Re: Dimensional Data - wrong assumptions


Dennis Storzek
 

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 10:17 PM, Dave Parker wrote:
No Idea why the B&M did not apply these stencils on so many other cars.  But I think there are other examples out there as well, certainly for individual cars well past the 1930 implementation date.  I hesitate to say this, but I don't see them on any PRR cars in my rather meager collection either.  But then I don't have anything built later than the X29s.
I think the reason was that these are low cars... admittedly your B&M example is 12'-5" to the eaves, but it had also been on the road a few years when the stenciling change was implemented in 1930. The requirement that all cars higher than 12'-0" at the eaves sounds rather arbitrary, and I'm sure that the railroad mechanical officers knew it. They also knew that the intent of the rule was to get these new dimensions stenciled on the new 10'-0" IH cars then being ordered by some roads, and indeed the car builders seemed to be cooperating. Existing cars in the fleet obviously weren't bumping anything and weren't changed

There was some sort of revision in 1936, it's mentioned in the 1946 CBC without saying what was revised, but I suspect that is when the format having the extreme width and height on one line and the eave width and height on the next line was implemented, which is easy to pick out in photos because the top two lines are longer and the block of data looks ragged. There was another variation of this arrangement, much favored by the Canadian National, where the size of the lettering in these two top lines is reduced and condensed so the data block becomes rectangular again. Some photos of 1950's era B&M cars on the Fallen Flags web site show that B&M adopted this practice also in the blue car era.

Dennis Storzek

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.