D printed shrimp 🍤 too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tom Geiger said:

And we will be needing better 3D printed shrimp 🍤 too!

Wonder if we could add one of those little steam generators that the model railroaders use to make it look like it's freshly 'cooked'? 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CabDriver said:

Wonder if we could add one of those little steam generators that the model railroaders use to make it look like it's freshly 'cooked'? 😁

Sounds like in the end it would be easier to just go to the grocery store and buy a real one for 79 cents!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2021 at 11:25 AM, CabDriver said:

I was going to order this but then I read that the noodles are out of scale and totally inaccurate and that kind of noodle wasn't even ever offered by the manufacturer in that design pot :D

The noodles look fine to me (and so does the shrimp). There are photos of them laser scanning the noodles for making the model (and no, I'm not kidding about that). As far as other accuracies? You can find that exact brand and flavor of noodles at any good Asian food store. The trouble in this country, the noodle's cubs have English info on them. 

It took me only a few hours to build the model. In fact, I built it the same day I got it. I did not use the stickers for the shrimp, or cut up and use the paper leeks. The only reason I have not posted the finished model, is I'm waiting for a more correct matching "real" noodle cup from Japan to compare it to. But I'll give you a little preview using the American market version below. 

The kit was a lot of fun to build. And it is amazing the work and detail they put into it. When I first saw it, I though it was the dumbest thing I've ever seen. But, in the nearly one month I've had it, I've had no regrets in buying it. It's a fun conversation starter, if nothing else. 

Now, what to have for lunch? Need to be careful picking out the right cup. 

 

IMG_4427.JPG

IMG_4428.JPG

Edited by unclescott58
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, unclescott58 said:

...Now, what to have for lunch? Need to be careful picking out the right cup. 

Yeah, it'd probably make one jell of a mess if you microwaved the wrong one. Should be very filling though.

 

6 hours ago, unclescott58 said:

... The trouble in this country, the noodle's cubs have English info on them. 

Wow. I didn't know baby noodles were called "cubs". Guess it makes more sense than calling them "kittens".  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been a while since I picked up an airplane kit, but when I found out this existed I had to get it:

658874426_P-43-A-11.jpg.f34a94f21c6aebcb27206db47bc2dfa0.jpg

The predecessor to the P-47, it saw limited wartime use but was successful in China as a high altitude photo recon ship. In the USA they were mostly used as trainers and squadron hacks; several were used in the 1943 film Air Force playing Japanese fighters, and a single one appeared in the 1944 movie God Is My Co-Pilot.

I'd like to test out my weathering skills and build it as this one, s/n 40-2897, seen here at Chino, CA awaiting scrapping in 1946:

1110392937_P-4340-2894.jpg.2db73f6e06011965a64b433887e27686.jpg

No complete P-43s survive; Earl Reinert, an old friend of mine, tried to rescue one in the early '60s from a farm in Indiana but the owner sold it to the scrappers a few days before he came out to get it. All he could save was this engine mount/backing plate and the main landing gear.

706456110_earlsP-43.jpg.e402e29e0290438d427b3bd1f89bbfda.jpg

Some smaller parts supposedly turned up in Australia about a decade ago but they've never been confirmed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I build aircraft & space in addition to cars. This one had been on my list for a good while. Glad to have finally found one. Excellent service from HobbyLink Japan. In theory you can assemble it right from the box without painting due to the multi colored sprues, but I'll end up painting & detailing it.

20210409_004021.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Finally, after years of looking, I scored an AHM / Rivarossi New York Central Henry Dreyfus-designed streamlined 4-6-4 J-3a "Hudson" locomotive.

The one I've been after all this time is very special, as it has Scullin drivers and a centipede tender (most of these are not so equipped).

I think this is one of the most beautiful machines ever made by man, right up there with the Pennsy S1 and T1 locomotives, the Lockheed Constellation, the Convair B-58 "Hustler" bomber, the 1953 Raymond Loewy-designed Studebaker, and the '55-'57 Thunderbirds.

The model was produced from 1972 through 1981, and sold for right at $200 at the end of the run. Mine has a retail sticker of $179.95, so the price I paid for this NOS piece seems reasonable. It has no indication it's ever been run.

Though there are the inevitable minor accuracy shortcomings, it's a great looking model, captures the look of the real one very well, and I'm happy.

Rivarossi HO 4-6-4 Streamline Hudson NYC Locomotive RARE

 

Throwback Thursday | Henry Dreyfuss: Designer for Humanity ...

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
CLARITY and ACCURACY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cobraman said:

...Is the second piece a power unit ?

It's called a "centipede" tender. Like all tenders for steam locomotives, it carried the water and coal or oil fuel the engine ran on.

NYC used the same general design of centipede tenders with the same wheel arrangement as Union Pacific (and other railroads) used for its Challengers and Big Boys (though only UP used Big Boys), but NYC's could scoop water from between the rails to give the locomotive more range between stops.

Quoting from O Gauge Railroader Online Forum:

"They could hold more weight in water or fuel or both and distribute that weight over more axles to maintain lower axle loadings. The New York Central tenders, which utilized water scoops for taking water on the fly, had very large coal bunkers to enable Harmon, NY to Chicago, IL or Harmon, NY to Mattoon, IN (St. Louis Line) with one stop for coal at Wayneport, NY near Rochester. Another advantage of the NYC tenders was their long rear overhang and shorter relative wheelbase allowed the locomotives equipped with them to be turned on 100 foot turntables.

The UP tenders were more conventionally balanced between coal bunker and water cistern compartments."

Quoting further from the same source:

"With a rigid 5 axle wheelbase that was cast integral with the frame, it saved weight vs a similar size tender with swivel trucks and this weight savings translated into an increase in weight efficiency vs payload. The rigid wheelbase might have resulted in better tracking and ride at high speeds vs a swivel truck tender. (edit:...though it also made them more prone to derail on tight radius turns in yards...)

With overflow control, water could be scooped from track pans at 80 mph. Previous 12 wheel tenders with water scoops were limited to 45 mph.

When the Niagaras (a different locomotive than we're discussing here) were built, the use of this tender resulted in a loco and tender wheelbase of 97'-2-1/2", so the engine would fit on a 100 ft turntable, which were available at several locations on the NYC main line."

Below is a non-streamlined Hudson pulling a "centipede" tender on the NYC.

NYC J3a 5447 CHICAGO IL - on 10-31-1953

The tender behind my new streamlined Hudson isn't exactly correct for the NYC.

It looks more like the tenders seen behind UP's Big Boys, below.

hattons.co.uk - Rivarossi HR2358 Big Boy Union Pacific 4-8 ...

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, cobraman said:

...I guess you will be building a layout at some point. ?

That's the plan.

Since the new place has decent sized shop buildings for real cars separate from the house, at least part of the attached garage will house a train layout. 

In particular, I want to model a smokestack-America-era steel mill...

ab4dfd1d35d40577632680783ca4b2e6.jpg

 

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Finally, after years of looking, I scored an AHM / Rivarossi New York Central Henry Dreyfus-designed streamlined 4-6-4 J-3a "Hudson" locomotive.

The one I've been after all this time is very special, as it has Scullin drivers and a centipede tender (most of these are not so equipped).

I think this is one of the most beautiful machines ever made by man, right up there with the Pennsy S1 and T1 locomotives, the Lockheed Constellation, the Convair B-58 "Hustler" bomber, the 1953 Raymond Loewy-designed Studebaker, and the '55-'57 Thunderbirds.

The model was produced from 1972 through 1981, and sold for right at $200 at the end of the run. Mine has a retail sticker of $179.95, so the price I paid for this NOS piece seems reasonable. It has no indication it's ever been run.

Though there are the inevitable minor accuracy shortcomings, it's a great looking model, captures the look of the real one very well, and I'm happy.

Rivarossi HO 4-6-4 Streamline Hudson NYC Locomotive RARE

 

Throwback Thursday | Henry Dreyfuss: Designer for Humanity ...

A great score there Ace.

Best looking steam loco of all time in my book, especially with those drivers.

I had looked at the later MTH version but the price was out of my reach and anyway, my layout is too small for one.

Good luck with your layout project. 

steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I think this is one of the most beautiful machines ever made by man, right up there with the Pennsy S1 and T1 locomotives, the Lockheed Constellation, the Convair B-58 "Hustler" bomber, the 1953 Raymond Loewy-designed Studebaker, and the '55-'57 Thunderbirds.

 

 

I love any big railroad loco. I get the beauty of the Connie - it's quite a contrast to the Hustler. I could go off topic badly on this... 

How fast did the Hudson locos go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Earl Marischal said:

...Good luck with your layout project. 

Thank you.

It'll be a kinda "freelanced" what-if scenario set in the late 1950s, in an alternative history line where steam was kept running side-by-side with diesels, with the layout focusing on heavy industry including construction and major repairs of locomotives.

There was considerable research being done into vastly improving both the thermodynamic efficiency and reducing the ongoing maintenance requirements of steam locomotives when the diesels became dominant. But development of steam technology virtually ended with the widespread adoption of diesels for everything.

With continued improvement, I'm quite sure steam could have remained a viable source of railroad motive power, especially in light of info like this:

"The NYC ran a series of tests shortly after WWII. They were uniquely set up to do do since they had one of the better classes of modern steam engines (Niagaras), FT and E-7 diesels and straight electrics. The results of the test were, the straight electrics won hands down until the cost of establishing the infrastructure was considered. In comparisons between the diesels and the 4-8-4s it was pretty much a wash since the 3 unit passenger diesels were more powerful than the steam engine but the steam engine was (slightly) cheaper to run. Comparing the Niagara w/ a 2 unit passenger diesel, the steam engine out performed the diesel but at a higher cost to operate. The two things that decided the issue were the ability of the diesel to exert full horsepower at any speed while the steam engine had to get up into the 45MPH and higher range before it put out full  HP and the really decisive factors, the terrific infrastructure costs of steam and far greater availability of the diesels."  (quoted from cs.trains.com)

The ACE 3000 project in the 1980s did a lot to seemingly prove that coal-fired steam locomotives could be operated efficiently in freight service, where a steam locomotive's unique operating characteristics were not a detriment, but it eventually died due to lack of funding when fuel oil prices began to drop somewhat.

https://www.american-rails.com/ace-3000.html

EDIT: Here's a great site for steam enthusiasts:   http://steamlocomotive.com/

EDIT 2: Here's a very interesting document comparing operating costs of locomotives: https://www.american-rails.com/support-files/locomotive_operating_costs_comparison.pdf

 

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...