# AML 1/29 Stock car



## Esppe Pete (Jan 21, 2008)

I was in Gold Coast Station yesterday and had a good look at American Mainline's new 1/29 scale Stock car. The car was very nicely detailed, opperating doors, Molded spring tucks and metal wheels.

Of concern was the scale. Understanding stock cars were not as tall as 40ft box cars of the era, this stock cars looks *Small for 1/29 scale*. we measured ir and it was a 1/4 inch narrower that thier box car and also a tad shorter length. 

Has anyone else got thier tape measures on this one or is this model just smaller by nature, 1:1, than the other cars of this era.

Pete


----------



## H-man (Jan 4, 2008)

Pete, 

I have one of the cars in question and my observations follow; 

The car is the same length as the USA ice reefer and PS1 40' boxcars. 
The height is around 1 scale foot lower than the reefer witch is 1 foot lower than the PS1 box. 
The car is narrower that both USA cars. 

I'm sorry I don't have time to put a tape on them but, 

All of the hardware on the car is consistant with the USA cars. 
The doors are around 8' in width in scale. 

This car has very old looking arch bar trucks with outside hung brakes. This style went out of favor in the late 20's as did this kind if car construction. The car has a steel center sill with wooden un-braced ends. This would have been probably built in the teens or early 20's with a 20-30 ton load limit. 

I have an extensive library of railroad locos & rolling stock and there are pictures of cars from the steam era that the dimensions are all over the place with regard to the length, height, width of rolling stock. 
I viewed a picture of a stock car, Steel box car and a steel ice reefer in a train and the stock car looked to be 2 feet lower that the box and about a foot lower that the ice reefer as well as narrower. 

In closing, railroads in the early years, prior to mega carbuilders and standards to cary throughout the industry, (mostly prior to WW1) many railroads built cars to meet their needs or the customer needs and dimensions varied greatly some times to simply meet a restriction on a route like a tunnel or bridge clearance. 

The AML 1/29th stock car I believe has this quality of an early 20th century car built by a partictular railroad to meet a customer demand that will fill in nicely on any mainline road and I thank AML for the offer of a car that is so different than all other model builders. 

Now this car could be updated easly with the simple change to the trucks and this car gets a little taller, and looks like it went through a rebuild at some time during it's life. 

Simply my opinion. 

Howard


----------



## Esppe Pete (Jan 21, 2008)

Howard,

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

I would infer that you belive the car to be correct for 1/29 scale. How does it "look/Feel" with the cars you mentioned in relationship to scale?

Pete


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Great info. I saw the car at the NGRC last year, and was put off by the trucks, something seemed too early for the car. 

Howard, any idea how late these cars could have been in use? Up until the 40's maybe? 

Any additional info is appreciated. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## dawinter (Jan 2, 2008)

If it turns out to be a little small all the better. All 40 foot cars are not equal.
I just ordered mine from Art Knapps today. I'll go with the CN one as my first choice. They used cars, built in 1929, that were very similar to the model at least as late as 1961. On my railroad they lasted until 1975.









The siding and bracing is very close to prototype (175091 - 175149) but the name board will have to be moved a little and I'll replace older trucks if necessary. 
Just happy to have the new, different design.


----------



## dawinter (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg

Off topic alert! 

A girlfriend of mine (Clarification - a friend who is a girl) just got back from two weeks in San Diego. Said she loved it. Cleanest city in the US. 

Had to say it here. 

Dave


----------



## H-man (Jan 4, 2008)

Pete, 

I haven't run it yet but I will probably replace the trucks at some point. I think the car fits right in with the Aristo & USA cars. Again I haven't looked up a close prototype yet. 

Greg 

I think the picture I have shows a like car in a 1947 photo. As these cars were used seasonally they coulkd last for decades.


----------



## dawinter (Jan 2, 2008)

This is the car I'm trying for. Close enough for me...


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Just for your information.... 

For many years the "standard length" for most house cars was the ubiquitous 40 footer +/- with 50 foot boxes for autos mostly. This would be the period roughly 1910 to 1950. Yes, there were exceptions. 

Reefers were generally pretty uniform as to height because they had to be accomodated at icing platforms all over the country. It wasn't until the introduction of mechanical reefers that they became taller. Stockcars could vary a bit more but increasing the car's height wouldn't increase the amount of livestock the car could hold so these cars didn't vary a lot either. 

Boxcars varied greatly in height during the steam era. This was because railroads ran their equipment for as long as was practicable. First, there were many different car builders as well as many railroads that built some of their own as well as continuously rebuilding older cars. Added to this was the fact that a builder would offer new models that would each time be a bit larger as capacities were increased and also build cars for special purposes. You would see outside braced, wood sheathed (with steel underframes), wood ends or dreadnaught steel ends on wood sided cars and all steel cars. A number of cars including reefers were even sided with plywood during WWII. All of these cars would be run together for many years and also upgraded over time giving great variety and often a most choppy look heightwise to a freight train. 

Another car that varied was the gondola. Mill gondolas could be 70 feet long or more while most others were close to 40 feet with varying heights. 

Height and width were constrained by clearances along the lines. A car couldn't be of much use for interchange if it was too large to be accomodated almost everywhere. Steam locomotives on the other hand could vary a bit because they seldom ventured onto foreign railroads and most often were assigned to a single division on a larger railroad. That's why you could see larger locomotives in the open west than in the older more closed east. An interesting sidebar was the fact that for years the Erie RR was preferred for large outsized loads in the east because it had originally been built to 6 foot gauge and thus had wider clearances than other eastern roads. 

Cars of this era would all have steel underframes and modern cast steel trucks. Bettendorf was probably the most common type and came in several varieties as to sideframe details. There were also others such as Andrews, etc. Roller bearings were almost non-existent on freight cars of this era. 

None of these cars would ride on archbar trucks even if they had been built early enough to have them originally. Usually too such cars would have been around 36 footers and below and unless rebuilt later would have a limited lifetime left. You would find an occasional car with archbars if the car was used in MofW or such duty and never left the owning railroad. 

There were still a lot of the older cars around through the fifties and I recall still seeing them in some numbers in the early sixties even as hy-cube car parts cars were coming out.


----------



## dawinter (Jan 2, 2008)

You guys are right. It is a lot smaller but it will fit into my 'fleet' of three at just the right time. In my world the railroads are just getting rid of their stock cars and a very old example is good to have sitting around. 
Not real happy with the wheels and trucks though. Almost tin plate in look and feel. Runs very rough. I can change them when I want but the bolster is odd as well. Body mounted couplers are nice. They fit right in with my Kadees and so I don't have to rush out and get new ones right away.

All in all, the price was right for a stock car that didn't look like all the rest.

Dave


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

I made this one from coffee stir sticks, about 1/32nd to match my MDC reefers.


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

Many thanks to you Richard (Port Orford RR) for a very comprehensive and informative post. 

The detail about the cars and their history was most welcome and for someone this side of the pond it gave those extra details about American railroads, their past and operating methods.

Worthy of Classic Trains.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I have the same car that I bought at the convention last year. For a car to have arch bar tucks it should have also had the truss rods. Strange. Its not a car to buy if your looking for a period type of car as it is in correct. Later RJD


----------

