Date   

Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

mel perry
 

out of curiousity, why weren't these
comments/questions not included,
in the OP?, where they belonged, 
instead of creating a seperate thtead?
mel perry

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 9:13 AM Bill Lugg <luggw1@...> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard

"According to the PRRT&HS PRR Chronology, the first hump yard in the
United States was opened May 11, 1903 as part of the Altoona Yards at
Bells Mills (East Altoona). Other sources report the PRR yard at
Youngwood, PA which opened in the 1880s to serve the Connellsville coke
fields as the first U.S. hump yard."

Only as far away as Google and Wikipedia.  ;o)

Bill Lugg



On 12/21/19 9:56 AM, Charles Peck wrote:
> Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
> built and where?
> Chuck Peck
>
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@...
> <mailto:lloydkeyser@...>> wrote:
>
>     Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser
>
>




Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Bill Lugg
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard

"According to the PRRT&HS PRR Chronology, the first hump yard in the United States was opened May 11, 1903 as part of the Altoona Yards at Bells Mills (East Altoona). Other sources report the PRR yard at Youngwood, PA which opened in the 1880s to serve the Connellsville coke fields as the first U.S. hump yard."

Only as far away as Google and Wikipedia.  ;o)

Bill Lugg

On 12/21/19 9:56 AM, Charles Peck wrote:
Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
built and where?
Chuck Peck

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@... <mailto:lloydkeyser@...>> wrote:

Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Charles Peck
 

Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
built and where?
Chuck Peck

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@...> wrote:
Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Lloyd Keyser
 

Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 

Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Brian Rochon
 

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Re: 3D printing (Was: New early P&R steel.....)

Tom Madden
 

Fine detail is a jet printing process. I believe the jet printers Shapeways is using are 600 x 600 DPI X & Y, and at 16 microns per layer the Z is 1600 DPI. (3D Systems has 750 x 750 DPI machines with 13 micron layer capability, and 1600 x 900 but only for 32 micron layers.) 
If these don't sound like very high resolution printers, remember that there are two jet nozzels per pixel - you can place either wax or body material at each location. 

Tom Madden


Re: 3D printing (Was: New early P&R steel.....)

Tom Madden
 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 08:30 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
..., can anyone tell me why SLA parts are oriented at an angle? Is it an attempt to change the angle of the overhangs so they don't need supports, or simply to provide more room for the supports?

Standard, "top down" SLA parts don't need to be angled - each layer is created atop the previous one. On "bottom up" SLA printers like the Form 2 each layer is created against the surface of the resin tray and has to be broken free of the tray surface after each layer is printed. Angling the part minimizes the area of the part in contact with the tray so it's always that joint that gives way and not the part as the build plate rises after each layer is printed. The CLIP bottom up printer uses a permeable tray and a process that keeps a layer of oxygen (?) between the tray and the part so it doesn't attach to the tray, but they (so far) have chosen not to serve the low end market.

Back to Tom's Shapeways Smoothest Fine Detail Plastic parts, is this a fused deposition process? One would think that some angular overhang would be possible, where each layer would project out less than half the width of the filament being deposited, and therefore be self supporting, like the overhanging bricks in fancy brickwork. If the underside of those handrail brackets would have projected from the vertical surface at a 45 deg. angle, could they have been built without the wax support and it's attendant track?
Fine detail is a jet printing process. I believe the jet printers Shapeways is using are 600 x 600 DPI X & Y, and at 16 microns per layer the Z is 1600 DPI. (3D Systems has 750 x 750 DPI machines with 13 micron layer capability, and 1600 x 900 but only for 32 micron layers.) In this process each individual dot/voxel has to have something under it so the wax is unavoidable. With standard SLA you can have unsupported overhangs of half the laser spot diameter from layer to layer but those layers are thicker - like 0.002".

Tom Madden


Youngstown Door Nomenclature

Andy Carlson
 

Hello-

Two years ago I was inspired from a post by Bill Welch. I answered with a short description of the various Youngstown doors. I was asked for photos and today I added illustrations of the common Youngstown steel doors (YSD). No mention is made of door appliances (hardware such as latches) which is a story by itself. Corrections are encouraged.


From 2017...............

 
Hi, I would like to jump in here with some thoughts.

Bill Welch, an historian as much as a modeler, has questions identifying doors from the Youngstown door co. produced during our era of interest. He is not alone.

As in most other components used on steam era freight cars, door manufacturers simply offered product for applications by width/height. Small changes were often running changes when an improvement made its way into production. Even so,there were three very distinct styles of Youngstown doors made in our favorite era.

Authors, modelers and tool makers need to be able communicate the ID of the various doors to clear confusion. Similar to how modelers issued "phases" for EMD's F unit line of locomotives (Something EMD never did) to communicate and make sense of the various deviations over time, Youngstown doors have had modeler's IDs applied. Unfortunately, standards have not yet been agreed upon; so confusion is not avoided; such as Bill Welch's.

Simple code initials (such as Y2-A) work well for large tables (such as Ed Hawkins' great freight car summaries) where the reader can refer to the bottom of the table to a more verbose description. However, simply identifying a door in an article as a "Y2-A" isn't helpful to 99% of the readers outside of these tables. We need a nomenclature which is intuitive, brief, understandable and made a standard.

I propose following Dan Hall's method to id'ing Youngstown doors. Dan makes various Youngstown and superior doors for HO in his Southwest Scale Models' line.

Pre-war Youngstown doors were typically made of 3 (sometimes 4) pressed steel sheets riveted together to make the size sufficient to cover the door openings. The riveted joints were in the flat area of the sheet recessed towards the inside of the car. Each section has ribs stamped into it which forms rectangular panels which are very easily spotted and counted from even lesser quality photos.

A typical Youngstown door on a 1937 AAR box will have , counting from top-to-bottom a 5/6/5 pattern of panels. To accommodate differing heights, the door maker simply uses taller sheets for the top and bottom sheets so the adjustment of height is made in the joint area. For a pre-war Youngstown door, this feature is noticable and should be addressed. At a minimum, the riveted joint sections produce a panel which is nearly identical in dimensions as the 5/6/5 panels themselves. Being the shortest variant, I call these -S (for short). A taller door will have the joint panel somewhat taller than the standard panels, so I label these as -M (for medium). The tallest Youngstown door's joint panels are almost twice the height of the regular panels. If the door needs to be even taller for its application, the maker will simply add more panels (though in the pre-war time, doors would more likely have LESS panels for inside height cars lower than the AAR '37). The taller joint panel doors would have a -T ( for tall) to cover the door openings for a 10'6" IH car <pre-war 5/6/5-T>.

          A 1937 AAR pre-war Youngstown 5/6/5-S (The S need not be attached as it is obvious)




          A Youngstown 5/6/5-T door on a single sheathed box car




Examples:  A '37 AAR boxcar would typically be 6' pre-war 5/6/5-S Youngstown Steel door. Simplified to <Pre-war 5/6/5 YSD> (the "S" could be left off as it could be inferred that the most common variant is the 'S'. A 10'6" IH AAR box car would have a taller door opening and the most common door for these cars was the <pre-war 5/6/5-T>. Fewer doors were built with the 'M' spacing.

1947 saw the introduction of the improved Youngstown door. Lessons learned from more than a decade of production of the pre-war versions allowed a redesign which was very noticeable. Changes to the perimeter frame area strengthened the door. To accommodate these changes, the joint section was substantially changed. Now it was more like a crimped joint and no longer would the joint area be where slight variances in height would be achieved. From then on the height differences would be totally from the addition or subtraction of panels, and to a lesser degree, variations in the perimeter frame.

Most AAR box cars built at this time were to the 10'6" inside height. For about one year, this new door had a panel count of 6/6/5. After this brief period, the doors were made with 5/6/6 panels, and continued for decades with little changes. Since the joint sections were un-changing, no 'S' 'M' or 'T' appellations were necessary. A typical door for a 10'6" car would be <5/6/6 Improved YSD>.

    Single year (1946/47) offering of the "upside down" 6/6/5 Improved Youngstown door




     A 5/6/6 Improved Youngstown steel door (Late 1947 and on)


Youngstown steel improved doors for 10'0" nominal height cars were common in two variations; a 4/6/6 and a 5/6/5



Before this big change, around 1946, both Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe received Youngstown doors which shared techniques of both designs. Dan Hall, like nearly everyone else, labels these doors as "Interim-Improved". The SP door was <5/5/5 interim-improved YSD>. The Santa Fe's 10'6" IH doors were <5/6/5 interiom-improved YSD>. These SP doors gained a lot of notoriety as the doors used on the fleet of "Overnight" express box cars.


After the time of interest to our audience, Youngstown continued to get orders for doors in ever increasing widths. For awhile, the largest width was an eight foot wide door. When orders for a 9' door came, the order was met with the stamping of the 8' doors with a 6 inch wide perimeter frame. This was soon dropped as stampings with full 9' width were then produced. Later still, orders for 10' doors came in and these orders were initially met with the 6" perimeter frame added to the new 9' stamping.






The most common YSD doors from 1937 to 1948:
pre-war5/6/5-S YSD  (Red Caboose & Intermountain in HO)
pre-war5/6/5-T YSD for mostly 10'6" cars  (Intermountain in HO)
Interim-Improved 5/5/5 YSD (SP 1946-Southwest Scale Models in HO)
Interim-Improved 5/6/5 YSD (ATSF Bx-44 1946-Southwest Scale Models in HO)
Improved 6/6/5 YSD (1947 mostly) (CB&T shops & Southwest Scale Models in HO)
Improved 5/6/6 YSD 1948 and on (Kadee, Red Caboose, Branchline, Intermountain in HO)

Regards,
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

.

__,_._,___





Re: 3D printing (Was: New early P&R steel.....)

Dennis Storzek
 

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 03:05 PM, Tom Madden wrote:
I believe Corey Bonsall, who does the D&RGW and Utah Coal Route gons, uses a Form 2 "upside down" SLA printer where the part is built from the bottom up as it's lifted, layer by layer, out of the resin. For best results parts need to be oriented at an angle and parts of any complexity require a literal forest of supports.
Now that we have some folks with real hands-on experience in this discussion, can anyone tell me why SLA parts are oriented at an angle? Is it an attempt to change the angle of the overhangs so they don't need supports, or simply to provide more room for the supports?

Back to Tom's Shapeways Smoothest Fine Detail Plastic parts, is this a fused deposition process? One would think that some angular overhang would be possible, where each layer would project out less than half the width of the filament being deposited, and therefore be self supporting, like the overhanging bricks in fancy brickwork. If the underside of those handrail brackets would have projected from the vertical surface at a 45 deg. angle, could they have been built without the wax support and it's attendant track?

Dennis Storzek


Re: Turtle Load

Dennis Storzek
 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 05:06 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
John, not a violation.

The AAR districts that border CANADA include Minnesota and Pennsylvania.
But back in the steam era there was also the issue of tariffs on the foreign built equipment. However, I note the sign on this Grand Trunk Ry. car says the load is going via CN Ry. the Grand Trunk's new owner. So this is actually a line haul on a Canadian railway. My best guess is that a homeward bound Canadian empty was used since it returned the car to Canada under load, which was allowable under the car service rules. The fact that the car came back into the US at the other end of its journey is a separate issue.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Turtle Load

Tim O'Connor
 


John, not a violation.

The AAR districts that border CANADA include Minnesota and Pennsylvania.

Therefore any CN or CP freight car could be routed through the United States between
those two states (or to New England, or to Montana or Washington state etc etc) because
those districts are ADJACENT to the territorial districts of CN and CP. The rules were
flexible enough that freight cars could leave home rails for years at a time - and many
did!

P.S. The rules are even MORE flexible today! Next load, ANY road is how it works now.




On 12/20/2019 7:34 PM, John Riddell wrote:

A Canadian reefer taking a load from MN to PA. Isn’t that a violation of the rules ?

 

John Riddell



--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: Turtle Load

ken chapin
 

Not if it came off Soo line railroad.
Ken
--
Sent from my Android phone with GMX Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

On 12/20/19, 6:34 PM John Riddell <riddellj@...> wrote:

A Canadian reefer taking a load from MN to PA. Isn’t that a violation of the rules ?

 

John Riddell

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Re: ATSF AAR 40’ Box Panels ?

Allan Smith
 

I have been looking at photos of the ATSF Boxcar series with the twelve panel sides and am trying to determine the dimensions of the one wide panel and the five narrow panels on each side of the door. Does anyone have a drawing of this series giving those dimensions? my calculations Scaled from blown up photos, the car is 40'6" or 486", so I come up with 3-44-32-32-32-32-32-72-32-32-32-32-44-3, 3" for the ends 72" for the door. I have conductors lists from 1954 on the Sierra Railroad and there are 15 cars from the 12 panel series Bx-48 Bx-50 Bx-51 Bx-53 Bx-60 Bx-62 Bx-63 on the list. I am trying to build the cars from this list for my railroad and would like to be as accurate as possible. If anyone has this info it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You 

Al Smith
Sonora CA
"

On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 06:31:02 AM PST, O Fenton Wells <srrfan1401@...> wrote:


Thanks for sharing Ted
Fenton 


On Dec 19, 2019, at 8:08 AM, Ted Culotta <speedwitchmedia@...> wrote:


Re: Turtle Load

John Riddell
 

A Canadian reefer taking a load from MN to PA. Isn’t that a violation of the rules ?

 

John Riddell

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Re: Grace Tank Car

Jack Mullen
 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 10:09 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
Examine the enclosed photo and compare GRYX 168 to AESX 576.
Umm, AESX 576 doesn't appear to be a Type 27, (perhaps Pressed Steel Car Co ?), so what is the comparison supposed to demonstrate ?
What features do you see in the GRYX underframe that make it impossible to be a type 27?

Jack Mullen


Re: [MFCL] [RealSTMFC] Grace Tank Car

Charlie Vlk
 

All-
It looks like the underframe, at least the ends, has the characteristics of a Chicago Steel Car Company product. See the attached jpg.
John Grace had connections with that company and when they exited the tank car building business bought the inventory of parts on hand and all the patterns, fixtures, etc.. necessary to continue selling maintenance parts for cars built by the Chicago Steel Car Company.
Charlie Vlk


Re: [MFCL] [RealSTMFC] Grace Tank Car

Charlie Vlk
 

I had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of Stanley D. Grace, Jr. the last family owner of Grace Tank Car Lines and grandson of the founder, John H. Grace. He was a Model Railroader and in later years had a coffee table N Scale railroad.
I interviewed Stan at his home and was able to view the records of the company that he had preserved.

Most of the multi-compartment cars were in the GRYX 800 series; at least that is the evidence from the photos in Stan’s album.
GRYX 805, the car Stan donated to the B&O museum is probably typical of the genealogy of many of the cars in the Grace fleet. According to Stan, “It was built in 1920 as a 12,000 gallon fuel oil car for the T&NO. Gus Schott of El Dorado, Arkansas bought the tank and built his own underframe for it. Grace bought the car and made a two compartment car out of it. The original tank was double riveted which was unusual for a car of its age….and it leaked like a sieve! The car was taken to the Warren Tank Car Company in Warren, Pennsylvania where every rivet was welded inside and out, and from that point on the car was leakproof! The B&O Museum loves the car because they can use it to store two different grades of diesel oil.”

I made a presentation on the Grace Tank Car Lines at the Lisle Prototype Modelers Meet in 2009 and Stan was in attendance for one of the sessions. If anyone has questions about the company I would be glad to share any further information I have.

Charlie Vlk


Re: Grace Tank Car

Bruce Smith
 

Tim,

Why do you think AESX 756 is an AC&F type 27?  What features in that photo are you basing that on? Off the cuff I would have said AESX 756  was a UTL product…

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith            

Auburn, AL

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."




On Dec 20, 2019, at 12:09 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


There is no possibility the underframe on the GRYX 168 is an ACF Type 27.

Examine the enclosed photo and compare GRYX 168 to AESX 576.

And Darrall, yes, the Intermountain model represents a Type 27.


On 12/20/2019 7:13 AM, bn2204 via Groups.Io wrote:
Thanks David,

As a modeler modeling an era where stub sill tank cars are the norm, I'm not up to speed regarding the nomenclatures for the different type of frames associated with older tank cars. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Type 27 underframe the underframe that comes with the Intermountain 8,000g/10,000g tank car kits?

Thanks,

Darrall Swift  - Lagrange,  Ohio


--
*Tim O'Connor*
*Sterling, Massachusetts*



<image.png>


Re: [MFCL] [RealSTMFC] Grace Tank Car

Tangent Scale Models
 

Tim,

The AESX car you posted is not an ACF build.  It is a Pressed Steel Car Company build.

The GRYX car is an ACF build, "type 27" underframe of early 1940s construction

Best wishes,

David Lehlbach
www.tangentscalemodels.com
PO Box 6514
Asheville NC 28816 USA
828-279-6106



On Friday, December 20, 2019, 1:09:43 PM EST, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:



There is no possibility the underframe on the GRYX 168 is an ACF Type 27.

Examine the enclosed photo and compare GRYX 168 to AESX 576.

And Darrall, yes, the Intermountain model represents a Type 27.


On 12/20/2019 7:13 AM, bn2204 via Groups.Io wrote:
> Thanks David,
>
> As a modeler modeling an era where stub sill tank cars are the norm,
> I'm not up to speed regarding the nomenclatures for the different type
> of frames associated with older tank cars. Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but isn't the Type 27 underframe the underframe that comes with the
> Intermountain 8,000g/10,000g tank car kits?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darrall Swift  - Lagrange,  Ohio


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts