Date   

Re: More Chicago Past links.

Benjamin Hom
 

Brian Ehni wrote:
"I have been trying for a while for this link to come up. You may have better
results."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/fsac/1a34000/1a34700/1a34781u.tif

Got it to come right up.  It is 138 MB, so we're not talking about some 72 DPI jpeg here.
 
 
Ben Hom


Re: More Chicago Past links.

 

I have been trying for a while for this link to come up. You may have better
results.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/fsac/1a34000/1a34700/1a34781u.tif


Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni

From: Ray Breyer <rtbsvrr69@...>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Date: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:58 PM
To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] More Chicago Past links.






Too bad the originals on the Library of Congress site are unavailable due to
the shutdown.
Brian Ehni

The LoC website is UP:
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/
(has been since Day 2 of the Teapublican Tantrum)

And these specific images are in the Illinois State University holdings
collection:
http://collections.carli.illinois.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/uic_pic
&CISOPTR=14803


Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


Re: Dominion Cars

Robert kirkham
 

Hi Daniel,
 
slow progress on the printed parts, but progress indeed!
 
Re the GT’s 6’ door cars, I do not have actual blue print drawings or equivalent quality measurements from surviving examples (was still on the learning curve when I got really excited about these cars.  C’est la vie). 
 
Given they were not all built at once, even one set of drawings or measurements may fail to provide a complete answer to your question.  From a car at the West Coast Railway Association, I have a very poor set of measurements I rushed one day – (need to return and do it right).    They are hardly worth reporting here as I can’t tell where the obvious errors must be.  Also, I did not mark whether I was using a centre line for vertical posts or was using the exposed edge of the Z braces.  But assuming a range of errors, the dimensions for side braces from left to right ends were:
60 3/4” from left end of the side to ~ centre line of 1st vertical,
58 7/8” from that ~ centre line to the ~ centre line of the next vertical,
55 3/4” from that ~ centre line to the door post, 
73 5/8” outer edge of door post to far outer edge of door post (or outer edge of door – not sure what I measured),
68 1/8” from door post to next vertical post ~ centre line (this must be a recording error as the car isn’t lop sided looking),
59” from ~ centre line to next vertical post ~ centre line, and
61 3/8” from centre line to the right end. 
 
I have photos of the cars I have seen and just gave them another look.  To my eye, while the diagonals are much closer to parallel on the 6’ door cars, they are not parallel.  Instead, the diagonal on either side of the door is slightly less steep i.e for a given rise, the angles by the door have more “run”.  This runs contrary to what I would have imagined just looking at he measurements above.  Looking more carefully at the photos, I think the gusset plates joining the verticals to the diagonal at the top of the car side are not all uniform width.  That is where the answer probably lays. 
 
A secondary issue is to what degree any of the cars I have photographed or measured have undergone rebuilding that modified some of the vertical post spacing and diagonal angles. 
 
So I guess I’d have to say that for now, I don’t have good info,
 
Rob      
 

Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: RE: Re:Dominion Cars
 


Rob,
 
Given your extensive study of these cars, I have a question for you in regards to the GT's 6' version of these cars. In S scale there has been produced a 6' version in resin. These are great cars in of themselves but what bothers me are the diagonal bracing. They are not parallel. Did any of GT's cars have diagonal bracing that were not parallel? I have looked at many photos and at some preserved cars and they all are parallel. Yet, Staffords article on these cars points out the the braces were modified because of the change in the door opening from the parallel braces found on CNoR's 5' door cars and thus the angle is different between panels.. There is also a 5' version available in S of the CGR/ICR version where the diagonals are like CP's at are uneven. These I have seen. Many were converted into stock cars. Your comments on this would be greatly appreciated.
 
Cheers, Daniel
 
PS your 7/8 ends in S worked out wonderfully. Have you moved forward with any other Shapeways items that we discussed last year?
 
Daniel.


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Robert Kirkham <rdkirkham@...> wrote:
 
I think there is a problem with the debate about whether to call the cars Dominion or Fowler. 
 
I guess because of Westerfield’s extensive line of kits and Swain & Clegg’s articles in Mainline Modeller in the 1980s, we tend to see a true category here – albeit with variants.    And the quality and extent of the contributions to the hobby from both manufacturer and authors make it easy to be respectful of that.   I admit that on account of my regard for these gentlemen I find it hard to choose between labels Fowler or Dominion and often use both, reversing the order I list the names . . . .
 
But . . . . for either of these suggested names the group of cars to which the name strictly applies does not encompass the whole fleet of cars we are trying to describe.    Dominion Car & Foundry has a claim as being a first manufacturer of cars of the basic shape and size.   But Nova Scotia Car, Eastern Car, CC&F, AC&F and probably others built cars we’d lump in this category.
 
Fowler has a claim because part of the original sales pitch/impetus to market the design focused on the (later demonstrated to be needless) attachment method.   To me, even if it were a universal feature in the category of cars, the sheathing attachment design isn’t a particularly significant feature by which to identify the cars – any more than it would be to call a car type a Murphy or Youngstown or Minor or Atlas or Universal.
 
The more carefully we look at the lots of cars produced, the more one learns there were detail differences that changed how the cars lasted.  I don’t have the  details in front of me at the moment, but I recall talking to Swain about how some of the cars produced were to significantly lighter standards and didn’t last as well in service.  Many were converted to stock cars or were early candidates for rebuilding.   I’ve measured and photographed a lot of these cars – and the variations are amazing (without even touching the 37’ v 40’ length issue).   How many bolster designs were used?   Not sure, but a few (start by looking at how they attach to the side sills!).
 
Differences of these sorts are substantial, not just details (although the detail differences are more easily identified in photos).  The designs went through evolutions in terms of weight and attachment of the steel components.  The evolution significantly impacted wear and longevity.  I think a lot is lost when we lump them all together. 
 
As a result, I suggest that accurate description of all cars in the group is impractical unless you want to use something vague like “36’ and 40’ riveted steel frame composite boxcars from the early nineteen tens and twenties”.  It leads me to doubt the appropriateness of treating them as a single type. 
 
And so I think we should take a step back from the debate about what name to call them and ask whether it serves us well to treat all the cars in the category as a type.   I don’t think it does.
 
Rob Kirkham     
 


 
--
Daniel McConnachie


Re: More Chicago Past links.

Ray Breyer
 

Too bad the originals on the Library of Congress site are unavailable due to
the shutdown.
Brian Ehni
 
The LoC website is UP:
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/
(has been since Day 2 of the Teapublican Tantrum)
 
And these specific images are in the Illinois State University holdings collection:
http://collections.carli.illinois.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/uic_pic&CISOPTR=14803
 
 
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


Re: Sunshine Decals

charles slater
 

Just send in an order, Tricia is filling all the orders she can.
Charlie Slater
 

To: STMFC@...
From: brianleppert@...
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:07:20 +0000
Subject: [STMFC] Sunshine Decals

 

--- In STMFC@..., "Armand Premo" wrote:
>
> BTW,Does anyone know if Sunshine's decals are still available,especially the "chalk marks" ? Armand Premo

And if so, what is the shipping cost?

Brian Leppert
Carson City, NV



Re: Chicago Past Photo site

Tom Vanwormer
 

Jim,
You have a wine tank car in operation at Chicago.
Tom VanWormer
Monument CO

jcdworkingonthenp@... wrote:

 

The Chicago Past Website, archival photos of Chicago that one can get lost in for hours has a photo that I have found rather captivating with the different cars, the switch lead layouts.  This one: http://chicagopast.com/post/25864299734/more-information     If this links OK, May I ask for some background on the multi-domed tank car in the lower right of the photo.   

 

My only regret with this photo and others on this site is the desire to REALLY zoom in.

 

  Thanks, Jim Dick



Re: More Chicago Past links.

 

Too bad the originals on the Library of Congress site are unavailable due to
the shutdown.

Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni

From: <jcdworkingonthenp@...>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Date: Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:50 PM
To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Subject: [STMFC] More Chicago Past links.






Having a little trouble posting however hope this works.



Here is a link to trains: http://chicagopast.com/tagged/Trains There are
several pages of photos here and note that the third photo down on the first
page contains the prior photo link, just above where the Chicago River
breaks north and south.



Here is the link to all the photos: http://chicagopast.com/archive



You can navigate by clicking on the photo tags. Union Station tags on the
above trains link shows four pages of photos. Click on the railroads named
leads to subject photos of them. Clicking on different station names, one
can find Dearborn and Grand Central.

Even Rosevelt road has some nice photos:
http://chicagopast.com/tagged/Roosevelt-Road



And one last link to a familiar name:
http://chicagopast.com/tagged/Jack-Delano



Jim Dick









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


More Chicago Past links.

np328
 

Having a little trouble posting however hope this works.

 

Here is a link to trains: http://chicagopast.com/tagged/Trains   There are several pages of photos here and note that the third photo down on the first page contains the prior photo link, just above where the Chicago River breaks north and south.

 

Here is the link to all the photos: http://chicagopast.com/archive

 

You can navigate by clicking on the photo tags.   Union Station tags on the above trains link shows four pages of photos. Click on the railroads named leads to subject photos of them. Clicking on different station names, one can find Dearborn and Grand Central.

Even Rosevelt road has some nice photos: http://chicagopast.com/tagged/Roosevelt-Road 

 

And one last link to a familiar name: http://chicagopast.com/tagged/Jack-Delano

 

Jim Dick


Re: Dominion Cars

Dennis Storzek
 

 



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:
As a random factoid: William Fowler calls his cars "cars of the Fowler type" in at least one of these patents. It's likely a marketing tool, but since these cars were fairly popular for a time, the term "Fowler boxcar" might be railroad industry shorthand to denote "short single sheathed boxcars". And if that was the case, the term IS correct.
 
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL

Thanks Ray. Nice that these patents are easily viewable now.

I'm not going to have a lot of time to pursue this discussion for the next few days, but let me make a couple comments:

1. If the term "Fowler boxcar" was railroad industry shorthand to denote "short single sheathed boxcars" we would be seeing multiple references to the same in period trade press. We are not, which leads me to believe that Mr. Fowler's hype had little impact on the industry.

2. Keep in mind you can say just about anything in the description portion of a patent, present drawings of typical applications, including showing items which are either "prior art" or even things for which others hold patents. The purpose of this section is to describe the problem your invention purports to solve. The actual patent is what is described in the claims. With just a cursory reading, the claims in the 1908 and 1913 patents all pertain to ways to tighten the boards if they should shrink after the car is in service. The 1915 patent claims some sort of steel panel side construction which I have never seen actually used.

As I said earlier, Mr. Fowler's patents are unfortunately solutions in search of a problem.

Dennis Storzek
     


Sunshine Decals

brianleppert@att.net
 

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

BTW,Does anyone know if Sunshine's decals are still available,especially the "chalk marks" ? Armand Premo

And if so, what is the shipping cost?

Brian Leppert
Carson City, NV


Re: Dominion Cars

Ray Breyer
 

Hi guys,
 
As a frame of reference as to what constitutes an "actual" Fowler boxcar, I just pulled the patents. Can't really have an intelligent discussion about the topic without 'em!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As a random factoid: William Fowler calls his cars "cars of the Fowler type" in at least one of these patents. It's likely a marketing tool, but since these cars were fairly popular for a time, the term "Fowler boxcar" might be railroad industry shorthand to denote "short single sheathed boxcars". And if that was the case, the term IS correct.
 
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL
     


Re: Dominion Cars

Dennis Storzek
 

Yeah, Clark, but the problem here is the nomenclature has never been defined. If one says a 1937 AAR boxcar, or a USRA double sheathed boxcar, the mind's eye goes directly back to the drawing published in the CBC (among other places) of the real deal, and we all get the same mental picture.  On the other hand, when someone mentions a "Fowler car", we all get a different mental picture. In discussions here over the past several years it has become obvious that many of the participants have never even read the Clegg Swain articles from the eighties, and are simply using the term to man a small single sheathed boxcar, which is confusing those of use who see a much more specific image. If one only means a generic small single sheathed boxcar, why not just say it?


I suspect that this goes back to the very human trait of trying to fit things in neat pigeon holes... and when the pigeon holes don't exist, we tend to make them up. This has led to some ridiculous fabrications; PS-0 boxcars and Chicago Great Western X-29's, to name a couple. The people using these terms see some logic in them, but the rest of us don't, because we read more into them than was intended. It seems to me that this is counter productive; it makes our lexicon less precise rather than more so.


Dennis Storzek



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:

Being a relative lightweight in this conversation I think some are missing the forest and just looking at trees. To me, the purpose of these modeler coined names is so a person can get a vision in their mines eye. If I say AAR 1937 design a picture appears in our heads. If I then say AAR 1937 Modified, the picture gets taller. If I say ARA 1932 the picture gets shorter. I don’t envision the door, roof, end types. That comes only when I want to know about a specific car series. Again, to me, when someone is talking about a Fowler patent car I create an image in my head. If someone says Dominion car I put a CN or CP on that image.
 
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Re: Chicago Past Photo site

paul.doggett2472@...
 

Thanks for posting that  great photo

 

Paul Doggett UK 


Re: Chicago Past Photo site

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Oct 10, 2013, at 6:08 AM, jcdworkingonthenp@... wrote:

 

The Chicago Past Website, archival photos of Chicago that one can get lost in for hours has a photo that I have found rather captivating with the different cars, the switch lead layouts.  This one: http://chicagopast.com/post/25864299734/more-information     If this links OK, May I ask for some background on the multi-domed tank car in the lower right of the photo.

Jim, that is a GATC-built 6K gal. capacity six compartment bulk wine car.  Unfortunately, the reporting marks aren't visible. but it's likely to be a GATX car.  There's no way to know whether it was actually in wine service in March of 1944, as special service ICC-203 tank cars were sometimes diverted from their intended purpose to carry other cargoes vital to the war effort (denatured alcohol, for example).

Thanks for posting a great photo!

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Dominion Cars

Clark Propst
 

Being a relative lightweight in this conversation I think some are missing the forest and just looking at trees. To me, the purpose of these modeler coined names is so a person can get a vision in their mines eye. If I say AAR 1937 design a picture appears in our heads. If I then say AAR 1937 Modified, the picture gets taller. If I say ARA 1932 the picture gets shorter. I don’t envision the door, roof, end types. That comes only when I want to know about a specific car series. Again, to me, when someone is talking about a Fowler patent car I create an image in my head. If someone says Dominion car I put a CN or CP on that image.
 
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Re: Dominion Cars

Daniel McConnachie
 

Rob,

Given your extensive study of these cars, I have a question for you in regards to the GT's 6' version of these cars. In S scale there has been produced a 6' version in resin. These are great cars in of themselves but what bothers me are the diagonal bracing. They are not parallel. Did any of GT's cars have diagonal bracing that were not parallel? I have looked at many photos and at some preserved cars and they all are parallel. Yet, Staffords article on these cars points out the the braces were modified because of the change in the door opening from the parallel braces found on CNoR's 5' door cars and thus the angle is different between panels.. There is also a 5' version available in S of the CGR/ICR version where the diagonals are like CP's at are uneven. These I have seen. Many were converted into stock cars. Your comments on this would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Daniel

PS your 7/8 ends in S worked out wonderfully. Have you moved forward with any other Shapeways items that we discussed last year?

Daniel.


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Robert Kirkham <rdkirkham@...> wrote:
 

I think there is a problem with the debate about whether to call the cars Dominion or Fowler. 
 
I guess because of Westerfield’s extensive line of kits and Swain & Clegg’s articles in Mainline Modeller in the 1980s, we tend to see a true category here – albeit with variants.    And the quality and extent of the contributions to the hobby from both manufacturer and authors make it easy to be respectful of that.   I admit that on account of my regard for these gentlemen I find it hard to choose between labels Fowler or Dominion and often use both, reversing the order I list the names . . . .
 
But . . . . for either of these suggested names the group of cars to which the name strictly applies does not encompass the whole fleet of cars we are trying to describe.    Dominion Car & Foundry has a claim as being a first manufacturer of cars of the basic shape and size.   But Nova Scotia Car, Eastern Car, CC&F, AC&F and probably others built cars we’d lump in this category.
 
Fowler has a claim because part of the original sales pitch/impetus to market the design focused on the (later demonstrated to be needless) attachment method.   To me, even if it were a universal feature in the category of cars, the sheathing attachment design isn’t a particularly significant feature by which to identify the cars – any more than it would be to call a car type a Murphy or Youngstown or Minor or Atlas or Universal.
 
The more carefully we look at the lots of cars produced, the more one learns there were detail differences that changed how the cars lasted.  I don’t have the  details in front of me at the moment, but I recall talking to Swain about how some of the cars produced were to significantly lighter standards and didn’t last as well in service.  Many were converted to stock cars or were early candidates for rebuilding.   I’ve measured and photographed a lot of these cars – and the variations are amazing (without even touching the 37’ v 40’ length issue).   How many bolster designs were used?   Not sure, but a few (start by looking at how they attach to the side sills!).
 
Differences of these sorts are substantial, not just details (although the detail differences are more easily identified in photos).  The designs went through evolutions in terms of weight and attachment of the steel components.  The evolution significantly impacted wear and longevity.  I think a lot is lost when we lump them all together. 
 
As a result, I suggest that accurate description of all cars in the group is impractical unless you want to use something vague like “36’ and 40’ riveted steel frame composite boxcars from the early nineteen tens and twenties”.  It leads me to doubt the appropriateness of treating them as a single type. 
 
And so I think we should take a step back from the debate about what name to call them and ask whether it serves us well to treat all the cars in the category as a type.   I don’t think it does.
 
Rob Kirkham     
 




--
Daniel McConnachie


Chicago Past Photo site

np328
 

The Chicago Past Website, archival photos of Chicago that one can get lost in for hours has a photo that I have found rather captivating with the different cars, the switch lead layouts.  This one: http://chicagopast.com/post/25864299734/more-information     If this links OK, May I ask for some background on the multi-domed tank car in the lower right of the photo.   

 

My only regret with this photo and others on this site is the desire to REALLY zoom in.

 

  Thanks, Jim Dick


Re: Dominion Cars

Armand Premo
 

BTW,Does anyone know if Sunshine's decals are still available,especially the "chalk marks"  ? Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Breyer
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: RE: Re:Dominion Cars

 

I generally refer to Canadian cars as "Dominion", and to American cars as "Fowlers". There are subtle but obvious design differences between the two nation's "Fowler-type" cars, even after the Canadians stopped following the original designs. Mostly, the roofs are different between the two car types, and the original Fowler/Dominion cars have a horizontal brace at each end panel. There's also more end variation in American cars.

I'm currently armpit deep in examining the NKP and NYC's wood boxcar fleets, but after I'm done with those I'll be taking a good, hard look at all of these cars to see just where everything falls. One thing I think I've noticed is that it may have been the IC (1914) that first stretched the 36' Fowlers into 40-foot cars, which were then copied by the CGR (1916).

 
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 6:52 PM, "richtownsend@..." wrote:


If the prototype literature does not have a specific name for them, but there is a need for a name to be used by modelers, there probably are a few possibilities.  Among others, how about "Fowler-type cars," or "so-called Fowler cars," or "'Fowler' cars [Fowler in quotes]?"  The point should be to communicate needed information in a clear way.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon





Re: Dominion Cars

Robert kirkham
 

I think there is a problem with the debate about whether to call the cars Dominion or Fowler. 
 
I guess because of Westerfield’s extensive line of kits and Swain & Clegg’s articles in Mainline Modeller in the 1980s, we tend to see a true category here – albeit with variants.    And the quality and extent of the contributions to the hobby from both manufacturer and authors make it easy to be respectful of that.   I admit that on account of my regard for these gentlemen I find it hard to choose between labels Fowler or Dominion and often use both, reversing the order I list the names . . . .
 
But . . . . for either of these suggested names the group of cars to which the name strictly applies does not encompass the whole fleet of cars we are trying to describe.    Dominion Car & Foundry has a claim as being a first manufacturer of cars of the basic shape and size.   But Nova Scotia Car, Eastern Car, CC&F, AC&F and probably others built cars we’d lump in this category.
 
Fowler has a claim because part of the original sales pitch/impetus to market the design focused on the (later demonstrated to be needless) attachment method.   To me, even if it were a universal feature in the category of cars, the sheathing attachment design isn’t a particularly significant feature by which to identify the cars – any more than it would be to call a car type a Murphy or Youngstown or Minor or Atlas or Universal.
 
The more carefully we look at the lots of cars produced, the more one learns there were detail differences that changed how the cars lasted.  I don’t have the  details in front of me at the moment, but I recall talking to Swain about how some of the cars produced were to significantly lighter standards and didn’t last as well in service.  Many were converted to stock cars or were early candidates for rebuilding.   I’ve measured and photographed a lot of these cars – and the variations are amazing (without even touching the 37’ v 40’ length issue).   How many bolster designs were used?   Not sure, but a few (start by looking at how they attach to the side sills!).
 
Differences of these sorts are substantial, not just details (although the detail differences are more easily identified in photos).  The designs went through evolutions in terms of weight and attachment of the steel components.  The evolution significantly impacted wear and longevity.  I think a lot is lost when we lump them all together. 
 
As a result, I suggest that accurate description of all cars in the group is impractical unless you want to use something vague like “36’ and 40’ riveted steel frame composite boxcars from the early nineteen tens and twenties”.  It leads me to doubt the appropriateness of treating them as a single type. 
 
And so I think we should take a step back from the debate about what name to call them and ask whether it serves us well to treat all the cars in the category as a type.   I don’t think it does.
 
Rob Kirkham     
 


Re: Dominion Cars

Dennis Storzek
 

 



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:

I generally refer to Canadian cars as "Dominion", and to American cars as "Fowlers". There are subtle but obvious design differences between the two nation's "Fowler-type" cars, even after the Canadians stopped following the original designs. Mostly, the roofs are different between the two car types, and the original Fowler/Dominion cars have a horizontal brace at each end panel. There's also more end variation in American cars.

I'm currently armpit deep in examining the NKP and NYC's wood boxcar fleets, but after I'm done with those I'll be taking a good, hard look at all of these cars to see just where everything falls. One thing I think I've noticed is that it may have been the IC (1914) that first stretched the 36' Fowlers into 40-foot cars, which were then copied by the CGR (1916).

The problem with this is that when the Soo Line had AC&F stretch the design to 40' in 1913, they also changed the underframe to a deep fishbelly centersill, and introduces the odd crossbearer / post / side sill connection that give the cars their distinctive "sawtooth" look, yet these are truly Fowler cars, as they have the slotted holes for the sheathing bolts in the framing, as described in the Fowler patent. I've never found any evidence that they had the more extensive tightening system described in Mr. Fowler's additional claims, but the slotted holes are claimed in the patent. It could well be that there are additional cars of other designs that also made use of the Fowler patent.

In the series of articles, Stafford freely admits he coined the term "Dominion car", to honor the development work DC&F did in conjunction with CPR. Al Westerfield admits he adopted the term after seeing the Fowler advertisment, without realizing that all the cars claimed were not of the same design. What's the matter with simply calling them what they are, 36' single sheathed cars?

Dennis Storzek

74741 - 74760 of 193499