I hope that the editors of the magazine read and act on this suggestion. I sat and read the magazine last night from cover to cover as usual, passing most of the ads, checking out the pictures, and then came across the article on tank cars. I found this article most informative, reading it in its entirety, twice. This is what I would really like to see in the magazine. It tells you when they were produced, by who, and modifications made over the years. For someone like me, this allows me to understand what cars would be appropriate on my proposed layout and what would not. It also tells me what kind of condition they might be in for my given era. I would like to see a section every month covering the various types of cars and the when and where and by who. I must say BRAVO
I could not agree more!! I would go one step further and say I would like all the manufacturers to include this data in their item description. Some do and I applaud them for it. Of course, some dont even have pictures of all their rolling stock, so I guess this is asking alot. Sorry, I got a little off course, yes I agree, I would greatly appreciate a section on this in MR. (Although alot of people that sell reference books wouldnt like it)
Theyhave done a few liek this is the past, various car types and a few on locos. Always useful info.
Dare I mention the competition? Railroad Model Craftsman has (or had) an ongoign series caleld “Essential Freight Cars” where in each issue they focused on one specific type of rollign stock - not an overview like the tank car article, if they ran an article liek that in RMC it would have been ONLY on Type 103’s for example. Then again, when you get that specific, the only option is usually a resin kit from Sunshine, Westerfield, or Funaro and Camerlengo.
–Randy
They have one small box titled “Additional Reading.” Otherwise, there is no clue as to their sources of information. So you’re simply taking Tony Koester’s word for everything.
Now Tony is a very knowledgeable fellow. His books are excellent. But they also are full of attributions and source citations, so you don’t have to take Tony’s word for anything.
I would think that anyone who is interested in modeling to the level of detail this article provides would want to do their own research. Would you want to make a super-detailed model of a figment of someone else’s imagination?
Check with Kalmbach with a proposal for a feature such as you outline; assuming the editors are willing to set aside space in each issue if you get started at first light tomorrow and take two weeks for research, two weeks beating your head against the wall, another two weeks for writing and polishing your presentation and then a further two weeks for rewriting after the Kalmbach editors bounce it back to you you should beat the deadline for the April cover date by about a week. I’ll be looking forward for your first feature!
I wouldn’t say this article has detailed info. It didn’t state rivet numbers or exact measures, but had general info on different types. When I go to the LHS, there are hundreds of different cars with no guidance whatsoever as to the timeframe they may have been used. Sure I know they didn’t have 86’ hi-cubes in 1910, but the boxes don’t state that. When I bought model car kits, I expected to buy a “1969 chevy camaro ss”, not just a “camero” kit. I have never seen a “1942 4-6-2 pacific”, but wish thats the way it was. I really don’t care much for the “go buy these books” , I already bought a subscription, to MR. I would expect to find information on car types and when and where they were used. It’s part of the model railroading thing. I also would expect the people writing the articles to have reasonably sound information, it’s their job to find out. I guess I’m ranting a bit, but just as many people have griped about all the ads to the right on the boards, the magazine is chock full of ads as well. I don’t buy the mag for the ads, really I don’t. I just like the pics n articles.
I, too, found the tank car article informative, particularly since my son once worked unloading tank cars.
If this is the issue with the Rio Grande lead California Zephyr, I hate it how they put a gorgeous shot like that on the cover and then nothing in the article showing that train! I even noticed it looked like the CZ on the cover had no Budd Baggage car but might have had the Rio Grande Zephyr combine. Anyway this isn’t the first time they had a real zinger on the cover but no follow-up related shots in the article. sigh
I found this unusual, as well. I really enjoyed seeing the photos of the Greely, CO museum layout, because the prototype Oregon, California & Eastern is a particular favorite of mine, and their version of it was extremely well done. But, I couldn’t help wonder why a group of modelers in Colorado would build a huge layout based on a prototype that never even came close to serving their state, especially when it is placed in a museum where most visitors will come expecting to learn something about the local railroads.
I’ll bet you that, ultimately, they will find themselves operating a large number of D&RGW trains on the layout to meet their visitors’ expectations.
Another thought on the tank car article. I, too, was glad to see this information presented in MR. But, it would’ve been nice if they had included an article on building a tank car kit. I noticed that one of the illustrations was of a UTLX car built from a Sunshine Models resin kit by MR Exec. Ed. Andy Sperandeo. If only Andy had taken some in-progress photos of that project, it would’ve been an easy tie-in to go with Tony’s prototype article.
Finally, I really enjoyed the winter scene modeling article by Mike Confalone. The realism that Mike brings to his modeling is incredible.
Tom
Probably there is an individual who runs the museum who has a large financial control and also interested in a non-local railroad. That is the only reasonable explanation for the Oregon, Calfironia and Eastern theme so far away from the actual location. That would be like me, if I were weathy enough or influential enough to build a large museum and then fill it with a D&RGW theme railroad in central NY, people would be perplexed and probably less interested. Around here it’s all about NYC, Penn Central, Conrail, NY&OW, Leigh High Valley and stuff like that. Not my cup of tea but it’s local to the area I live currently.
I would love to see a spread on a large D&RGW layout in MR magazine using the latest HO rolling stock and loco’s since we have a large crop of more accurate tunnel motors and F units out now!
I think as a starting point I would be happy to see, and included as part of any review or product announcement published in MR, a note to say what year a particular freight car protoype was produced new. Most models and kits do seem to have this on the side of a freight car along with all those other signs like max weight etc.
Cheers
Bruce
Actually Tony Koester clearly states his sources at the end of the article.
Also, the article makes clear that this is a survey of tank cars of the first half of the 20th century.
All in all I found it to be a very useful article as a knowledgeable introduction to the subject. A nice touch was to identify some representative models of tank cars. I think including S, Z, and Large Scale models would have been nice, but otherwise have no quibble with the article.
Enjoy
Paul
Modelers of the Southern Pacific up to the 1960s are luckier yet because they have the great five book volumes on SP freight cars by Tony Thompson (published by his firm Signature Press). It was so humbling realizing how ignorant I was on the subject before those books. Ditto with the three-volume-and-growing series by the Southern Pacific Historical and Technical Society on SP passenger cars. And someone has promised an authoritative book on SP’s MOW cars! One result is that I’m much more particular about the accuracy of my SP models.
Mark
No, he does not. He just acknowledges the people who contributed to the article. That is not a useful form of citation. “Go to these two volumes and find, if you can, the words that support the claims I just made.” doesn’t allow me to check the reasonableness of the author’s interpretations. All the more so when the “source” cited is a secondary compilation. That amounts to someone’s interpretation of someone else’s interpretation of the real data.
I don’t expect MR to publish serious, quality research into prototype equipment. They’re about the hobby of model railroading, not historical research. My point was that articles like this should not be seen as an adequate source for prototype information. As a minimum, anyone interested in accurately portraying transition-era tank cars should look into Kaminski’s two books, and not rely on Koester’s 8-page summary. Basing your modeling decisions on an MR article like this one,and thinking the results are “prototypical” is faIling to do your homework.
I’m by no means a stickler for prototypical accuracy. But anyone who aspires to claim such accurary should realize that an unattributed glossy-mag article, even one by a writer with Tony Koester’s credentials, is not a reliable source. The era of proof by quotation from authority ended with the Middle Ages.
Say what? Apparently you didn’t get to the end of the article, where Koester notes that the information was drawn primarily from Ed Kaminski’s books Tank Cars, American Car & Foundry 1865 to 1965 and American Car & Foundry 1899-1999 (published by Signature Press). Kaminski [edit: has extensively studied, not worked for] AC&F, the builder of thousands of tank cars, and is someone I’d deem a reliable source. Koester also lists there a number of other well-known freight car experts and former railroad industry employees as sources.
What were you expecting, full academic footnoting in an eight-page MR overview? I know some people love to hate on Koester, but this is unwarranted.
There are degrees of prototype accuracy in our modeling. There’s a lot of useful information in the article that could improve most folks’ modeling. For those who want to be very precise about modeling a particular car, as Mr. Walleye is apparently suggesting we are to be, there are other sources, some of which were noted in the article. I hope Mr. Walleye will share with us the modeling results of his extensive prototype research sometime.
Byron
Model RR Blog
Haven’t got it yet. I’m looking to get it this week along with my 102 Realistic Track Plans I ordered when I resubsrcibed.