Making a Bobber Caboose- PRR ND and Variants

[johnb]

All of this is making me want to scratch build a west coast bobber....they were all scrapped before WWII....might need to bend the rules

[narrowminded]

Just got back from Strasburg.  I had a few hours crawling all over and under that one and then hit New Oxford station on the way home and got at a second one.  All but getting inside although I got some decent pictures through the windows and some trim color to add, especially green.  The basic Depot buff should be OK. 

I got a LOT of info and many verifications of what I had and what was bothering me as I was scaling from pics and drawings and not always believing what I was getting, especially windows and doors, size and placement.  Example, what I was scaling and not believing, the floor to window being only 24" off the floor.  Well, I was wrong.  They are 25" off the floor and the bottom of the sill is 22 1/2" off the floor!   Hard to believe that.  And the doorknob is only 30 1/2" off the floor.  There's not a knob in my house that's less than 37" and as much as 40".  And this one's only 30 1/2".    The door height from the floor to top is only 71.5" and the width is only 25".   I figured they were narrow but had no idea when there's not a door in my house less than 30 1/2" wide or shorter than 81 1/2".  5" narrower and 10" shorter than a powder room door!     I was getting these kinds of numbers and not believing they could possibly be correct but now I'm feeling so much better.  I had the rear frame channels at 10", on the money, the porch depth at 30", also on the money.  I had the radius of the main cab corners at 3", they are 4".  Have new railing and ladder info that I didn't have.  Etc, etc.

I just got home and settled so haven't had time to go through all of it yet but I'm really encouraged at this point that I'm on to the whole thing and should be able to have a very accurate model and I DO/ DID have my numbers and proportions right and was much more accurate in my calculations than I was trusting, I think legitimately questioning them.  I definitely have some adjustments to make but mostly back in the direction I originally figured them to be but couldn't convince myself could be correct.   I'm relieved and finally have confidence that this is going to be a very accurate representation of an ND.   Very accurate.

I have 222 pictures, a ton of measurements, and lot to sort through.  After I digest it all I will put up some of the pics and get moving on the corrections, adjustments, and the rest of the design.  It's encouraging.

[narrowminded]

I received my Ma&Pa decals today.  I already had the PRR required.   Another question that has now surfaced, would it be wrong to design for use with Z scale couplers as standard?  That's certainly my inclination at this point.

It's likely to be a couple of weeks until I can get back to this.  Another project has moved ahead of this based on immediate need and then an Antique Motorcycle National Meet for a week+ in Texas.  All fun but a delay.

 

[reinhardtjh]

Will the shell be available for others?  Or the stl file?

I'd say Z couples would be fine.  Smaller would look better on that smaller cabin car.

[narrowminded]

Will the shell be available for others?  Or the stl file?

I'd say Z couples would be fine.  Smaller would look better on that smaller cabin car.

Thanks.  So far I'm thinking that the Z coupler would be the best choice especially considering the extra small size of this thing.

At some point anything I make will be available and I will be making at least some RTR models, if not this one.  In fact, just about anything you've seen that I've made can be had for a matter of sending a PM.  I just haven't reached that point yet of having some standard, pre-packaged, standard priced offerings.  I highly doubt I'll have many STL files available for download, at least not something this involved. 

I may have a full interior available for this, too.  Maybe several optional levels of detail.  In general the accuracy should be pretty good regardless of the level it's taken to.   It's still a work in progress.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Go with the Z couplers!

No need to be pussyfooting when you're masking a piece of art.

[narrowminded]

OK, what wire for handrails and such?  Scale would be as little as .002" and that won't be happening.   Looking at nice looking models I have there is anywhere from .010", a lot of .012" on what's considered nice, newer steam from outfits like BLI, and as much as .020" on some, especially molded on stuff.  I'm between .008" and .010", not sure that .008" won't actually look (and be) a bit delicate where .010" might be the right balance between scale and still showing enough with the naked eye.  I know some of you folks have experience with this and I would trust some of your opinions.

[wazzou]

I use .008 Phosphor Bronze wire from Tichy.

[central.vermont]

I'll second what Bryan says. .008

Jon

[narrowminded]

Thanks.  I was afraid you'd say that.   The porch platform verticals are actually tapered with the cross piece made from flat bar bolted to it.  Now I have to turn those pieces down to about .008" at the top end and still insert a pin through a flat bar.  I'll also have to machine the angle for the ladder uprights and they'll have to be pretty tiny, too.  I've got some figuring to do.  Probably won't get back to it for a couple of weeks but have plenty to ponder in the meantime.   

[peteski]

Thanks.  I was afraid you'd say that.   The porch platform verticals are actually tapered with the cross piece made from flat bar bolted to it.  Now I have to turn those pieces down to about .008" at the top end and still insert a pin through a flat bar.  I'll also have to machine the angle for the ladder uprights and they'll have to be pretty tiny, too.  I've got some figuring to do.  Probably won't get back to it for a couple of weeks but have plenty to ponder in the meantime.   

Hey, if you want to use thinner rod for the handrails - all the power to you. Nobody's twisting your arm to use 0.008" rod. 

But 0.002" scales out to 0.32" in 1:1 scale?  Is that how thin those caboose handrails are?  But even if those handrails are that thin, unless everything else on the model exactly scaled down, the thin handrails will look out of place.  It is difficult to scale everything down to 1:160 on the model, so making things like handrails slightly oversize will make the model look right to the eye.

[narrowminded]

Hey, if you want to use thinner rod for the handrails - all the power to you. Nobody's twisting your arm to use 0.008" rod. 

But 0.002" scales out to 0.32" in 1:1 scale?  Is that how thin those caboose handrails are?  But even if those handrails are that thin, unless everything else on the model exactly scaled down, the thin handrails will look out of place.  It is difficult to scale everything down to 1:160 on the model, so making things like handrails slightly oversize will make the model look right to the eye.

Yeah, it's .004" or 5/8" round.  The verticals are larger, a little.  The crossbar is 1/2" x ... I forget, but I don't think that will look right exactly at scale.  I kinda' knew the handrails should be .008" but I was hoping somebody would say they should be at least .010" or they'd look too spindly.

[peteski]

After a coat or two of paint, they will probably end up being 0.010". 

[robert3985]

After a coat or two of paint, they will probably end up being 0.010". 

That's a good point.  On my Hallmark "Welded Steel U.P. Caboose" rebuilds, when I replaced portions of the cast brass platform railings and roof cage parts with .008" brass wire, everything looked very good before paint.  I sprayed the bodies with a single coat of Scalecoat II U.P. Yellow, then brush painted the grabs, end railings and roof cages caboose red, over the base coat of yellow.  Upon taking close-up photos and looking at them, it was pretty obvious that the wire and cast parts had become much larger and my hand painted parts looked quite blobby as opposed to other airbrushed portions of the model.

Photo (1) - Brass Hallmark "Welded Steel U.P. Caboose" turned into a proper U.P. CA-8 after removing out-of-proportion stock parts, modifying the brass body, and replacing parts with scratch-built brass replacements, before painting:


Photo (2) - Much modified brass Hallmark "Welded Steel U.P. Caboose" after paint & decaling.  Note the blobby appearance and obscuring of the fine details of the cast end railing, and the thickening of the fine wire cages and grabs:


I didn't measure the thickness of the coat of cured paint I applied to these CA-8's, but I would guess the layer is at least .0015" with the airbrushed base coat being around .001" thick.  That makes the wire diameter at least .005" thicker, so a .008" dia. grab now becomes a .013" dia. grab...significantly larger.

On my final Hallmark "Welded Steel U.P. Caboose" CA-8 project, as well as on my plastic CA-1 kitbashes and Goldenwest CA-3, CA-4, CA-5, and CA-6's with their etched end-platform railings, ladders, roof cages and .007" stainless wire grabs, I'm going to use Scalecoat II again, with a primer to make the plastic bodies opaque, and I'll mask the grabs, end railings and roof cages so they don't get painted, then mask off the rest of the caboose and use my airbrush to put a fine, opaque coat of glossy "caboose red" on them after the U.P. Yellow paint has cured.  This will greatly reduce the detail obscuring and blobbiness I got by brush painting these details in my previous two CA-8 projects. 

Yup, on your model, the railings, grabs and roof cages are all the same color as the caboose body, so it's not necessary to mask and airbrush 'em...just be careful when airbrushing the body to just get a good covering coat on these fine details.  However for other caboose scratch-builders and kit-bashers out there who are replacing or making new caboose end platform details and the color of these details is different than the body, I would suggest doing what I'm going to do for all my future super-detailed caboose bashes to preserve the details as well as keep these platform details looking as prototypically thin as possible in 1/160th scale.

I went and measured both a prototype U.P. CA-1 and a CA-4 which are on public display at the Utah Railway Museum at the Ogden Union Station, and discovered that the actual grabs, end-railings and roof cages are all different diameters of rod, with some being 1", some 1.25" and some 3/4" diameter...with some being flat bar welded to round bar at certain points.  Because N-scale paint is so thick since Floquil doesn't exist any longer, I decided to just make the grabs and railings .007" in diameter or 1.12 scale inches.  Carefully applied airbrushed paint will add at least a .0005" thick coat (probably thicker) for a minimum painted diameter of .008"...or 1.28 scale inches.  However, I wouldn't hesitate to use .006" phosphor bronze wire if you want them smaller.  Although they may look "spindly", the prototype caboose end-railings ARE spindly, and if they look like it on your model, then you've succeeded.

As to MT Z-scale couplers. DEFINITELY! I used to use 903's or 905's depending on what my LHS had in stock...same coupler but one's a kit, and I clip the dongle since I don't use the Magnematic feature.

Photo (3) - Stock MT couplers on equally stock MT Wooden Caboose:


Photo (4) - MT 905 Z-scale Couplers on a slightly improved MT Wooden Caboose:


Add a brake hose and weather 'em up a bit and the MT 905's will make a huge difference in the way your N-scale cars appear.  An added benefit, is that they are fully compatible with standard MT N-scale couplers and their clones.

Wanna make an even better looking coupler for your caboose??  Just for shifts and giggles, take a look at what MT True Scale couplers do for your car.

Photo (5) - MT True Scale Couplers on my Goldenwest CA-3/4 kit getting superdetailed using Jason's 3D printed coupler pockets.  WOW!  I love the way they look!


Nowadays, for all of my cars and engines, I'm converting to MT True Scale long-shank brown couplers modified and welded as per Jason's recommendation here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=40370.msg503952#msg503952  ...and using his True Scale coupler pockets available here: https://www.shapeways.com/product/ZB89BKJWG/standard-true-scale-coupler-box?optionId=63910924

I can couple the new True Scale couplers to my already MT 905 Z-scale coupler converted fleet if I press hard enough, but that doesn't work with regular MT N-scale couplers.  The True Scale couplers look best of all, especially welded and stuck in Jason's much more prototypical looking coupler pockets, but...that won't work unless the whole fleet is converted to them, or if you've already got 905's on everything.  Probably, 905's are a great compromise and the best way to go, and they look exponentially better than standard sized N-scale couplers, especially for your little bobber.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

Bob, what is"ME"?  It seems that you mean Micro-Trains (MT) or "Micro-Trains Line" MTL.  Or even "Kadee" (KD)?
ME seems more like Micro Engineering.  Maybe I'm just dense.