Date   

Re: Car weighting

Schuyler Larrabee
 

That’s fine, Eric, but what happens when you take your equipment to another layout?  I don’t even HAVE a home layout (yet) but I’m a member of a major club, the North Shore Model Railroad Club (www.nsmrc.org ) and one of the major issues that arise in ops there are cars that are either under or (far) over weight standards.  OK, fine, the weight recommendations in the RP.  Whatever, as I said before, it is a (de facto) standard.

 

Schuyler

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Eric Hansmann
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2020 9:33 AM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Car weighting

 

The NMRA car weight is not a standard it is a recommended practice. Here’s the PDF for RP-20.1 Car Weight. 

 

Many modelers use this guide for their own standards, but it is not an NMRA defined standard for modeling and manufacturing. As noted on the document, it’s a recommended practice (RP).

 

For my models, I use this RP to determine the car weight but install 75% of that recommendation. My train length hardly hits 20 cars and I don’t have any grades. Nearly all the models roll on metal wheel sets in trucks manufactured within the last 40 years. 

 

Determine what works best for your layout parameters and use the NMRA car weight RP to guide your own standard. 

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 


On Jun 26, 2020, at 8:31 PM, Schuyler Larrabee via groups.io <schuyler.larrabee@...> wrote:

Tony, with the improvements in the free-rolling of
trucks due to better wheels and more accurately
fitted axle lengths (yes, I know REBOXX is out of
business, but there's hope for another source),
locomotive performance has been enhanced
tremendously.  The irony of improved trucks isn't
that they roll better, that's obvious, but the
apparent improvement of your existing locomotives
because the free rolling trucks let them pull
more.

I use the NMRA standards for weighting cars simply
because that's what it is: a standard.

Schuyler


Re: 1950s model manufacturers - was Train-Master vs. Train-Miniature

Tony Thompson
 

Peter Ness wrote:

Ulrich – at one time Walthers appeared to at least manage this line along with Silver Streak; I think the products were identified as “a division of Wm K Walthers” on packaging. As of a couple years ago, someone turned up in an ebay search who was still selling limited Ulrich vehicle cast metal parts under the Ulrich name.

     Walthers bought the dies and produced the GS gondola cars for a time; I have several in Walthers kit boxes. The gentleman in Colorado who obtained the dies from Walthers really only wanted to do the highway trucks, and to my knowledge never re-issued any freight cars.

To keep this within STMFC content; It’s amazing (to me) that “back in the day” some manufacturers really made such a top effort to produce both accurate and detailed freight car kits working with the available technology. .. (they) would still stand up with many of today’s offerings. 

     Very true. I have enjoyed owning (and restoring) a number of HO scale classic freight car models, including an excellent Athearn metal tank car, as described in a blog post. If you're interested, here is a link:


Tony Thompson




Ethyl Corporation Tank Car EBAX 3197

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Andy Miller (might be on this list) modeled one of the attached cars by printing the paint scheme on a thin plastic wrapper that covered the car, and applying the dome afterwards.  Very clever and a good looking car.

 

Thanks, Garth, for the image.

 

Schuyler

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Garth Groff and Sally Sanford

 

Attached is a photo of an Ethyl tank car on the WP circa 1978 at Oroville. Note how small the car is.

 

Yours Aye,

 

 

Garth Groff  🦆

 


Re: Tetra Ethyl lead cars (Was Conoco)

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford <mallardlodge1000@...>
 

Ken,

EBAX 3197, the car I shot, is not in my 1958 ORER. That said, I just took a look at the EBAX roster there. While there are a number of 3,000 gallon cars, most are 6,000. Most are ICC 105A300W TPI cars, though a few of the 3K cars are ICC105A300, which AIUI means they are riveted. They have the lowest numbers, suggesting they are the oldest cars in the fleet. Not surprisingly, the majority of the 831 car fleet are restricted to carrying "Motor Fuel Anti-Knock Compound", that is tetraethyllead. There are a few cars listed as carrying metalic sodium, ethyl chloride, Muriatic Acid, and chlorine gas, which I presume are constituent chemicals used to make anti-knock compounds, or are by-products of the process being shipped to other industries. These cars ranged from 7 to 11K.

By the way, there was also an Ethyl Corporation of Canada which rostered 42 cars under the ECCX mark. All are indicated as for tetraethyllead. They are all 3K or 6K cars classed as ICC 105A300W TPI.

I did not know about DuPont making this stuff, but I remember that I saw some of their cars on the WP as well. Dupont had a large chemical plant somewhere west of Pittsburg, and I have some shots of one of their locomotives. This might have been where their cars in the WP trains were headed. Of  course, DuPont made a lot of other nasty stuff as well as tetraethyllead. I have some negatives somewhere, and I will probably get to them in my next big scan campaign later this year when I start work on my California stuff from the 1960s and 1970s.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🦆

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM akerboomk <ken-akerboom@...> wrote:

Garth –

I was somewhere (NMRA? RPM?) where Scott Chatfield talked about tank cars, and he covered some Tetraethyl lead cars (among others)

To your questions:

-       They were small (IIRC the cars he talked about were 4000 gal, but I may be wrong)

-       The cars he talked about were not lined

-       The cars he talked about were contaminated

-       When they were “end of lifed” (IIRC due to 40/50 year rule), they were disposed of in a “creative” way.

 

I’d rather not say how…

 

Ken


--
Ken Akerboom


Re: Car weighting

James E Kubanick
 

I have always felt that the NMRA RP was too heavy and, for many years, have arbitrarily used 100gm. as my target weight. I have a large fleet of freight cars of every imaginable construction material and run them randomly in 40 - 50 car trains on grades. Some of these cars cannot be weighted to 100gm. and some already exceed that "limit' but all seem to run well together.

I am, however, very careful on having free-rolling trucks with metal wheelsets (of all makes) on all of my cars. Also, I am very fussy on coupler alignment - a mix of Kadee 5"s and 58's.These are all steam era cars. I do try to minimize these variables, but it is impossible to do so with a large fleet. Still, I nave no restrictions on freight car mix or volume in freight train makeup. Perhaps I could drop my standard yo, say, 75--75gms, but I'm in too deep to change-now and this is what works for me. .

By now, I have thoroughly convinces myself that the NMRA recommendation is far out of date and should be taken less seriously.

Jim Kubanick
Morgantown WV

On Saturday, June 27, 2020, 11:04:44 AM EDT, vapeurchapelon <j.markwart@...> wrote:


Bud, Tony, Bruce, and others,

when I started to model US prototypes more than 20 years ago I definitely wanted to run 100+ car trains with only one (larger) steam engine because this was reality for decades and is the main reason for my fascination of that era. Because of no available room and no ability to build an own layout I was restricted to "carpet or floor railroading". I purchased the only really useful track for this purpose (ROCO LINE) and choose not to use any unrealistically small curves - and the only one large enough from that company is 80" radius. The next smaller one is 35" which is already too small.
After building maybe 20 Proto 2k and Intermountain and Red Caboose kits and installing the weights per instructions and assembling these cars on a track for first trial runs I quickly thought "forget the 100 car train!"
Instantly I choose to remove all that dead weight and just add metal wheels (and Kadee couplers of course) to try how this would work - and it was very fine. I build about 120 more such kits - all without any additional weight - and frequently ran all of them in one train without any problems.
Then I wanted to "stretch the idea as far as I could" - I took the lightest car - Red Caboose 42' fishbelly side flat - re-equipped it with the original plastic wheel sets so it weighed only scary 15 grams and put it directly behind the engine. ZERO problems again. It also didn't make any difference to run some bad-rolling NMRA-weighted cars in between. One only had to be a little careful with acceleration and braking - which just adds to prototypical appearence...

Of course 80" curves are very large. Today - at the FREMO - I run half of that, and still have to try how those light weights will run there. Last year I have had a 64-car 100%-brass freight train running (mostly converted to Tahoe trucks) which went very well, too. Brass cars weigh in about 5 oz average, but the lightest one is a small frame-less tank car having only 63 grams. I had this one placed in the forward half of the train, but it really felt good, seemingly. No derailments.

As another member pointed out the NMRA rcommendations are from a time with VERY differently weighted cars and lots of bad-rolling trucks and smaller radius curves. Today I think those weights are much higher than necessary.
With the experiences mentioned above I would GUESS that steam era freight cars with free-rolling trucks (which have to be mounted properly and straight!) and metal wheel sets but without additional weight would safely run in long trains at 50" radius curves.

Sorry for the long posting.

Johannes
Modeling the early post-war years up to about 1953



> Gesendet: Samstag, 27. Juni 2020 um 03:17 Uhr
> Von: "Tony Thompson" <tony@...>
> An: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
> Betreff: Re: [RealSTMFC] Car weighting
>
> Bruce Metcalf wrote:
>
> > I use the NMRA weights in HO. I have also found that when there are problems, it's not the absolute weight, but combinations of light and heavy cars in one train. That, or putting light cars or just too many cars around too-tight curves.
>
>      There were studies in the model magazines back in the 1950s that concluded (possibly correctly) that the biggest factor in car weight performance was CONSISTENT car weight. As Bruce says, mixing heavier and lighter cars can bite you. I think one could very probably choose a weight below the NMRA weight now recommended, but the key would be, again, to STICK to that weight and get as close as you can with every car.
>      I continue to use the NMRA weight, but then again, I don't have any heavy grades that can hurt locomotive performance.
>
> Tony Thompson
> tony@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Re: Tetra Ethyl lead cars (Was Conoco)

akerboomk
 

Garth –

I was somewhere (NMRA? RPM?) where Scott Chatfield talked about tank cars, and he covered some Tetraethyl lead cars (among others)

To your questions:

-       They were small (IIRC the cars he talked about were 4000 gal, but I may be wrong)

-       The cars he talked about were not lined

-       The cars he talked about were contaminated

-       When they were “end of lifed” (IIRC due to 40/50 year rule), they were disposed of in a “creative” way.

 

I’d rather not say how…

 

Ken


--
Ken Akerboom


Re: CONOCO Proto 2000 8K Gallon Type 21 Riveted Tank Car Questions

John Barry
 

Garth,

The main point about the list was to show the variety of non-owner controlled cars that carried feed stocks to refineries.  I have no insight to the outbound loads at that time as the list is from a detention study done by AAR at the behest of the Office of Defense Transportation for cars inbound to the refineries from the Santa Fe at Port Chicago.  I found the report in the National Archives at San Bruno back in 2012.  

It's interesting in the list that the only inbound Shell car, RPX 3502, was destined to the Associated Refinery originating in Atreco, TX, which was the home of an Atlantic Refining Company (Arco) refinery.  This illustrates the point that at least during WWII, you could see TMs and TMIs from just about any owner nearly anywhere there was a refinery.  Other files in the archives document partial lists of alcohol shipments for loading on Soviet tankers as part of the Lend-Lease program.  Cars came from distileries in Vancouver, BC; Kentucky; and other places as well as the tank storage farm at Gretna, LA to  Dorward or Lawrence in Richmond, CA.  At least a couple of the Gretna shipments looked like unit trains of 8 and 10K gallon cars.

You are correct about the Ethyl cars.  ALL of their cars for antiknock compound were TPIs of 3k or 6k gallons in 1944.  Their few larger cars were either TPIs for metallic sodium or ethyl chloride or TLs for muriatic acid.  Not a Type 21 in the bunch.  But the BLI 6k EBAX car is a great fit for any gasoline refinery.  

John Barry
 
ATSF North Bay Lines 
Golden Gates & Fast Freights 
Lovettsville, VA

707-490-9696 

PO Box 44736 
Washington, DC 20026-4736


On Saturday, June 27, 2020, 06:01:38 AM EDT, Garth Groff and Sally Sanford <mallardlodge1000@...> wrote:


John,

Interesting list and interchange information. One point: automotive lead (tetraethylead) is extremely heavy. From my observation on the WP in the 1970s, which moved a lot of Ethyl tank cars, is that such cars were rather small. Most of those I photographed were in the 6,000 gallon range. I'm also thinking that these cars probably had some special lining, and a car without this lining would have been permanently contaminated. While I won't say it didn't happen in the 1940s, I would be surprised to discover this chemical was shipped in standard 8K or 10K tank cars.

For those interested, here is a link to a Wikipedia page on the Ethyl Corporation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_Corporation

And here is another page on the chemical itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead .

Attached is a photo of an Ethyl tank car on the WP circa 1978 at Oroville. Note how small the car is.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🦆

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:55 PM John Barry <northbaylines@...> wrote:
Ken,

While I agree that the the CONX car would not have been in California distributing finished product to local dealers, it coiled have been there transporting stock components to either Tidewater-Associated at Avon, Shell at Martinez, or Standard Oil of California at Richmond.  Just because they usually shipped retail product in their own or leased cars, does not mean they received their stock components in cars they controlled.  And during WWII, there was a much wider use of tank cars such that often neither the shipper nor receiver owned or leased the car.  Case in point, at Port Chicago, very close to your modeled location, during the last ten days of November 1944 the following cars were forwarded to the SP from the Santa Fe:

62TIDWATER  ASSOCIATED OIL CO.
1COSX
3EBAX
3GATX
1MPCX
1OELX
1RPX
1TIDX
49UTLX
2WEOX
34SHELL OIL CO.
16GATX
9PSPX
9SWLX

Those three EBAX cars, Tetraethyl Lead, (Motor Fuel in the commodity block on the waybill).  If you model a refinery that produced gasoline any time before the mid-70's, you need at least one EBAX car.

John Barry
 
ATSF North Bay Lines 
Golden Gates & Fast Freights 
Lovettsville, VA

707-490-9696 

PO Box 44736 
Washington, DC 20026-4736


On Friday, June 26, 2020, 08:39:24 PM EDT, Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:


Ken Adams wrote:

Shell owned the Martinez refinery in that period but I have them pretty well covered with a collection of UTLX cars.

      In your and my modeling period, Ken, UTLX was pretty substantially in bed with the "baby Standards" such as Standard of California, and to my knowledge had nothing to do with Shell.

Tony Thompson




Re: Car weighting

vapeurchapelon
 

Bud, Tony, Bruce, and others,

when I started to model US prototypes more than 20 years ago I definitely wanted to run 100+ car trains with only one (larger) steam engine because this was reality for decades and is the main reason for my fascination of that era. Because of no available room and no ability to build an own layout I was restricted to "carpet or floor railroading". I purchased the only really useful track for this purpose (ROCO LINE) and choose not to use any unrealistically small curves - and the only one large enough from that company is 80" radius. The next smaller one is 35" which is already too small.
After building maybe 20 Proto 2k and Intermountain and Red Caboose kits and installing the weights per instructions and assembling these cars on a track for first trial runs I quickly thought "forget the 100 car train!"
Instantly I choose to remove all that dead weight and just add metal wheels (and Kadee couplers of course) to try how this would work - and it was very fine. I build about 120 more such kits - all without any additional weight - and frequently ran all of them in one train without any problems.
Then I wanted to "stretch the idea as far as I could" - I took the lightest car - Red Caboose 42' fishbelly side flat - re-equipped it with the original plastic wheel sets so it weighed only scary 15 grams and put it directly behind the engine. ZERO problems again. It also didn't make any difference to run some bad-rolling NMRA-weighted cars in between. One only had to be a little careful with acceleration and braking - which just adds to prototypical appearence...

Of course 80" curves are very large. Today - at the FREMO - I run half of that, and still have to try how those light weights will run there. Last year I have had a 64-car 100%-brass freight train running (mostly converted to Tahoe trucks) which went very well, too. Brass cars weigh in about 5 oz average, but the lightest one is a small frame-less tank car having only 63 grams. I had this one placed in the forward half of the train, but it really felt good, seemingly. No derailments.

As another member pointed out the NMRA rcommendations are from a time with VERY differently weighted cars and lots of bad-rolling trucks and smaller radius curves. Today I think those weights are much higher than necessary.
With the experiences mentioned above I would GUESS that steam era freight cars with free-rolling trucks (which have to be mounted properly and straight!) and metal wheel sets but without additional weight would safely run in long trains at 50" radius curves.

Sorry for the long posting.

Johannes
Modeling the early post-war years up to about 1953

Gesendet: Samstag, 27. Juni 2020 um 03:17 Uhr
Von: "Tony Thompson" <tony@signaturepress.com>
An: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Betreff: Re: [RealSTMFC] Car weighting

Bruce Metcalf wrote:

I use the NMRA weights in HO. I have also found that when there are problems, it's not the absolute weight, but combinations of light and heavy cars in one train. That, or putting light cars or just too many cars around too-tight curves.
There were studies in the model magazines back in the 1950s that concluded (possibly correctly) that the biggest factor in car weight performance was CONSISTENT car weight. As Bruce says, mixing heavier and lighter cars can bite you. I think one could very probably choose a weight below the NMRA weight now recommended, but the key would be, again, to STICK to that weight and get as close as you can with every car.
I continue to use the NMRA weight, but then again, I don't have any heavy grades that can hurt locomotive performance.

Tony Thompson
tony@signaturepress.com







Re: CONOCO Proto 2000 8K Gallon Type 21 Riveted Tank Car Questions

mopacfirst
 

Going by my own knowledge of the subject, there were two primary producers of tetraethyl lead.  One was Ethyl Corporation and the other was DuPont.  Both used their own dedicated tank cars.

I don't know if increased demand would have ever compelled either to use a general service 6000 gallon tank car, but I would say that was extremely unlikely since as you say, that would have rendered the car unsuitable for other loads.  Bear in mind that refiners and processors of liquid hydrocarbons have always had the ability to maintain a great deal of inventory, including work in process, so they've generally planned for and been able to manage the seasonal swings in demand, at least during the period of this list.

Ron Merrick


Re: Car weighting

Douglas Harding
 

Bud I’m not sure if one is available for S, but I use the truck tool reamer to clean out the journal cones on my HO trucks. I have even used it on brass trucks with great success as the cutter is machined steel. It shaves the inside of the cone to provide a smooth surface and better match the shape of the axle point. This  allows for smooth operation. I’ve had less success on cast metal trucks, and those I can’t ream get replaced.

 

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bud Rindfleisch
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2020 8:25 AM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Car weighting

 

Thanks guys for all the responses on car weighting! Consistency seems to be the way to go. In S I have quite a few heavier brass cars without needlepoint axles and most other cars have either needlepoint or Delrin bearing inserts on the blunt end axles. I use a product called Liquid Bearings with just a light amount on the brass trucks. Seems to work quite well. Smooth trackwork is paramount though!

     Bud Rindfleisch


Re: Car weighting

Eric Hansmann
 

The NMRA car weight is not a standard it is a recommended practice. Here’s the PDF for RP-20.1 Car Weight. 

Many modelers use this guide for their own standards, but it is not an NMRA defined standard for modeling and manufacturing. As noted on the document, it’s a recommended practice (RP).

For my models, I use this RP to determine the car weight but install 75% of that recommendation. My train length hardly hits 20 cars and I don’t have any grades. Nearly all the models roll on metal wheel sets in trucks manufactured within the last 40 years. 

Determine what works best for your layout parameters and use the NMRA car weight RP to guide your own standard. 


Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN


On Jun 26, 2020, at 8:31 PM, Schuyler Larrabee via groups.io <schuyler.larrabee@...> wrote:

Tony, with the improvements in the free-rolling of
trucks due to better wheels and more accurately
fitted axle lengths (yes, I know REBOXX is out of
business, but there's hope for another source),
locomotive performance has been enhanced
tremendously.  The irony of improved trucks isn't
that they roll better, that's obvious, but the
apparent improvement of your existing locomotives
because the free rolling trucks let them pull
more.

I use the NMRA standards for weighting cars simply
because that's what it is: a standard.

Schuyler


Re: Car weighting

Bud Rindfleisch
 

Thanks guys for all the responses on car weighting! Consistency seems to be the way to go. In S I have quite a few heavier brass cars without needlepoint axles and most other cars have either needlepoint or Delrin bearing inserts on the blunt end axles. I use a product called Liquid Bearings with just a light amount on the brass trucks. Seems to work quite well. Smooth trackwork is paramount though!
     Bud Rindfleisch


Re: CONOCO Proto 2000 8K Gallon Type 21 Riveted Tank Car Questions

Garth Groff and Sally Sanford <mallardlodge1000@...>
 

John,

Interesting list and interchange information. One point: automotive lead (tetraethylead) is extremely heavy. From my observation on the WP in the 1970s, which moved a lot of Ethyl tank cars, is that such cars were rather small. Most of those I photographed were in the 6,000 gallon range. I'm also thinking that these cars probably had some special lining, and a car without this lining would have been permanently contaminated. While I won't say it didn't happen in the 1940s, I would be surprised to discover this chemical was shipped in standard 8K or 10K tank cars.

For those interested, here is a link to a Wikipedia page on the Ethyl Corporation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_Corporation

And here is another page on the chemical itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead .

Attached is a photo of an Ethyl tank car on the WP circa 1978 at Oroville. Note how small the car is.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🦆

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:55 PM John Barry <northbaylines@...> wrote:
Ken,

While I agree that the the CONX car would not have been in California distributing finished product to local dealers, it coiled have been there transporting stock components to either Tidewater-Associated at Avon, Shell at Martinez, or Standard Oil of California at Richmond.  Just because they usually shipped retail product in their own or leased cars, does not mean they received their stock components in cars they controlled.  And during WWII, there was a much wider use of tank cars such that often neither the shipper nor receiver owned or leased the car.  Case in point, at Port Chicago, very close to your modeled location, during the last ten days of November 1944 the following cars were forwarded to the SP from the Santa Fe:

62 TIDWATER  ASSOCIATED OIL CO.
1 COSX
3 EBAX
3 GATX
1 MPCX
1 OELX
1 RPX
1 TIDX
49 UTLX
2 WEOX
34 SHELL OIL CO.
16 GATX
9 PSPX
9 SWLX

Those three EBAX cars, Tetraethyl Lead, (Motor Fuel in the commodity block on the waybill).  If you model a refinery that produced gasoline any time before the mid-70's, you need at least one EBAX car.

John Barry
 
ATSF North Bay Lines 
Golden Gates & Fast Freights 
Lovettsville, VA

707-490-9696 

PO Box 44736 
Washington, DC 20026-4736


On Friday, June 26, 2020, 08:39:24 PM EDT, Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:


Ken Adams wrote:

Shell owned the Martinez refinery in that period but I have them pretty well covered with a collection of UTLX cars.

      In your and my modeling period, Ken, UTLX was pretty substantially in bed with the "baby Standards" such as Standard of California, and to my knowledge had nothing to do with Shell.

Tony Thompson




Re: CONOCO Proto 2000 8K Gallon Type 21 Riveted Tank Car Questions

John Barry
 

Ken,

While I agree that the the CONX car would not have been in California distributing finished product to local dealers, it coiled have been there transporting stock components to either Tidewater-Associated at Avon, Shell at Martinez, or Standard Oil of California at Richmond.  Just because they usually shipped retail product in their own or leased cars, does not mean they received their stock components in cars they controlled.  And during WWII, there was a much wider use of tank cars such that often neither the shipper nor receiver owned or leased the car.  Case in point, at Port Chicago, very close to your modeled location, during the last ten days of November 1944 the following cars were forwarded to the SP from the Santa Fe:

62 TIDWATER  ASSOCIATED OIL CO.
1 COSX
3 EBAX
3 GATX
1 MPCX
1 OELX
1 RPX
1 TIDX
49 UTLX
2 WEOX
34 SHELL OIL CO.
16 GATX
9 PSPX
9 SWLX

Those three EBAX cars, Tetraethyl Lead, (Motor Fuel in the commodity block on the waybill).  If you model a refinery that produced gasoline any time before the mid-70's, you need at least one EBAX car.

John Barry
 
ATSF North Bay Lines 
Golden Gates & Fast Freights 
Lovettsville, VA

707-490-9696 

PO Box 44736 
Washington, DC 20026-4736


On Friday, June 26, 2020, 08:39:24 PM EDT, Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:


Ken Adams wrote:

Shell owned the Martinez refinery in that period but I have them pretty well covered with a collection of UTLX cars.

      In your and my modeling period, Ken, UTLX was pretty substantially in bed with the "baby Standards" such as Standard of California, and to my knowledge had nothing to do with Shell.

Tony Thompson




Re: Car weighting

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Tony, with the improvements in the free-rolling of
trucks due to better wheels and more accurately
fitted axle lengths (yes, I know REBOXX is out of
business, but there's hope for another source),
locomotive performance has been enhanced
tremendously. The irony of improved trucks isn't
that they roll better, that's obvious, but the
apparent improvement of your existing locomotives
because the free rolling trucks let them pull
more.

I use the NMRA standards for weighting cars simply
because that's what it is: a standard.

Schuyler

-----Original Message-----
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
<main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tony
Thompson
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 9:18 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Car weighting

Bruce Metcalf wrote:

I use the NMRA weights in HO. I have also found
that when there are problems, it's not the
absolute weight, but combinations of light and
heavy cars in one train. That, or putting light
cars or just too many cars around too-tight
curves.

There were studies in the model magazines
back in the 1950s that concluded (possibly
correctly) that the biggest factor in car weight
performance was CONSISTENT car weight. As Bruce
says, mixing heavier and lighter cars can bite
you. I think one could very probably choose a
weight below the NMRA weight now recommended, but
the key would be, again, to STICK to that weight
and get as close as you can with every car.
I continue to use the NMRA weight, but then
again, I don't have any heavy grades that can hurt
locomotive performance.

Tony Thompson
tony@signaturepress.com


Re: Car weighting

Tony Thompson
 

Bruce Metcalf wrote:

I use the NMRA weights in HO. I have also found that when there are problems, it's not the absolute weight, but combinations of light and heavy cars in one train. That, or putting light cars or just too many cars around too-tight curves.
There were studies in the model magazines back in the 1950s that concluded (possibly correctly) that the biggest factor in car weight performance was CONSISTENT car weight. As Bruce says, mixing heavier and lighter cars can bite you. I think one could very probably choose a weight below the NMRA weight now recommended, but the key would be, again, to STICK to that weight and get as close as you can with every car.
I continue to use the NMRA weight, but then again, I don't have any heavy grades that can hurt locomotive performance.

Tony Thompson
tony@signaturepress.com


Re: Car weighting

Bruce A. Metcalf
 

On 6/26/20 4:37 PM, Bud Rindfleisch wrote:

    Just curious on your opinions on weighting freight cars to NMRA specs. As an S scaler I've always subscribed to the recommended 6 oz's but our Groups io, has been having on going discussion about not weighting the freight cars and tracking ability on scale flanges and mostly code 100 track. Some say they do not add  weight to plastic or resin cars but use metal trucks and metal wheels. I do that anyway but I prefer them slightly heavier than a plastic or resin kit without weight.
So what do you all in the HO and N world do, weight or no weight?
I think it's important to understand the conditions under which the NMRA established those weight standards. It was an era before RP-25 wheel contours, before needle-point axles, and when car sides were as likely to be cardstock as Zamac. Thus the standards are optimized for very heavy, bad-rolling cars.

I think it's well past time for us (meaning we NMRA members who care enough) to go through the testing again to see if the standards hold up with modern technology. But until we do....

I use the NMRA weights in HO. I have also found that when there are problems, it's not the absolute weight, but combinations of light and heavy cars in one train. That, or putting light cars or just too many cars around too-tight curves.

The NMRA gives us a starting point. It also reminds us that you probably need more than just so much per inch. I know modelers -- and clubs --
that have deliberately used underweight cars with good success. I think the key is to make *all* the cars underweight by about the same amount.

Don't know if that answers your question, but I tried.

Cheers,
/ Bruce /


Re: CONOCO Proto 2000 8K Gallon Type 21 Riveted Tank Car Questions

Tony Thompson
 

Ken Adams wrote:

Shell owned the Martinez refinery in that period but I have them pretty well covered with a collection of UTLX cars.

      In your and my modeling period, Ken, UTLX was pretty substantially in bed with the "baby Standards" such as Standard of California, and to my knowledge had nothing to do with Shell.

Tony Thompson




Re: SP F-70-7 image

Tony Thompson
 

Andy Jackson wrote:

Thanks Garth. Probably needed to see a more overhead shot to be able to see the cradle shape. Could coils be loaded the full length of the cradle?

    Depends on the outside and inside diameter of the coils, and on the width of the strip. But the "standard" coils in use at the time these cars were built were loaded two at each end, total of four coils. I have seen one SP photo with 7 or 8 coils of distinctly smaller diameter.

Tony Thompson




Re: CONOCO Proto 2000 8K Gallon Type 21 Riveted Tank Car Questions

Chuck Soule
 

Having worked in California oil production in the 70s and early 80s, and having some familiarity with other parties besides the companies I worked for,  the other respondents have it correct - Conoco did not produce crude or market products in California.  That's not to say an occasional car might have made it west with a specialty load or because it might have been used short term by another oil company to fill a rolling-stock gap.  But it would not be likely to see an Conoco car anywhere in California or Western Washington and Oregon.  I know that Conoco was marketed out of Spokane for far eastern Washington and the Idaho panhandle, but not farther west, and I am uncertain about eastern Oregon.  But for California - very low probability.

Chuck Soule

12301 - 12320 of 187156