Date   

Re: Caboose restrictions

al_brown03
 

The Morristown & Erie used an ex-Lackawanna bobber until 1950.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Re: Caboose restrictions

Bruce Smith
 

Ed,

With respect to the PRR, the NA, NB, NC and NE classes of bobber were all well less than 26’ in length. The ND class was exactly 26’ long. Several classes of bobbers were selected for rebuilding into the N6A and N6B classes of trucked cabin cars (steel under frame and wood structure), but these were all lengthened in the process. The ND was the only class where trucks were simply substituted under the car, and it was done a very limited number of cars, creating class NDA. The NDA cabins were exclusively operated on the Maryland Division of the PRR. Based on the Ohio law, the NDA would not have been legal, but the N6A and N6B were widely used there. The N6B class lasted for some time. Of note, in 1956, the PRR had more wood cabins in the N6B class than it had in all the steel cabin car classes combined!

Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

On Jan 14, 2020, at 9:41 AM, Edward <edb8381@...> wrote:

While not in your region of interest, the State of Ohio passed a caboose law in 1913 that affected every railroad  operating in or through that state.
It specified a caboose used in main line service in Ohio must have a frame length of at least 30' and ride on four-wheel trucks.

In compliance, B&O  designed and built their I-1 class cabooses in 1913, which also had steel underframes.
The better known B&O I-5 class caboose was a 1920's development of the I-1.
Cabooses not meeting Ohio requirements were moved to other locations and downgraded to branch or terminal service.

The earlier B&O K-1 class four-wheel cabooses built between 1878 and 1913 were 23' long overall with wood under-framing.
Several survived into the 1950' in terminal service with some getting replacement steel under-frames.
On the B&O the K-1 cabooses last worked to about 1953 on the B&O Chicago Terminal and the Staten Island Rapid Transit (B&O New York Terminal).
On the SIRT the K-1 class worked interstate freights between Cranford Jct. in New Jersey and the Arlington and St. George yards on Staten Island, from 1890 to 1953.
They were replaced by I-1 class cabooses built in 1913. The assigned K-1's were burned for scrap later in 1953.
C-587 seen here in 1940 at St. George, has a replacement steel underframe. 

The PRR in 1913 also had four wheel cabooses working in Ohio. These had longer underframes.
PRR converted some by putting pair of trucks under them in place of their two wheel sets.

Ed Bommer <C587a.jpg>


Prototype Junction Steam Era Freight Car List Special

Randy Hammill
 

I had a great time on my first visit to Cocoa Beach! Thanks Mike and those who make it happen.

We are officially live and taking pledges for our project. We have a lot of information on our site and the IndieGoGo page where we are funding the project, but I thought I'd highlight a few things here.

The Cars
We are producing all of these cars in one run, which includes the availability of decorated and undecorated kits and parts. ETA for all models is early 2021. We don't have immediate plans for a second run, mostly because we want to do more new models. All cars will be produced in each major paint scheme they wore, and with K and AB brakes and other modifications as appropriate over the life of the cars.

  • ATSF (10 variations): Bx-11, -12, and -13 classes built 1929-1931, including the Bx-11 and -12 classes rebuilt with 8" and 12" extensions in 1941-1943, and the Bx-11, -12, and -13 classes rebuilt with steel sides starting in 1950.
  • C&O (2 variations): Ex-PM Tall Pratt truss single sheathed box and auto cars. This includes the original double door configuration, and the single door box car conversion.
  • CGW (1 variation): Tall Pratt truss single sheathed auto car.
  • L&N (1 variation): Tall Pratt truss single sheathed auto car.
  • PM (2 variations): Tall Pratt truss single sheathed box and auto cars. This includes the original double door configuration, and the single door box car conversion.
  • RI (1 variation): Tall Pratt truss single sheathed box car.

The RI, and the ATSF variations, excluding the steel side rebuilds, have been available in resin (Sunshine and Westerfied respectively). As far as we know, none of the other models have been available in plastic, resin, or brass.

These 17 prototypes were in service for a long time:
  • 4 classes in 1929 (Bx-11, CGW, L&N, and PM)
  • 7 in 1930 (Bx-12 and RI)
  • 8 in 1931 (Bx-13)
  • 9 in 1941 (PM box cars, Bx-11 with 8" roof)
  • 10 in 1942 (Bx-12 with 8" roof)
  • 12 by 1943 (Bx-11, -12 with 12" roof)
  • 15 by 1950 (C&O auto and box, and ATSF Bx-13 with steel sides)
  • All 17 variations on the road in the '60s. 
More than any other group, I think it's safe to say that most of the modelers here not only need these cars, but need more than one.

The Funding
The only way we are able to make these models is through crowd funding. When you make your pledge, we do not have access to the money, unless we fully fund the project. IndieGoGo will automatically refund your money if we don't meet our goal. Our funding goal covers the tooling and complete production run of the the models, eliminating one of the biggest challenges that manufacturers have - cash flow. This money is being raised solely for that purpose and we aren't taking a paycheck or any income until after the models are delivered.

Since this group is a primary resource and inspiration for our modeling, we've created a Secret Perk just for members. This is $160 for 4 cars, and a 20% discount. You can add more models, parts, etc. and you'll make your final selections before we go to production. In addition you'll get a 20% discount on anything you add. The 20% discount is already reflected in the price of the two cars (SRP is $50), although you can choose the equivalent in parts if you'd prefer. 

Steam Era Freight Car List Only special 20% off Perk

So join our community of Backers and feel free to contact me on (within the rules of the forum) and off list with any questions. Thanks!


Randy 

Randy Hammill
Prototype Junction
http://prototypejunction.com
https://igg.me/at/PrototypeJunction

Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1954
http://newbritainstation.com


Re: Caboose restrictions

Edward
 

While not in your region of interest, the State of Ohio passed a caboose law in 1913 that affected every railroad  operating in or through that state.
It specified a caboose used in main line service in Ohio must have a frame length of at least 30' and ride on four-wheel trucks.

In compliance, B&O  designed and built their I-1 class cabooses in 1913, which also had steel underframes.
The better known B&O I-5 class caboose was a 1920's development of the I-1.
Cabooses not meeting Ohio requirements were moved to other locations and downgraded to branch or terminal service.

The earlier B&O K-1 class four-wheel cabooses built between 1878 and 1913 were 23' long overall with wood under-framing.
Several survived into the 1950' in terminal service with some getting replacement steel under-frames.
On the B&O the K-1 cabooses last worked to about 1953 on the B&O Chicago Terminal and the Staten Island Rapid Transit (B&O New York Terminal).
On the SIRT the K-1 class worked interstate freights between Cranford Jct. in New Jersey and the Arlington and St. George yards on Staten Island, from 1890 to 1953.
They were replaced by I-1 class cabooses built in 1913. The assigned K-1's were burned for scrap later in 1953.
C-587 seen here in 1940 at St. George, has a replacement steel underframe. 

The PRR in 1913 also had four wheel cabooses working in Ohio. These had longer underframes.
PRR converted some by putting pair of trucks under them in place of their two wheel sets.

Ed Bommer


Re: Caboose restrictions

Dennis Storzek
 

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 05:35 AM, Bruce Smith wrote:
Can you provide evidence for a federal ban of wood under frame cabooses? I looked on the document AAR_InterchangeDates in the list files section and the only really applicable rule was not a federal outlawing, but an AAR banning of wood draft sills from interchange in 1928. That, of course, would not have affected cabooses. I believe that individual states passed a variety of laws affecting cabooses, but I am unaware of a federal law outlawing cars so equipped. 
 
Bruce,

Can't cite the exact source, but during the twenties two regulations took effect: cabooses were required to have steel center sills, and a minimum body length of 26 feet. It is the later that did in most four wheel 'bobbers'.These weren't ARA interchange rules, but rather impose by the ICC under the authority granted the agency by Congress to regulate railroad safety. The end result, at least on the Soo Line, was all the bobbers disappeared and the rest of the cabooses were rebuilt with steel sills, starting about 1922 and finished by 1926 or so.

If Guy Wilber is listening, he can probably cite the source.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Photo: Staley Tank Cars

Douglas Harding
 

Here is a photo at a flour mill, showing the car is rolled to one side while tilted.

http://collections.mnhs.org/cms/largerimage?irn=10415125&catirn=10726893&return=

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of pennsylvania1954
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 11:28 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Staley Tank Cars

 

On the page reached through Bob's second link, the fifth photo from the bottom, "Staley grain car dumper 1951", caught my attention. How does the grain get out of the rebuilt WABASH boxcar? Does that device roll the car as well as tilt it?
--
Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL


Re: Photo: Staley Tank Cars

Douglas Harding
 

Here is an ad for a boxcar unloader device. You can see it tilts and rolls.

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of pennsylvania1954
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 11:28 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Staley Tank Cars

 

On the page reached through Bob's second link, the fifth photo from the bottom, "Staley grain car dumper 1951", caught my attention. How does the grain get out of the rebuilt WABASH boxcar? Does that device roll the car as well as tilt it?
--
Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL


Re: Caboose restrictions

Bruce Smith
 

Mark,

Can you provide evidence for a federal ban of wood under frame cabooses? I looked on the document AAR_InterchangeDates in the list files section and the only really applicable rule was not a federal outlawing, but an AAR banning of wood draft sills from interchange in 1928. That, of course, would not have affected cabooses. I believe that individual states passed a variety of laws affecting cabooses, but I am unaware of a federal law outlawing cars so equipped. 

As for bobbers, you may have underestimated their frequency. The PRR ran ND bobber cabin cars (built 1904) well into the late 1950s and one continues to be active on the Strasburg. These were, of course, steel under frame cars, but given the size of the PRR's fleet, it is probably unwise to say "almost always" with respect to 4 wheel cabin cars.

Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of mark_landgraf via Groups.Io <mark_landgraf@...>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 10:46 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Caboose restrictions
 
Rupert

In the time frame you are referring, the federal rules changed to requiring steel frames under cabooses. 

Four wheel bosses almost always had wood frames and became illegal. The cause of the new regulation was that wood frame cabooses were getting crushed when a pusher loco was used behind them.  

The replacement program almost always were 8 wheel cabooses. Used tender frames were popular platforms for new caboose bodies because of their size and availability. They were often pulled from scrap lines and sent to the car shops. Lackawanna was a user of old tender frames. 

Many RRs were notoriously cheap when it came to providing maintained working facilities such as cabooses. Some rrs encountered union negotiated levels of maintenance of cabooses or equipment requirements. 

This cheapness was demonstrated by several rrs operating in the central states, where they converted old boxcars. Transfer cabooses were an extreme example of cheap and minimalistic furnishing of equipment that had to be furnished for municipal operations. 

Mark Landgraf


On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:17 PM, Rupert Gamlen
<gamlenz@...> wrote:

Does anyone know about nation-wide legislative restrictions on the use of four wheel cabooses in about 1910, or employment agreements that may have restricted their use to branch lines or yards? I understand that the states of Washington, North Dakota and Minnesota imposed restrictions on them in 1909-1910 but don’t know the background to them. I am particularly interested in states where the CB&Q operated, such as Illinois, Iowa and Missouri.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ


Re: Photo: Staley Tank Cars

Gary Roe
 

Perhaps I should amend my answer a little.  "Roll" is probably not the right description of what the unloader does.  It tips the car to the side enough to get the grain to run to the side of the car that has the door open; but it does not roll the car over, like a rotary dumper for coal.

gary roe
quincy, illinois



On Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 5:31:29 AM CST, Gary Roe <wabashrr@...> wrote:


Steve,

In a word, yes.

gary roe
quincy, illinois



On Monday, January 13, 2020, 11:28:11 PM CST, pennsylvania1954 <stevehprr@...> wrote:


On the page reached through Bob's second link, the fifth photo from the bottom, "Staley grain car dumper 1951", caught my attention. How does the grain get out of the rebuilt WABASH boxcar? Does that device roll the car as well as tilt it?
--
Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL


Re: Photo: Staley Tank Cars

Gary Roe
 

Steve,

In a word, yes.

gary roe
quincy, illinois



On Monday, January 13, 2020, 11:28:11 PM CST, pennsylvania1954 <stevehprr@...> wrote:


On the page reached through Bob's second link, the fifth photo from the bottom, "Staley grain car dumper 1951", caught my attention. How does the grain get out of the rebuilt WABASH boxcar? Does that device roll the car as well as tilt it?
--
Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL


Re: Another Athearn 40' Flat Prototype [Was Rutland flatcar with trailer load]

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford
 

Jim,

Nice photos. Thanks. Did you notice how the weight data is crooked? And there is no car length or repack data. So much for restoration accuracy. Oy vey! Steamtown is, after all, a government agency. 

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff  🦆


On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:32 PM James SANDIFER <steve.sandifer@...> wrote:

Here are two other views of the Rutland 2777.

 

 

J. Stephen Sandifer

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marty McGuirk
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 6:26 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Another Athearn 40' Flat Prototype [Was Rutland flatcar with trailer load]

 

With the obvious exception of the number of stake pockets, the GT car does look very similar to Central Vermont 4287 ( http://centralvermontrailway.blogspot.com/2018/08/wordless-wednesday-199.html) which is on display in Willimantic. 

 

 

On January 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Eric Hansmann <eric@...> wrote:

The sidesills on those flats are slightly different. The sidesills on the GT car are deeper than those on the Rutland car. This also affects the angles of the fishbelly appearance.

 

 

Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN

 

On January 13, 2020 at 3:09 AM Garth Groff and Sally Sanford <mallardlodge1000@...> wrote:

Friends,

 

While looking through my New England photos for other surviving examples of the Rutland 2700-series flat cars, I chanced upon another 11-pocket flat car. This one is in company service on the Conway Scenic Railway, and is lettered GT 54559.

 

A photo of the car is attached, along with Steamtown's Rutland 2777 for comparison. The GT car has a channel end sill, while the Rutland car has a flat plate. Otherwise they are similar. Some styrene strip and a new deck could make the Athearn car a close match.

 

I'm not sure whether the GT lettering on this car is correct. In my 1958 ORER, there is no longer a separate GT reporting mark, only CN, and no number like this exists. Maybe it is older, or maybe it is fake lettering on somebody else's car. Any ideas?

 

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff  🦆

 


 

Attachments:


Re: Photo: Staley Tank Cars

pennsylvania1954
 

On the page reached through Bob's second link, the fifth photo from the bottom, "Staley grain car dumper 1951", caught my attention. How does the grain get out of the rebuilt WABASH boxcar? Does that device roll the car as well as tilt it?
--
Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL


Re: Caboose restrictions

mark_landgraf
 

Rupert

In the time frame you are referring, the federal rules changed to requiring steel frames under cabooses. 

Four wheel bosses almost always had wood frames and became illegal. The cause of the new regulation was that wood frame cabooses were getting crushed when a pusher loco was used behind them.  

The replacement program almost always were 8 wheel cabooses. Used tender frames were popular platforms for new caboose bodies because of their size and availability. They were often pulled from scrap lines and sent to the car shops. Lackawanna was a user of old tender frames. 

Many RRs were notoriously cheap when it came to providing maintained working facilities such as cabooses. Some rrs encountered union negotiated levels of maintenance of cabooses or equipment requirements. 

This cheapness was demonstrated by several rrs operating in the central states, where they converted old boxcars. Transfer cabooses were an extreme example of cheap and minimalistic furnishing of equipment that had to be furnished for municipal operations. 

Mark Landgraf


On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:17 PM, Rupert Gamlen
<gamlenz@...> wrote:

Does anyone know about nation-wide legislative restrictions on the use of four wheel cabooses in about 1910, or employment agreements that may have restricted their use to branch lines or yards? I understand that the states of Washington, North Dakota and Minnesota imposed restrictions on them in 1909-1910 but don’t know the background to them. I am particularly interested in states where the CB&Q operated, such as Illinois, Iowa and Missouri.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ


Caboose restrictions

Rupert Gamlen
 

Does anyone know about nation-wide legislative restrictions on the use of four wheel cabooses in about 1910, or employment agreements that may have restricted their use to branch lines or yards? I understand that the states of Washington, North Dakota and Minnesota imposed restrictions on them in 1909-1910 but don’t know the background to them. I am particularly interested in states where the CB&Q operated, such as Illinois, Iowa and Missouri.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ


Re: Another Athearn 40' Flat Prototype [Was Rutland flatcar with trailer load]

James SANDIFER
 

Here are two other views of the Rutland 2777.

 

 

J. Stephen Sandifer

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marty McGuirk
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 6:26 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Another Athearn 40' Flat Prototype [Was Rutland flatcar with trailer load]

 

With the obvious exception of the number of stake pockets, the GT car does look very similar to Central Vermont 4287 ( http://centralvermontrailway.blogspot.com/2018/08/wordless-wednesday-199.html) which is on display in Willimantic. 

 

 

On January 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Eric Hansmann <eric@...> wrote:

The sidesills on those flats are slightly different. The sidesills on the GT car are deeper than those on the Rutland car. This also affects the angles of the fishbelly appearance.

 

 

Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN

 

On January 13, 2020 at 3:09 AM Garth Groff and Sally Sanford <mallardlodge1000@...> wrote:

Friends,

 

While looking through my New England photos for other surviving examples of the Rutland 2700-series flat cars, I chanced upon another 11-pocket flat car. This one is in company service on the Conway Scenic Railway, and is lettered GT 54559.

 

A photo of the car is attached, along with Steamtown's Rutland 2777 for comparison. The GT car has a channel end sill, while the Rutland car has a flat plate. Otherwise they are similar. Some styrene strip and a new deck could make the Athearn car a close match.

 

I'm not sure whether the GT lettering on this car is correct. In my 1958 ORER, there is no longer a separate GT reporting mark, only CN, and no number like this exists. Maybe it is older, or maybe it is fake lettering on somebody else's car. Any ideas?

 

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff  🦆

 


 


Re: Another Athearn 40' Flat Prototype [Was Rutland flatcar with trailer load]

Richard McQuade
 

Some years ago Stafford Swain wrote an article about modifying the Athearn 40' flat into one of the first steel flatcars built by GTR. There might be somebody in this group who has the issue of CN Lines magazine that featured that article. Sorry but I don't.
Richard


Re: Looking for any info about Linde (CCBX) gondolas #801-815 and the containers. #801-815

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford
 

Jason,

My pleasure. From my trusty October 1958 ORER, page 688, entry for Union Carbide:

"Container Cars: The container (A.A.R. Mech. Designation LG) cars marked 'C.C.B.X' and numbered 801 to 803 inclusive (Note A). Inside dimensions: length 46 ft. 10 in., width 9 ft. 1 in., height 1 ft. 5 in., outside 49 ft., width at top of sides 9 ft. 11 in., extreme width 9 ft. 11 in., height from rail to extreme width 5 ft. 1 in., to top of sides 5 ft. 1 in., to extreme height 5 ft. 7 in., capacity 140,000 . . . Note A: Container cars numbered 801 to 803 and 805 to 815 inclusive have a capacity of 12 Calcium Carbide containers." The entry is dated July 1957.

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff  🦆


On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jason Kliewer <wcfn100@...> wrote:
Does anyone have any info they could share about these container gondolas?  I'm trying to make a drawing of the containers anf gondolas working off pictures and the ORER dimensions on the gondola series but can seem to get it to look right.

Anyone ever see a shot of the containers out of the car?  Did the gondolas have wood floors?

Lots of questions.

Jason Kliewer
Colorado Springs, CO


Re: Another Athearn 40' Flat Prototype [Was Rutland flatcar with trailer load]

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford
 

Dave and Friends,

I just found a photo of a similar GT flat car in TRAIN SHED CYCLOPEDIA NO. 35 (reprint of the 1919 CBD), page 326. Grand Trunk 69611 has a lettering layout that mirrors the car on at North Conway, though a bit simpler. This car depicted even has the little up-slope to the very end of the side sills. Sadly, it has only 10 stake pockets. I would not be surprised if this was a standard, but evolving, CN design ordered in similar lots for their subsidiary lines, as well as possibly for the CN itself. Maybe our Canadian members can shed more light on these cars.

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff  🦆


On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 3:53 PM Dave Parker via Groups.Io <spottab=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I think the MW just above the left-hand grab provides a pretty clear clue concerning company service versus interchange.

Whether the paint scheme actually represents a prototype car from "back in the day", I can't say.  The history of the GT and CN in northern New England is fairly convoluted, further muddying the waters.
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Re: Kits/Cars for Sale

Armand Premo
 

Please send list Tom,Armand


Re: Another Athearn 40' Flat Prototype [Was Rutland flatcar with trailer load]

Eric Hansmann
 

No. I have no plans. Attached are a couple pages from a March 1924 NYC freight car diagram book documenting these flat cars. General drawing numbers are listed for a few. Roger Hinman covered these in his NYC steel flat car presentation at one of the recent RPM Chicagoland events.

 

I started modifying a Tichy flat car to follow the NYC cars. I haven’t gotten around to creating the fishbelly sidesill in styrene. Ryan Mendell was selling resin fishbelly side sills at the recent RPM Chicagoland. These are intended to modify the Tichy boom car kits. I picked up a set as they might work for these NYC flat cars. Just need to add more stake pockets.

https://nationalscalecar.com/product/mk103-fish-belly-side-sills-for-tichy-boom-car/

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Greg Martin via Groups.Io
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 3:32 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Another Athearn 40' Flat Prototype [Was Rutland flatcar with trailer load]

 

Eric do you have plans? 

 

Greg Martin 

 

 

 

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Eric Hansmann <eric@...>

Date: 1/13/20 6:08 AM (GMT-06:00)

Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Another Athearn 40' Flat Prototype [Was Rutland flatcar with trailer load]

 

The sidesills on those flats are slightly different. The sidesills on the GT car are deeper than those on the Rutland car. This also affects the angles of the fishbelly appearance.

 

 

Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN

 

On January 13, 2020 at 3:09 AM Garth Groff and Sally Sanford <mallardlodge1000@...> wrote:

Friends,

 

While looking through my New England photos for other surviving examples of the Rutland 2700-series flat cars, I chanced upon another 11-pocket flat car. This one is in company service on the Conway Scenic Railway, and is lettered GT 54559.

 

A photo of the car is attached, along with Steamtown's Rutland 2777 for comparison. The GT car has a channel end sill, while the Rutland car has a flat plate. Otherwise they are similar. Some styrene strip and a new deck could make the Athearn car a close match.

 

I'm not sure whether the GT lettering on this car is correct. In my 1958 ORER, there is no longer a separate GT reporting mark, only CN, and no number like this exists. Maybe it is older, or maybe it is fake lettering on somebody else's car. Any ideas?

 

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff  🦆

 


--
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