Re: WP conversion
Garth Groff and Sally Sanford
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Fred and friends,
What I said, or intended to say, was that WP 8051-8055 were the last of the ex-15001 cars in general service, and that they were gone before 1949. The renumbered 26001-series was assigned to Gerlich plaster service and in theory weren't used for general loading anymore (many, if not all, had interior bulkheads, and some had loading hatches).
Further research in my collection throws a light on series 8051-8055's fate. While the 1947 general arrangement shows the 8051-series still listed as general freight cars, another version of the same general arrangement drawing with the numbers scratched out shows 8051-8085 in "store matl. service". This drawing is reproduced on page 163 of "MAINTENANCE OF WAY EQUIPMENT, WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.", the official collection of WP MW car drawings reprinted by the Portola Railroad Museum some 30 years ago. The MW number group is from the book's original table of contents, and is not actually reflected on page 163 itself. The WP could be pretty sloppy about such things, as it really didn't matter much except to the bean counters at headquarters in San Francisco.
A few additional points on the numbers. The span of 8051-8055 comes from Frank Brehm's WP diagram web site, and is based on the caption he presented (sorry but his collection of diagrams is not currently available online). Upon careful examination of the diagram (which I downloaded), I see that the actual number span was 8051-8085. The numbers on the original were overwritten, and are a bit fuzzy, but this became apparent when I knew what to look for. So this tallies with numbers on the MW diagram cited above. According to that diagram, a total of 163 cars from the original 15001-series were converted to MW service (many becoming dormitory, kitchen or shop car conversions). WP MW8051-8085 (to use the correct spacing of WP's maintenance car numbering) apparently remained pretty much in original condition as boxcars.
I did make one mistake in my post, but an honest one based on an error in the drawings. The 12' 10" maximum body height was not at the roof peak, though that is how it is shown on the 1947 re-drawing, and on the MW drawing cited above. That value was actually over the running board, as shown on earlier drawings. I discovered the discrepancy while doing further research after my post.
Garth Groff 🦆
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 4:03 AM Fred Jansz <fred@...> wrote: