Model Train Journal

rogruth wrote:Wayne,
So what did you use for your coal and what did you use for the base?
Which leaves what glue did you use?
Or maybe you already answered my questions.

Hey Roger! You see? You and I have the power to turn MTJ back into Model Train Journal instead of a "How Stupid Are They?" forum.
Hint: Tell us about how you created a multi-use building on your property for housing your layout.
Hint: Tell us about "Errors to avoid" that you learned while building your model railroad.
Hint: Tell us about wiring your layout to avoid slow spots far from the transformers.
I posted about how I achieved improved running with a bus wire under my FasTrack, connecting every section to the bus wire. The thread seems to be deleted now.
Hint: Photos greatly improve a discussion.

To answer your questions, I used eBay for everything except sanding the sides to fit my coal car (I bought the thing ready to use. )

Rufus T. Firefly wrote:

webenda wrote:

Rufus T. Firefly wrote:
Can you digest coal?

Maybe... Dr. Cyril A. Ponnamperuma, director of the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution at the University of Maryland, says it is not mere fantasy that food may someday be manufactured from coal.

Manufactured from is not novel - all sorts of pseudo-food stuffs has been perpetrated upon us as good for us being derived from synthetic origins - margerine comes to mind as one of the great horrors.

You mean like black pancakes made from coal flour? I wonder what that would taste like?

Today the primary ingredients of margarine are a vegetable oil, water, salt, emulsifiers, and some also include milk. What is wrong with that?

For $6.00 they did a great job. Not everything on walmart.com come from them. Look into this. I google black oxide sand blasting media.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/BLACK-BEAUTY ... 3=&veh=sem

Tom Dempsey wrote:Looks like large lump to me.

If I get your drift Tom, you think it doesn't look much like a real coal load.?

Quite the opposite, it looks like a load of what was referred to as large lump coal pre WWII. I wouldn't change a thing, it's right.

robert. wrote:For $6.00 they did a great job. Not everything on walmart.com come from them. Look into this. I google black oxide sand blasting media.

It is not coal, so no deal for making a "real coal" load. However, it looks perfect for simulating Southern Pacific crushed slag ballast, either in a hopper or under the track.

webenda wrote:

Rufus T. Firefly wrote:

webenda wrote:Maybe... Dr. Cyril A. Ponnamperuma, director of the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution at the University of Maryland, says it is not mere fantasy that food may someday be manufactured from coal.

Manufactured from is not novel - all sorts of pseudo-food stuffs has been perpetrated upon us as good for us being derived from synthetic origins - margerine comes to mind as one of the great horrors.

You mean like black pancakes made from coal flour? I wonder what that would taste like?

Today the primary ingredients of margarine are a vegetable oil, water, salt, emulsifiers, and some also include milk. What is wrong with that?

Today it is. There was a time when "petroleum by-products" were involved....

Tom Dempsey wrote:Quite the opposite, it looks like a load of what was referred to as large lump coal pre WWII. I wouldn't change a thing, it's right.

ohhh! The size of each lump. Gotcha.

Size of scale things could be another topic. Scale size coal in 1:48 scale might look like dust to my old eyes. The giant lumps are more pleasing because I can see them clearly.

I just measured one of the coal lumps... 2.00 mm or ~3 3/4 inches in 1:48 scale. A larger piece measured 4 mm ~ 7 1/2 in.


Now I want to know how big the coal lumps are in my prototype image?
Using photogrammetry (and ~ 10 foot or 120 inch car width as a reference) I get 4.6 x 5.2 inches for a typical prototype lump.

828 px = 120 inches
32 px = 4.6 inches
36 px = 5.2 inches

A lot of coal was larger than that until stokers became prevalent. 1960s?

Like you said Wayne, it's a toy...I wouldn't worry too much if the lumps are scale. Another source of material is the loose charcoal used for aquarium filters. That stuff can be a bit too large but if you whack it a few times while still in the package it breaks up into more realistic sized chunks.

webenda wrote:Scale size coal in 1:48 scale might look like dust to my old eyes.

Seems rarely used for that very reason. Most coal loads I've seen seem to be too large...

healey36 wrote:Like you said Wayne, it's a toy...I wouldn't worry too much if the lumps are scale. Another source of material is the loose charcoal used for aquarium filters. That stuff can be a bit too large but if you whack it a few times while still in the package it breaks up into more realistic sized chunks.

Thank you for the tip Healey.

Measuring things, like coal lumps, is one of my hobbies. Metrology was both my hobby and career. When I retired I no longer had access to precision weight balances. I found a digital scale at the post office. It weighs up to 10 lbs. But how would I know if it was accurate? So I bought a weighing scale calibration set. But how would I know if my inexpensive Chinese calibration weight set was accurate? I just happened to have one of the Silicon Kilogram weights that were rejected for being a few millionths of a gram in error. Comparing my Silicon Kilogram to the Chinese scale calibration weights provides traceability for my weight measurements.


Reference: https://www.nist.gov/physical-measureme ... ro-project

Rufus T. Firefly wrote:

webenda wrote:Scale size coal in 1:48 scale might look like dust to my old eyes.

Seems rarely used for that very reason. Most coal loads I've seen seem to be too large...

The lumps on this one from eBay are about right for the 50's. I once picked one up (1950) that had fallen off a coal train. It was HUGE to an eight year old. (Might have been "run of mine" size?)

rogruth wrote:A lot of coal was larger than that until stokers became prevalent. 1960s?

Thank you for that information Roger. I remember the same thing.

Possibly scale size coal is more important to a 2 R scale modeler than to the
3R modeler who isn't bothered as much by oversize flanges and couplers.

rogruth wrote:Possibly scale size coal is more important to a 2 R scale modeler than to the
3R modeler who isn't bothered as much by oversize flanges and couplers.

Yeah, what he said!