Date   

Re: North Coast Prototype Models

Tim O'Connor
 

Don

John is at <jrpolyak@juno.com>

I bought a replacement pair last year... also a new bucket of grit :-)

Tim O'

After more years than I can remember I have finally worn out the gloves on my North Coast Proroype Models aluminun oxide blaster. Does anyone have a valid telephone number for John Polyak these days or know where a pair of replacement gloves can be purchased. The Tractor Supply Co. has some that are similar but not the same and I woud like to replace them in kind if possible. Both numbers I have for John seem no longer to be valid. Hard to clean old and grimy steam era freight cars without the blaster working. (-:

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Don Valentine


Re: Flat car underbody question

Tim O'Connor
 

Tony

What straw man would that be, exactly?

Richard wrote: "... it is pointless to model underframe details
which are invisible when the car is on the track"

I responded to that. In my English language, Richard's statement
is crystal clear. When house cars are on the track, in MOST cases
you cannot see the crossbearers, bolsters, center sill, draft gear
(except for the ends of the draft gear). They are invisible.

This is true even when you are looking at the car from the side,
unless you are actually looking UP at the car's underbody, which is
quite rare on most layouts, although it may be true on Richard's
layout.

As for your CHOICE not to install the rods etc, truthfully I do
not always install those details. But I already said that. I have
done the lead weights in the center sill of flat cars (Sunshine),
and other such cases. And some models preclude proper underframe
details (e.g. Tangent and Proto 2000 gondolas), because the vendor
has already made the choice to omit a proper underframe for you!

I know Richard adds these details to most of his models -- hence
my consternation that he would make such a broad statement! He's
a very influential guy, and if Athearn or another manufacturer read
what he wrote they could EASILY interpret it as literally as I do.

Cars that do conform to Richard's statement include all of the old
Model Die Casting 50 foot FMC box cars for example. The underbody
on those models is basically a slab of plastic, sans detail. Please
let's not go back to those bad old days!

Tim O'Connor

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

As happens from time to time, Tim creates a straw man and then
kicks the stuffing out of it. <g> Richard most assuredly did not say
he ignores underframes, and if Tim had had the pleasure of seeing a
bunch of Richard's freight cars, he would know that Richard DOES
include brake rigging on any car for which a side view makes it
visible, and also includes complete piping on cars where it can be seen.
I would not like to see freight car kits (or RTR) with detail-
less underframes, but on house cars I too often omit brake PIPING if
the only way it can be seen is by inverting the car. I do generally
add all brake levers and rods, because usually they can be seen. And
on fishbelly-side-sill cars, I may only install the reservoir and
cylinder. For me, it DOES depend on the individual car.

Tony Thompson


Surging control

hacketet <hacketet@...>
 

Not quite prototype, but still a problem with models of this vintage.

A few of my locomotives suffer from severe surging when running down grade. I just had two derailments on a 2% down grade and 48" radius curve (HO) when the train piled up against the locomotives and the first few cars in the train were shoved off the track.

These were Stewart units that are otherwise very good running units. I know the answer is to put bushings in the drive mechanism to take up the slack. Does anyone know of a web site or other information source that discusses the details of this surgery?

Earl Hackett
Modeling the C&O in 1952


Re: Buckeye ends (was Erie 78000-78499)

Rich C
 

Larry, I am with you on this. Keith Retterer produced castings of these a long time ago. He also made the 3 panel 10' IH Creco Doors that were used on C&O's 1937 10'IH Box Cars. We need another producer for both of these parts!
 
Rich Christie


________________________________
From: Larry Sexton <SSEXTON9@tampabay.rr.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2011 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] RE: Buckeye ends (was Erie 78000-78499)


 
Does anyone beside Sunshine Models make a separate Buckeye end applicable
for the ERIE 78-78499 series boxcars, and if so, is it currently avalible?

Larry Sexton

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:27 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: Buckeye ends (was Erie 78000-78499)

On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Brian J Carlson wrote:

Yes. The 1923 ARA cars in series 75500-75999 had Buckeye Ends that
had the
panel seam on a corrugation. see page 94 of RPC 18. The 1932 ARA
cars and
these cars had the panel seam between the corrugations.
I'll add to this that the corrugations on the later Buckeye ends were
shaped somewhat differently than those on the earlier ends, with a
pronounced taper at the ends, in contrast to the flat ends on the
earlier corrugations. This is is readily visible in photos of the
Erie's 1932 ARA cars vs. the 1923 ARA cars.

Richard Hendrickson

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

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


MDT book

Richard Townsend
 

I got the MDT book today and think it's outstanding. I hope it inspires a manufacturer to bring out some MDT cars.


As an aside, I ordered the book a little while ago and was wondering why it hadn't arrived. Well, it had arrived, but my wife intercepted it and hid it from me. Then she wrapped it and gave it to me for my birthday today. Clever, sneaky woman!


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon


Re: North Coast Prototype Models

Dennis Williams
 

Harbor Freight has a nice pair.  Nice price,too.
 
Dennis


________________________________
From: Don <riverman_vt@yahoo.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2011 4:34 PM
Subject: [STMFC] North Coast Prototype Models



 

Hello folks,

After more years than I can remember I have finally worn out the gloves on my North Coast Proroype Models aluminun oxide blaster. Does anyone have a valid telephone number for John Polyak these days or know where a pair of replacement gloves can be purchased. The Tractor Supply Co. has some that are similar but not the same and I woud like to replace them in kind if possible. Both numbers I have for John seem no longer to be valid. Hard to clean old and grimy steam era freight cars without the blaster working. (-:

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Don Valentine




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


Re: Color of Rock Island Hopper Car in the Steam Era?

Dan Sweeney Jr
 

Vic, yes, the "freight car color" would be what we often refer to as box car red, although I fear I cannot give you any specific prototype paint name or model paint mix formula.
Thank you for describing the books. Will definitely watch for them in 2012.
Dan Sweeney, Jr.
Alexandria, VA


Re: Tight clearances on B&O, was, Re: B&O Circle T stencil

Todd Horton
 

I guess this explains why the B&O used the round roof construction, interesting to say the least.
 
Is it safe to assume that this was an all freight route then before the construction programs?  
 
When did they apply the "circle T" lettering ?  Todd Horton


________________________________
From: jim_mischke <jmischke@att.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2011 3:58 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Tight clearances on B&O, was, Re: B&O Circle T stencil


 



The B&O Parkersburg subdivision (Grafton - Parkersburg) had 21 tunnels, most of which were constructed in the 1850's. Mark Twain travelled this route once and dubbed it a subway in the mountains.

Most of these tunnels were deepened, heightened, daylighted, replaced or bypassed in three construction programs during 1953, 1957, and 1963. Completion of the 1957 program allowed the 50' boxcars. The 1963 program allowed full piggyback.

Prior to those programs, offending high clearance cars were segregated at upstream yards and forwarded on High-Car specials on a somewhat parallel Parkersburg - New Martinsville - Grafton routing. Extra time, extra cost. Not good for a railroad with an intrinsically inferior route in the first place.

Yard clerks were well versed in what cars cleared and which did not. Their jobs depended on it.

Nominally, one could squeeze a lot of the forbidden boxcars through, but not at track speed. There has to be an allowance for rocking motion, especially so in curved tunnels. High boxcars were vulnerable at the roof eaves, such as lateral running board hand holds.

With their curved roof profile, B&O wagontops cleared these tunnels while maintaining a full interior height. By design intent.

The circel T stencil meant that such boxcars could go anywhere on B&O, the Parkersburg Sub was a limiting factor to be addressed.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Todd Horton <toddchorton@...> wrote:

"50-foot cars did not fit the Parkersburg Subdivision clearances until the 1957 clearances program. After this time, some 50' boxcars did see the circle T as they left captive service, mainly automotive traffic"
 
Hmmm, That's interesting. What was the obstruction(s) on the Parkersburg sub that would exclude a 50' car?   Todd Horton

From: jim_mischke <jmischke@...>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:56 PM
Subject: [STMFC] B&O Circle T stencil, was Fox Valley (and ExactRail) B&O Wagontop


 

I would add some more detail to Bob Witt's post about the B&O circle T stencil.

Circle T meant fit for less-than-carload service, specifically:

- clean car

- mechanically sound

- meets main line clearances everywhere on B&O, including and especially the Parkersburg subdivision

B&O dubbed its LCL service "Time-Saver" service in 1950, so the circle T stencil does not predate 1950.

Certain car classes were excluded. M-15 wagontop subclasses lack this stencil per photos. Maybe a Duryea cushion underframe was fundamental to this lcl-ready status.

There were far more B&O boxcars stencilled with the circle T than actually engaged in Time-Saver LCL service. Kept clean and lcl-ready, all such boxcars could be brought into LCL service at any time as needed.

50-foot cars did not fit the Parkersburg Subdivision clearances until the 1957 clearances program. After this time, some 50' boxcars did see the circle T as they left captive service, mainly automotive traffic.

B&O LCL service did not survive the 1962 draconian cost cutting, so surviving circle T stencils were lettering leftover artifacts after 1962.

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

Todd,

This was discussed in some earlier posts. Briefly, the photo evidence
indicates that most cars appear to have Youngstown doors after ~1955,
but there is a photo from 1952 of an M-53 already with a Youngstown
door. No memos have appeared in the B&O archives describing a planned
door replacement program for the M-53.

Trying not to confused the facts, but it appears from photo evidence
that the when the M-15 wagon-tops received new AAR underframes in ~1955
they also received new Youngstown doors. A speculative suggestion would
be that the use of replacements doors on the M-15 wagon-tops led to a
door replacement program for the class M-53.

The circle "T" indicates that the box car is suitable for l.c.l.
(less-than-car load) service, which was named "Time-Saver Service" on
the B&O. That usually indicated that the box car was suitable for class
A loads.

Bob Witt


Todd Horton wrote:

Does anyone know if (all of the cars had)Â and when the doors would
have been replaced? The Springs Mills site shows in service pics of cars
with Youngstown doors on all of them. One other minor detail, what's the
"circle T" designate? Todd Horton



________________________________
From: rwitt_2000 rwitt_2000@
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 8:27 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Fox Valley (and ExactRail) B&O Wagontop



Â

Andrew,

I just checked the Spring Mills Depot web site and they don't imply
their special run from Fox Valley is sold out. You can check with
them.

http://www.springmillsdepot.com/M53_status.htm

Also there is another run from Fox Valley due first quarter next year.
The B&OHS will have a special run of unique numbers so keep checking
that site as more details become available. http://borhs.org/

For an Exactrail, I would try to get a kit as I believe the door is a
separate part.

Regards,

Bob Witt

Andrew wrote:

Hi,

Like John Degnan, I model 1957. I have seen photos of my
modeling area (eastern Ontario) that indicate B&O M-53
boxcars were an occasional visitor--though not as common
as B&O open hoppers with soft coal for industrial customers.

Photos I've seen of M-53 boxcars in my area and time period
all have the Youngstown doors, not the Tatum doors.

I missed out on the Fox Valley run of M-53s earlier this year
but am interested in possibly getting one of the ExactRail
models. I notice ExactRail isn't offering a version with the
Youngstown doors.

Any guesses on the likelihood of ExactRail doing a future
run of these cars with Youngstown doors and later period
lettering schemes? Alternately, what would be a good
aftermarket Youngstown door to retrofit onto one of the
upcoming run of ExactRail models?

Regards,
Andrew

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

Tim,

I forgot to add that I observed a M-53, ~1960, in a long line of
bad
ordered B&O box cars in Caseyville, Illinois. It still had Tatum
doors
one, which was off its tracks was lying on the floor of the car. I
believe it was the first time I saw a XLT door. As you suggest, it
is
possible that some M-53s made it to the late 1950s still with
their
Tatum doors.

Regards,

Bob Witt

Tim O'Connor wrote:


Thanks Bob. Since my modeling -begins- with 1955 I'll be waiting
for
the cars with replacement doors... but maybe an XLT will slip in
there.


I have 6 photos and/or Xeroxes of photos of M-53 and 1 M-53A
all
still
with their Tatum "XLT" doors. Most are from the Anderson,
Barkan
and
King Collection. The re-weigh dates range from 12-45 to 3-55.
The
paint
schemes range from the early "13 Great States" to the late "13
Great
States" as described in the Barkan document. The re-weigh dates
from
the
1950s include 1950, 1951, 1952 (2), and 1953.

The last is a shop photo at Mt. Clare of a M-53 wearing the
brand
new
"Billboard scheme". It was common for the B&O to do samples at
their
"mother shop", Mt. Clare in Baltimore, before changes were
released
system wide.

Based upon photos its appears the doors were replaced beginning
in
the
mid-1950s.

Bob Witt



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



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



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


Re: Color of Rock Island Hopper Car in the Steam Era?

reporterllc
 

Dan:

What would be Rock Island's freight car color--some kind of box car red?

Shameless Plug: It is not a freight car book. Dan and all, the book is
due out very early in 2012. Right now I am just waiting for my artist
to finish the artwork for the cover as the turn around time for the
printer is 4-6 weeks. The book is called Railroading on the Wabash 4th
District and is 11 chapters plus appendices. Here is the blurb on the
back cover to give you an idea what is within:

"Built as an integral part of the shortest railroad between Detroit and
Chicago, the Wabash 4th District through Northern Indiana and Northwest
Ohio had a colorful history. It was also the first Wabash district
dieselized and home of the last mixed train in Indiana (in the early
1960s). In addition to a researched, illustrated history dating back to
1892, Railroading on the 4th District tells the story in the words of
railroaders that worked the line and fans that remembered it. This hard
cover 8-1/2 x 11 format book of 136 pages includes color cover, 130 B&W
and 9 color photos, maps, illustrations, track diagrams, a condensed
profile, plus a postscript to present day following the 1964 Wabash
lease to Norfolk & Western."

Though regional in nature, I think folks will find the book interesting
as it covers much of the operational aspects of a steam era railroad in
the own words of railroaders. And about 99% of the photos have never
been published.

The website to order the book is erstwhilepublications.com. It is
complete BUT NOT yet activated. Price of the book is $34.95. A book on
the Fort Wayne & Jackson Railroad Company is also due in 2012. The FW&J
which ran between its namesake cities in Southern Michigan and Northern
Indiana was leased to the New York Central for most of its almost 100
year existence.

Victor Baird
Erstwhile Publications
Fort Wayne, Indiana


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

Would be "freight car color" until after the time period of this list.
Can you give any hints about the book? Thanks.
Dan Sweeney, Jr.
Alexandria, VA

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "wabash2813" reporterllc@ wrote:

I have a B&W photo to be used in a Wabash book I am finishing up and
can't post it here for reasons I won't get into. Anyway, next to a
Wabash loco at a coaling machine is a Rock Island hopper car. It doesn't
show a car number and I can't read the builder date. I can't tell how
many bays but the photo was taken in 1948. (The top edges of the sides
of the hopper car are sloped in, however.)

What color would this Rock Island hopper car be in 1948?


Re: Flat car underbody question

Schuyler Larrabee
 

I agree with Jim.

Schuyler

Make the model as accurate as possible. Unwanted detail can be removed by
the buyer.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon
www.sunshinekits.com


On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Chad <chadboas@yahoo.com> wrote:

**


What is the general census of the group as to the details for the
underbody of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out
the
smaller cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross
members.
Would this make it easier to add the weight?
Thanks for the input.
Chad Boas







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

Yahoo! Groups Links







=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.18820)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======




=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.18820)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======


North Coast Prototype Models

Don <riverman_vt@...>
 

Hello folks,

After more years than I can remember I have finally worn out the gloves on my North Coast Proroype Models aluminun oxide blaster. Does anyone have a valid telephone number for John Polyak these days or know where a pair of replacement gloves can be purchased. The Tractor Supply Co. has some that are similar but not the same and I woud like to replace them in kind if possible. Both numbers I have for John seem no longer to be valid. Hard to clean old and grimy steam era freight cars without the blaster working. (-:

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Don Valentine


1949 for Younstown doors, was: Fox Valley (and ExactRail) B&O Wagontop

Jim Mischke
 

"No memos have appeared in the B&O archives describing a planned door replacement program for the M-53."




B&O memo exists. The cover letter for M-53 Youngstown replacement door drawings is dated Jan. 3, 1949. This would have much implications for who can have what wagontop boxcar door when on their model railroads. Youngstown doors were available in early 1949.

Rather than replacing orignal Tatum XLT doors in kind, B&O was already specifying vendor doors, such as Superior doors for the M-26, as early as early 1943. Such vendor hardware measures seemed to appear after the retirement of John Tatum effective 1-1-42. Unappreciative former subordinates.

Memo came to B&OHS when we emptied out the Gassaway station attic of all its B&O stored records. Included were the car shop foreman's files (named Arasmith), with perhaps every relevant B&O freight car memo 1925-1960. These files bore much fruit, helping Chris Barkan compose his boxcar and hopper car lettering scorecards back in 1994-5.

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

This was discussed in some earlier posts. Briefly, the photo evidence
indicates that most cars appear to have Youngstown doors after ~1955,
but there is a photo from 1952 of an M-53 already with a Youngstown
door. >
Trying not to confused the facts, but it appears from photo evidence
that the when the M-15 wagon-tops received new AAR underframes in ~1955
they also received new Youngstown doors. A speculative suggestion would
be that the use of replacements doors on the M-15 wagon-tops led to a
door replacement program for the class M-53.

The circle "T" indicates that the box car is suitable for l.c.l.
(less-than-car load) service, which was named "Time-Saver Service" on
the B&O. That usually indicated that the box car was suitable for class
A loads.

Bob Witt


Todd Horton wrote:

Does anyone know if (all of the cars had)Â and when the doors would
have been replaced? The Springs Mills site shows in service pics of cars
with Youngstown doors on all of them. One other minor detail, what's the
"circle T" designate? Todd Horton



________________________________
From: rwitt_2000 rwitt_2000@
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 8:27 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Fox Valley (and ExactRail) B&O Wagontop



Â

Andrew,

I just checked the Spring Mills Depot web site and they don't imply
their special run from Fox Valley is sold out. You can check with
them.

http://www.springmillsdepot.com/M53_status.htm

Also there is another run from Fox Valley due first quarter next year.
The B&OHS will have a special run of unique numbers so keep checking
that site as more details become available. http://borhs.org/

For an Exactrail, I would try to get a kit as I believe the door is a
separate part.

Regards,

Bob Witt

Andrew wrote:

Hi,

Like John Degnan, I model 1957. I have seen photos of my
modeling area (eastern Ontario) that indicate B&O M-53
boxcars were an occasional visitor--though not as common
as B&O open hoppers with soft coal for industrial customers.

Photos I've seen of M-53 boxcars in my area and time period
all have the Youngstown doors, not the Tatum doors.

I missed out on the Fox Valley run of M-53s earlier this year
but am interested in possibly getting one of the ExactRail
models. I notice ExactRail isn't offering a version with the
Youngstown doors.

Any guesses on the likelihood of ExactRail doing a future
run of these cars with Youngstown doors and later period
lettering schemes? Alternately, what would be a good
aftermarket Youngstown door to retrofit onto one of the
upcoming run of ExactRail models?

Regards,
Andrew

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

Tim,

I forgot to add that I observed a M-53, ~1960, in a long line of
bad
ordered B&O box cars in Caseyville, Illinois. It still had Tatum
doors
one, which was off its tracks was lying on the floor of the car. I
believe it was the first time I saw a XLT door. As you suggest, it
is
possible that some M-53s made it to the late 1950s still with
their
Tatum doors.

Regards,

Bob Witt

Tim O'Connor wrote:


Thanks Bob. Since my modeling -begins- with 1955 I'll be waiting
for
the cars with replacement doors... but maybe an XLT will slip in
there.


I have 6 photos and/or Xeroxes of photos of M-53 and 1 M-53A
all
still
with their Tatum "XLT" doors. Most are from the Anderson,
Barkan
and
King Collection. The re-weigh dates range from 12-45 to 3-55.
The
paint
schemes range from the early "13 Great States" to the late "13
Great
States" as described in the Barkan document. The re-weigh dates
from
the
1950s include 1950, 1951, 1952 (2), and 1953.

The last is a shop photo at Mt. Clare of a M-53 wearing the
brand
new
"Billboard scheme". It was common for the B&O to do samples at
their
"mother shop", Mt. Clare in Baltimore, before changes were
released
system wide.

Based upon photos its appears the doors were replaced beginning
in
the
mid-1950s.

Bob Witt



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


Tight clearances on B&O, was, Re: B&O Circle T stencil

Jim Mischke
 

The B&O Parkersburg subdivision (Grafton - Parkersburg) had 21 tunnels, most of which were constructed in the 1850's. Mark Twain travelled this route once and dubbed it a subway in the mountains.

Most of these tunnels were deepened, heightened, daylighted, replaced or bypassed in three construction programs during 1953, 1957, and 1963. Completion of the 1957 program allowed the 50' boxcars. The 1963 program allowed full piggyback.

Prior to those programs, offending high clearance cars were segregated at upstream yards and forwarded on High-Car specials on a somewhat parallel Parkersburg - New Martinsville - Grafton routing. Extra time, extra cost. Not good for a railroad with an intrinsically inferior route in the first place.

Yard clerks were well versed in what cars cleared and which did not. Their jobs depended on it.

Nominally, one could squeeze a lot of the forbidden boxcars through, but not at track speed. There has to be an allowance for rocking motion, especially so in curved tunnels. High boxcars were vulnerable at the roof eaves, such as lateral running board hand holds.

With their curved roof profile, B&O wagontops cleared these tunnels while maintaining a full interior height. By design intent.

The circel T stencil meant that such boxcars could go anywhere on B&O, the Parkersburg Sub was a limiting factor to be addressed.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Todd Horton <toddchorton@...> wrote:

"50-foot cars did not fit the Parkersburg Subdivision clearances until the 1957 clearances program. After this time, some 50' boxcars did see the circle T as they left captive service, mainly automotive traffic"
 
Hmmm, That's interesting. What was the obstruction(s) on the Parkersburg sub that would exclude a 50' car?   Todd Horton

From: jim_mischke <jmischke@...>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:56 PM
Subject: [STMFC] B&O Circle T stencil, was Fox Valley (and ExactRail) B&O Wagontop


 

I would add some more detail to Bob Witt's post about the B&O circle T stencil.

Circle T meant fit for less-than-carload service, specifically:

- clean car

- mechanically sound

- meets main line clearances everywhere on B&O, including and especially the Parkersburg subdivision

B&O dubbed its LCL service "Time-Saver" service in 1950, so the circle T stencil does not predate 1950.

Certain car classes were excluded. M-15 wagontop subclasses lack this stencil per photos. Maybe a Duryea cushion underframe was fundamental to this lcl-ready status.

There were far more B&O boxcars stencilled with the circle T than actually engaged in Time-Saver LCL service. Kept clean and lcl-ready, all such boxcars could be brought into LCL service at any time as needed.

50-foot cars did not fit the Parkersburg Subdivision clearances until the 1957 clearances program. After this time, some 50' boxcars did see the circle T as they left captive service, mainly automotive traffic.

B&O LCL service did not survive the 1962 draconian cost cutting, so surviving circle T stencils were lettering leftover artifacts after 1962.

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

Todd,

This was discussed in some earlier posts. Briefly, the photo evidence
indicates that most cars appear to have Youngstown doors after ~1955,
but there is a photo from 1952 of an M-53 already with a Youngstown
door. No memos have appeared in the B&O archives describing a planned
door replacement program for the M-53.

Trying not to confused the facts, but it appears from photo evidence
that the when the M-15 wagon-tops received new AAR underframes in ~1955
they also received new Youngstown doors. A speculative suggestion would
be that the use of replacements doors on the M-15 wagon-tops led to a
door replacement program for the class M-53.

The circle "T" indicates that the box car is suitable for l.c.l.
(less-than-car load) service, which was named "Time-Saver Service" on
the B&O. That usually indicated that the box car was suitable for class
A loads.

Bob Witt


Todd Horton wrote:

Does anyone know if (all of the cars had)Â and when the doors would
have been replaced? The Springs Mills site shows in service pics of cars
with Youngstown doors on all of them. One other minor detail, what's the
"circle T" designate? Todd Horton



________________________________
From: rwitt_2000 rwitt_2000@
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 8:27 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Fox Valley (and ExactRail) B&O Wagontop



Â

Andrew,

I just checked the Spring Mills Depot web site and they don't imply
their special run from Fox Valley is sold out. You can check with
them.

http://www.springmillsdepot.com/M53_status.htm

Also there is another run from Fox Valley due first quarter next year.
The B&OHS will have a special run of unique numbers so keep checking
that site as more details become available. http://borhs.org/

For an Exactrail, I would try to get a kit as I believe the door is a
separate part.

Regards,

Bob Witt

Andrew wrote:

Hi,

Like John Degnan, I model 1957. I have seen photos of my
modeling area (eastern Ontario) that indicate B&O M-53
boxcars were an occasional visitor--though not as common
as B&O open hoppers with soft coal for industrial customers.

Photos I've seen of M-53 boxcars in my area and time period
all have the Youngstown doors, not the Tatum doors.

I missed out on the Fox Valley run of M-53s earlier this year
but am interested in possibly getting one of the ExactRail
models. I notice ExactRail isn't offering a version with the
Youngstown doors.

Any guesses on the likelihood of ExactRail doing a future
run of these cars with Youngstown doors and later period
lettering schemes? Alternately, what would be a good
aftermarket Youngstown door to retrofit onto one of the
upcoming run of ExactRail models?

Regards,
Andrew

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

Tim,

I forgot to add that I observed a M-53, ~1960, in a long line of
bad
ordered B&O box cars in Caseyville, Illinois. It still had Tatum
doors
one, which was off its tracks was lying on the floor of the car. I
believe it was the first time I saw a XLT door. As you suggest, it
is
possible that some M-53s made it to the late 1950s still with
their
Tatum doors.

Regards,

Bob Witt

Tim O'Connor wrote:


Thanks Bob. Since my modeling -begins- with 1955 I'll be waiting
for
the cars with replacement doors... but maybe an XLT will slip in
there.


I have 6 photos and/or Xeroxes of photos of M-53 and 1 M-53A
all
still
with their Tatum "XLT" doors. Most are from the Anderson,
Barkan
and
King Collection. The re-weigh dates range from 12-45 to 3-55.
The
paint
schemes range from the early "13 Great States" to the late "13
Great
States" as described in the Barkan document. The re-weigh dates
from
the
1950s include 1950, 1951, 1952 (2), and 1953.

The last is a shop photo at Mt. Clare of a M-53 wearing the
brand
new
"Billboard scheme". It was common for the B&O to do samples at
their
"mother shop", Mt. Clare in Baltimore, before changes were
released
system wide.

Based upon photos its appears the doors were replaced beginning
in
the
mid-1950s.

Bob Witt









Re: Flat car underbody question

Larry Sexton
 

Chad,



I agree with those that want to leave the level of u/f detail alone, If one
doesn't want the detail, it removes easily whereas adding it would be an
undesired bother.



Larry Sexton



From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chad
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 11:48 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Flat car underbody question





What is the general census of the group as to the details for the underbody
of the flat car castings. On my next run, should I leave out the smaller
cross members and just do the center sill and larger cross members. Would
this make it easier to add the weight?
Thanks for the input.
Chad Boas


Re: Flat car underbody question

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
In that case, please mail me all your house car underframes and brake details. I will be happy to pay the postage. :-)
As happens from time to time, Tim creates a straw man and then kicks the stuffing out of it. <g> Richard most assuredly did not say he ignores underframes, and if Tim had had the pleasure of seeing a bunch of Richard's freight cars, he would know that Richard DOES include brake rigging on any car for which a side view makes it visible, and also includes complete piping on cars where it can be seen.
I would not like to see freight car kits (or RTR) with detail- less underframes, but on house cars I too often omit brake PIPING if the only way it can be seen is by inverting the car. I do generally add all brake levers and rods, because usually they can be seen. And on fishbelly-side-sill cars, I may only install the reservoir and cylinder. For me, it DOES depend on the individual car.

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: Flat car underbody question

O Fenton Wells
 

Sorry Tim, I keep the underframes 'mostly' and fit the weight in between.
I built the Seaboard flatcar by Chad and the car totaled out right at 4.8oz
without a load. Really tracks well. I just don't spend time adding
levers, piping and other details not seen by the viewer. Other cars I do.
I'm starting to build a series of modernized Southern coaches to go with
the book I've written and will do lots of piping, levers etc etc.because
the modeler or viewer can see it with the car on the tracks. If fact
studying the Steam Ejector AC systems I may be doing lots of pipe and more
research. It seems that SEAC were a lot like steam enginies as not many
were alike.
Fenton Wells
PS Chads underframes are an integral part of the falt car.
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>wrote:

**


Fenton

In that case, please mail me all your house car underframes and brake
details. I will be happy to pay the postage. :-)

Tim

At 12/4/2011 03:09 PM Sunday, you wrote:
I'm with Richard on this one. Flat cars and Gons expecially.
Fenton Wells



--
Fenton Wells
3047 Creek Run
Sanford NC 27332
919-499-5545
srrfan1401@gmail.com


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


Re: Flat car underbody question

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 4, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
Richard, that covers a LOT of ground, especially since most layouts
do not offer eye-level views of freight cars. Your argument makes the
case for the elimination of nearly all underframe details of any
kind, including the underframe itself!!! (The one exception probably
being tank cars.)
Tim, I'm not concerned with what's visible on "most layouts." My
operating diorama IS at eye level, so I model all underframe details
that aren't concealed behind the side sills. However, on a model of
a flat car or gondola with fishbelly side sills, I will typically
model only the brake rods to the trucks, as everything else below the
floor is entirely invisible. Now, if you expect to be having
frequent train wrecks where the cars end up upside down, that's
another story....

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Flat car underbody question

Tim O'Connor
 

Fenton

In that case, please mail me all your house car underframes and brake
details. I will be happy to pay the postage. :-)

Tim

At 12/4/2011 03:09 PM Sunday, you wrote:
I'm with Richard on this one. Flat cars and Gons expecially.
Fenton Wells


Re: Flat car underbody question

O Fenton Wells
 

I'm with Richard on this one. Flat cars and Gons expecially.
Fenton Wells
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>wrote:

**



Richard, that covers a LOT of ground, especially since most layouts
do not offer eye-level views of freight cars. Your argument makes the
case for the elimination of nearly all underframe details of any
kind, including the underframe itself!!! (The one exception probably
being tank cars.)

Fortunately, yours is not a popular idea with most modelers. :-)

Tim O'

In my opinion, it is pointless to model underframe details which are
invisible when the car is on the track, and essential to weight
models (especially flat cars) properly. So I'd say yes. YMMV, of
course.

Richard Hendrickson




--
Fenton Wells
3047 Creek Run
Sanford NC 27332
919-499-5545
srrfan1401@gmail.com


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


Re: Flat car underbody question

Tim O'Connor
 

Richard, that covers a LOT of ground, especially since most layouts
do not offer eye-level views of freight cars. Your argument makes the
case for the elimination of nearly all underframe details of any
kind, including the underframe itself!!! (The one exception probably
being tank cars.)

Fortunately, yours is not a popular idea with most modelers. :-)

Tim O'



In my opinion, it is pointless to model underframe details which are
invisible when the car is on the track, and essential to weight
models (especially flat cars) properly. So I'd say yes. YMMV, of
course.

Richard Hendrickson

82321 - 82340 of 187181