Date   

Re: Photo: DL&W 70793

Eric Hansmann
 

These MCB/ARA/AAR car codes are a moving target. Designations depend upon era and what the railroad applies as the designation.

In this specific case (DL&W 70793), the MCB designation for DL&W 70000-70999 is listed as HT in the October 1926 ORER. Under the Markings and Kind of Car column for this series, the cars are noted as Hopper, Twin, (Wood) Steel Undfr. I do not have a 1927 or 1928 ORER to compare the data. The June 1917 ORER also lists these cars as HT, but the data in the Markings column is slightly different; Hopper, Twin, Steel Underframe.

The AAR Mechanical Designation information on Ian Cranstone's website has a few HT entries.

HT - Hopper (Twin). Similar to ordinary hopper, only equipped with two or more hopper doors instead of one. (from 1/17-2/26)

HT - An Open Top Car, similar in construction to the "HM" car but having more than one set of double hoppers. (from 3/27-10/28)

HT - An Open Top Self-Clearing Car, having fixed sides and ends and bottom consisting of three or more divided hoppers with doors hinged crosswise of car and dumping between rails. (from 3/29-4/99)

http://www.nakina.net/other/aartype.html

While it looks like a gondola, and may be similar to other gondolas with a GB designation, the ORER listing has these DL&W cars as HT.


Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN

-----Original Message-----
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 8:53 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: DL&W 70793


I think it's been said before - a GB gondola is a car with ends, sides, no roof, and a flat, solid bottom for cargo space. The height of the sides, or ends, or whether the car was purpose built or rebuilt from a flat car is irrelevant. Descriptions of ARA/AAR car classes can be found in the equipment registers.




On 12/29/2019 5:40 AM, Garth Groff and Sally Sanford wrote:
Mel and Bob,

I'd go with gondola too. [snip]

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


Re: Photo: DL&W 70793

Tim O'Connor
 

I think it's been said before - a GB gondola is a car with ends, sides, no roof, and a flat,
solid bottom for cargo space. The height of the sides, or ends, or whether the car was purpose built
or rebuilt from a flat car is irrelevant. Descriptions of ARA/AAR car classes can be found in the
equipment registers.

On 12/29/2019 5:40 AM, Garth Groff and Sally Sanford wrote:
Mel and Bob,

I'd go with gondola too. [snip]
--
*Tim O'Connor*
*Sterling, Massachusetts*


Re: Photo: DL&W 70793

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford
 

Mel and Bob,

I'd go with gondola too. The car obviously was constructed as a single piece, rather than a box added to a flat car. I don't see actual stake pockets here, just the stake permanently mounted to the side sills. Also note that it has some sort of dump mechanism. That said, how is this car classified in the ORERs of the time?

The Western Pacific had some GB gondolas rebuilt in 1947 from Pullman 1915 single-sheathed boxcars (series 15001) with a permanent box structure. They are later described in company training materials as "Flat car with sideboards". Here's the quote: " . . . 31 rebuilt Western Pacific Maintenance of Way cars, numbers M.W. 6101 to M.W. 6131 inclusive, are called 'sideboard flats'. Sides are about 27" high above floor. Do not confuse with gondolas."

By 1949 all but one had been removed from the ORER listing. I suspect they were a stop-gap solution to a mill gondola shortage, but their 1915 underframes weren't up to the strain. These cars served the WP until the end in work train service. At least a half-dozen went to various preservation lines and museums for conversion to open passenger cars in the 1980s and continue to soldier on. The WP also had a small number of 50' flat cars equipped with temporary box structures at about this time in mill service. These were true sideboard flats.

Yours Aye,

Mungo Napier, Laird of Mallard Lodge  🦆


On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:27 PM mel perry <clipper841@...> wrote:
definitely a gondola
mel perry

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 11:04 AM Bob Chaparro via Groups.Io <chiefbobbb=verizon.net@groups.io> wrote:

Photo: DL&W 70793

Nice shot of this car. Is it a flat car or a gondola?

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-26-19/X6139.jpg

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: SN Tank Car MW 68

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford
 

David,

My correspondence with Ed was several years ago. Perhaps he was only saying this wasn't an AC&F Type 7. I do remember he said AC&F never made any cars with this gallonage, but again, this may have only referred to Type 7s.

A Type 4 would fit the build date on the car in the Whittaker photo. Any idea where can we find more documentation, photos or drawings especially, on the Type 4? 

Yours Aye,

Mungo Napier, Laird of Mallard Lodge  🦆


On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 10:57 AM David via Groups.Io <jaydeet2001=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
> This car is something of a puzzle, particularly its original builder.
> I'm open to any suggestions as to its origins (I know it is not an
> AC&F car as Ed Kaminski told me it wasn't a few years back).

I have no idea why he said that. The car in the pics is pretty much a
standard AC&F Type 4.

David Thompson





Re: Classic Trains on CD

mofwcaboose <MOFWCABOOSE@...>
 

As a photo dealer myself ($5 each for an 8 x 10, postpaid), I can agree that prints are getting harder to sell. Until sometime in the 1990s, I had a chronic backlog because I had so many orders, but then it melted away and I have never had a backlog since. Occasionally someone contacts me to ask if I still sell prints, but that is the end of it. No order follows.

Only at Cocoa Beach do I ever sell many prints, but again i regret that I will not be able to make it this year. I just had a corneal transplant which will keep me out of action for the next month.

John C. La Rue, Jr.
Bonita Springs, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2019 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Classic Trains on CD


Magazines are not photos. I have issues of MRH (a FREE online publication with photos)
that are 300 Megabytes each in size, and they are PDF files.

Kalmbach could EASILY insert new advertising material into old issues of magazines if
they were really worried about copying and sharing PDF files. Advertisers pay for eyeballs,
so they'd be more than happy if people cheated, and probably spend enough to more than
cover the scanning and distribution costs - Just as they do for MRH and others.

ALL methods of digital copy protection can ALL be defeated. After all, software engineers
understand how it works, and them who create these methods will know how to get around them.
The days of selling paper copies of the same image over and over and over are drawing to a
close. Besides which, inks and paper are bad for the environment. :-)

Tim O'Connor





On 12/27/2019 1:01 PM, Bob Webber wrote:

This is an issue with digital images - people *WILL* copy, share and post on the internet.  They have since the inception (which is one reason Microsoft's process is so convoluted and pricey now).  They will also copy & share things that were specifically and explicitly forbidden by the license they signed (same).

You may disagree with the concept, then you shouldn't sign the license (which is a whole issue unto itself with EULAs being printed in -5 pt script and running on for chapters).  

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

You may wish for better copies in PDF form (which isn't the best vehicle) and be able to ...well...make it portable (as the name implies) for your own purposes.  That is and likely will be fine.  It's the people who post such images on the internet (and or pass copies along to friends and manufacturers as their own) that kill offerings and drive up prices.  

I'd love to hear "solutions" (off-line or at Cocoa) as we have had to stop supplying some materials until some of this is resolved.  It *WILL* make images harder to view, it *WILL* make images harder to come by, it *WILL* result in "policing" - people insist that anything on the Internet must be free, and any material feeding it must be too. They also insist that anything they "own" is theirs to do with as they please.   That will kill more than you know.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  Others do as well, mainly due to "pirates", but also to sensibly defray costs.  Feeling that it is the sellers problem (to pay for acquisition, maintenance, repair, and logistics) is simply uninformed or deliberately and willfully ignorant - and the reason many things available in the past & today will not be leaving archives - you'll have to visit them in order to look, and cameras and phones will not be allowed. 

At 10:44 AM 12/27/2019, Tim O'Connor wrote:
My issue with Kalmbach is their proprietary images - If the images were good quality in
a PDF format, I would get the entire MR/Trains/Classic/etc and load them onto my hard drive.
Bob Webber


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: micro coat flat

Greg Martin
 

Thanks Jon,  pleae let me know. I love dead flat. I appreciate you!

Greg Martin 



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Jon Miller <atsfus@...>
Date: 12/28/19 4:29 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] micro coat flat

On 12/28/2019 1:27 PM, Greg Martin via Groups.Io wrote:

I don't like acrylic because it doesn't/can't lay flat in most cases. I switched to Dullcoat against my better judgement.

    In the same age category I have some "Dullcote Lacquer" and a bottle of "Scalecoat" S51 flat glaze.  Lacquer is easy to deal with and I also have a couple of pints of Scalecoat thinner.  Will let you know when I do some samples.

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

--
Hey Boss,


Somehow I got deleted from this group in late May. I guess someone didn't like me. Jail is a lonely place.

Greg Martin 


Re: micro coat flat

Jon Miller
 

On 12/28/2019 1:27 PM, Greg Martin via Groups.Io wrote:

I don't like acrylic because it doesn't/can't lay flat in most cases. I switched to Dullcoat against my better judgement.

    In the same age category I have some "Dullcote Lacquer" and a bottle of "Scalecoat" S51 flat glaze.  Lacquer is easy to deal with and I also have a couple of pints of Scalecoat thinner.  Will let you know when I do some samples.

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Re: Photo: DL&W 70793

mofwcaboose <MOFWCABOOSE@...>
 

Listed in 1919 ORER as "Hopper, twin, steel underframe".

John C. La Rue, Jr. 
Bonita Sptings, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: mel perry <clipper841@...>
To: main <main@realstmfc.groups.io>
Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2019 2:27 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: DL&W 70793

definitely a gondola
mel perry

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 11:04 AM Bob Chaparro via Groups.Io <chiefbobbb=verizon.net@groups.io> wrote:
Photo: DL&W 70793
Nice shot of this car. Is it a flat car or a gondola?
Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Re: micro coat flat

Greg Martin
 

Jon,  

You're right it was solvent  based but did become acrylic.  I know because mine was so old that the plastic bottle cracked and dried up.  What does that tell you? 

I don't like acrylic because it doesn't/can't lay flat in most cases. I switched to Dullcoat against my better judgement.

Greg Martin 



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Jon Miller <atsfus@...>
Date: 12/26/19 4:47 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] micro coat flat

On 12/26/2019 4:17 PM, Bill Welch wrote:
I have used it for over 20 years and it has always been water based

    I don't agree with that.  Have Micro Coat Flat right in front of me.  Just smelled it.  It's an oil base paint.  It's been a while so I don't remember what I thinned it with.

    The new stuff says water or alcohol.  What I'm worried about is how flat is the new stuff.  Also read reviews (just some) that said it dried glossy which I'm worried about.  Will get some and just try it I guess.

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

--
Hey Boss,


Somehow I got deleted from this group in late May. I guess someone didn't like me. Jail is a lonely place.

Greg Martin 


Re: Photo: DL&W 70793

Matthew Hurst
 

This is a drop bottom gon. Note the hopper bottoms and the door mechanisms on the sides.

Matthew Hurst
Modeling the late great PRR and the tiny H&BTM in the late 40's



On December 28, 2019, at 2:04 PM, "Bob Chaparro via Groups.Io" <chiefbobbb@...> wrote:


Photo: DL&W 70793

Nice shot of this car. Is it a flat car or a gondola?

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-26-19/X6139.jpg

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Another YouTube video...on M of W cars

Robert kirkham
 

Really enjoyed that Jack.  Was useful to hear how you work through the model design and parts creation process. 

 

Rob Kirkham   

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jack Burgess
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2019 9:49 AM
To: RealSTMFC@groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Another YouTube video...on M of W cars

 

Another video as part of the series I have been doing has been uploaded to YouTube:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOr0CRinzM

 

This one is on M of W cars that I have been building.

 

Jack Burgess


Re: Photo: DL&W 70793

mel perry
 

definitely a gondola
mel perry

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 11:04 AM Bob Chaparro via Groups.Io <chiefbobbb=verizon.net@groups.io> wrote:

Photo: DL&W 70793

Nice shot of this car. Is it a flat car or a gondola?

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-26-19/X6139.jpg

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Photo: DL&W 70793

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: DL&W 70793

Nice shot of this car. Is it a flat car or a gondola?

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-26-19/X6139.jpg

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Numerous steam era freight cars at Jersey City, August 20, 1929

Tim O'Connor
 


wow, nice picture!


On 12/28/2019 8:41 AM, Brian Rochon wrote:

From the Erie-Lackawanna list today:

 

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-28-19/X6844.jpg

 

Brian Rochon



--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Another YouTube video...on M of W cars

Jack Burgess
 

Another video as part of the series I have been doing has been uploaded to YouTube:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOr0CRinzM

 

This one is on M of W cars that I have been building.

 

Jack Burgess


Re: Classic Trains on CD

Tim O'Connor
 


Tony makes an excellent point! - but it reminds me of the Guy Dunscomb collection of
fabulous Southern Pacific photographs that was bequeathed to the Huntington Collection,
and may therefore never be seen again by humans. Perhaps millions of years from now
intelligent life forms will rediscover them buried in a deep underground vault and
wonder "What the heck were they thinking?".

Some museums (like the Huntington) are like the computer joke about "write only memory".



On 12/27/2019 1:18 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
Bob Webber wrote:

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

   Comments about abuse of licensing and permission are quite correct. But I think Bob is wrong about what institutions "are going to do." In fact, my impression is that many institutions have given up on this issue, and are increasingly posting uncontrolled images on the web. Selling digital images is a VERY low-income idea, and I suspect many are simply deciding to make images available. Otherwise they languish in darkness.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  

        Of course this is entirely right. But those who charge huge prices, such as the Smithsonian, either believe they can get it because they have great material, or are trying to make images into a "profit center," as business schools faithfully teach you to do. I'd bet the profit is microscopic and shrinking.

Tony Thompson


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: Classic Trains on CD

Tim O'Connor
 


Magazines are not photos. I have issues of MRH (a FREE online publication with photos)
that are 300 Megabytes each in size, and they are PDF files.

Kalmbach could EASILY insert new advertising material into old issues of magazines if
they were really worried about copying and sharing PDF files. Advertisers pay for eyeballs,
so they'd be more than happy if people cheated, and probably spend enough to more than
cover the scanning and distribution costs - Just as they do for MRH and others.

ALL methods of digital copy protection can ALL be defeated. After all, software engineers
understand how it works, and them who create these methods will know how to get around them.
The days of selling paper copies of the same image over and over and over are drawing to a
close. Besides which, inks and paper are bad for the environment. :-)

Tim O'Connor





On 12/27/2019 1:01 PM, Bob Webber wrote:
This is an issue with digital images - people *WILL* copy, share and post on the internet.  They have since the inception (which is one reason Microsoft's process is so convoluted and pricey now).  They will also copy & share things that were specifically and explicitly forbidden by the license they signed (same).

You may disagree with the concept, then you shouldn't sign the license (which is a whole issue unto itself with EULAs being printed in -5 pt script and running on for chapters).  

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

You may wish for better copies in PDF form (which isn't the best vehicle) and be able to ...well...make it portable (as the name implies) for your own purposes.  That is and likely will be fine.  It's the people who post such images on the internet (and or pass copies along to friends and manufacturers as their own) that kill offerings and drive up prices.  

I'd love to hear "solutions" (off-line or at Cocoa) as we have had to stop supplying some materials until some of this is resolved.  It *WILL* make images harder to view, it *WILL* make images harder to come by, it *WILL* result in "policing" - people insist that anything on the Internet must be free, and any material feeding it must be too. They also insist that anything they "own" is theirs to do with as they please.   That will kill more than you know.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  Others do as well, mainly due to "pirates", but also to sensibly defray costs.  Feeling that it is the sellers problem (to pay for acquisition, maintenance, repair, and logistics) is simply uninformed or deliberately and willfully ignorant - and the reason many things available in the past & today will not be leaving archives - you'll have to visit them in order to look, and cameras and phones will not be allowed. 

At 10:44 AM 12/27/2019, Tim O'Connor wrote:
My issue with Kalmbach is their proprietary images - If the images were good quality in
a PDF format, I would get the entire MR/Trains/Classic/etc and load them onto my hard drive.

Bob Webber



--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: Numerous steam era freight cars at Jersey City, August 20, 1929

Nolan Hinshaw
 

On Dec 28, 2019, at 05:41, Brian Rochon <berochon@...> wrote:

From the Erie-Lackawanna list today:

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-28-19/X6844.jpg
That shot has some grand detail of a concrete cribbing!

^<@<.@* hat less at less point at star
}"_# | back brace double base pound space bar
-@$&/_% dash at cash and slash base rate
!(^I@|=> wow open tab at bar is great
;`+$?^? semi backquote plus cash huh DEL
,#"~|)^G comma pound double tilde bar close BEL


SN Tank Car MW 68

David
 

This car is something of a puzzle, particularly its original builder. I'm open to any suggestions as to its origins (I know it is not an AC&F car as Ed Kaminski told me it wasn't a few years back).
I have no idea why he said that. The car in the pics is pretty much a standard AC&F Type 4.

David Thompson


Re: Numerous steam era freight cars at Jersey City, August 20, 1929

Bill Daniels <billinsf@...>
 

Nice panoramic shot... notice the T&NO boxcar at the left end, and, no, it’s not that long, but an artifact of the panoramic camera that shot the image.

Bill Daniels
Santa Rosa, California


On Dec 28, 2019, at 5:41 AM, Brian Rochon <berochon@...> wrote:



From the Erie-Lackawanna list today:

 

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-28-19/X6844.jpg

 

Brian Rochon