Re: B&O M65 vs. M64


al_brown03
 

Two M65's are shown in Bossler's "B&O Color Guide to Freight and
Passenger Equipment", p 65 (really; both on same page). Both have
the style you describe for their class, with the shorter sidesill
reinforcement plus bolster tab and intermediate tab.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "mopacfirst" <ron.merrick@...> wrote:

This is a continuation of a previous thread.
I finally found a shot of a B&O M65 (the point of this is that I'm
trying to build a Branchline car). This shot is on rr-
fallenflags.com and is mislabeled on the index as car 286135.
This
can't be right since the 286000 series was 40' cars during the
period
of interest. But, the image itself is correctly labeled as
288135,
and the car in question is carrying what our colleagues of 1960
could
have only considered a fantasy scheme, Chessie System. (Or,
perhaps,
a nightmare scheme.)
Here's what I'm trying to determine. There is a shot in RMJ Aug
99,
in the Hawkins article on the 50' DD cars buildable from
Branchline,
of a B&O M64, series 469100-469399, built 6-56. This car has an
extended sidesill reinforcement, tapering at the ends to meet the
bolster tabs. Many later cars were built this way. But, the M65,
built a year later, seems to have an earlier style of sidesill
reinforcement in which the left-hand end of the sidesill tapers to
meet the bolster tab but the right-hand end does not, it ends just
past the end of the door track and there is not only a bolster
sidesill tab but one intermediate tab. In other words, this car
is
framed less rigidly than its predecessor was.
My main question: I'm relying on one shot of each class of cars.
Are there other pictures out there that confirm this
configuration?
Has anyone researched this?

Ron Merrick

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