Improvised Armored Railcar (Panzerzug 350, Eastern Front)

[marc_reusser]

This project is based on an image I found in a book on German armored trains. It is an image from late in the war showing a stripped down Pz-IV (SdKfz-161) mounted on an OMMR type flatcar (Flachwagen), for use as an armored railcar (part of an armored train).

This car was part of the upgrade to create Panzerzug 350. Originally this train was Railway Protection Train #350, but in 1945 it, RPT. #83 and  RPT "Berlin" were upgraded in the field shops to full armored trains (Panzerzug). The train belonged to the Armored Train Battle Group of, Army Group Vistula.

IMAGE A:



The railcar I used is an early 1st generation version of the DML kit.

At the outset of the project, I found almost no reference material or good images on this model/type of OMMR car, and I was completely unknowledgeable on the subject.

I began building and modifying the  Dragon kit, using only the initial image, and some images of more recent German freigh cars (which are different from the Ommr cars...but at least gave me some general information, and heads-up on what I needed to look for re. the OMMR car). Unfortunately (or fortunately) as I progressed with the car build, some more information came to light that helped clarify some questions and issues. but by this time I was far enough along where some decisions and compromises were likely going to be made on the accuracy, as it was not always possible and, I do not want to, go back and redo work all that I had already done.

Most of the major problems and inaccuracies with the kit, lie in the frame and underside detailing, as this was not going to be readily seen in the final build, and corrcting them would have essentially coming down to scratchbuilding the frame, I decided to leave them as they were. The more visible of the kits errors will be corrected or at least modified to more closely replicate the prototype.

The "new" information that was supplied to me by a modeler on one of the German forums, consisted of a scan of an original 1941 Reichsbahn drawing for an OMMR car, in this case a high sided gondola. Other than the superstructure, this car was basically a standard OMMR flatcar, like the one pictured in the photos, so it was a great source of accurate information.


The data box on the drawing:




Section cut through end-sill:


1. The prototype the end sill consists of a 'C' channel, on the kit this unfortunately just a single straight piece.

2. The end sill channel extends below the side sill. The kit end sill does extend below the side sills, but just as a flat piece. Note also that there seems to be a return/filler piece at the end of the channel at the side sill. This can be seen in the IMAGE 'C' below as well.

3. There is a hook underneath the coupler assembly for hanging the coupler when not in use. The kit does not have this part.


Plan Detail of Underside Bracing:


4. note the gusset plate to hold all the underside bracing.  This is not detailed/provided in the kit.


Section through Side Sill:


5. The side sill is actially a 'Z' metal shape. This is not accurately reproduced in the kit (nor are any of the shapes of the other frame mebers throughout the underside).

6. The added height/strip visible in IMAGE A, & B is actually not just a higher sill or added strip, but it is an 'L' angle .

7. The holes in the web at the center brace are incorrect on th kit, when compared to these here.


End Sill Elevation Detail:


7. The brake connector rod is slightly thicker than the one supplied in the kit. Here you can also see one of the brake rod retainer hoops.

8. The axle on the car is tapered from the center to the ends. The kit axle is straight.

9. The air-brake line has a seperate bracket and mount that extends below the end sill. This is incorrectly done on the kit, where the line simply passes through the end sill.

10. The end wall retainers ar actually merely "U" shaped bends at each post location. The kit has some kind of strange 'blocks with holes" detail at this point, for which I have found no prototype.

11.  The handle to rotate and fasten the retainer rod for the end walls. This detail is not shown or supplied in the kit.


Top View of Car End:


The numbers here reference back to the comments for the prior image.


Car End Elevation:


12.  Note the shape that the bent air line connector cose makes (this has also been verified on actual photos of equipment), and compare it to the completely strange and incorrect right angle bends the kit
hose part makes.

13. The hose retainer bracket is a thin two piece articulated affar. The kit repersents this with a horriffic 'J' shaped piece of plastic.

14. The tie down loop at the four corners of the car are actually to the underside of the end sill, not further down on the side sill, as represented on the kit.


Brake Rigging Detail:


This section through the center wheel area of the car, clearly shows the brake rigging detail under the car.  The kit provides none of this, leaving the car to look naked and toy-like.



I also recently came across this image of an OMMR flat car, on the web, which helped clarify, and reafirm some more details.

IMAGE B:


IMAGE C:



1. Here one can clearly see the higher and extended side sill of the OMMR car. A defined line is visible of where the piece has been spot welded on.

2. The sloped end of the added piece, where it slopes down to the height of the original side sill, can also be clearly be made out.

3. The lever for the end wall reatiners is clearly shown.

4. Brake linkage and brake beam retainer hoops can be seen.




Marc

[marc_reusser]

...so here is where the build currently stands...and where the hemming, hawing, and excuses begin.

The basic car kit is pretty much built, sans some of the small kit details (tie down loops and such), and those details that I will scratchbuild.

Before the plans I found some images of stake pockets on a post-war car, that hsd holes in the front face, this has since become clear that this was not so on this particular OMMR type of car (some did have the holes on each side face though).....and here is where some may cringe, but this is a detail I am going to forgo correcting, as the pockets are already on the car, and building each out of 3 pieces of styrene was a real PITA, that I do not want to revisit.  In this image you can see the current stake pocket style/build on the left of the image (this is the one done in 3 pieces).....the old one that I originally tried, then removed was done using 'C' channel, but it just looked to bulky and wrong.




Here and in the image above you can see the added height to the side sill. Done before the plans, I did this using just a strip of styrene, instead of the 'L' channel as on the prototype, however as the channel won't be visible as a shape once the decking is on, I decided the strip was going to be fine. Where I did and still am, hemming and hawing, is the fact that the prototype has a seam line with spaced spot welds along the joint between the extension and the main sill piece.....a lot of effort went into getting this piece to the right height, fitted straight and putty filled, that I am not sure I want to deal with removing it, and replacing it. I don't know how important this detail is, and am concerned with damage to the fragile stake pockets once I start cleaning up and reworking the edge.



Note in the above image, is the point noted in the previous post, re. the issue of the shape of the end sill, and the location of the tie down loop under the sill.

While I am currently avoiding dealing with some of the end sill details, I have started sizing and planing the Basswood for the decking (the plastic deck with the faux wood graining that comes with the kit is something that nightmares are made of  ).

At the same time I have started working on the brake rigging detail. For this purpose I imported the OMMR elevation drawing into AutoCad, drew all the parts in 2D, then imported those drawings into Google SketchUp, where the parts were extrapolated into 3D.

This is the 3D view of the brake rigging:




All the parts (75 pieces, including some extras in case of breakage) were then assembled onto a sprue tree:






......this sprue tree file was then converted into an .STL file (3D printable format), using a plug-n for Sketchup, by CADSPAN.  Once converted the file was uploaded to Print-A-Part.  $37 plus shipping, and 8 days later I received my printed parts in the mail.






After some very verful clean-up and prep, the parts were built into sub assemblies, and then pinned together to see how they all fit. The assembly is fully articulated, which will help when installing and fitting it under the car. (As you can see I had some breakage during shooting, when I tried to force the styrene rod...this has since been repaired.)






Taking a break from the brake assembly, I decided to adress the coupler assembly. BML in their infinite wisdom, seem to only supply one coupler assembly for the car, even though it was/is standard on European railcars to have one at each end. To overcome this I went to my cannibalized kits and found one from a Trumpeter kit, that after some rework, was going to be close enough (the Trumpeter one is on the left, the DML is on the right). Something that both kit mfrs. seem to have ignored is the retainer plates at the end of the coupler tightening screws, these were added using some punched .010" styrene.




Marc

[Malachi Constant]

The only reasonable solution when one has too many projects ... is to start another one!

Looks interesting ... details will really make it.  Stencil idea in photo below. 

-- Dallas

[marc_reusser]

 

That image is actually another build I want to do. Why not..once you build one of these cars the second one gets easier because all the research is done.

M

[finescalerr]

It doesn't seem to matter that these things all end up in a drawer, unfinished. The progress shots are worth the price of admission. -- Russ

[Chuck Doan]

I agree!

[JohnP]

Dear me, a prototype for those Extremely Saggy narrow gauge models from the '70s, '80s, 90's, 00's (I bet they're still doing it  ).

Marc, do you generally prefer to have the maximum amount of prototype data before starting a project? Do you get bogged down because of a lacking bit of info?

Gordon seems to be able to catch the scent of some interesting critter in the air and suddenly styrene chips are flying. I like to be sure of most of the primary details on the bridges I model. That's why my little Phoenix bridge model has stalled- I am unsure of a couple of details so the momentum has flagged.

And, for those of you punishing the poor curmudgeony soul for never finishing anything, for some modelers the challenge is to see if a model can be realized. A new target comes into view, data is gathered, the general shape is modeled, details are started, then the modeler realizes an accurate scale model can be created so it goes into the box and the next target is acquired.

Personal tastes are what a hobby is all about.

John

[finescalerr]

Gordon uses what data he can find and extrapolates the rest. Somewhere in his articles he usually points out the model isn't a perfect replication but is pretty close. That seems a sensible approach unless your model must be accurate to the rivet for historians.

Marc's hobby is experimentation. Finishing a model is almost unnecessary once he has satisfied himself a technique works. Nothing wrong with that ... and look at what he's shown us.

I spent the last few years messing with paper and inkjet printers, seeing how far I could go with printed artwork. That was my "hobby within the hobby". I think I've reached the end of my experimentation and have a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of what one can do. Now it's time to move on.

Each of us approaches the same basic concept from a different perspective. That's why the forum is so fascinating and satisfying. N'est-ce pas?

Russ

[Tom Neeson]

Man, that's cool Marc! Do you already have a kit picked out for the Panzer IV? Interesting camo pattern too.

Tom

[Ornst]

Very interesting project, looked happy. he started doing it this armored train more than a year ago, but did everything by hand - we have in Russia 3D milling - is expensive. Your work is wonderful, but in most models from Dragon's a huge amount of errors. Rama platform completely not true. Here are links to my work, I hope you can understand what I write.
http://www.dishmodels.ru/gshow.htm?p=5683
http://www.dishmodels.ru/gshow.htm?p=5870
http://www.dishmodels.ru/gshow.htm?p=6812
I have an error in the reproduction reservation - behind the tank cross-sheet no. just at the time of construction of the model is more or less clear pictures were not.
with respect to camouflage this moment, I thought through, that's what happened

the only thing I'm not sure - can be used to build models of the armored train locomotive BR-52 Trumpeter firms, such a tender was in fact a tender or tub?

[marc_reusser]

Ornst,

Thank you so much for posting here and participating..... and great to see that you are inspired by, and working on, the same subject. I agree with you that there are a huge number of problems with the DML frame...but they are far too numerous to try and correct...one would be better off just scratchbuilding the whole thing. 

Thanks for the link to your build photos. Great progress, and nice work.... they also answer some questions on plumbing and lines underneath that have been holding me up.

I hope you will consider posting your build here as well, I would enjoy comparing notes and ideas as both projects progress. I would also be interested interested in seeing how you are going about making your parts and doing your build.

I noticed that you changed the layout of the beams holding the tank in place, and seem to be intending the beams to be wood instead of steel "H" beams.....very interesting....I like the anchor detail you have come up with.


Great car in the photo. Do you know what it's purpose was?.  I think you are probably correct on the camo colors/layout.


Unfortunately I can't say as to the correctness of the Trumpeter BR-52 locos or tender, I would have to see what I can find in my books...but you probably have the same ones as well .



Marc

[Ornst]

Thanks, Marc.
Work on this model, I was in the same breath. surely in this there are certain mistakes. First on the rear sheet I took fencing braking area Flak wagon. Secondly not quite figured out with mounting the tank on the platform. Secondly not quite figured out with mounting the tank on the platform. indeed, it should move closer to the center of the platform and make the attachment of H beams, thank you, that drew my attention to it. It is a pity that very few pictures of this armored train. I will fix it all. As for great car on photo - this car for a landing or a commander's car.
I hope, will soon be able to return to this project. long lies on a shelf, because I have during this time had a son, and daughter 2,5 years and it does not do anything at all ;-)

Alex

[marc_reusser]

Ornst,

As you can see in the image below, I am using a 'G/H' version rather than the 'J' in the photo. However, a few things that I think I have been able to see in the photos (please note these beams are not finished...I just cut them real quick for this example):

1. By using this beam set-up, they were able to locate the Tank in the center of the car, and set the side braces at the stake pocket (I have not yet added that pocket....for creative difference I am going to change this pocket, to be as if they had shop modified it for this task)

2. I am not sure how they did this joint between the beams...I am assuming weldded and or bolted. The same way building neams are connected. (I am wondering if maybe they also bolted through the wood deck into brackets at the car frame below.)

3. By using the H channel in this configuration, they were abls to set and hold the add-on armor plates in place, then weld them into the channel from the fender at the top.

4. From the photo it appears that they bolted on additional frontal armor. This seemed to make sense to me not only from a protection point of view, but by continuing this add on plate all the way down to the wood car deck, it helps brace the tank against the front beam (otherwise the sloped front underside of the tank, could potentially cause it to slide/lift over the beam during heavy movement and firing)

I am not sure about the flak shield you show at the rear.....I have been trying to figure out their mounting configuration there....though with a 'J' model, which has the flat rear underside, it should be no problem, and would probably have a beam just like the front. (on my 'H/G' which has a sloped rear underside, this is a bit more of a problem, because like the front, it could slip/lift over the beam.)....I think what you are seeing as the wall/flak shield behind the tank, is actually part of the flak car behind it.


Marc

[Ornst]

Marc,
Sorry fo my english? i haw no practice for many years, it has to use Google translator. on this I did not get the right to say what I want. again I apologize/

you believe that longitudinal beams along the sides of the same can be H-beam? quite possibly so. in any case, the entire structure was connected by welding. As for the rear armor plate I had in mind that I mixed up the sheet and ground anti-aircraft braking guard the wagon, which is a wagon with a tank. It has a rectangular design of the corners and drop shadow led me into thinking that this could be a camouflage armor plate behind the tank.
With regard to your work, you wonder replaced the loop for forest stands in the Dragon model they had just the right size
the longitudinal displacement of the tank and H beams held stops, one of them can be seen in the photo
as I understand, you have an album of drawings of German trains in 1945?
as I understand, you have an album of drawings of German trains in 1945? If so, then try together to determine, based on what cars were made by other armored platforms this interesting armored train.
And his model will alter according to your observations.

Aleks

[Ornst]

Mark, you're absolutely right about the use as a reinforcement of H-columns. but there was no armored sheet front of the tank. thank you again, that drew my attention to the design.