Date   

new decals

jerryglow2
 

I just completed artwork and am taking orders for decals for a 36'
Wilson wood reefer. It covers the largest group of such cars: 1396 cars
in series 8101 -- 9600 and spanned a period from steam to the 60's. The
sets cover the most common transition era versions with an option for
one covering to the end of wood cars. See:
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/samples/Wilson-wood.jpg

Jerry Glow
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/decals/full.html


Re: Plain -v- Roller bearings (Was-Stock car reloading )

John H <sprinthag@...>
 

Tim,

I don't know that there was any changing of the lubricant in journal boxes by season. What about a B&M car that had a load bound from fridgid Maine to, say, hot Arizona? And if there were spikes due to temperature changes it would be much more likely in the spring than in fall. I could be wrong (Often am) but I think those stories are akin to changing the air in your tires.

So far as friction with cold lube, probably less than with hot lube. Cold oil is thicker than warm stuff. It also is quite resistent to movement. Try pushing your car when it is zero and hasn't been moved for some time. And your car has roller bearings. I think it has to do with the cohesivness of the oil. But once it gets moving, the oil will heat up on its own. Probably due to molecular action.

John Hagen

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

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


Duryea Cushion Underframe

Bob Webber <drgw18@...>
 

If you look here:
http://www.pullmancar.org/pullfreight.htm
and scroll down to near the bottom, you can see a thumbnail of the UF.

At 03:01 PM 12/30/2011, STMFC@... wrote:



Duryea Cushion Underframe






Posted by: "Steve Vallee"






Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:17 am (PST)





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
Bob Webber


Re: S40-16 UP Stock cars

Tim O'Connor
 

no

At 12/30/2011 03:55 PM Friday, you wrote:
I am scanning articles of interest from old magazines and in the October
1998 RMJ there is an ad on page 56 showing a pre-production Hi-Tech Details
injection molded S40-16 UP Stockcar. I don't recall this car ever being
produced. Did Hi-Tech details ever release the kit?
Brian J. Carlson, P.E.
Cheektowaga, NY


Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures

Tim O'Connor
 

That's correct. TLT sells the same sideframes with a different bolster.

Tim O'Connor

Might I point out that the Simplex name only refereed to the truck BOLSTER?
> Car trucks and bolsters could, and were, purchased separately. So, these are
> (whatever) trucks with Simplex bolsters.
> Dennis


Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures

Armand Premo
 

Thank you Dennis for your help.Having looked at the TL Simplex trucks they seem to have a shorter wheel base and if I recall correctly have Simplex embossed on the truck side frame.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: soolinehistory
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 3:51 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures





--- In STMFC@..., "armprem2" <armprem2@...> wrote:
>
> The cars were equipped with Simplex trucks.Does anyone know of another source for these trucks?Armand Premo

Might I point out that the Simplex name only refereed to the truck BOLSTER? Car trucks and bolsters could, and were, purchased separately. So, these are (whatever) trucks with Simplex bolsters.

Dennis


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

Joel Holmes <lehighvalley@...>
 

Hi Mark,

I go back to the early 50's for being around Railroads, and 1968 on the
Great Northern. My secretary (me) says, it OK to use the word Sun Kink,
etc. I also deal in taxes, but most folks do not know what I am talking
about if I use tax terms, so I use terms they understand. I believe a sun
kink is a very sharp S curve.

Joel Holmes

I (and others on this list) are therefore opposed to the use of
"friction bearings" in STMFC posts.

Richard Hendrickson,

Objection noted. As someone who has been around railroads since the '70s
and worked with them since the early '80s, that's just the term I've most
often heard and the term I commonly use. That despite the fact that the
term may not be technically correct...

If you're opposed to use of an "everyday railroad term" here, I'll try to
refrain from using it on this particular list. After many years I'm still
trying to train myself to use other "more appropriate" terms such as
"thermal misalignment" instead of the traditional term "sun kink", or
"flight attendant" rather than "stewardess" and "administrative assistant"
instead of "secretary". I'm not always free from error, so please forgive
me if I slip up from time to time...


Take care,

Mark Amfahr



S40-16 UP Stock cars

Brian Carlson
 

I am scanning articles of interest from old magazines and in the October
1998 RMJ there is an ad on page 56 showing a pre-production Hi-Tech Details
injection molded S40-16 UP Stockcar. I don't recall this car ever being
produced. Did Hi-Tech details ever release the kit?



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY


Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

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

The cars were equipped with Simplex trucks.Does anyone know of another source for these trucks?Armand Premo
Might I point out that the Simplex name only refereed to the truck BOLSTER? Car trucks and bolsters could, and were, purchased separately. So, these are (whatever) trucks with Simplex bolsters.

Dennis


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

dmamfahr <mamfahr@...>
 

I (and others on this list) are therefore opposed to the use of "friction bearings" in STMFC posts.

Richard Hendrickson,

Objection noted. As someone who has been around railroads since the '70s and worked with them since the early '80s, that's just the term I've most often heard and the term I commonly use. That despite the fact that the term may not be technically correct...

If you're opposed to use of an "everyday railroad term" here, I'll try to refrain from using it on this particular list. After many years I'm still trying to train myself to use other "more appropriate" terms such as "thermal misalignment" instead of the traditional term "sun kink", or "flight attendant" rather than "stewardess" and "administrative assistant" instead of "secretary". I'm not always free from error, so please forgive me if I slip up from time to time...


Take care,

Mark Amfahr


Re: True Line new "Fowler" pictures

Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Yes, one would think so?
It's something TLT did that I've never understood.
Pierre

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

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@...
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@..., "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@...
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







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@...
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@..., "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@...
> 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@...
From: mamfahr@...
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@...
From: ljames1@...
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:15:24 +0000
Subject: [STMFC] Re: CN Stock Cars in the USA
































--- In STMFC@..., 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

91441 - 91460 of 197105