Date   

Re: Military loads.

Bruce Smith
 

Doug,

Many small and some larger vehicles were indeed shipped in Automobile boxcars, up to and including DUKWs!  The jeeps “stacks” were shipped on flats because they were pre-packed for loading onto ships and could not be rolled or driven. Many other jeeps rode in Auto cars, most especially the PRR X31F cars, which were specially modified for this type of service. Note that flat cars, and especially 70 ton cars, were in critically short supply during WWII, so gondolas were also used for big loads like supply trucks and I rarely see those modeled….

Attached are images of several logistics loads I have done, including a P2K Erie gone with Paul Heiser resin short-bend CCKWs, The Red Caboose 42’ flat with a couple of resin Autocar tractors, a P2K L&N flat with Kniga Studebaker trucks, and a P2K C&NW flat with Roco gasoline tank trailers.

Regards,
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


On Feb 5, 2019, at 10:31 AM, Douglas Harding <doug.harding@...> wrote:

Dave would not have the smaller military vehicles been shipped in Automobile boxcars? With all factories repurposed to military manufacturing, Auto boxcars would have been readily available. I would speculate that flats were reserved for larger vehicles and tanks, ie what would not fit in a boxcar. Yes I have seen the photos of military jeeps packed two high cross ways on flats, but they are a vehicle that would fit in an Auto boxcar.
 
Doug  Harding
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of devansprr
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 10:12 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.
 
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 



Re: Military loads.

Benjamin Hom
 

Doug Harding asked:
"...would not have the smaller military vehicles been shipped in Automobile boxcars?"

Yes.


"Yes I have seen the photos of military jeeps packed two high cross ways on flats, but they are a vehicle that would fit in an Auto boxcar."

PRR modified Class X31 and subclass boxcars to haul additional jeeps - Class X31F.


Ben Hom


Re: Military loads.

Douglas Harding
 

Dave would not have the smaller military vehicles been shipped in Automobile boxcars? With all factories repurposed to military manufacturing, Auto boxcars would have been readily available. I would speculate that flats were reserved for larger vehicles and tanks, ie what would not fit in a boxcar. Yes I have seen the photos of military jeeps packed two high cross ways on flats, but they are a vehicle that would fit in an Auto boxcar.

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of devansprr
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 10:12 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.

 

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


Re: Military loads.

Dennis Storzek
 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 06:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell wrote:
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 have seen a photo of the army depressed center flats someplace, and the car had BUFFERS. I seem to recall that these were built for service in the European Theater of the NEXT war, the war NATO was formed to fight. All the things you say about tight clearances are certainly true of Europe, but not so much in the US. Heck, even back in the seventies our museum was shipping 14' tall steam locomotives on standard deck flatcars.

I don't think those Depressed center cars ever operated in the US. Anybody have pix?

Dennis Storzek


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

26781 - 26800 of 188630