Ace-Garageguy

Collection agencies don't always bother to get their information 100% straight prior to initiating actions.

I spray everything that's been de-rusted with an epoxy primer, inside and out, and force it to run into pinch welds, rolled door edges, etc. Depending on several factors, I'll usually use the PPG DP40 green. For maximum adhesion and toughness, there's a Sherwin Williams industrial epoxy that used to be sold for automotive use, but AFAIK, no longer is. It's kind of a bugger to use, requires a 20-minute "induction period" prior to spraying...but man, when the stuff is fully cured, even the most aggressive paint stripper barely touches it. Like all epoxies, it requires very thorough mechanical scuffing prior to recoating after it's cured, or topcoating with primer-surfacers in preparation for paint. Shoot your Waxoyl inside doors and structure after your epoxy is fully cured for maximum protection.

Digression: An interesting fact is that cars don't rust from the bottom up. They rust from the top down, in areas where moisture and dirt that holds it accumulate...like inside rocker panels, unibody structural members, and frame rails that have big gaping holes in them (unfortunately very common on many late-model vehicles), the bottoms of doors, under floor mats and carpeting, etc. Waxoyl and similar products were the most effective for combating this, provided that the insides of structural members and doors were completely coated, often accomplished by drilling holes in otherwise inaccessible areas to allow introduction of the spray wand, and sealed with plugs at the end of the job. Undercoating sprayed only on the underside of a vehicle is essentially useless, but as it remains a profit-maker for dealerships, and can be "professionally applied" by LCD employees, it continues as a consumer ripoff.

Anything that'll help prevent atmospheric exposure will be helpful, including placing the entire putty container in a big Ziploc freezer bag. "Decanting" the putty into a sealable jar, if that's what you're talking about, would probably work very well, and would have the added advantage of allowing you to stir the material prior to every use, as it WILL settle and separate somewhat over time, and kneading the original packages isn't always very effective.

Photos much appreciated, as I recently acquired examples of both early and late J-car kits. A note: the J-car was a rapidly evolving work in progress, and there are many more differences between early and late cars than just the nose.

Yup. Before the post recommending that specific color, I was going to suggest finding a close match among Tamiya's military greens. Just a note...real factory applied e-coat primers are low gloss, not flat. The real SEM is indeed very "hot", as I've discovered first hand attempting to use it on models. Spectacular crazing.

Smaller and smaller general intelligence levels are a measurable trend, contradicting the oft cited but misunderstood "Flynn effect".

I don't have much build time these days, but when I do, I work on fiddly things that don't need to be painted immediately. Plenty of that, as I obsessively modify just about everything. I save up a bunch of stuff to shoot outdoors on the odd days it gets over 60F...and I've actually made significant progress on a couple of builds doing just that over the last two months.

Live your life by the Golden Rule, and you'll have remarkably few worries when it's time to go to the big model bench in the sky.

Cuticle pushers can also come in handy for shaping 2-part filler before it kicks...

Hashtag is the price sticker on the can of chopped up corned beef and potatoes, right?

Yup...couldn't even connect to the site at all on Chrome after about 7:00 PM EST, had to use another browser that allows "accept risk by connecting to non-secure site" bla bla bla. EDIT: Only the main page shows "https". Other pages don't, and a look at the certificate says something's a mismatch..

PM'd

But wait...there's more: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/brochure-capsule-the-little-engines-that-could-part-1/ "Since dropping the BB four cylinder engine after 1934, Ford’s truck lineup had been strictly V8 powered, with the little V8-60 on the bottom of the heap. But the V8-60 was destined to be phased out after 1940 by Ford’s new 226 cubic inch six cylinder, as the little V8 was just not well suited to American style use and expectations. It had an anemic torque curve, which made it a particularly poor fit for the heavier trucks. Meanwhile, the new 226 six, rated at 90 hp, had a substantially healthier torque curve than the 221 V8. It would become the new base engine in Ford trucks, with the V8 optional, now rated at 95 hp. But the new six was not yet in production art the start of the 1941 model year, which is why it’s not mentioned in this brochure. It was available at some point later, although not many 1941 trucks were built with the 226. Presumably to bridge the gap left by the departure of the V8-60 and the delayed availability of the six, and perhaps just to offer a high-economy engine for certain purposes, Ford also decided to offer a small economy four for 1941 and 1942 only. Taking the 119.5 cubic inch (2.0 liter) flathead four from its new 9N tractor, which was essentially half of the 239 inch Mercury V8, Ford offered this engine in half-, three-quarter, and one-ton trucks. Ford did modify this engine for truck use. The four used a V8 style distributor, a fuel pump was included to negate the tractor’s gravity flow, and the engine governor was deleted. An updraft carburetor was retained. It did have a better torque curve than the discontinued V8-60, peaking at 85 lb.ft at a tractor-like 1000 rpm, even if it was rated at a mere 30 horsepower. Dyno charts show that it actually made a whopping 34 hp at 2900 rpm! And for 1942, the little four got a pwer bump to 40 hp. This engine could be found in a host of different body styles and weight ratings in the brochure, but in reality it was apparently only installed in very small number of 1/2 ton pickups, a few 3/4 and one ton trucks, and on some panel and sedan deliveries. Actual production numbers are not readily available, but some sources suggest that only several hundred four cylinder trucks may have been built. And there’s some speculation that a few Ford passenger cars also were built with the little four, presumably special fleet orders like taxis. There are several still in existence. Did using this engine make sense? Not in all applications, but it was adequate for some. City deliveries, urban street maintenance, and a host of other ventures likely benefited from this fuel saving engine intended for non-highway speed applications. Rural roads back then were not designed for high speeds. Top speed in the 1/2 ton pickup was about 40 mph. Given that speed limits during WW2 were universally limited to 35 mph and gasoline was rationed, this engine was actually rather ideal for the duration of the war. Did Ford offer it in anticipation of that? By 1941, war was seeming rather more inevitable, and defense buildup and preparation was becoming an important part of the industry." The availability of the four-cylinder was short-lived. When Ford resumed production of retail pickups in May 1945, the four-cylinder did not reappear from the war effort. Yet, for a brief moment in time during 1941 and 1942, one could get a new Ford pickup with their choice of four-, six-, or eight-cylinder power."

More info about detectors...

Awareness or your surroundings can keep you from getting squashed by something big, solid, and moving fast.

Circles, squares, and triangles are indistinguishable to some members of the population.

I respect that. I have no family or close friends in the business, but I've been a rail enthusiast longer than I've been into cars, still read a good bit about the industry, and understand the workings of the equipment and systems. A short-line railroad operated by Patriot Rail runs past my current house, about 60 feet from my door, and seeing the frequent movements tends to keep me interested in the railroad industry, the machinery, and the technology.

The reason I posted this particular video...if you actually watch it and pay attention, the fella who made the video works for a small short-line railroad. They apparently are such a small railroad, their length of trackage only justifies having ONE "hot box" detector. The guy comments that there was a hot-box signal, still well within safe limits, but in just a few miles, the bearing had overheated to total failure, as shown, taking out the axle and derailing the car. And the train in the video here was running SLOW, on old recycled rail, as short-line trackage often is. What these two incidents are saying to me, having a whole lot of experience with various types of bearing failures, is that it looks like there aren't enough detectors, or the detectors may not be close enough together. Once a bearing is "dry", its temperature can rise so fast that a catastrophic failure can occur between one detector reporting "slightly elevated" temperatures and the next one...which would leave the crew thinking they had time to get to a siding to do a physical inspection or set the bad-order car out. My point is that, if I were a senior engineer or official in the railroad industry (or regulatory agency), I'd be commissioning a study to look into the viability of developing cheap bearing temperature monitors ATTACHED TO EACH RAILROAD CAR to monitor EVERY BEARING, ON EVERY RAILROAD CAR, CONTINUOUSLY. As I wrote above, relatively inexpensive wireless tire pressure sensors come on most road vehicles now, and configuring a wireless sensor to monitor temperature rather than pressure is easy...especially when the sensors could be statically mounted to the frame of a freight car. It's a lot trickier to have a sensor as part of a road-car valve stem that rotates with the tire. Sonic detectors are another option, as a bearing failing most likely makes an easily identifiable sound...and computers are very very good at sorting through random "noise" to pinpoint a particular frequency range and amplitude. We already have sufficient technology available to fast-track a continuous bearing temp monitoring system (with fail-safe redundancy) from mostly off-the-shelf parts, with the on-train system reporting to a simple engineer's phone app in the cab of the lead locomotive, or patched into the existing locomotive control software. If mass-produced, I'd think a continuous bearing temp (or sonic) monitoring system could be developed to come in at a few hundred dollars per rail car...and if implemented system-wide, it would probably be cheaper than the ultimate cost of the single Ohio derailment will end up being to NS, the shippers, the insurance companies, and the affected residents.

WARNING: A POSSIBLY OFFENSIVE DIGRESSION FOLLOWS One thing I love about this forum is the constant triggering of new build ideas it engenders (squirrel !!!!!!!!) I really want to do a late '40s style mild custom Willys coupe with a hot Ford flathead V8 now...

Hand-holding while driving with your girl in the car is easier with a necker knob on the wheel.

I'm sure you can. For more photos from every possible angle, do a google image search for "Ford 9N tractor engine".

This has been in the news lately, and these things happen fairly frequently...though usually without the dramatic consequences of the Palestine, Ohio event. If these big roller bearings run dry and overheat, they fail catastrophically pretty quick even at low speeds because the loading is so high. When you consider that cheap cars now often come with four wireless sensors that report tire pressures to the vehicle's computer to display dash warnings, you'd think (at least I would) that similar low-cost technology would be implemented to monitor bearing temps on railroad cars...especially when the potential costs from a failure are so high.

"Complicated?" she said when I challenged her convoluted illogic, "no, you're just being obtuse".

Alive or not, your opinion matters.