Date   

Re: Accurail Milw 16xxx

Douglas Harding
 

Don four photos found in a message Clark Propst posted this morning, at 10:38am Central Time

 

Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Donald B. Valentine via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 4:31 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Accurail Milw 16xxx

 

Re: Accurail Milw 16xxx
From: Paul Doggett
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 08:57:39 PST

Two nice looking cars Clark 

 

Paul Doggett.  England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 

 

 

What “two” cars guys? I see only opposite sides of the same Milw. Rib side #16039 here.

Where is the single sheathed car refered to?

 

Cordially, Don Valentine


Re: Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

Bruce Smith
 

Also some pretty nice 40 mm bofors in HO on Shapeways. I have 2 dual mounts for loading on a PRR F37 flat car, if I could only find a diagram/photo to guide my blocking and tie downs!

Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Mac shp <mshepler8387@...>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 2:19 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)
 

1/87 bofors
https://www.wespemodels.com/bofors_aa_40mm_wes_87073?search=bofors%20
Search the Wespe site and you may find it as a kit (tiny resin parts beware) and built up


Re: Accurail Milw 16xxx

Clark Propst
 

Tony, Maybe now that she’s all dolled up I may place her next to the Sunshine model just to see if she needs to head back to the mud  ;  ))

Clark Propst

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Re: Photo: Monon Covered Hopper 4240

 

Mont,

Since the sunshine kit is hard to find, you can also use an Intermountain kit and Pierre Oliver's excellent roof and hatch detail mini-kit.  See:

http://www.yarmouthmodelworks.com/index.php/ResinModelKits/Index

Scroll about 3/4 of the way down the page.

There is a decal set available through Tichy:

https://www.tichytraingroup.com/Shop/tabid/91/c/hopper-covered/p/10263-monon-covered-hopper-decal/Default.aspx

There was also a set done by Champ, HC-71.

Not bad for a lot of 100 cars!

MIke Aufderheide


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Jerry Michels
 

"Mix even a good truss rod car into a string of 100 ton hoppers,
let the slack run out, and you have a lot of toothpicks."  

Would a railroad do this even when truss-rod cars were allowed?  Jerry Michels


Re: BEARER of BAD NEWS

Mark
 

I am so sorry to hear this Bill. You are an inspiration in detailing and building freight cars. I sincerely hope for a miracle and will pray for you.

Mark Morgan


Re: Accurail Milw 16xxx

Donald B. Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
 

Re: Accurail Milw 16xxx
From: Paul Doggett
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 08:57:39 PST

Two nice looking cars Clark 

 

Paul Doggett.  England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 

 

 

What “two” cars guys? I see only opposite sides of the same Milw. Rib side #16039 here.

Where is the single sheathed car refered to?

 

Cordially, Don Valentine


Re: Photo: Monon Covered Hopper 4240

 

Scott,

The Bob's photo I mentioned was taken in Ottawa IL, famous for it's silica sand pits.  I have been told by an ex-Monon employee these were in glass service for a Chrysler windshield plant in Indianapolis.  I have not been able to find out much about this, however.   Does anyone know about this factory?

In the Monon conductor's reports I have they carry mostly cement, and I think that is why they were purchased.  The Monon served a large cement plant south of Greencastle IN.  (at a station name called "Cement" !)  The cars also carried soda ash and lime.  It is not recorded in these reports, but I have heard they also carried 'limestone dust'; a waste product from stone cutting mills that is used in the cosmetics industry.

Regards,

Mike Aufderheide


Re: Smokey Mountain Southern 1953 54'-5" gondola

O Fenton Wells
 

Yessir Eric I dun gon crazy. I do have that tee shirt😁
Fenton 


On Nov 5, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Eric Hansmann <eric@...> wrote:



Somehow I missed seeing this post earlier. The model is top-notch, Fenton! It seems many of us have been “gon crazy!”

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of O Fenton Wells
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:09 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Smokey Mountain Southern 1953 54'-5" gondola

 

I just finished another Covid build.  This is a Smokey Mountain Southern, 1953 blt date, 53'-6" gondola.  Jim at Smokey Mt has sold this line of models and it appears the new owner is going to release this car in the near future.
This is a nicely done one piece casting with well done resin and etched metal details.  I haven't figured what load to put in it as of now.
Fenton


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Tony Thompson
 

Dave Parker wrote:

Just a reminder that, while the WUF ban may have been initiated in 1928, the final, drop-dead effective date was 1/1/35 (as per Guy Wilber).

I can correctly run WUF cars in the summer of 1934, but just barely.

But Eric is quite right; plenty of truss-rod cars soldiered on for years.  Like a major slice of the Armour meat-reefer fleet for example.

   It's important to remember that an owner could install steel draft sills and center sills on a truss-rod car. It would be all but invisible in a photograph, but allowed the car to remain in service. 

Tony Thompson




Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Dennis Storzek
 

Someone should mention, so I will, that most items "banned" from interchange service were about parts inventory rather than safety. The AAR interchange agreement anticipated that most defects were to be repaired where found, with the cost of the repair charged back to the owner road through a system of fixed charges set by the AAR. Antiquated equipment might be fine for a small road that stocked all the parts at their few repair locations, but the majors would grow tired of stocking parts and material that only saw occasional, and dwindling, use. I suspect the ban on K brakes was of this nature. as was the ban on non-standard couplers, which occurred  sometime in the seventies, after our cut-off date.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Dave Parker
 

Just a reminder that, while the WUF ban may have been initiated in 1928, the final, drop-dead effective date was 1/1/35 (as per Guy Wilber).

I can correctly run WUF cars in the summer of 1934, but just barely.

But Eric is quite right; plenty of truss-rod cars soldiered on for years.  Like a major slice of the Armour meat-reefer fleet for example.
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Re: Smokey Mountain Southern 1953 54'-5" gondola

Eric Hansmann
 

Somehow I missed seeing this post earlier. The model is top-notch, Fenton! It seems many of us have been “gon crazy!”

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of O Fenton Wells
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:09 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Smokey Mountain Southern 1953 54'-5" gondola

 

I just finished another Covid build.  This is a Smokey Mountain Southern, 1953 blt date, 53'-6" gondola.  Jim at Smokey Mt has sold this line of models and it appears the new owner is going to release this car in the near future.
This is a nicely done one piece casting with well done resin and etched metal details.  I haven't figured what load to put in it as of now.
Fenton


Re: Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

Eric Hansmann
 

I just noticed your email address ends in AU. It might also be an international access issue.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Murray Stone
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:29 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

 

Dear Mr Chaparro.

 

Would you please advise how one actually gets to see the photo – All I get is details of the entry but not the actual photo itself.

 

Your advise will be deeply appreciated.

 

Murray Stone

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bob Chaparro via groups.io
Sent: 6 November 2020 4:14 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

 

Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

A photo from the National Archives of Canada:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=3224686

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

Eric Hansmann
 

Try a different browser. I just opened it in Firefox without issue.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Murray Stone
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:29 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

 

Dear Mr Chaparro.

 

Would you please advise how one actually gets to see the photo – All I get is details of the entry but not the actual photo itself.

 

Your advise will be deeply appreciated.

 

Murray Stone

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bob Chaparro via groups.io
Sent: 6 November 2020 4:14 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

 

Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

A photo from the National Archives of Canada:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=3224686

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

mel perry
 

ken:
that's my point exactly, rsilroads aren't
going to spend a dime, unless, they are
forced too (for whatever reason) or it
has an effect on the bottom line (profit)
;-)
mel perry


On Thu, Nov 5, 2020, 12:00 PM Kenneth Montero <va661midlo@...> wrote:
Mel,

Not necessarily so. Equipment could be banned from interchange because (1)  its use away from home roads could be such that its use could exceed what the equipment could be expected to handle (truss rod cars without center sills) or (2) such equipment needed more monitoring than could be expected in interchange (arch bar trucks). Home road usage, especially in MOW service, could deal with such concerns, or at least that was the perception.

Jim's point about risk of injury and its cost to the railroad is a lot different now than it was in the past, mostly because the risk and cost  of injury and death were perceived many years ago by railroad management as less than the resulting savings.

Steve's point about standards of safety is well-taken, but not always observed. Not many years ago in Richmond, Virginia, a railroad employee died while moving an interchanged freight car (not a home road car) because he was unable to operate the brakes with the brake wheel and the boxcar crashed into a flood wall gate being closed for its test. It was discovered that a brake rod had dropped from the brake linkage. However, the employee's railroad had accepted it in interchange (supposedly after checking it for compliance with rules for interchange acceptability). I don't recall which railroad had to assume responsibility, but there was a lot of finger-pointing.

Ken Montero
On 11/05/2020 1:31 PM mel perry <clipper841@...> wrote:


the true nature of railroad ownership,
in other words basic capitalism
;-(
mel perry

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020, 10:28 AM Jim Betz < jimbetz@...> wrote:
Hi,
  We often hear of equipment that was "banned from interchange".  I get that and it
doesn't surprise me.  So here's the thing ... if something like the Allied trucks are
banned from interchange it is probably the result of a failure (probably repeated)
that caused an accident/derailment/something important.  And I get it that the RR
doesn't want to get rid of "serviceable equipment".  So why was (is?) it acceptable
to put your RR employees at risk by using them in stuff like MOW service?
  Yes, you get some extra miles "for very little cost" ... but wouldn't a single 
employee injury make that savings not worth it?  Why wouldn't just one lawsuit
for "negligence" void all of those savings?
  The same would be true of truss rods, brake equipment, lighting changes, ladders
and ladder placements, etc. etc. etc.  It doesn't seem to make "solid" economic
sense in the long run.  Why wouldn't the unions have objected? 
  What am I missing? 
                                                                                                           - Jim 




Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Eric Hansmann
 

Lots of cars with truss rods also had steel center sills. The Southern had 20,000+ boxcars in the early 1920s with steel center sills and truss rods. Cars with wood draft sills were banned from interchange in 1928. Wood sills fell out of favor in the Teens but took awhile for those cars to be updated or retired. Cars with truss rods and steel center sills were not banned.

 

It wasn’t until a point in the future (1970) when a time limit regulation on underframes came into use. Freight cars with underframes over 50 years old needed to be removed from service. It’s that regulation, and a few others made shortly afterwards, that push whatever remaining 1920s built wood-sheathed cars out of service.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Charles Peck
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 2:10 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

 

Granted, truss rod cars survived in their own era.  Times change. 

Mix even a good truss rod car into a string of 100 ton hoppers,

let the slack run out, and you have a lot of toothpicks. 

What worked yesterday does not always stand up to current usage.

Chuck Peck

 

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 2:13 PM steve_wintner via groups.io <steve_wintner=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

I guess I'd take a bit of the other view. Truss rods worked just fine for decades, so I don't see a well maintained truss rod car as putting workers at risk, especially in limited service as Larry pointed out. Same thing for solid bearings (if well maintained).

I think a lot of these changes were about requiring less maintenance and choosing better practices going forward - which is not to say the old way was unsafe. 

(I grant, I'm not so sure MOW cars always had their solid bearings looked after properly)

Now an AFC truck, that is another matter. A truck that is known to derail certainly is putting the crew and any public near the right of way at risk. Unacceptable. Even if s you know for certain that the flaw is at speed, and set a much lower speed limit, I'd have issues.

I work on aircraft as an engineer, that certainly is how we approach things. Even flight test aircraft have to meet a high standard of safety. I assume the railroads did too.


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Brent;

 

I used to hang out at several interchange yards around Pittsburgh while growing up, and if there was no car inspector assigned to the location, the crews had to.  They might do a cursory job of it, but someone had to.  Generally, a junior member of the crew walked the length of the cut looking over each car, and sometimes looking underneath.  Sometimes they looked inside.

 

One location I hung out at got lots of particularly horrible cars, mostly gons, which they had to set out if it made it through the interchange.  There was a siding on which many unacceptable or bad order cars, got parked until someone figured out what they needed to do with them.

 

The cars I mostly saw were empties, but loaded cars were a problem both because loads are sometimes perishable, and if a car required heavy repair, it needed to be unloaded.

 

Cars that were obvious rejects just got back on an interchange track for the originating road to figure out.

 

Elden Gatwood

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brent Greer
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:58 PM
To: Tony Thompson <tony@...>; main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

 

How would that process work when a road like Seaboard would reject an incoming car?  Would the road crew at the point of interchange be expected to inspect each car that had been dropped off for pickup and look for any non-compliant/unacceptable equipment before adding them to their train? What would happen to a rejected car and its contents?

 

Brent


Dr. J. Brent Greer


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Tony Thompson <tony@...>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:41 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

 

steve wintner wrote:



Now an AFC truck, that is another matter. A truck that is known to derail certainly is putting the crew and any public near the right of way at risk. Unacceptable. Even if s you know for certain that the flaw is at speed, and set a much lower speed limit, I'd have issues.

 

     The word "known" in the second sentence is open to debate. Santa Fe had a couple of destructive high-speed derailments that they blamed on the Allied truck. Seaboard also had problems and would not accept cars in interchange if they had that truck. SP had the trucks on some express cars and had no problems, but withdrew them because of the risk they might go somewhere and not be accepted (I have seen the memos). This was in the early 1950s, long before the interchange ban.

 

Tony Thompson

 

 

 


Re: Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

Murray Stone
 

Dear Mr Chaparro.

 

Would you please advise how one actually gets to see the photo – All I get is details of the entry but not the actual photo itself.

 

Your advise will be deeply appreciated.

 

Murray Stone

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bob Chaparro via groups.io
Sent: 6 November 2020 4:14 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

 

Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

A photo from the National Archives of Canada:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=3224686

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Smokey Mountain Southern 1953 54'-5" gondola

Jim King
 

Yes, my SOU gon is HO but I am considering upscaling to S, assuming there is sufficient market demand.  No gons like it in S but, unfortunately, Southern was the only road to have the rib style and pattern.  2 batches were built for SOU by Pullman (1953 and 1957) and they lasted into the mid 90s in MOW service.

 

Jim King

http://smokymountainmodelworks.com/

 

13921 - 13940 of 192712