--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Guy Wilber <guycwilber@...> wrote:

Class E (4). All wood equipped with metal draft arms extending 24 in. or more beyond center line of body bolster, and with body bolster of sufficient strength to transmit buffing and pulling shocks to all longitudinal sills.

Class F. All wood.


As you can see; I mis-spoke earlier today regarding the use of a bottom or top plate within the E-4 description.


The E-4 class was originally slated to be prohibited in interchange on, and after, January 1, 1934. This date was subsequently advanced to January 1, 1936 by the ARA's Arbitration Committee. Shortly thereafter, in a rare action, the Arbitration Committee submitted the proposals prohibiting both Type "F" and "E-4" classes to the membership of the ARA on June 27, 1934. The voting to prohibit all wood construction (Type "F") passed overwhelmingly, thus Type "F" construction was prohibited in interchange on January 1, 1935 with no further extension granted.

The then proposed deadline of January 1, 1936 for cars of Type "E-4" construction, via membership vote (1,893 yes, 329 no) was also confirmed. Despite the voting results, the negative voters petitioned the ARA's General Committee for a further extension. An extension up to April 1, 1937 was granted, but was moved back to January 1, 1937. No further extensions were requested, nor granted, and cars of Type "E-4" construction were prohibited in interchange on and after January 1, 1937.


Guy Wilber
Sparks, Nevada

Thanks Guy. That does explain why photos of these cars are so rare... I don't think anyone in Soo Line land owned a camera before 1935 :-)

I remember looking at the builder's General Arrangement drawing looking for steel center sills, or auxiliary sills between the bolsters, and not finding any, but I don't recall what the draft sills were. However, I do remember that I had seen a copy of the card from the Mech. Dept. card file for one of these cars, and it specifically stated, "Draft Sills: Wood." So as built, these were class F cars. The interesting thing is rebuilding with steel draft sills only gained an additional two years of interchange service. Actually, these cars were a terrible investment; they were only twenty years old when banned from interchange in 1937, and the story of why they were purchased is something I'd really like to find, but so far, no luck.

More interesting is why, if these cars were not suitable for interchange in 1937, what are two of them doing on a 1962 roster document, marked "For Retirement"? That's only twenty five years after they could no longer be loaded off line. Checking a couple editions of the ORER I have show that the number of cars remaining from these two series was:

1953: 13 boxcars and 6 auto cars;
1958: three of each;
1962: the two for retirement listed on the roster

Two thoughts come to mind:

1) The E-4 designation is an error, and the cars had actually received full length steel sill reinforcements, either with or without cover plates, and so were actually class E-2 or E-3. This is essentially what the Soo had done to their entire wood caboose fleet during the twenties. The one in-service photo of one of the automobile cars has a 1924 weigh date, so is too early to provide any answers.

2) The cars were only E-4 grade, but were assigned to the Stores Dept. and didn't go off line. A lot of the 1932 AAR cars ended up this way in the seventies, still carrying revenue service road numbers, but stenciled for Stores Dept. service to keep them from being given to a shipper for loading.

I believe the equipment card file still exists in the society archives. I'm going to e-mail and see if the cards for the two car numbers listed for retirement in 1962 still exist. If so, maybe they will tell what improvements were made to the underframe to keep them in service so long.

Dennis

On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Gene wrote:

When did the Illinois Central first use the slogan "Main Line of
Mid-America?"

Gene,
Per IC marking arrangement drawing T426, dated 2-6-41, applicable to IC
40' box cars, stencil #529 (Mainline of Mid-America) was added per
revision D on 12-3-47. This was in accordance with an IC letter dated
11-18-47. A copy of this drawing is available from the Museum of
Transportation.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

Branchline's 1937 AAR boxcars are the only Yardmaster. All others are
Blueprint.

https://secure.atlasrr.com/mod1/items.asp?Cc=HT120&iTpStatus=0&Tp=&Bc=

Jim

Weird? Different is a word I would use rather than weird. Makes modelling them interesting given that they are not cookie cutter versions of US cars!
 
Daniel McConnachie
Retired Head of Music
Stouffville District Secondary School


________________________________
From: al_brown03 <abrown@fit.edu>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:26:58 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Branchline Blueprint 40' boxcar fate


 
IIRC Branchline's postwar boxcars, like the ACF/URTX reefers, were in the Blueprint series.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Hoxie" <stevehprr@...> wrote:

Atlas has listed in their online catalog several of these kits, but no undecs. See

https://secure.atlasrr.com/mod1/items.asp?Cc=H994&iTpStatus=0&Tp=&Bc=

I believe these are Blueprint cars, but they may be from the Yardmaster series. I just received a couple of ACF/URTX reefers from Atlas; they came in Branchline boxes.

Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, cjbennett@ wrote:

To anyone's knowledge, has Atlas released or announced intention to release cars from the Branchline Blueprint 40', 10'-6" boxcar tooling ? I have built a few of these (Branchline) and loved the seperate ends, roof and doors. Great for all the weird Canadian cars I want anyone know what they will call these if the do make them?

Chris Bennett

Atlas does sell some of the Branchline parts on their website. I purchased
several roofs for Southern boxcars and they are reasonably priced and came
quickly. I too would like to see them offer undecorated Branchline kits but
this does not seem to be of interest to them.



Allen Cain

IIRC Branchline's postwar boxcars, like the ACF/URTX reefers, were in the Blueprint series.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

Hi Gene!
 

When did the Illinois Central first use the slogan "Main Line of Mid-America?"

1947.

Was there ever a point in time pre-ICG that the slogan could be said to be in widespread use?

That IS a bit subjective. But by 1955 it was basically everywhere on steel cars.

Was its use restricted to new cars purchased and built after the slogan's introduction?

Nope. The slogan was added to all STEEL cars, including the prewar ones.

Were older cars repainted with the slogan when rebuilt?

Yes, if they were all-steel. And they didn't have to be rebuilt to get repainted. Back in the good old days railroads were still concerned about public image, and had money to repaint cars. Like I said above, by 1955 the slogan was everywhere, so it only took the IC about seven years to repaint their entire freight car fleet (which was something like the 10th largest in North America).

Was the slogan ever applied to double-sheathed wood cars or single-sheathed cars?

No. By 1947 all of the double sheathed boxcars had dropped off the IC roster (most were actually gone by 1940). And I don't have any photo evidence of ANY wood IC freight car getting the new slogan (that includes boxcars, gons, reefers and hoppers).


Hope this helps!
Regards,
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL

Well I remember the slogan while growing up in Elmhurst, Il and then going
to Champaign for college years before the merger. Doing a quick web search
found timetables for sale with the slogan from the late fifties and a Time
magazine article with that title about the IC from 1951.

Don Burn

When did the Illinois Central first use the slogan "Main Line of Mid-America?"

Was there ever a point in time pre-ICG that the slogan could be said to be in widespread use? (Is the answer too subjective?)

Was its use restricted to new cars purchased and built after the slogan's introduction?

Were older cars repainted with the slogan when rebuilt?

Was the slogan ever applied to double-sheathed wood cars or single-sheathed cars?

Does anyone wish to comment on the accuracy or its lack on any particular decals or dry transfers?

Gene Green

Atlas has listed in their online catalog several of these kits, but no undecs. See

https://secure.atlasrr.com/mod1/items.asp?Cc=H994&iTpStatus=0&Tp=&Bc=

I believe these are Blueprint cars, but they may be from the Yardmaster series. I just received a couple of ACF/URTX reefers from Atlas; they came in Branchline boxes.

Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL

Thanks, Bob and Ben, for your comments. I want to keep these cars and
upgrade them, like that CNJ model in the photo. The concept of taking old
AHM, etc. cars (as with the helium car that was discussed recently) and
upgrading them is appealing to me. In this case, I think I'll just use a
freelance road name on them.



Steve Johnson





From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
rwitt_2000
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 7:44 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: CNJ boxcar question - this time with the link!





Steven,

Ben has addressed some of the problems, but with the introduction of the
Red Caboose and resin models it seems to be a waste of time to try to
fix these old models.

The ends are just awful not representing any prototype and the roof
features are too heavy so it also represents nothing; a
Chicago-Cleveland maybe.

The major problems with the model are the car body is too wide and the
side sills are proud of the side sheathing rather than being recessed
behind the side sheets. The old Train-Miniature "X29" box car has the
same error. if I recall correctly the car is taller than the ARA/X29
prototype and models an interior height closer to the PRR X28 and B&O
M-27 the automobile version of the ARA/X29 box car.

The car body is too wide because it was designed to fit, as Ben terms
it, the "generic" AHM/Parkway/ATT underframe, which was a poor
representation of the ubiquitous PS-1 underframe used on many old models
of box cars. Even trying to reuse the sides as Ben suggests still does
not eliminate the problem with the side sills.

I finally decided these models may serve as a basis to model something
like the UP double door express box cars, but after accurate resin
models became available even that prospect became remote.

Regards,

Bob Witt

P.S. I did convert one into a free-lance spent malt car with roof
hatches painted white with red lettering for the "Star Brewery"
reporting marks "SBX". So you can do something with it and enjoy.

Steven D Johnson wrote:

Oops - forgot the link! The photo is about halfway down or so.



http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/166273.aspx







Is this CNJ boxcar model modified from the old AHM/American Train &

Track HO

car? I have a few of those from way back, and they all have separate
running boards and ladders. I never knew if there was a prototype

from

them. Can anyone direct me to modeling articles which deal with

upgrading

those old cars, with information and photos on the correct prototypes?

Speaking of CNJ boxcars,does any one know of any current offering for this,or CRP cars ?Armand Premo

Dennis wrote:





"That brings to mind a question that came up in a discussion on the SooLineHistory list. The Soo had two series of oddball cars, boxcars
36600-38198, even, and auto cars 75000-75398, even, built in 1917 by Haskell & Barker. These were double sheathed cars with wood sills and truss rods. I've seen the H&B drawings of these cars, and they were definitely NOT built with steel center sills. As such, they should have been restricted from interchange after 1/1/35, and indeed, photos of them in service are exceedingly rare (nonexistent for the boxcars).

However, I have a Soo Mech. Dept. roster dated 1/1/62 that shows one car from each series still remaining. Each entry is followed by the notation (E-4), with no further explanation.

A look in the Jan, 1958 ORER shows three cars remaining in each series, with no note or other exception. I realize it is possible that the Soo rebuilt a small number of these cars with steel center sills, not that I've ever seen any evidence of this.

Any idea what the (E-4) means?"


Dennis,

In 1926 The ARA's Arbitration Committee established the sub classes of class E construction. Prior, the definitions within Class E were simply described collectively. As of 1926 the various classes were:

Class A . All Steel

Class B. Steel Underframe with steel superstructure frame

Class C. All Steel Underframe

Class D. All wood, with continuous metal center sill construction, with not less than 24 in. of sectional area between draft back stops, and with not less than one top or bottom cover plate from draft back stops to draft backstops.

Class E (1). All wood, with not less than 8 in. continuous metal center sills of not less than 18 lb. per foot per member, with not less than one top or bottom cover plate from bolster to bolster.

Class E (2). All wood, with not less than 8 in. continuous metal draft of not less than 18 lb. per ft. per member, with not less than one top or bottom cover plate from bolster to bolster.

Class E (3). All wood, with not less than 8 in. continuous metal draft of not less than 18 lb per you c. per member, securely fastened to wooden center sills not less than 4 in. by 8 in.

Class E (4). All wood equipped with metal draft arms extending 24 in. or more beyond center line of body bolster, and with body bolster of sufficient strength to transmit buffing and pulling shocks to all longitudinal sills.

Class F. All wood.


As you can see; I mis-spoke earlier today regarding the use of a bottom or top plate within the E-4 description.


The E-4 class was originally slated to be prohibited in interchange on, and after, January 1, 1934. This date was subsequently advanced to January 1, 1936 by the ARA's Arbitration Committee. Shortly thereafter, in a rare action, the Arbitration Committee submitted the proposals prohibiting both Type "F" and "E-4" classes to the membership of the ARA on June 27, 1934. The voting to prohibit all wood construction (Type "F") passed overwhelmingly, thus Type "F" construction was prohibited in interchange on January 1, 1935 with no further extension granted.

The then proposed deadline of January 1, 1936 for cars of Type "E-4" construction, via membership vote (1,893 yes, 329 no) was also confirmed. Despite the voting results, the negative voters petitioned the ARA's General Committee for a further extension. An extension up to April 1, 1937 was granted, but was moved back to January 1, 1937. No further extensions were requested, nor granted, and cars of Type "E-4" construction were prohibited in interchange on and after January 1, 1937.


Guy Wilber
Sparks, Nevada
















.

I happened upon a Kadee Monon PS-1 at a show, price too good to pass up. Of course I didn't remember the number of the one I already had, but I would have bought it anyway. I rarely renumber rolling stock, and I've never tried to take the numbers or paint off a Kadee car of any type or vintage. I've generally found that the commonly recommended methods of old - Solvaset or alcohol - will often take off the base paint before it softens the lettering. I dunked a couple of Branchline PRR box cars and the red paint wiped off in the first pass, but the lettering stayed in place quite a while. So I've taken to just using very find sandpaper to take a pad-printed number off.

I have no idea what type of paint Kadee uses. It's extremely fine. Paint thickness is probably as good as it gets. A lot of people, myself included, were fooled into thinking the first PS-1s weren't even painted but just very nicely molded in color. But they are painted. Yep, I'm going to weather this car at some point... to an appearance that's off topic for this list, but I figure someone here has done some renumbering of Kadee cars.

Andy

At 12:21 AM 8/17/2012 +0000, you wrote:

To anyone's knowledge, has Atlas released or announced intention to release cars from the Branchline Blueprint 40', 10'-6" boxcar tooling ?

I've been wondering the same thing. It's probably safe to say there won't be any more undecorated kits. I managed to build a small stash of undec and deco kits - they are very easy to strip if need be, with alcohol. A lot easier to strip a deco kit than to try and strip a deco+assembled RTR model. Cheaper too.

Andy

Bob McCarthy wrote:

As always exceptions make the rule.<G>

Despite your "<G>" notation, Bob, what you call exceptions in this case are something entirely different: they disprove each of your sentences. Neither your statement about K brakes nor your statement about truss rods is accurate (though the truss rods are irrelevant to K brakes).

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

Jim Wrote:




"Thanks for pointing out the errors in the timeline. I will
correct them. If you have a 'complete list' or can point me
to one on the web I will include those changes/additions as well.
Feel free to contact me off list if preferred."

Jim,

The list that Jeff English compiled is in the files section and though it is pretty good it still contains some errors. It is missing far too many entries from the Interchange Rules that should be included which is in no way Jeff's fault. We have come along way since 2003.

Guy










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

Guy,

Thanks for pointing out the errors in the timeline. I will
correct them. If you have a 'complete list' or can point me
to one on the web I will include those changes/additions as well.
Feel free to contact me off list if preferred.
- Jim

If someone would invite the original poster in that thread to bring his steam-era freight car painting and lettering questions to this group, he wouldn't be disturbing that forum with his interest in "trivia."
Scott Pitzer (but one or two questions per thread, please!)

RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 3 New Photos 12 New Files 1
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.

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

Steven,

Ben has addressed some of the problems, but with the introduction of the
Red Caboose and resin models it seems to be a waste of time to try to
fix these old models.

The ends are just awful not representing any prototype and the roof
features are too heavy so it also represents nothing; a
Chicago-Cleveland maybe.

The major problems with the model are the car body is too wide and the
side sills are proud of the side sheathing rather than being recessed
behind the side sheets. The old Train-Miniature "X29" box car has the
same error. if I recall correctly the car is taller than the ARA/X29
prototype and models an interior height closer to the PRR X28 and B&O
M-27 the automobile version of the ARA/X29 box car.

The car body is too wide because it was designed to fit, as Ben terms
it, the "generic" AHM/Parkway/ATT underframe, which was a poor
representation of the ubiquitous PS-1 underframe used on many old models
of box cars. Even trying to reuse the sides as Ben suggests still does
not eliminate the problem with the side sills.

I finally decided these models may serve as a basis to model something
like the UP double door express box cars, but after accurate resin
models became available even that prospect became remote.

Regards,

Bob Witt

P.S. I did convert one into a free-lance spent malt car with roof
hatches painted white with red lettering for the "Star Brewery"
reporting marks "SBX". So you can do something with it and enjoy.







Steven D Johnson wrote:

Oops - forgot the link! The photo is about halfway down or so.



http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/166273.aspx







Is this CNJ boxcar model modified from the old AHM/American Train &

Track HO

car? I have a few of those from way back, and they all have separate
running boards and ladders. I never knew if there was a prototype

from

them. Can anyone direct me to modeling articles which deal with

upgrading

those old cars, with information and photos on the correct prototypes?