Date   

Bearings Redux (was Re: Stock car reloading - was CN Stock Cars in the USA)

Tim O'Connor
 

Ah!! It's almost the New Year, so it's time to revive the debate
over PLAIN/JOURNAL/FRICTION bearings!

I think it's only fair to put in a good word for friction bearings
which were indeed an important component of many railroad freight
car trucks, and can be found easily in Car Builder Cyclopedias.

However, these bearings are NOT involved with the JOURNALS. Their
proper name is TRUCK SIDE BEARINGS, and their purpose is to create
friction!!

They sat on top of the truck bolsters, and interacted with the
freight car bolster, and served the purpose of dampening side-to-side
rocking motion of freight cars. These little thingies are represented
on many model freight car trucks -- just look for them! On prototype
cars they are bolted on, because as we can imagine, all that friction
caused them to wear out, and they had to be replaced.

Tim O'Connor

P.S. My earliest copy of Richard's lecture (repeated below) is dated
December 13, 1998! :-) (I agree with everything Richard says by the way.)

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

Richard Hendrickson wrote

All true, as verified by previous research on the DLS trains by the
late Terry Metcalfe and others, and very informative. Permit me to
nitpick one thing, however, and that is the repeated use of the term
"friction bearings." One more time: that term appeared in
advertising by the roller bearing manufacturers to suggest that
roller bearings didn't have friction, but the reality was (and is)
that ALL journal bearings have friction, and the term "friction
bearings" was not generally adopted in railroad engineering circles,
where it was known to be nothing more than an advertising ploy.
Roller bearings had less resistance to starting friction, but as
train speed increased their performance wasn't much different from
plain bearings (or solid bearings, if you prefer). And while it's
certainly true that, in the immediate postwar period, roller bearings
were much less prone to run hot than plain bearings, the development
of various patented lubricating devices greatly reduced the incidence
of plain-bearing hot boxes in the 1950s, which is one of the reasons
the railroads were able to avoid the extra cost of roller bearings in
car journals until the '60s. I (and others on this list) are
therefore opposed to the use of "friction bearings" in STMFC posts.


Re: Stock car reloading - was CN Stock Cars in the USA

Joel Holmes <lehighvalley@...>
 

Hi Richard,

When I was at car shops in the late 60's, they were still soaking the
journal pads for the solid bearing cars. I remember looking at the oil
tanks that the pads were soaked in. I do not know when or if solid
bearing cars were outlawed in interchange service, but as I remember,
there were still a lot of solid bearing cars in the late 60's.

I also remember seeing 3 freight trains setting hot boxes out at Ottawa
Junction in the early 60's. It was a very cold night in eastern Kansas
and there was a rash of hot boxes.

Joel Holmes

On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:51 AM, dmamfahr wrote:

When did the UP introduce the roller bearing equipped UP
"Dispatch" stock cars into service? ...I wonder if the UP was
reloading stock into these cars at this time to be able to run the
trains faster -- I seem to recall these special trains were able to
skip at least one rest stop, perhaps Las Vegas?

Hello Tim,

Frank provided you with the info on the cars, I'll add a few
comments related to their operation. I don't believe the roller
bearing cars materially impacted train speeds vs. use of
conventional friction bearing cars. Even with the addition of the
100s of "Dispatch" cars in the late '40s, note that shipments of
livestock on the LA&SL trains were still moved using a mix of
livestock car types, with a significant % being friction bearing
cars from UP and from foreign roads. The promotional photos along
the LS&SL at the time that (seem to) depict solid trains of new
yellow "Dispatch" cars are deceiving in that respect. They were
still running many brown UP cars along with cars from NP, CNW, CB&Q
and others on those trains. So the mix of cartypes on those trains
(friction bearing stock cars + cars often added to the trains as
"fill") would have limited train speeds even if the new "Dispatch"
cars were able to run faster�

The main advantage of roller bearings in those early years was that
they greatly improved reliability of shipments - fewer en-route
delays due to hotboxes, etc. Hotboxes were a real problem for RRs
in the steam era. On the UP, I've noticed something on the order of
one hot-box set out (en-route) per subdivision per day on average.
As you may imagine, it was much more problematic to deal with a bad-
order livestock shipment vs. the typical carload of freight. This
was especially true when a hotbox or other problem made it
necessary to set out a livestock car at some remote station in
southern Nevada where the temps are normally in the range of hot-to-
unbearable.

It's my understanding that the principal factor that made it
possible for UP to eliminate the Las Vegas feed/water/rest stop was
the installation of CTC. As wartime traffic dropped off, the
additional capacity & flexibility provided by the CTC installation
(vs. the TT&TO operation they'd been using) made it possible for
them to run the DLS trains from Ogden/SLC - LA run in under 36
hours. Operation with diesels also began around that time, which
further improved running times and performance vs. schedules.

So it wasn't so much the cars, but rather the way that they
operated their trains that allowed them to eliminate the
intermediate stop for livestock in the late '40s.
All true, as verified by previous research on the DLS trains by the
late Terry Metcalfe and others, and very informative. Permit me to
nitpick one thing, however, and that is the repeated use of the term
"friction bearings." One more time: that term appeared in
advertising by the roller bearing manufacturers to suggest that
roller bearings didn't have friction, but the reality was (and is)
that ALL journal bearings have friction, and the term "friction
bearings" was not generally adopted in railroad engineering circles,
where it was known to be nothing more than an advertising ploy.
Roller bearings had less resistance to starting friction, but as
train speed increased their performance wasn't much different from
plain bearings (or solid bearings, if you prefer). And while it's
certainly true that, in the immediate postwar period, roller bearings
were much less prone to run hot than plain bearings, the development
of various patented lubricating devices greatly reduced the incidence
of plain-bearing hot boxes in the 1950s, which is one of the reasons
the railroads were able to avoid the extra cost of roller bearings in
car journals until the '60s. I (and others on this list) are
therefore opposed to the use of "friction bearings" in STMFC posts.

Richard Hendrickson







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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: Stock car reloading - was CN Stock Cars in the USA

Tim O'Connor
 

Frank

I have heard many times that starting a train was harder in very cold
weather, and that the oil needs to warm up a bit. In other words if there
were NO friction in a plain bearing, then the oil could never warm up! So
paradoxically it was necessary for journals and bearings to get a little
bit hot just so they could warm up the oil which then coated the journals
and bearings sufficiently to reduce friction and rolling resistance to an
equilibrium. Most hot boxes occurred when contaminants (especially bits of
rag) got loose and got in between the journal and bearing and caught fire.

Tim O'Connor


Mark, I seem to remember talking to someone on the UP (conductor, brakeman)
that was working during the steam era that said that hot boxes were more common
during either the spring or fall when temp. was changing. Due to different
journal oil in different seasons? Have you seen evidence of this? On freight
cars of course, just in case our leader, and head jailor, is watching.
FHP (FHPeacock)


Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures

Armand Premo
 

Thank you Pierre.One would think that they could revise the truck and make it available for a broad market.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Pierre
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 1:53 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures



Armand,
Currently, TLT is the only source for Simplex bolster trucks.
They are reasonably well executed and certainly up to todays stasndards.
Just one important detail. They are made with the truck bolster .040" higher than most other trucks on the market. The internal construction of the TLT bolster requires that the modeler remove material from the body bolster to lower the car to the correct height.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "armprem2" <armprem2@...> wrote:
>
> The cars were equipped with Simplex trucks.Does anyone know of another source for these trucks?Armand Premo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim O'Connor
> To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:08 PM
> Subject: [STMFC] Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures
>
>
>
>
> Interesting. One of the NP guys measured some boards on an NP box car
> as 5.5" wide with a V groove in the middle. Do you or anyone have more
> information about ARA standards for siding, and the years in which the
> standards were in force? At some point, judging from photos and from
> some drawings, it seems that the milled boards were replaced with plain
> T&G boards.
>
> Tim O'Connor
>
> >Any of the Canadian experts care to comment on the width of the boards on that wood door? They appear to be the same width as the side sheathing, which would make them 5-1/4" wide. The ARA did have a standard section 5-1/4" wide T&G car siding, but it was milled with an extra V grove in the middle of the board, so gave the appearance of 2-5/8" wide boards. Train Miniature missed this point about forty years ago, as have others since. Did the Canadian roads really use a non standard car siding, or has TLT misinterpreted the drawing call out that says the doors are 5-1/4" T&G?
> >
> >Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Re: Stock car reloading - was CN Stock Cars in the USA

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:51 AM, dmamfahr wrote:

When did the UP introduce the roller bearing equipped UP
"Dispatch" stock cars into service? ...I wonder if the UP was
reloading stock into these cars at this time to be able to run the
trains faster -- I seem to recall these special trains were able to
skip at least one rest stop, perhaps Las Vegas?

Hello Tim,

Frank provided you with the info on the cars, I'll add a few
comments related to their operation. I don't believe the roller
bearing cars materially impacted train speeds vs. use of
conventional friction bearing cars. Even with the addition of the
100s of "Dispatch" cars in the late '40s, note that shipments of
livestock on the LA&SL trains were still moved using a mix of
livestock car types, with a significant % being friction bearing
cars from UP and from foreign roads. The promotional photos along
the LS&SL at the time that (seem to) depict solid trains of new
yellow "Dispatch" cars are deceiving in that respect. They were
still running many brown UP cars along with cars from NP, CNW, CB&Q
and others on those trains. So the mix of cartypes on those trains
(friction bearing stock cars + cars often added to the trains as
"fill") would have limited train speeds even if the new "Dispatch"
cars were able to run faster

The main advantage of roller bearings in those early years was that
they greatly improved reliability of shipments - fewer en-route
delays due to hotboxes, etc. Hotboxes were a real problem for RRs
in the steam era. On the UP, I've noticed something on the order of
one hot-box set out (en-route) per subdivision per day on average.
As you may imagine, it was much more problematic to deal with a bad-
order livestock shipment vs. the typical carload of freight. This
was especially true when a hotbox or other problem made it
necessary to set out a livestock car at some remote station in
southern Nevada where the temps are normally in the range of hot-to-
unbearable.

It's my understanding that the principal factor that made it
possible for UP to eliminate the Las Vegas feed/water/rest stop was
the installation of CTC. As wartime traffic dropped off, the
additional capacity & flexibility provided by the CTC installation
(vs. the TT&TO operation they'd been using) made it possible for
them to run the DLS trains from Ogden/SLC - LA run in under 36
hours. Operation with diesels also began around that time, which
further improved running times and performance vs. schedules.

So it wasn't so much the cars, but rather the way that they
operated their trains that allowed them to eliminate the
intermediate stop for livestock in the late '40s.
All true, as verified by previous research on the DLS trains by the
late Terry Metcalfe and others, and very informative. Permit me to
nitpick one thing, however, and that is the repeated use of the term
"friction bearings." One more time: that term appeared in
advertising by the roller bearing manufacturers to suggest that
roller bearings didn't have friction, but the reality was (and is)
that ALL journal bearings have friction, and the term "friction
bearings" was not generally adopted in railroad engineering circles,
where it was known to be nothing more than an advertising ploy.
Roller bearings had less resistance to starting friction, but as
train speed increased their performance wasn't much different from
plain bearings (or solid bearings, if you prefer). And while it's
certainly true that, in the immediate postwar period, roller bearings
were much less prone to run hot than plain bearings, the development
of various patented lubricating devices greatly reduced the incidence
of plain-bearing hot boxes in the 1950s, which is one of the reasons
the railroads were able to avoid the extra cost of roller bearings in
car journals until the '60s. I (and others on this list) are
therefore opposed to the use of "friction bearings" in STMFC posts.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Stock car reloading - was CN Stock Cars in the USA

FRANK PEACOCK
 

Mark, I seem to remember talking to someone on the UP (conductor, brakeman) that was working during the steam era that said that hot boxes were more common during either the spring or fall when temp. was changing. Due to different journal oil in different seasons? Have you seen evidence of this? On freight cars of course, just in case our leader, and head jailor, is watching. FHP (FHPeacock)

To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
From: mamfahr@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:51:13 +0000
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Stock car reloading - was CN Stock Cars in the USA




























> When did the UP introduce the roller bearing equipped UP "Dispatch" stock cars into service? ...I wonder if the UP was reloading stock into these cars at this time to be able to run the trains faster -- I seem to recall these special trains were able to skip at least one rest stop, perhaps Las Vegas?



Hello Tim,



Frank provided you with the info on the cars, I'll add a few comments related to their operation. I don't believe the roller bearing cars materially impacted train speeds vs. use of conventional friction bearing cars. Even with the addition of the 100s of "Dispatch" cars in the late '40s, note that shipments of livestock on the LA&SL trains were still moved using a mix of livestock car types, with a significant % being friction bearing cars from UP and from foreign roads. The promotional photos along the LS&SL at the time that (seem to) depict solid trains of new yellow "Dispatch" cars are deceiving in that respect. They were still running many brown UP cars along with cars from NP, CNW, CB&Q and others on those trains. So the mix of cartypes on those trains (friction bearing stock cars + cars often added to the trains as "fill") would have limited train speeds even if the new "Dispatch" cars were able to run faster



The main advantage of roller bearings in those early years was that they greatly improved reliability of shipments - fewer en-route delays due to hotboxes, etc. Hotboxes were a real problem for RRs in the steam era. On the UP, I've noticed something on the order of one hot-box set out (en-route) per subdivision per day on average. As you may imagine, it was much more problematic to deal with a bad-order livestock shipment vs. the typical carload of freight. This was especially true when a hotbox or other problem made it necessary to set out a livestock car at some remote station in southern Nevada where the temps are normally in the range of hot-to-unbearable.



It's my understanding that the principal factor that made it possible for UP to eliminate the Las Vegas feed/water/rest stop was the installation of CTC. As wartime traffic dropped off, the additional capacity & flexibility provided by the CTC installation (vs. the TT&TO operation they'd been using) made it possible for them to run the DLS trains from Ogden/SLC - LA run in under 36 hours. Operation with diesels also began around that time, which further improved running times and performance vs. schedules.



So it wasn't so much the cars, but rather the way that they operated their trains that allowed them to eliminate the intermediate stop for livestock in the late '40s.



Take care,



Mark


Re: CN Stock Cars in the USA

FRANK PEACOCK
 

Wow! two Dixon's in one state. That is a surprise although my 1951 Form 70 only lists the Dixon in Oregon so I bet the location near Sac. is the correct one for this load. FHP (Frank H. Peacock)

To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
From: ljames1@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:15:24 +0000
Subject: [STMFC] Re: CN Stock Cars in the USA
































--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, FRANK PEACOCK <frank3112@...> wrote:

Group, Of course CN stock cars got down to the USA! Or at least one did: CN 171510, loaded at Guelph, Ont. with lambs to Dixon. Cal. (near Sacramento). This was on Nov. 24, 1947 on the LA (Los Angeles Special). The UP must have handed the car off to the SP to get it to Dixon.


There was also a location named Dixon on the UP near Ontario, CA. See

http://coastdaylight.com/ljames1/scph_sb_dixon.html



Jim Lancaster


















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


Duryea Cushion Underframe

Steve Vallee
 

Dear Group...

   I spotted this tidbit that I would like to share with the Group. On page 65 of the April, 1942 issue of Railroad Magazine, I found this Q&A:


 Q)... Publish information about the Duryea Cushion Underframe.

 A)... The Duryea Cushion Underframe was first demonstrated at the Butler, Pa., plant of the Standard Steel Car Co. in Dec. 1927. It is designed to permit the control of slack and of energy absorption capacity separately, each to meet the most desirable operating conditions, without the need of compromise between them. Three points mark the individuality of the design, namely, (1) a center draft still capable of restricted movement with respect to the car body proper, (2), a coupler gear, and (3) a long-travel, high capacity cushion gear, one each of the latter two at each end of the car. Shock absorbing devices are provided in car construction to protect against two principal classes of impacts: those resulting from surges in train movements, and those caused by heavy impacts in switching.

  The force of an impact at the face of the coupler of a car equipped with a Duryea Underframe must pass successively through the coupler, coupler gear, movable center sill, cushion gears, body bolster, and body members, before reaching the car lading, so that only a very small part of even the most severe impacts can ever reach the car lading uncushioned. The resilient attachment of a center sill, instead of employing conventional rigid underframe construction, protects body, lading, underframe and trucks against shock.

  The B&O was the first railroad to adopt this underframe as standard for its freight equipment.


  Steve Vallee






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


Re: US Army and Navy boxcars during WW II + ammunition placards

Tim O'Connor
 

The US Army owned some ARA 1923 box cars -- there is a photo of one
in the Classic Freight Cars Volume 7, and I have a scan of one with
reweigh stencil LKOD 10-1958. But I agree I haven't heard of any that
were in use during WWII.

There's also a 1950 photo of USAX 24730, a 36 foot double sheathed
box car that may be ex-Mopac. See Mainline Modeler 12/1986.

Ed Hawkins' PS-1 roster includes MANY PS-1 box cars acquired by each
of the armed services from 1950 to 1955. Railmodel Journal 11/1993
has a 1950 builder photo --
http://trainlife.com/magazines/pages/153/11083/november-1993-page-29

Tim O'Connor

Here is a photo I took of a U.S. Army car in 1982. The stencil says
the car was built in 1941.

Don Strack
That car may have been built in 1941 but the 1943 ORER shows only tank cars under US War Department. Also, USAX was a post WWII reporting mark, which replaced the USQX on the WWII tank cars.
I would therefore guess that army, or any government, ammo shipments were made using regular RR boxcars.
Bill Williams


Re: CN Stock Cars in the USA

dmamfahr <mamfahr@...>
 

I believe the reuse of stock cars depended upon the location. Your examples along the UP may have been typical in UP territory, esp at isolated locations where the only cars available may have been the ones that brought the rested animals.

Hello Doug,

Thanks for the additional info.

The locations I've reviewed on the UP were "isolated" with respect to human population, but not in terms of train traffic or availability of stock cars. The locations I've examined along the Overland Route normally saw 30-35 freight trains per day. On those trains were anywhere from a dozen to several dozen empty stock cars of both the SD and DD configuration. This indicates to me that cars were normally available if they'd have wanted to reload into either "home road" or foreign "backhaul" cars when reloading livestock after rest. Despite the availability of cars however, they elected not to do it. I can't tell you why but it does seem that car availability wasn't a key factor...


...In the Midwest, ie along CB&Q, C&NW, etc. where feed and
rest stations esp those just outside of Chicago, saw a larger number of trains and thus a wider variety of cars were available, esp per diem cars from other roads. The railroads quickly cleaned and moved cars back west where they were needed. Then when animals were ready to be reloaded different cars were used and sent east.


I'm curious about this. If the Q and CNW normally sent their own (and presumably other "western RR") cars back west, that suggests that they had a supply of empty foreign cars available at those locations to load east in place of them. How did those cars get there? Did they request empty cars from the NYC, Erie, PRR, NKP, etc for loading onto those lines? That's certainly possible but doesn't seem likely to me. If per-diem was the driving factor, it seems the CNW & Q would have preferred to reload their own cars to eastern points (to earn the off-line per-diem) and not have the eastern cars on-line at all...

I have to say that I'm not very well versed in eastern RR operating practices in the steam era, so I took a look through some of the NYC 1950s train lists available on-line to see what I could learn. I found 147 stock cars listed in the sample, but only 19 of those were "home road" (NYC marked). The vast majority shown in the sample were owned by Midwestern / western RRs; some were privates. That seems to indicate that most stock shipments moved through to their eastern destinations in the cars they were originally loaded in. While that's only a single (NYC) source, it is consistent with what I'd seen happening out west on the UP...


...The large feed/rest stations outside of Chicago were also used for extended rest periods, ie a farmer might hold animals at the feed/rest station for a week while waiting for prices to increase. No railroad would leave a car sit for that long of a period.
Turning inbound cars back in that case certainly makes sense to me. However, I wonder what the overall % of shipments held for "extended periods" was? Was that a something that was common or relatively rare?


Take care,

Mark Amfahr


RE Photo's

mark
 

Thanks to all who responded to my question about the photo's.There were some leads that came up to check locally here in Detroit.If that does not pan out I will defiantly get back to those of you who offered your services.To those who asked about MoPac and other lines,there are a few pictures covering C&NW and Milwaukee Road narrow gauge lines.Most are of the C&S narrow gauge.I will go through and see what other roads I have and let you know what I have. Thanks again Mark McCoy tavwot@yahoo.com


Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures

Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Armand,
Currently, TLT is the only source for Simplex bolster trucks.
They are reasonably well executed and certainly up to todays stasndards.
Just one important detail. They are made with the truck bolster .040" higher than most other trucks on the market. The internal construction of the TLT bolster requires that the modeler remove material from the body bolster to lower the car to the correct height.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "armprem2" <armprem2@...> wrote:

The cars were equipped with Simplex trucks.Does anyone know of another source for these trucks?Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:08 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures




Interesting. One of the NP guys measured some boards on an NP box car
as 5.5" wide with a V groove in the middle. Do you or anyone have more
information about ARA standards for siding, and the years in which the
standards were in force? At some point, judging from photos and from
some drawings, it seems that the milled boards were replaced with plain
T&G boards.

Tim O'Connor

>Any of the Canadian experts care to comment on the width of the boards on that wood door? They appear to be the same width as the side sheathing, which would make them 5-1/4" wide. The ARA did have a standard section 5-1/4" wide T&G car siding, but it was milled with an extra V grove in the middle of the board, so gave the appearance of 2-5/8" wide boards. Train Miniature missed this point about forty years ago, as have others since. Did the Canadian roads really use a non standard car siding, or has TLT misinterpreted the drawing call out that says the doors are 5-1/4" T&G?
>
>Dennis





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


Re: CN Stock Cars in the USA

Jim Lancaster
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, FRANK PEACOCK <frank3112@...> wrote:


Group, Of course CN stock cars got down to the USA! Or at least one did: CN 171510, loaded at Guelph, Ont. with lambs to Dixon. Cal. (near Sacramento). This was on Nov. 24, 1947 on the LA (Los Angeles Special). The UP must have handed the car off to the SP to get it to Dixon.
There was also a location named Dixon on the UP near Ontario, CA. See
http://coastdaylight.com/ljames1/scph_sb_dixon.html

Jim Lancaster


Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures

Armand Premo
 

The cars were equipped with Simplex trucks.Does anyone know of another source for these trucks?Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:08 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures




Interesting. One of the NP guys measured some boards on an NP box car
as 5.5" wide with a V groove in the middle. Do you or anyone have more
information about ARA standards for siding, and the years in which the
standards were in force? At some point, judging from photos and from
some drawings, it seems that the milled boards were replaced with plain
T&G boards.

Tim O'Connor

>Any of the Canadian experts care to comment on the width of the boards on that wood door? They appear to be the same width as the side sheathing, which would make them 5-1/4" wide. The ARA did have a standard section 5-1/4" wide T&G car siding, but it was milled with an extra V grove in the middle of the board, so gave the appearance of 2-5/8" wide boards. Train Miniature missed this point about forty years ago, as have others since. Did the Canadian roads really use a non standard car siding, or has TLT misinterpreted the drawing call out that says the doors are 5-1/4" T&G?
>
>Dennis


Re: Stock car reloading - was CN Stock Cars in the USA

dmamfahr <mamfahr@...>
 

When did the UP introduce the roller bearing equipped UP "Dispatch" stock cars into service? ...I wonder if the UP was reloading stock into these cars at this time to be able to run the trains faster -- I seem to recall these special trains were able to skip at least one rest stop, perhaps Las Vegas?

Hello Tim,

Frank provided you with the info on the cars, I'll add a few comments related to their operation. I don't believe the roller bearing cars materially impacted train speeds vs. use of conventional friction bearing cars. Even with the addition of the 100s of "Dispatch" cars in the late '40s, note that shipments of livestock on the LA&SL trains were still moved using a mix of livestock car types, with a significant % being friction bearing cars from UP and from foreign roads. The promotional photos along the LS&SL at the time that (seem to) depict solid trains of new yellow "Dispatch" cars are deceiving in that respect. They were still running many brown UP cars along with cars from NP, CNW, CB&Q and others on those trains. So the mix of cartypes on those trains (friction bearing stock cars + cars often added to the trains as "fill") would have limited train speeds even if the new "Dispatch" cars were able to run faster…

The main advantage of roller bearings in those early years was that they greatly improved reliability of shipments - fewer en-route delays due to hotboxes, etc. Hotboxes were a real problem for RRs in the steam era. On the UP, I've noticed something on the order of one hot-box set out (en-route) per subdivision per day on average. As you may imagine, it was much more problematic to deal with a bad-order livestock shipment vs. the typical carload of freight. This was especially true when a hotbox or other problem made it necessary to set out a livestock car at some remote station in southern Nevada where the temps are normally in the range of hot-to-unbearable.

It's my understanding that the principal factor that made it possible for UP to eliminate the Las Vegas feed/water/rest stop was the installation of CTC. As wartime traffic dropped off, the additional capacity & flexibility provided by the CTC installation (vs. the TT&TO operation they'd been using) made it possible for them to run the DLS trains from Ogden/SLC - LA run in under 36 hours. Operation with diesels also began around that time, which further improved running times and performance vs. schedules.

So it wasn't so much the cars, but rather the way that they operated their trains that allowed them to eliminate the intermediate stop for livestock in the late '40s.

Take care,

Mark


Re: US Army and Navy boxcars during WW II + ammunition placards

bill_d_goat
 


Here is a photo I took of a U.S. Army car in 1982. The stencil says
the car was built in 1941.

Don Strack
That car may have been built in 1941 but the 1943 ORER shows only tank cars under US War Department. Also, USAX was a post WWII reporting mark, which replaced the USQX on the WWII tank cars.
I would therefore guess that army, or any government, ammo shipments were made using regular RR boxcars.
Bill Williams


Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


Interesting. One of the NP guys measured some boards on an NP box car
as 5.5" wide with a V groove in the middle. Do you or anyone have more
information about ARA standards for siding, and the years in which the
standards were in force? At some point, judging from photos and from
some drawings, it seems that the milled boards were replaced with plain
T&G boards.

Tim O'Connor
Tim,

I'm not arguing that some roads / builders used non standard sizes, just asking the Canadians if this is correct for this car, which could also be modified into a Soo Line car, but not with that door. Heck, I have a photo of a Soo Line caboose where the corner has been repaired with "beaded ceiling", the architectural section with the half-round bead next to the V groove. Likely the carman at one of the remote terminals didn't have stock and just went to the local lumber yard... either that, or the crew fixed it themselves before anyone found out they had "cornered" their caboose.

The MCB/ARA/AAR sections were only recommended practice, but were designed so that any RIP track should have material to repair any road's car. You should be able to find a drawing of all the lumber sizes in any Car Builder's Cyc. from 1922 or before until at least 1980.
Dennis


Re: Is it a TPW 10'IH PS-1? (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Folks;

Could you take a look at this TP&W box car and tell me what you think its
ancestry is? It looks like a 10'IH early PS-1, blt Apr 1948, with the
rounded end ribs, the notched bolster tabs and all, and a short Superior
door, but I think you know better than I...

http://www.godfatherrails.com/photos/pv.asp?pid=967

There looks like a short series of cars in series 5000 to 5042 that might be
these, but I don't know. The capacity listed doesn't match. The only other
10'IH cars on the TP&W were a steel sheathed car in series 1350 - 1352, or
some added c.1964 in series 1355-1371. Given what looks like an original
"41" at the end of the original car number, I don't think it is either.

There's also another car I am curious about on the slide of the PC box car.
It looks like an MEC boxcar being loaded, and I am curious about it, too.
What is that door?

After doing a couple books with John, I am looking forward to remaining
freight car slides from his collection coming to light.

Any thoughts? Thanks,

Elden Gatwood



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Scalpel Blades/Handles Suppliers and Best Choices

Brian Ehni <behni@...>
 

I like the #11 myself; used to get them from my father. Haven't tried asking
my brother or sister, but they're good choices, too (for me, anyway ­ 8^)).



Thanks!
--

Brian P. Ehni

From: Bill Welch <fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:09:33 -0000
To: STMFC List <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Scalpel Blades/Handles Suppliers and Best Choices






Larry and others

I Googled "#15 or #12C scalpel blade" and found several sources. Does anyone
have a favorite source? Also what other handle sizes and blade types have
people found helpful?

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "mt19a"
<LarrynLynnHanlon@...> wrote:


Hi Steve,

one of these mornings when the mood is right I plan to use a new #15 or #12C
scalpel blade in a size 3 handle. Much sharper than X-Acto, you can
controllably remove as little as a few thousandths at a time, even on acetal
plastics.

Larry Hanlon.
Bend, OR


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "shile315"
<shile@> wrote:

I am wondering whether anyone has come up with a good approach to removing
the unprototypical roof protrusion under the running board laterals without
damaging the running boards? Then, I assume some flat brass strips can be
supplied.

Thanks,
Steve Hile








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


Scalpel Blades/Handles Suppliers and Best Choices

Bill Welch
 

Larry and others

I Googled "#15 or #12C scalpel blade" and found several sources. Does anyone have a favorite source? Also what other handle sizes and blade types have people found helpful?

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "mt19a" <LarrynLynnHanlon@...> wrote:


Hi Steve,

one of these mornings when the mood is right I plan to use a new #15 or #12C scalpel blade in a size 3 handle. Much sharper than X-Acto, you can controllably remove as little as a few thousandths at a time, even on acetal plastics.

Larry Hanlon.
Bend, OR


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "shile315" <shile@> wrote:

I am wondering whether anyone has come up with a good approach to removing the unprototypical roof protrusion under the running board laterals without damaging the running boards? Then, I assume some flat brass strips can be supplied.

Thanks,
Steve Hile

77601 - 77620 of 183254