Date   

Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Clark Propst
 

I remember a layout at a train show many, many years ago that was nothing more than plywood topped tables, painted green, and a couple loops of track. They would run a specific train from a train list. I those days most of the cars were Athearn with custom paint jobs. I was a fledgling at the time, but was impressed by what they were trying to do.

I model one town, so there is a duplication of car routing because it's an originating/terminating point. Same cars go to the same places. That's what happens when you build cars from railroad documentation with specific loads. I move commodities, but freight cars. I do try to not use the same cars each session and not all customers are switched each day (ops). I have a packing plant on the layout. That place gets reefers and tank cars that are the same, just different numbers. I use 9 reefers a session, but am up to 18 cars in my roster. That means some cars will only show up every third ops (not all reefers are swapped each session). Sessions are every third Monday night, so about once a month.

One of the operators has memorized a few of the car moves. He knows that if he sees a IC reefer on the layout it has bananas and will be spotted at the ramp for off loading. Another local layout owner said he had changed some car card routings and his guy still spotted the cars at the old locations - Caught in the act : )
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Re: Corroded hoppers

Thomas Birkett
 

Copper bearing steel is known by trade names Cor-Ten (USS) and Marai
(Bethlehem, named for a place in Africa where the iron ore is naturally
mixed with copper). It was not the answer to corrosion that it was thought
to be, although there are some studies that show it holds paint better than
plain carbon steel

Tom

Subject: [STMFC] Re: Corroded hoppers




I don't have the data with me at the moment but the N&W also started using
copper bearing steel in the 1920's for gondolas & hoppers in coal service.

Jeff Coleman

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "rwitt_2000"
<rwitt_2000@...> wrote:


Tony Thompson wrote:
Looking through railroad industry journals such as Railway Age
in the first ten or 15 years of the 20th century will show numerous
articles and letters to the editor about corrosion prevention on steel
car bodies, which of course were then just coming into common usage.
Paint formulas, surface preparation methods, drying times, and other
aspects of the problem were repeatedly discussed. After roughly World
War I, this topic disappears from the literature, and I assume a
consensus had emerged on how best to paint steel cars. This consensus
was NOT on account of copper-bearing steel being introduced to combat
corrosion, because that happened about a decade later.
Tony,

Which do you mean, a decade after WWI or after 1915?

In my reply to the original inquiry I listed the seminal article
published in 1923 by J. J. Tatum Superintendent Car Department of the
B&ORR where the B&O specifies its steel to have not less than 0.20%
copper.

"Reducing the Corrosion in Steel Cars, Steel containing a small
percentage of copper adopted to prevent rapid deterioration, J.J. Tatum,
Superintendent Car Department, Baltimore & Ohio, Railway Mechanical
Engineer, vol. 97, no. 7, July 1923, pp.413-416."

http://www.archive.org/details/railwaymechanica97newyuoft



Bob Witt


Re: Corroded hoppers

Jeff Coleman
 

I don't have the data with me at the moment but the N&W also started using copper bearing steel in the 1920's for gondolas & hoppers in coal service.

Jeff Coleman

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "rwitt_2000" <rwitt_2000@...> wrote:


Tony Thompson wrote:
Looking through railroad industry journals such as Railway Age
in the first ten or 15 years of the 20th century will show numerous
articles and letters to the editor about corrosion prevention on steel
car bodies, which of course were then just coming into common usage.
Paint formulas, surface preparation methods, drying times, and other
aspects of the problem were repeatedly discussed. After roughly World
War I, this topic disappears from the literature, and I assume a
consensus had emerged on how best to paint steel cars. This consensus
was NOT on account of copper-bearing steel being introduced to combat
corrosion, because that happened about a decade later.
Tony,

Which do you mean, a decade after WWI or after 1915?

In my reply to the original inquiry I listed the seminal article
published in 1923 by J. J. Tatum Superintendent Car Department of the
B&ORR where the B&O specifies its steel to have not less than 0.20%
copper.

"Reducing the Corrosion in Steel Cars, Steel containing a small
percentage of copper adopted to prevent rapid deterioration, J.J. Tatum,
Superintendent Car Department, Baltimore & Ohio, Railway Mechanical
Engineer, vol. 97, no. 7, July 1923, pp.413-416."

http://www.archive.org/details/railwaymechanica97newyuoft



Bob Witt


Re: Reading Box Car

Rich C
 

On the roof, you could also get a Sylvan Hutchins roof.
 
Rich Christie

--- On Wed, 5/25/11, rwitt_2000 <rwitt_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: rwitt_2000 <rwitt_2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Reading Box Car
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 10:17 AM


 




Al Brown wrote:

Wow, what a beauty! Check out the fishbelly underframe, unusual arch
bar trucks, and Youngstown replacement door.
Looking at the photograph and the drawings again, it appears that this
Reading boxcar also has a replacement roof. It looks like a Hutchins.
For a kit-bash one could cut one from the Accurail reefer if the width
of the cars bodies are similar.

Bob Witt








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Corroded hoppers

rwitt_2000
 

Tony Thompson wrote:
Looking through railroad industry journals such as Railway Age
in the first ten or 15 years of the 20th century will show numerous
articles and letters to the editor about corrosion prevention on steel
car bodies, which of course were then just coming into common usage.
Paint formulas, surface preparation methods, drying times, and other
aspects of the problem were repeatedly discussed. After roughly World
War I, this topic disappears from the literature, and I assume a
consensus had emerged on how best to paint steel cars. This consensus
was NOT on account of copper-bearing steel being introduced to combat
corrosion, because that happened about a decade later.
Tony,

Which do you mean, a decade after WWI or after 1915?

In my reply to the original inquiry I listed the seminal article
published in 1923 by J. J. Tatum Superintendent Car Department of the
B&ORR where the B&O specifies its steel to have not less than 0.20%
copper.

"Reducing the Corrosion in Steel Cars, Steel containing a small
percentage of copper adopted to prevent rapid deterioration, J.J. Tatum,
Superintendent Car Department, Baltimore & Ohio, Railway Mechanical
Engineer, vol. 97, no. 7, July 1923, pp.413-416."

http://www.archive.org/details/railwaymechanica97newyuoft



Bob Witt


Re: Why not model actual train consists? (UNCLASSIFIED)

Armand Premo
 

Elden,While I have a large number of resin cars I do have a fair share of "Stand Ins".Some of these cars with be super detailed by adding new under frames,ladders,brake gear,grab irons and the like.Some will never make it and will be disposed of through trade meets or out right sale.My roster is constantly being upgraded and in somewhat a state of flux.The refining process is on going..I don't want to leave the impression that.I have the ideal.I hope I never reach that stage.As I learn more and new and better cars become available I will continue to add cars.Many of us,myself included,tend to buy cars for our favorite roads even when prototype information doesn't support it.Try as I might I still buy some cars impulsively.I am constantly working on that problem.Discipline.discipline.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Gatwood, Elden SAW
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:01 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Why not model actual train consists? (UNCLASSIFIED)



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Armand;

You may be past this point, but given my lack of actual consists, I had to
use photos, limited special reports done on car numbers by location, and
industry data, to develop my fleet. I made sure to include enough cars for
each industry of service, to not have the same cars show up again and again,
unless they were specifically dedicated to that location. Thus, for a
service like coal, I have a lot of hoppers I can create blocks from, and get
a different group every time, as I do for the many tank cars I need at the
coke by-products plants. For Corning Glass, up river, however, they have a
small dedicated fleet of covered hoppers, for their glass sand, and you tend
to see members of that small group repeatedly, as you would in real life.

For my run-throughs, which appear at the back of my layout, and which do not
visit the front or even stop, I have a fleet of kits with molded on detail
(HORRORS), which while I would love to super-detail, I may not live long
enough. Most of these are big strings of loaded hoppers going one way, and
MTYs the other. I change out the motive power and cabins on either end, and
voila, a "new" train.

For my actual set-outs and stuff that gets switched in my face, I have my
super-detailed cars, only about 60 so far, which I enjoy seeing close-up in a
fully detailed scene. The others are just going in and out of staging, so I
don't have much time to focus on them, anyway.

The last group are the "special" cars Tony mentioned, that I rotate out on a
very infrequent basis, because one would only occasionally see them in real
life. They are the depressed center cars with a big transformer or other;
long structural loads, etc. They are kept in a drawer and pulled according
to my "random chance" generator (2 x 10-sided dice and a table of chance
occurrences). This method nicely addresses the randomness of need for a
rebuilt transformer at the power plant, and other chance events.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Armand Premo
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:14 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Not to belabor this issue,but I just checked a whole month of wheel reports
to see what the correlation was with the Twenty Largest railroads.The results
were not really earth shattering.However,while some roads were well
represented some were not in the top twenty for that moth.Other roads not in
the top twenty had many more cars during that month than those on the list..
-If one has a sufficient amount-of data as well as a large-enough roster
modeling actual train consist should no be boring.-- I try to remove most of
the cars used in an op session and replace them with other cars for the next
op session.In betwee I make up the train that will run on the during the next
session.Not seeing the same cars over and over will help to make the process
less boring.Your comments will be appreciated.Armand PremoOriginal Message
-----
From: Jim Betz
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:02 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Hi,

The flurry of responses has started to wind down. They are
all well thought out and great. Thanks.

So here's an update to my suggestion:

The major 'flaw' in my suggestion is that if you model
specific consists you will end up with ops that are 'boring'
(over time) ... unless you have a fleet that is much larger
than the normal layout. I agree with this.

So what if your -fleet- is modeled based on actual train
consists ... but you don't use those consists for your ops -
or if you do use them duirng ops you only do so on a few
trains or only on "special occasions"?
- Jim

----------------------------------------------------------

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.891 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3235 - Release Date: 11/03/10
04:36:00



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE






------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.891 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3235 - Release Date: 11/03/10 04:36:00


Re: Corroded hoppers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Townsend wrote:
BTW, that 1943 Alcoa ad makes the same point you did regarding thickness: "Aluminum is naturally resistant to corrosion. Its use permits conservative designs, because lightness can be achieved by building with thick sections which give stiffness and sturdiness."
A faintly dishonest comment by Alcoa, because while aluminum has about a third the density of steel, it also has about a third the stiffness of steel. Thus to get the stiffness of a given steel structure while making it of aluminum (other things equal), all parts will be three times as thick and the final result will weigh the same as did the steel. The economy comes if there are sections which can be lighter, such as side sheets (if stakes are stiff enough), or if webs of sills can be lighter, etc., and of course with corrosion resistance.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Corroded hoppers (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

That's very interesting, and may explain the PRR's big move to corrugated
panels (instead) during the early 60's rebuild campaigns for gondolas, but
not for hoppers, which instead were getting big rectangular box top chords,
pre-made welded side sheet replacement panels, and other alternatives. I
haven't seen the correspondence on their thought process on this, however. (I
did find it for coil cars)

After the brief love affair with lightweight box cars, the PRR did a complete
about face, and ordered heavier box cars from the fifties on. One can
actually see the bowed "AAR '44" and earlier design cars, in the photos they
have showing on-line failure, or documentation for rebuilding campaigns.
Instead of messing with side sheets, they went to big, full-length side sill
channels, doorway gussets, and other design flaw corrections, but that, as
they say, is a different subject...

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:46 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Corroded hoppers



Gatwood, Elden wrote:
That is about what I expected, since the bulk of PRR correspondence on
the topic of failures, at least post-war for sure, is about things
they believed were engineering issues, not about materials.
There is a much later discussion about . . . Cor-Ten . . . USS was
claiming the same tensile strength, for a thinner sheet, which could
have saved the PRR a lot, in light weight of each car, and hence,
allow greater load weight per car . . .
As railroads also found with stronger and thinner steel in box cars, this is
a structural trap. The weight savings really aren't very big, a few thousand
pounds, and the thinner steel is LESS stiff. The elastic modulus of steel,
which controls stiffness, doesn't vary with strength of the steel, so thinner
material automatically means a loss of stiffness. That in turn makes the
structure of the car more flexible, and accentuates any trend to cracking or
tearing at critical locations.
If you keep the steel sections the same size, stiffness remains constant but
of course there's no weight saving any more. The only way to get greater
stiffness with thinner sections is innovations like corrugated or Dreadnaught
ends instead of flat plate ends, ditto for doors.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Why not model actual train consists? (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Armand;

You may be past this point, but given my lack of actual consists, I had to
use photos, limited special reports done on car numbers by location, and
industry data, to develop my fleet. I made sure to include enough cars for
each industry of service, to not have the same cars show up again and again,
unless they were specifically dedicated to that location. Thus, for a
service like coal, I have a lot of hoppers I can create blocks from, and get
a different group every time, as I do for the many tank cars I need at the
coke by-products plants. For Corning Glass, up river, however, they have a
small dedicated fleet of covered hoppers, for their glass sand, and you tend
to see members of that small group repeatedly, as you would in real life.

For my run-throughs, which appear at the back of my layout, and which do not
visit the front or even stop, I have a fleet of kits with molded on detail
(HORRORS), which while I would love to super-detail, I may not live long
enough. Most of these are big strings of loaded hoppers going one way, and
MTYs the other. I change out the motive power and cabins on either end, and
voila, a "new" train.

For my actual set-outs and stuff that gets switched in my face, I have my
super-detailed cars, only about 60 so far, which I enjoy seeing close-up in a
fully detailed scene. The others are just going in and out of staging, so I
don't have much time to focus on them, anyway.

The last group are the "special" cars Tony mentioned, that I rotate out on a
very infrequent basis, because one would only occasionally see them in real
life. They are the depressed center cars with a big transformer or other;
long structural loads, etc. They are kept in a drawer and pulled according
to my "random chance" generator (2 x 10-sided dice and a table of chance
occurrences). This method nicely addresses the randomness of need for a
rebuilt transformer at the power plant, and other chance events.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Armand Premo
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:14 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Why not model actual train consists?



Not to belabor this issue,but I just checked a whole month of wheel reports
to see what the correlation was with the Twenty Largest railroads.The results
were not really earth shattering.However,while some roads were well
represented some were not in the top twenty for that moth.Other roads not in
the top twenty had many more cars during that month than those on the list..
-If one has a sufficient amount-of data as well as a large-enough roster
modeling actual train consist should no be boring.-- I try to remove most of
the cars used in an op session and replace them with other cars for the next
op session.In betwee I make up the train that will run on the during the next
session.Not seeing the same cars over and over will help to make the process
less boring.Your comments will be appreciated.Armand PremoOriginal Message
-----
From: Jim Betz
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:02 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Hi,

The flurry of responses has started to wind down. They are
all well thought out and great. Thanks.

So here's an update to my suggestion:

The major 'flaw' in my suggestion is that if you model
specific consists you will end up with ops that are 'boring'
(over time) ... unless you have a fleet that is much larger
than the normal layout. I agree with this.

So what if your -fleet- is modeled based on actual train
consists ... but you don't use those consists for your ops -
or if you do use them duirng ops you only do so on a few
trains or only on "special occasions"?
- Jim

----------------------------------------------------------

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.891 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3235 - Release Date: 11/03/10
04:36:00

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Corroded hoppers

Richard Townsend
 

Is it a long report? BTW, that 1943 Alcoa ad makes the same point you did regarding thickness: "Aluminum is naturally resistant to corrosion. Its use permits conservative designs, because lightness can be achieved by building with thick sections which give stiffness and sturdiness."


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Thompson <thompson@signaturepress.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 25, 2011 11:49 am
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Corroded hoppers




Richard Townsend wrote:
Do you know of any discussion with respect to PRR 740279? This was
a GLc hopper built or rebuilt with aluminum, in 1932, I think. I
don't know if there were others in the same or other PRR series that
were aluminum, but I have a 1943 Railway Age ad from Alcoa featuring
that car.
Alcoa sponsored several hopper car projects in aluminum in the
1930s. The material was terribly expensive and it's no surprise that
nobody built any additional cars (without the Alcoa subsidy) in those
days. But AFAIK the cars performed all right. I have an Alcoa report
on this which indicates good resistance to corrosion.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Corroded hoppers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Townsend wrote:
Do you know of any discussion with respect to PRR 740279? This was a GLc hopper built or rebuilt with aluminum, in 1932, I think. I don't know if there were others in the same or other PRR series that were aluminum, but I have a 1943 Railway Age ad from Alcoa featuring that car.
Alcoa sponsored several hopper car projects in aluminum in the 1930s. The material was terribly expensive and it's no surprise that nobody built any additional cars (without the Alcoa subsidy) in those days. But AFAIK the cars performed all right. I have an Alcoa report on this which indicates good resistance to corrosion.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Corroded hoppers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Gatwood, Elden wrote:
That is about what I expected, since the bulk of PRR correspondence on the topic of failures, at least post-war for sure, is about things they believed were engineering issues, not about materials.
There is a much later discussion about . . . Cor-Ten . . . USS was claiming the same tensile strength, for a thinner sheet, which could have saved the PRR a lot, in light weight of each car, and hence, allow greater load weight per car . . .
As railroads also found with stronger and thinner steel in box cars, this is a structural trap. The weight savings really aren't very big, a few thousand pounds, and the thinner steel is LESS stiff. The elastic modulus of steel, which controls stiffness, doesn't vary with strength of the steel, so thinner material automatically means a loss of stiffness. That in turn makes the structure of the car more flexible, and accentuates any trend to cracking or tearing at critical locations.
If you keep the steel sections the same size, stiffness remains constant but of course there's no weight saving any more. The only way to get greater stiffness with thinner sections is innovations like corrugated or Dreadnaught ends instead of flat plate ends, ditto for doors.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Corroded hoppers (UNCLASSIFIED)

Richard Townsend
 

Eldon (or anyone else, really),

Do you know of any discussion with respect to PRR 740279? This was a GLc hopper built or rebuilt with aluminum, in 1932, I think. I don't know if there were others in the same or other PRR series that were aluminum, but I have a 1943 Railway Age ad from Alcoa featuring that car.


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: Gatwood, Elden SAW <elden.j.gatwood@usace.army.mil>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 25, 2011 11:34 am
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Corroded hoppers (UNCLASSIFIED)




Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Tony;

That is about what I expected, since the bulk of PRR correspondence on the
topic of failures, at least post-war for sure, is about things they believed
were engineering issues, not about materials. Despite what some believe, the
PRR did not believe itself infallible, and was always looking for ways to
improve car design...ALL cars. Hence the major X29, X31A, lightweight box
car, gondola, and hopper rebuilding campaigns, and the many improvements they
made to new design as a result.

There is a much later discussion about materials that focused on the use of
"new" steel, one being Cor-Ten, but I believe that was because the PRR was
looking at a large fleet of old hoppers that had earlier and hence, fairly
thick, steel sheet, in both sides and slope sheets, to prevent early (and
often) replacement of same due to structural failure (generally bulging, then
tearing or separation of sheets at seams). USS was claiming the same tensile
strength, for a thinner sheet, which could have saved the PRR a lot, in light
weight of each car, and hence, allow greater load weight per car (they were
slightly unloading cars, as a corporate goal, to reduce structural failures
in their old, old fleet of hoppers, especially when loading ores and stone).

But most of the rebuilding campaigns did focus on areas of weakness in the
design, not materials, and discussion on corrosion is notably absent.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:47 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Corroded hoppers

Gatwood, Elden wrote:
It would be interesting to know how geographic/regional this issue
was, and how it evolved over time. I recall seeing discussion on
effects of corrosion early in the twentieth century . . .
Looking through railroad industry journals such as Railway Age in the first
ten or 15 years of the 20th century will show numerous articles and letters
to the editor about corrosion prevention on steel car bodies, which of course
were then just coming into common usage.
Paint formulas, surface preparation methods, drying times, and other aspects
of the problem were repeatedly discussed. After roughly World War I, this
topic disappears from the literature, and I assume a consensus had emerged on
how best to paint steel cars. This consensus was NOT on account of
copper-bearing steel being introduced to combat corrosion, because that
happened about a decade later.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com>;
Publishers of books on railroad history

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Corroded hoppers (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Tony;

That is about what I expected, since the bulk of PRR correspondence on the
topic of failures, at least post-war for sure, is about things they believed
were engineering issues, not about materials. Despite what some believe, the
PRR did not believe itself infallible, and was always looking for ways to
improve car design...ALL cars. Hence the major X29, X31A, lightweight box
car, gondola, and hopper rebuilding campaigns, and the many improvements they
made to new design as a result.

There is a much later discussion about materials that focused on the use of
"new" steel, one being Cor-Ten, but I believe that was because the PRR was
looking at a large fleet of old hoppers that had earlier and hence, fairly
thick, steel sheet, in both sides and slope sheets, to prevent early (and
often) replacement of same due to structural failure (generally bulging, then
tearing or separation of sheets at seams). USS was claiming the same tensile
strength, for a thinner sheet, which could have saved the PRR a lot, in light
weight of each car, and hence, allow greater load weight per car (they were
slightly unloading cars, as a corporate goal, to reduce structural failures
in their old, old fleet of hoppers, especially when loading ores and stone).

But most of the rebuilding campaigns did focus on areas of weakness in the
design, not materials, and discussion on corrosion is notably absent.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:47 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Corroded hoppers



Gatwood, Elden wrote:
It would be interesting to know how geographic/regional this issue
was, and how it evolved over time. I recall seeing discussion on
effects of corrosion early in the twentieth century . . .
Looking through railroad industry journals such as Railway Age in the first
ten or 15 years of the 20th century will show numerous articles and letters
to the editor about corrosion prevention on steel car bodies, which of course
were then just coming into common usage.
Paint formulas, surface preparation methods, drying times, and other aspects
of the problem were repeatedly discussed. After roughly World War I, this
topic disappears from the literature, and I assume a consensus had emerged on
how best to paint steel cars. This consensus was NOT on account of
copper-bearing steel being introduced to combat corrosion, because that
happened about a decade later.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


President's announcement NYCSHS-Members group&#8207;

James Yaworsky
 

As the new president of the New York Central System Historical Society, I am delighted to announce that the Society has established a Yahoo group for the free exchange of NYC-related information between and among Society members. This effort will respond to the very real concern that Society members could not communicate among themselves. If you are a NYCSHS member and want to talk with
other NYCSHS members, get aboard now!

NYCSHS members who have Yahoo accounts should log on to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCSHS-Members/
and request to enter the group. Have your NYCSHS membership number ready and insert it into your request.

NYCSHS members who do not have Yahoo accounts should log on to
http://groups.yahoo.com/
and then insert "NYCSHS-Members" in the "find a Yahoo group" search box. This will bring up a screen that has the group shown, with a "join this group" clickable hot-link.

Not a NYCSHS member and want to get aboard? Please visit the Society's website at www.nycshs.org to obtain a membership application.

My thanks go to member Jason Cook for setting up this new discussion group, and to Jim Yaworsky and Noel Widdifield, who will join Jason as group moderators.

Richard L. Stoving


Re: Corroded hoppers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Gatwood, Elden wrote:
It would be interesting to know how geographic/regional this issue was, and how it evolved over time. I recall seeing discussion on effects of corrosion early in the twentieth century . . .
Looking through railroad industry journals such as Railway Age in the first ten or 15 years of the 20th century will show numerous articles and letters to the editor about corrosion prevention on steel car bodies, which of course were then just coming into common usage. Paint formulas, surface preparation methods, drying times, and other aspects of the problem were repeatedly discussed. After roughly World War I, this topic disappears from the literature, and I assume a consensus had emerged on how best to paint steel cars. This consensus was NOT on account of copper-bearing steel being introduced to combat corrosion, because that happened about a decade later.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Armand Premo wrote:
I try to remove most of the cars used in an op session and replace them with other cars for the next op session. In betwee I make up the train that will run on the during the next session. Not seeing the same cars over and over will help to make the process less boring. Your comments will be appreciated.
I agree with this idea, and have done something similar. I am meticulous in replacing in any train a "distinctive" car, such as a depressed-center car with load (or any distinctive open-car load), or something vividly painted, such as a Chateau Martin wine car or a brightly painted tank car, or, say, a helium car (yes, they are indeed appropriate for my layout place and time).
I am less energetic in replacing plainer cars, and the plainer they are the less likely to be replaced in a particular re-set, but I have been trying out a system of "wheel reports," in which I use a switchlist form to record train consists and operating dates. Once a small stack of these has been accumulated, I no longer have to rely on memory to realize that the Illinois Central box car, say, has been in that train for some time.
Most of my car changes occur with the local which picks up and delivers cars to my branch line junction, since it is driven by waybill sequences. The wheel reports are a way to avoid waybill sequencing for mainline trains but still keep train appearances varied, as Armand correctly says.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Why not model actual train consists?

Armand Premo
 

Not to belabor this issue,but I just checked a whole month of wheel reports to see what the correlation was with the Twenty Largest railroads.The results were not really earth shattering.However,while some roads were well represented some were not in the top twenty for that moth.Other roads not in the top twenty had many more cars during that month than those on the list..
-If one has a sufficient amount-of data as well as a large-enough roster modeling actual train consist should no be boring.-- I try to remove most of the cars used in an op session and replace them with other cars for the next op session.In betwee I make up the train that will run on the during the next session.Not seeing the same cars over and over will help to make the process less boring.Your comments will be appreciated.Armand PremoOriginal Message -----
From: Jim Betz
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:02 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Why not model actual train consists?



Hi,

The flurry of responses has started to wind down. They are
all well thought out and great. Thanks.

So here's an update to my suggestion:

The major 'flaw' in my suggestion is that if you model
specific consists you will end up with ops that are 'boring'
(over time) ... unless you have a fleet that is much larger
than the normal layout. I agree with this.

So what if your -fleet- is modeled based on actual train
consists ... but you don't use those consists for your ops -
or if you do use them duirng ops you only do so on a few
trains or only on "special occasions"?
- Jim






------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.891 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3235 - Release Date: 11/03/10 04:36:00


Re: Corroded hoppers (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

It would be interesting to know how geographic/regional this issue was, and
how it evolved over time. I recall seeing discussion on effects of corrosion
early in the twentieth century, but the issue for my time period (late 20th
C) seems to have been overshadowed by the effects of overloading or over-use
rather than corrosion-induced failure. Perhaps this was from the use of
better steel, or just that corrosion was not that much of an issue relating
to the coal found in my area of the country.

That being said, I remember seeing corrosion on the slope sheets and lower
insides, of many hoppers I personally climbed into, but it never appeared to
have been the cause of failure of either, and sorry, I did not take photos of
it, either.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
rwitt_2000
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 4:30 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Corroded hoppers



Richard Townsend wrote:

I am looking for photos of steam era hoppers with corroded slope
sheets and bottom sheets as a result of hauling (high-sulfur) coal or sulfur.
Anybody know of any?
Richard,

I know of two seminal articles about steel freight used by the B&ORR that
have illustrations of corrosion to early open-top cars; hoppers and gondolas
used in coal service. The first article discusses B&O gondolas class O-12,
O-14, and O-17, and hoppers class N-8, N-9, N-10 and N-10A.
It describes and illustrates the types of failures and the "repairs"
made to to "fix" the problems. The second articles mostly describes the
failures to the B&O class W-1 (similar to the PRR H21) and how these coke
hoppers were repaired and rebuilt in 1923. It especially notes that copper
bearing steel showed less corrosion. Both articles describe corrosion damage
to steel cars that were in service for 7 to 10 years.

1. Maintenance and Repair of Steel Freight Cars, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad,
American Engineer and Railroad Journal (became Railway Locomotive & Cars),
vol. 81, p. 161, May 1907, (18 page article).

2.Reducing the Corrosion in Steel Cars, Steel containing a small percentage
of copper adopted to prevent rapid deterioration, J.J. Tatum, Superintendent
Car Department, Baltimore & Ohio, Railway Mechanical Engineer, vol. 97, no.
7, July 1923, pp.413-416.

If you have access to a large university engineering library you should be
able to locate these two articles. I haven't checked recently, but PDFs of
some railroad journals are in Google Books.

I would offer to copy these articles for you, but my copies are from 45 years
ago when copy machines could not copy half-tone photographs in journals so a
second generation copy would be unreadable.

I hope this helps. This has been discussed in the past on this list so
possibly others have better copies of these articles.

Regards,

Bob Witt





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Why not model actual train consists?

al_brown03
 

This amounts to assuming that the cars in your consists are representative of those in your modelled territory. Given a large enough data sample, that assumption may be good, although some pitfalls have been pointed out in this thread. (Two examples: [1] "Your" conductor may have worked only certain trains; [2] photographs obviously over-represent daytime trains, and may also over-represent trains doing something photogenic, e.g. climbing a grade.) Proceed, but with caution, I'd say.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Jim Betz <jimbetz@...> wrote:

Hi,

The flurry of responses has started to wind down. They are
all well thought out and great. Thanks.

So here's an update to my suggestion:

The major 'flaw' in my suggestion is that if you model
specific consists you will end up with ops that are 'boring'
(over time) ... unless you have a fleet that is much larger
than the normal layout. I agree with this.

So what if your -fleet- is modeled based on actual train
consists ... but you don't use those consists for your ops -
or if you do use them duirng ops you only do so on a few
trains or only on "special occasions"?
- Jim

84081 - 84100 of 184302