Lobaugh Freight Cars

[bob turner]

Losing interest?

This is a Lobaugh SP crude oil car converted to a water train tank.

[R.K. Maroon]

No, not losing interest -- just working late every night so falling behind on my catalog listings. In the meantime, here is Lobaugh tanker of my own that slipped by the collectors on eBay last year:



I won't pay current collector's prices for a Lobaugh, so if I own one it's a fluke. I believe that this one is the same basic model as the Magnolia tanker, though the ladders and such seem configured differently. Lobaugh offered a bunch of different road names for their tank cars in at least one of their catalogs (1941 I believe), but did not show photos of what most were supposed to look like.

Jim

[webenda]

I am quiet for lack of anything to add. Maybe I can add something to Maroon's very interesting tank car image.

...did not show photos of what most were supposed to look like.

Jim

Back then (when?) I can see that as a real problem. Not so today, an internet search pulls in thousands of three dome tank car images. Maybe it is a "British American Oil" tank car.

[R.K. Maroon]

I was wrong about the list -- it appears in the 1953 catalog:



Here is the problem that confronted the potential shopper in 1953 and confounds me today. There are five styles of tank cars pictured in the catalog -- three single-dome and two three-dome. No two dome. The list of seventeen cars does not tell you which of the five cars is used as the basis for each car. I would imagine in some cases there is only one prototypical choice. But I would bet a dollar to a donut that many of these road names had more than one car style. So having the internet to search for prototype cars does not tell you what the Lobaugh looked like. You would have to find a factory-finished version of each one to know. Bob may have one or two (or, god, fifteen), but for the rest of us it's "good luck with that".

By the way, I notice now that my Lobaugh tanker shown above does not have rivets. Cost cutting in later years?

Jim

[Rufus T. Firefly]

By the way, I notice now that my Lobaugh tanker shown above does not have rivets. Cost cutting in later years?

Jim

I seem to recall that the rivets were a later, rather than an earlier feature; pre- vs. postwar......

[bob turner]

You are both right. Pre-war tanks had a row of rivets at each end, as did the Vanderbilt tender for the Mike. Postar tube tanks had no rivets. When they graduated to wrappers, rivet detail became slightly more extensive.

I don't mean to get an old argument going, but in the olden days O Scalers were not quite so discriminating. Lobaugh just threw a pack of decals in, then put the appropriate label on. I do not believe Lobaugh ever made a 2- dome tank - probably because the 3-dome tank was almost immediately convertible. All you had to do was pitch the center dome. Inaccuracies persisted until just recently, and we sort of overlooked them.

For me, the big deal inaccuracies were shape and size. The USH K4 might have been the worst, followed by the tender for the MT-3. Sunset did three SP steamers that I could not figure out how to fix. I never really cared about handrails or the differences between an SD-7 and a -9. And passenger car windows? I cannot remember the difference between a 10-6 and a 12-2.

[rogruth]

You all know I'm a 3 railer. I have passenger trains that have baggage, mail, diners and observation cars. And I have some coach and Pullman cars.
I know they are Pullman because it says Pullman right on them. I guess I don't worry much about prototype ways. The tank cars with any number
of domes or rivets is fine with me.
My hometown used to have wine delivered in five and six domed tank cars to a local wine bottler. His company was in business for 100+ years and
he had a spur for deliveries that was shared with several other small businesses.There are still two railroads through that town but no deliveries are
made by rail anymore. That seems to be typical today.

[R.K. Maroon]

It is well known that the range of interests and care-abouts in model railroading is wide and deep. For instance, there is the subject of color (one thing that has not been mentioned so far). Some modelers get bent over if UP yellow is too saturated or if Brunswick is too green. Others go to Wal-Mart and buy whatever rattle-can is on the shelf.

For me, most of the issues regarding fidelity to prototype can be summed up as follows: I will take it when I can get it. For instance, I will not run a freight without a caboose of a different railroad. Why? I have plenty of matching sets, so it is easy to get it right. Likewise I like consists that are at least congruent with the locomotive and caboose. A complete string of NYC box cars behind an SP locomotive? Not likely, so I don't do it. Perfect pitch is not required but get the harmonies correct at least.

One thing I am not a fan of is all the intricate detail in the Kohs-level models. Why? I run my models on the club or other people's layouts, which means I transport them regularly. Fine detail is too easy to damage. Doorstops are perfect for the way I operate because a dent in a cast gondola looks like....well, looks like the rest of car does anyway.

Finally, to circle back to the question about the unpictured Lobaugh tank cars, I have chosen to be more interested in how Lobaugh (or any manufacturer) intended these cars to look than by the higher question of whether they were good representations of some prototype. Someday after I run dry of my favorite areas of interest I may start searching for prototype matches (It could be very interesting, I would think). On the other hand, I can see why others would not be interested in either question but just want a good looking tank car on the shelf or layout. We all pick our own playgrounds.

Jim

[up148]

I cannot remember the difference between a 10-6 and a 12-2.

I think I can help here. 10-6=4 and 12-2=10. So I guess the difference would be 6. TGIF, I'm beat.

Butch

[webenda]

I have chosen to be more interested in how Lobaugh (or any manufacturer) intended these cars to look than by the higher question of whether they were good representations of some prototype.

So having the internet to search for prototype cars does not tell you what the Lobaugh looked like.

Oh! You are not normal Maroon. Normal people are insane over scale fidelity.

[rogruth]

[R.K. Maroon]

Thank you, Wayne -- I have always regarded "normal" to be much the same as "boring".

I try to occupy myself per the tagline that one of our forum members had (or has): "Go where others aren't"

[bob turner]

Postwar tube - double dome. Other dome is in my parts bin.



Needs some work, but there you are.

[rogruth]

I think that looks just fine as a two dome.
Doesn't look crowded.

[John Webster]

Bob, you need to letter that car for Turner Prop Wash (made from highest quality vortices). A copy of Roscoe's smiling face would make a nice logo.