SP experts- I need your help with B-50-15

[pdx1955]

Nothing  special about the decals as they just are the same Microscale ones mentioned here plus the Overnight  / MOW ones. I suspect  they'll show up in a future  weekend  update eventually  . I tend to paint and decal in batches, so I'll  want to get my some of my stock and hogfuel cars to the same level of readiness .

[wazzou]

Tom, I know you're excited about this but that model looks really clunky.
The diagonal bracing looks really flat or shallow and bulky in width, the door doesn't look quite right and the bottom sill is pretty wavy.

[JMaurer1]

I thought I had ordered some as well (but I would have ordered the -16s so I could decal them as Overnight cars) but since I haven't recieved anything, maybe I tried to order them and couldn't.

As for the color...after a few weeks in the sun, the color usually changed and faded so having the 'correct' brown really isn't an issue unless you are modeling the cars as new just after being painted. Long time ago I painted all of my SP boxcars the same 'correct' color only to later wish I had more variation so the cars looked more used.

[thomasjmdavis]

Tom, I know you're excited about this but that model looks really clunky.
The diagonal bracing looks really flat or shallow and bulky in width, the door doesn't look quite right and the bottom sill is pretty wavy.

I am not sure "excited" is the best description, I would go more with "pleasantly surprised".  One, surprised to receive them at all, and two, surprised that I will get a usable car- not perfect, but usable (car number 2, probably not due to much more prominent artifacts- on #2 might get one usable side, and turn it into "scenery" on an abandoned spur or some such).  It is also, for me, a "proof of concept" if you will, of the Photon printer, which is what I think these were made with.  Clearly, with some attention to details these could be improved and made to print better.

So, as far as paint and decals- just trying to do the best I can with what is available. 

I generally agree that it looks a little clunky, now that I have some primer on it. The primer accentuates some of the flaws that were not so apparent when the car was white. But keep in mind that the photo is greater than life size (at least the view I get of it on my screen) and I adjusted position in an attempt to make shadows more prominent and accent the board spacing.  The wavy-ness is indeed there, a bit, noticeable along the bottom edge.  You will have to forgive me on that one- my vision is not what it was even a few years ago, and I tend nowadays to see a bit of wobble in all straight lines- I did not realize it was there until I saw the photo blown up on my desktop screen.  The diagonals seem to me to be better rendered on the right end of the model than on the left (and this is true on both sides), I don't know why, but the profile of the part is better defined on the right, or to my eye (per the disclaimer above)- what is apparent on the photo is there in real life- not a matter of camera focus. Door hardware is definitely oversized- reminds me of Bachmann flat car stake pockets (on a model with an MSRP many times more).  I think I can correct a lot of that with some sandpaper. 

The uprights and diagonals also show some "artifacts" of the board spacing.  This is certainly no worse than what I have encountered on things I have ordered from shapeways at 5 times the price- so I am not too upset.

Compared to a Micro-trains shell, it has a lot of flaws.  But for a $10 experiment for 2 cars, as I say, even with the flaws, it does look like the concept of a "desktop 3-D printer" is sound, and it was worth $10 to have some examples and to understand where some of the issues are (printing artifacts, the wavy sill, etc).

[wazzou]

If they are that inexpensive, I'd be tempted to practice on the unusable one, scribing another board gap between all that are currently on the model to more closely approximate what it should look like.

I think most car siding of that era was 3".

[nscalbitz]

Tom
I'd suggest contacting Tony Thompson directly thru his blog or the SEFC group.
Hes bound to have an opinion and a pile of facts at his fingertips, if not the final solution.
cheers davew

[JMaurer1]

Boards should have been much thinner...3 inch? Protocraft has info about the car and decals...in 1:48th scale. I've asked about other decals they offer, they have no interest in providing them in N scale but they do include a photo of the decals that might be able to be printed...

https://www.protocraft.com/category.cfm?Itemid=829&Categoryid=20

[thomasjmdavis]

Boards should have been much thinner...3 inch? Protocraft has info about the car and decals...in 1:48th scale. I've asked about other decals they offer, they have no interest in providing them in N scale but they do include a photo of the decals that might be able to be printed...

https://www.protocraft.com/category.cfm?Itemid=829&Categoryid=20

The boards should be thinner than they are. I would bet 3 1/2 rather than 3 (2x4 being 3 5/8 in those days) circa 1950. The "new" photo at the top of the page shows boards much wider- probably 6 or 8 inches.  But since I am looking at 1950s v 1920s for my use of the car- I will have to concede the point.
I do have one of those micro-mark styrene scribers that looks identical to that instrument the dentist was using on me last week.  Maybe a test to see if I can scribe a line narrower enough to pass the Railwire^TM standard for board gaps.

[wazzou]

Car siding was 1" thick, not 2".  Most car siding was clear or "no knots".  Car siding was an actual grade of lumber in West Coast grade rules.

[Mike Madonna]

Boards should have been much thinner...3 inch? Protocraft has info about the car and decals...in 1:48th scale. I've asked about other decals they offer, they have no interest in providing them in N scale but they do include a photo of the decals that might be able to be printed...

https://www.protocraft.com/category.cfm?Itemid=829&Categoryid=20

Jeff,
Nice find!

[thomasjmdavis]

Car siding was 1" thick, not 2".  Most car siding was clear or "no knots".  Car siding was an actual grade of lumber in West Coast grade rules.

You are right.  I withdraw my earlier.  USRA drawings show 13/16 (the old standard, nowadays a "1x__" is usually 3/4, sometimes less).  Widths are given as 3 1/4 or 5 1/4 tongue and groove.

Turns out were we both right.  Railway mechanical engineer, april 1918.  Available here:
https://realstmfc.groups.io/g/main/attachment/161534/0/USRA%20Stds%20RME%201918.pdf
boxcar on page 190 shows a double sheathed car with tongue and groove car siding which is 13/16" thick (a dressed 1x) which is 3 1/4 or 5 1/4 wide.

boxcar on page 195 shows a single sheathed car, with tongue and groove siding that is 1 1/2" thick (a dressed 2x), 5 1/4" wide.

I am going to assume that the USRA knew what went into a USRA single sheathed car, and that the 1923 version or later was probably the same.

[wazzou]

I didn't look at any of your links yet but it is important to point out the differentiation between Vertical siding and Horizontal siding.

[wazzou]

Railway mechanical engineer, april 1918.  Available here:
https://realstmfc.groups.io/g/main/attachment/161534/0/USRA%20Stds%20RME%201918.pdf
boxcar on page 190 shows a double sheathed car with tongue and groove car siding which is 13/16" thick (a dressed 1x) which is 3 1/4 or 5 1/4 wide.

boxcar on page 195 shows a single sheathed car, with tongue and groove siding that is 1 1/2" thick (a dressed 2x), 5 1/4" wide.

Good info.  Thank you.