Date   

Re: Military loads - "Roco" depressed center flat for foriegn service - photo

Dennis Storzek
 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 06:29 PM, Daniel A. Mitchell wrote:
Nice! … however, BROAD gauges?  … 60” Russia? .. who used 5’-6” gauge?
 
Parts of the rail network in India and Pakistan use 66" gauge.

Dennis Storzek


Re: CN 8 Hatch reefer question.

Allan Smith
 

That is an eight rung ladder with integral stirrup steps. You can order these ladders from Trueline Trains. Go to their website Truelinetrains.com and select Accessories and Parts. You will have to fill out an info form and they will get back to you. If they don't contact you I have six sets, I am willing to part with two sets, if interested please contact me off list at Smithal9@.... Or you could use an A Line Style C #29002 Stirrup Step super glued to the back of the ladder.
 Al Smith
Sonora CA

On ‎Tuesday‎, ‎February‎ ‎5‎, ‎2019‎ ‎04‎:‎09‎:‎38‎ ‎PM‎ ‎PST, Ian Cranstone <lamontc@...> wrote:


Scott, here’s a photo of a car from this group taken in 1965, which hopefully will answer your question. Aside from the paint scheme, it doesn’t look like this car has changed much over the yeras.

Ian Cranstone

Osgoode, Ontario, Canada

lamontc@...

http://freightcars.nakina.net




On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Scott <repairman87@...> wrote:

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: Military loads - some photos attached

Richard Townsend
 

For the 38000 series cars with 6-wheel trucks the Roco flat would be the best available. I can't suggest a model for the 39510 and the others in its series with 4-wheel trucks. It has 14 stake pockets per side and appears to say its length is 50 feet. Both the Proto2000 and Revell/Con-cor flats have 15 stake pockets, and both are longer than 50 feet. The Athearn 50' flat has 13 stake pockets as does the old Cox 50' flat.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

Group,
 
Four photos attached. 
 
What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.
 
The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.
I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.
 
Steve Johnson
 
 
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.
 
I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.
 
 
Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.
 
In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.
 
Anyone have a better photo of this?
 
Dan MItchell
==========
 
 
On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> 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 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: Tackboard dimensions

Schleigh Mike
 

Hello Again, Mark and Group!

Lee Cory's "Stories of the Pittsburg Shawmut & Northern Railroad" on page 150 has a sketch and a brief account of the road's 9600-9699 series.  (I did not find any reference to these cars in the Pietrak book.)  Lee relates that only 19 cars occupied this group that were purchased in 1932 and all retired about 1940.  Origin was unknown but Lee believed they were purchased used and were originally on the NYC System.  He called them steel under framed "rebuilt" with Hutchins ends.  DS with wood and IL of 36'-9" Lee believe that only NYCS cars fit their dimensions.  At least one had a door and a half and the third book on the RR, Ken Clark's "Images of Rail -- Pittsburg Shawmut & Northern Railroad" has an image of 9625 with this door.  The car has truss rods and MAY have an added steel frame.

I would venture that the tack board dimensions could be 'eyeballed' from this photo.  However, if its origin could be traced to the NYC family, actual dimensions might be determined.

I wonder too if the kit you are using might be from Westerfield.  I won't be able to research their past offerings but several on this list can likely recall candidates.

I hope this helps.

Mike Schleigh in Grove City, Penna.

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019, 8:24:58 PM EST, prgm_mgr <prgm_mgr@...> wrote:


Hello
I am working on a  Pittsburg Shawmut & Northern boxcar with Hutchins ends.  The kit did not include tackboards so I will scratch build them. 

So far iI have been unable to find any dimensions so I thought I'd ask here 

Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Mark Kraus


Re: Military loads - "Roco" depressed center flat for foriegn service - photo

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

It depends on the vehicle. You need info on the particular vehicle being represented. Most all have some form of gun-tube travel-lock to protect the somewhat delicate rotation and elevation machinery. Some machines have front-mounted travel-locks (most of the M4 Sherman tanks). Some have internal travel-locks (the M-18 and M-1 Abrams), but most (including the M-103 and the Patton series (M-46, M-47, M-48, and M-60) have rear mounted travel-locks. 

Dan Mitchell
==========

On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:45 PM, Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:

Dan Mitchell wrote:

In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. 

      Some loading diagrams for tanks do show the turret pointing forward and the barrel lock located there.

Tony Thompson





Re: Military loads - "Roco" depressed center flat for foriegn service - photo

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

Nice! … however, BROAD gauges?  … 60” Russia? .. who used 5’-6” gauge?

Thanks,

Dan Mitchell
==========

On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...> wrote:

Dan,
 
Attached is a photo of one of the “Roco” cars, with the information that these were for foreign service.  I can’t make out the car number.  Note the three gauges listed.
 
Steve Johnson
 
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.
 
I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.
 
<image002.jpg>
 
Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.
 
In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.
 
Anyone have a better photo of this?
 
Dan MItchell
==========
 
 
On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> 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 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 
 
 

<USArmydepressedcenterflatcar.jpg>


Re: Military loads - some photos attached

Bruce Smith
 

​Roco made a model of the Magor car you depict... that was actually the start of this thread and see Tony Thompson's blog, as he suggested earlier.  And note, both Roco cars are the subject of considerable discussion in the archives of this list as well.


Regards

Bruce Smith

Auburn Al


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 7:31 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached
 

Group,

 

Four photos attached. 

 

What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.

 

The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.

I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.

 

Steve Johnson

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.

 

I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.

 

 

Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.

 

In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.

 

Anyone have a better photo of this?

 

Dan MItchell

==========

 

 

On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> 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 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: Tackboard dimensions

Eric Hansmann
 

I’m wondering the same as Mike. 

Some kits have an extra tack board so check other kits in your stash for some extras to use. 


Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN

On Feb 5, 2019, at 7:33 PM, Schleigh Mike via Groups.Io <mike_schleigh@...> wrote:

Hi Mark!

I don't recall a PS&N boxcar with steel ends.  What car series?  What kit are you using?

Mike Schleigh in Grove City, Penna.

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019, 8:24:58 PM EST, prgm_mgr <prgm_mgr@...> wrote:


Hello
I am working on a  Pittsburg Shawmut & Northern boxcar with Hutchins ends.  The kit did not include tackboards so I will scratch build them. 

So far iI have been unable to find any dimensions so I thought I'd ask here 

Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Mark Kraus


Re: Military loads - "Roco" depressed center flat for foriegn service - photo

Tony Thompson
 

Dan Mitchell wrote:

In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. 

      Some loading diagrams for tanks do show the turret pointing forward and the barrel lock located there.

Tony Thompson




Re: Tackboard dimensions

Schleigh Mike
 

Hi Mark!

I don't recall a PS&N boxcar with steel ends.  What car series?  What kit are you using?

Mike Schleigh in Grove City, Penna.

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019, 8:24:58 PM EST, prgm_mgr <prgm_mgr@...> wrote:


Hello
I am working on a  Pittsburg Shawmut & Northern boxcar with Hutchins ends.  The kit did not include tackboards so I will scratch build them. 

So far iI have been unable to find any dimensions so I thought I'd ask here 

Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Mark Kraus


Re: Military loads - some photos attached

Steven D Johnson
 

Group,

 

Four photos attached. 

 

What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.

 

The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.

I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.

 

Steve Johnson

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.

 

I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.

 

 

Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.

 

In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.

 

Anyone have a better photo of this?

 

Dan MItchell

==========

 

 

On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> 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 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

 

 


Tackboard dimensions

prgm_mgr
 

Hello
I am working on a  Pittsburg Shawmut & Northern boxcar with Hutchins ends.  The kit did not include tackboards so I will scratch build them. 

So far iI have been unable to find any dimensions so I thought I'd ask here 

Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Mark Kraus


Re: Military loads - "Roco" depressed center flat for foriegn service - photo

Steven D Johnson
 

Dan,

 

Attached is a photo of one of the “Roco” cars, with the information that these were for foreign service.  I can’t make out the car number.  Note the three gauges listed.

 

Steve Johnson

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.

 

I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.

 

 

Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.

 

In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.

 

Anyone have a better photo of this?

 

Dan MItchell

==========

 

 

On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> 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 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: CN 8 Hatch reefer question.

Ian Cranstone
 

Scott, here’s a photo of a car from this group taken in 1965, which hopefully will answer your question. Aside from the paint scheme, it doesn’t look like this car has changed much over the yeras.

Ian Cranstone

Osgoode, Ontario, Canada

lamontc@...

http://freightcars.nakina.net




On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Scott <repairman87@...> wrote:

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: rerquest

 

Bill – That’s the old page.  Let me find a screen shot…..

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Bill Welch
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 4:35 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] rerquest

 

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

Bill Welch

 


Re: CN 8 Hatch reefer question.

Pierre Oliver
 

Well it took me this long to find the binder with the articles on the Canadian 8 hatch reefers. (If I ever get truly organized...)

From what I can determine, the side ladder would be an 8 rung ladder with the sill step riveted to the ladder stiles. Des PLaines offers a very nice plastic ladder that replicates this look.

Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 2/05/19 9:21 a.m., Scott wrote:

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: CN 8 Hatch reefer question.

Allan Smith
 

RMC Sept 1995, Dec 1995,Jan 1996 and Feb 1996 Have everything I think you will need to know about the Canadian Eight Hatch Reefers, including drawings and photos of the cars you are building.

Al Smith
Sonora Ca

On ‎Tuesday‎, ‎February‎ ‎5‎, ‎2019‎ ‎06‎:‎21‎:‎51‎ ‎AM‎ ‎PST, Scott <repairman87@...> wrote:


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: Throwback Tuesday: MDC "Old Timer" Freight Cars

Patrick Wade
 

I've taken one of the old MDC diners, plated over the upper windows, repainted it and it is now part of my Santa Fe work train.

Pat Wade
Santa Barbara, CA

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 7:14 AM Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote:
Model Die Casting ad, January 1969 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman.


Re: Military loads.

devansprr
 

Ben,

Very true - "it's far more impressive to show photos of tanks than trucks", especially during WWII, although down at Anniston Army depot the Army built large shelters specifically to conceal tanks ready for shipment by rail. The rail head was visible from public lands, and I have been told that the Army was concerned that German spies might be studying tanks being shipped to the front, hence they kept them inside very large and long Quonset hut like sheds.

And, sadly, professionally, "Logistics never gets any respect", may be even more true today...

BTW, for the military modelers that frequent this group, there is an a modest collection of foreign armor from many eras at the same location at Anniston - just rusting away - inside the fence, but visible in Google maps/earth.

Dave Evans


Re: Military loads.

Bill McClure
 

The esteemed Ben Hom wrote:
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.

To his point, I had the pleasure of hunting with Gen. Swartzkopf in the mid-1990s and over an adult beverage he told our group that the key to the Gulf War success was the Brigadier General who ran his logistics. Forgotten his name, but every morning he held a standing staff meeting wherein decision items had to be on a 3x5 card. He would run through the deck of cards in minutes and the force kept moving forward.

By way of freight car content, I can only say in 60 years at this I have no idea how many kits of all stripes I have built, and I have a stash of 20 or so resin kits in line. I have never posted, but I am a loyal lurker.
Bill McClure

21681 - 21700 of 183574