Re: Military loads - some photos attached

Richard Townsend

I've thought more about the 39510 50' flat. One could shorten a Proto2000 or Revell/Con-cor flat and end up with the right 50' length (at least roughly) and the right number of stake pockets. Which one you choose would depend on which better matches the configuration of the prototype's sides. And I forgot about the Tyco 50' flat with 13 stake pockets, which would make a decent stand-in. 

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Townsend via Groups.Io <richtownsend@...>
To: main <>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

For the 38000 series cars with 6-wheel trucks the Roco flat would be the best available. I can't suggest a model for the 39510 and the others in its series with 4-wheel trucks. It has 14 stake pockets per side and appears to say its length is 50 feet. Both the Proto2000 and Revell/Con-cor flats have 15 stake pockets, and both are longer than 50 feet. The Athearn 50' flat has 13 stake pockets as does the old Cox 50' flat.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>
To: main <>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

Four photos attached. 
What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.
The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.
I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.
Steve Johnson
From: [] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.
I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.
Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.
In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.
Anyone have a better photo of this?
Dan MItchell
On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:
Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.
I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …
1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.
2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.
3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.
In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.
Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.
Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.
Dan Mitchell
On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:
I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Edward Sutorik

Join to automatically receive all group messages.