Date   

Re: Military loads.

Benjamin Hom
 

Dave Evans wrote:
"This highlights the folly of modeling WWII traffic from pictures - pictures exist of strings of Sherman and Lee tanks, Higgins boats, half-tracks, etc. but the US was producing 500 2.5 ton 6x6 trucks and 150 1.5 ton 4x4 trucks - every day - They weren't driven to the ports - why no photos of strings of those loads? Probably because they were too common (and they didn't look military enough?)..."

Remember the underlying purpose of most of these wartime photos - it's far more impressive to show photos of tanks than trucks.  Logistics never gets any respect, but always remember that amateurs talk tactics, professionals discuss logistics.


Ben Hom


Re: Military loads.

devansprr
 

If your era and/or location "justifies" military loads, one thing to be careful of is the"distribution" of military equipment. During WWII, for every Sherman tank manufactured, ten "Deuce and a Half" 6x6 (type CCKW) trucks were manufactured. In today's army, I believe the ratio of "Tactical" vehicles (generally vehicles with tires) to "Combat" vehicles (generally vehicles with tracks), is over ten to one, and that was also true in WWII. I have not investigated other periods, but I suspect the ratio was about the same.

Unfortunately I determine this after accumulating a bunch of Roco Sherman tanks and tank destroyers for use as WWII loads. Roco did offer the CCKW trucks in several styles. But there are big model gaps - for every Sherman built, three 1.5 ton 4X4 type G506 trucks were built (looks like a '41 Chevy bed truck), and four higher capacity 6x6 trucks were built for every Sherman (Corbitt/Brockway/Reo up to 6 tons - Roco made one of these, but they are rare.)

This highlights the folly of modeling WWII traffic from pictures - pictures exist of strings of Sherman and Lee tanks, Higgins boats, half-tracks, etc. but the US was producing 500 2.5 ton 6x6 trucks and 150 1.5 ton 4x4 trucks - every day - They weren't driven to the ports - why no photos of strings of those loads? Probably because they were too common (and they didn't look military enough?)...

Dave Evans


Throwback Tuesday: MDC "Old Timer" Freight Cars

Benjamin Hom
 

Model Die Casting ad, January 1969 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman.


Re: Military loads.

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.

I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …

1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.

2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.

3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.

In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.

Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.

Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.

Dan Mitchell
========== 

On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:

I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


Re: Soo Line Wood Boxcars #100-444 / Accurail 7000 Series Kitbash #100-444

O Fenton Wells
 

Excellent Lester, very clean looking
Fenton

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:09 AM Paul Doggett via Groups.Io <paul.doggett2472=icloud.com@groups.io> wrote:
Lester

That’s a really nice looking build.

Paul Doggett England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿





--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


CN 8 Hatch reefer question.

Scott
 

I am building the Funaro 8 hatch reefer (slowly).  It is going to be a 6-series with car numbers 210300-210599.  Does anybody know what kind of stirrup should be under the ladder on the car sides?  The drawing in the instructions looks like a straight stirrup with the top spread a little more.  I found a picture of a 5 series and it looks like a double angled stirrup but not 100% because of poor picture quality.  It appears to mount to the bottom of the car.  Does anybody have a definite answer?

Thanks
Scott McDonald


Re: Soo Line Wood Boxcars #100-444 / Accurail 7000 Series Kitbash #100-444

Paul Doggett
 

Lester

That’s a really nice looking build.

Paul Doggett England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿


Re: Soo Line Wood Boxcars #100-444 / Accurail 7000 Series Kitbash #100-444

Lester Breuer
 

Sean,

I have done the car in resin, photo attached, making masters or using parts for masters from two other kits for masters.  I plant to write it up as my next blog post.  The decals did come the the Soo Line Historical Society via Ken Soroos.
 
I wish you success with your kitbash.
 
Lester Breuer


Re: rerquest

Bill Welch
 

Double checking Al, is the attached your new page? It is not as you describe.

Bill Welch


Re: Company Service Boxcar

rwitt_2000
 

FWIW I agree with Todd. When I look closely at the photo I see a second roof on top of the original roof of this former box car. Something one would see on a "shed".

Bob Witt


Re: rerquest

 

I apologize for another request but my Facebook page was compromised.  I had to start a new one, still under Al Westerfield.  It has a photo of a box car and covered hopper at the top.   The new page thinks my friends are still available, even though they’re not.  Would any of my old friends who want to remain so, please send me a friend request? – Al Westerfield

 



 

 


Army tanks as flatcar loads

David Soderblom
 

Lots of talk.  Adding to anecdotes, I was in Tucson maybe ~15-18 years ago and had time to go SE along the old EP&SW line.  I see a freight pass, and it has Abrams tanks on DOD flats, maybe 3 of them, i.e., a small number.

I would argue that a single tank-on-flat is a perfectly reasonable load.  Scenarios:

  • The car was sidelined due to a hotbox or other anomaly and is now on its way…
  • A training group needs one more piece of equipment as it expands, or as a replacement…
  • Most of the group’s equipment got delivered in the first big shipment, but this one is catching up…

We focus on the so-called typical or normal, but no single freight train is ever typical or normal.  They all include anomalies, and one-of-a-kinds, pretty much, (and, always, a Northern Pacific boxcar).

Chill. Make your freight train *your* freight train.  Please don’t bother with extensive justifications.  I get it.


David Soderblom
Baltimore MD USA
drs@..., 410-338-4543






Sunshine 31.12 CNW GATC Boxcar

Tim Meyer
 
Edited

Hi All
I am building 2 CNW GATC boxcars in 1-1/2" scale. Does anyone have the detailing instructions for the Sunshine 31.12 kit?

Thanks

Tim Meyer
floridatenwheeler at Verizon dot net


Re: Soo Line Wood Boxcars #100-444 / Accurail 7000 Series Kitbash #100-444

Dennis Storzek
 

Sean,

You can try Ken Soroos at projects@... , the society used to print a whole bunch of decals, but with no cars to put them on, why bother. They may still have some sets left. 

These should also work: http://speedwitchmedia.com/product/d155-soo-line-75800-series-1937-aar-auto-car-decals/
They are intended for the Red Caboose 1937 AAR car, but the road name, numerals, and heralds should be the same. Ignore the black background for the herald; the Soo did away with it after the war. You'll need to find data elsewhere.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Soo Line Wood Boxcars #100-444 / Accurail 7000 Series Kitbash #100-444

Sean Murphy
 

Dennis and others,

Thanks for the information, I think I have enough information so far to start the build. Is their a good decal source for these cars? I am surprised by the lack of pre-1950 Soo decals out there.


Re: Military loads.

spsalso
 

I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


Re: Military loads.

gary laakso
 

Bear in mind that half of all weapons, fuel and food supplied to the USSR during World War II was shipped from West Coast ports to Vladivostok through Japanese controlled waters with the Liberty ships flying Soviet flags.  The total tonnage shipped this route was 8,244,000 tons compared to 3,964,000 tons via the Artic route and 4,160,000 through allied occupied Persia. 

 

Gary Laakso

Northwest of Mike Brock

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dave Nelson
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 2:02 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.

 

Out here in California, when there were still CA congresscritters who supported the defense of the country, Sharpe Army base bear Stockton did repair / rebuilding of damaged tanks… rail transport in and out (I think via the big dock at the armory at Vallejo).  How did such vehicles get lifted off (or back onto steam era ships?  A 32ton tank seems like it would be a bit much for the kind of winches and spars you’ve find on a Liberty ship.

 

Dave Nelson

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of gary laakso
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2019 3:41 PM

 

Plus, many weapons were exported to allies and, perhaps, one tank was cheaper for parts than components alone were.

 

Gary Laakso

Northwest of Mike Brock


Re: Military loads.

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

Not really. In addition to the booms and winches of the ship, ports usually had much more powerful cranes available. Nowadays 70-ton M-1 tanks and much heavier items are routinely loaded the same way, though RORO (Roll-on, Roll-off) ships are now the preferred mode of transportation. These did not exist in the “steam-era”. And, yes, it was dangerous, and things sometimes got dropped.

Dan Mitchell
==========
.

On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Dave Nelson <Lake_Muskoka@...> wrote:

Out here in California, when there were still CA congresscritters who supported the defense of the country, Sharpe Army base bear Stockton did repair / rebuilding of damaged tanks… rail transport in and out (I think via the big dock at the armory at Vallejo).  How did such vehicles get lifted off (or back onto steam era ships?  A 32ton tank seems like it would be a bit much for the kind of winches and spars you’ve find on a Liberty ship.
 
Dave Nelson
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of gary laakso
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2019 3:41 PM
 
Plus, many weapons were exported to allies and, perhaps, one tank was cheaper for parts than components alone were.
 
Gary Laakso

Northwest of Mike Brock



Re: Military loads.

Dave Nelson
 

Out here in California, when there were still CA congresscritters who supported the defense of the country, Sharpe Army base bear Stockton did repair / rebuilding of damaged tanks… rail transport in and out (I think via the big dock at the armory at Vallejo).  How did such vehicles get lifted off (or back onto steam era ships?  A 32ton tank seems like it would be a bit much for the kind of winches and spars you’ve find on a Liberty ship.

 

Dave Nelson

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of gary laakso
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2019 3:41 PM

 

Plus, many weapons were exported to allies and, perhaps, one tank was cheaper for parts than components alone were.

 

Gary Laakso

Northwest of Mike Brock


Re: Military loads.

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

I mostly agree. The only places where such military trains would be commonplace is around military bases, defense contractors, or ports. The number of such movements would be HIGHLY related to current politics and world events. Still such movements are not rare.

It’s no longer “steam era”, but here in Flint, MI we get several such trains each year. There’s a big military base in the upper part of the state, and National Guard and Army units from all over go up there every summer for training. They take all their “stuff” with them. Their “DODX” cars don’t usually make a solid train, but are mixed into regular freights … usually in blocks of maybe 12-20 cars.

Dan Mitchell
=========

On Feb 4, 2019, at 1:50 PM, Jim Betz <jimbetz@...> wrote:

Hi,
  I'm going to take a different tack on this entire thread.  Guys - I am probably
-JUST- as pro-military as most of the people on this list ("above average").  But ...

  As Richard H. would have said and Tony T. has pointed out many times ....
"be careful about what you do/don't put on your layout".  Just because it can
be justified as possible doesn't mean you should be running it regularly.
  I think this 'rule/guideline' applies just as much to military equipment on a
transition era layout as it does to those oddball/"I just love this car" freight
equipment.
  I'm asking "if you have to go to great lengths to justify it"? ... then it probably
doesn't "fit" on your layout for even a third of the sessions on your layout.

  ===> Can you run them every once in a while?  Of course you can.
  ===> Can you apply the "it's my RR" rule?  Of course you can!
  ===> Were they seen on very many trains in the late 40's and later?  No.

  So - IF - you care about prototypical accuracy/believability then you need to
pretty carefully "curb your enthusiasm" ... or acknowledge that "it isn't exactly
prototypical but I'm gonna do it any way".

  Have -I- seen pictures of military loads/equipment from the transition?
Yes, if it is during the war, not many if it is immediately post war (except
for trains directly related to the wind down), and very few if it was 1950 or
later.

  Some obvious exceptions - if your layout has an on layout "industry" that is
military related (base, military dock, etc.).  Or if you are actually modelling
WWII era.

  But you know what - if your layout is based in the "middlee 40's" .... you
can still get away without having -ayny- military loads/cars and it can still
be "prototypically believable".
                                                             - just saying ... Jim B.