Date   

Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 04:02 PM, Dave Parker wrote:
t gets weirder with the PRR Crown trucks.  If you are looking at p. 608 of the 1919 Cyc, you'll see two line drawings and one image/photo, all three seemingly for the 70-ton version.  The line drawings both show the 5-10 WB.  But the head scratcher for me is that there are three different spring packages:  6-spring, 5-spring, and what looks like 4-spring in the photo, but I suppose could be a 5-spring without any of the central spring visible.  The photo of a 2E-F2 that I shared yesterday has the obvious 5-spring package.
Well, I don't know anything about Crown trucks, and don't claim to, but my impression is:

The caption of the 5'-6" wheelbase truck is in error, and it's really a fifty ton truck.
As to the 5'-10" wheelbase trucks, it's one sideframe designed to serve as either a 70 ton truck, or for those 85 and 90 ton coal cars both the PRR and N&W were developing, depending upon the spring arrangement installed.

But that's just a guess on my part. I'll leave it for the Pennsy fans to sort.

Dennis Storzek


Southern Pacific Rebuilt Box Car 32620

Lester Breuer
 

I have completed the build of a Sunshine Models Southern Pacific (SP) single-sheathed rebuilt boxcar 32620 with “Pratt” truss design and Hutchins roof.  If you are interested in the build of this resin kit of SP rebuilt box car 32620 including changes and addition of parts not in the kit as resin cast Hutchins roof.  Photos and writeup of the build process including paint, lettering and weathering are now available on my blog I have to share photos and writeup of modeling projects on my Minneapolis & Northland Railroad Company.   If you would like to take a look please do at the following link:

http://mnrailroadcab100.blogspot.com/


Lester Breuer


Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

Dave Parker
 

Dennis:

Yes, my understanding is that the PRR Crown trucks, both 70- and 100-ton, had 5-10 wheelbases.  See attached PRR table, notably the 2E-F2 and 2F-F1 trucks.  (and apologies to whomever's website I swiped this from; I can't recall, so I can't give credit).

It gets weirder with the PRR Crown trucks.  If you are looking at p. 608 of the 1919 Cyc, you'll see two line drawings and one image/photo, all three seemingly for the 70-ton version.  The line drawings both show the 5-10 WB.  But the head scratcher for me is that there are three different spring packages:  6-spring, 5-spring, and what looks like 4-spring in the photo, but I suppose could be a 5-spring without any of the central spring visible.  The photo of a 2E-F2 that I shared yesterday has the obvious 5-spring package.

One of the "joys" of the CBC is their propensity for showing things that manufacturers wanted to sell to prospective customers, without an real clues as to whether they actually did.

Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

Dennis Storzek
 

Can't stop beating this horse while it's still twitching :-)

I was curious what my source material for our Andrews truck was, and since the Hathi Trust now has the 1919 CBC on
line, I found the drawing:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006057858&view=1up&seq=1024

Since everyone wants to compare this to the models of PRR Crown trucks, I then went looking for drawings of them in my 1922 CBC (it loads a lot faster). I was then going to do a side-by-side comparison when I noticed something strange; according to the drawings, the Crown trucks have a 2" longer wheelbase, 5'-10" as opposed to 5'-8". Is this the way they were actually built? If so, of course they look more "masculine". Is this correct, or an error in the drawings presented in the CBC?

Dennis Storzek


Re: NP 10000 Series Boxcars by Rapido

WILLIAM PARDIE
 


The discussion last week on the Northern Pacific 10000 series box cars inspired to go to my pipeline and look at my half finished Sunshone kit.  I forget just why it fell on my priorityg list but I expect that it had something to do with a photo.  I had a really inspiring 3/4 view photo of the brake end.  It had gone missing. This photo very clearly showed the Miner hand brake and coupler release mechanism.  I had obtained a photo from someone on the list showing the opposite side of the end. Any help would be appreciated.

I would also appreciate a diagram of the brake appliances.

Thanks in advance for any help:

Bill Pardie





Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


LasrLasr


Re: Photo: SP Yard

Mark Rossiter
 

 

The brake wheel on the foreground flat car looks like some of those on my models that have experienced rough handling by fellow club members or if they were inadvertently bumped during assembly before the glue was completely dry!

 

Mark Rossiter


Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Guys;

 

I agree it is tough to tell.  The attached is one of the HD “Crown” Andrews-type used on the PRR, and the 70-ton and 100-ton are almost indistinguishable.  The Bowser Crown would be a very usable truck for this.

 

Elden Gatwood

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dennis Storzek
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 2:33 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:08 PM, Dave Parker wrote:

Ya know, as soon as I sent that, I knew it wasn't quite right.  The Accurail has the longer wheelbase, and I think the larger spring box, but I don't believe the truss members are as heavy-duty as on the 70-t Andrews.

Dave is correct, the Accurail Andrews truck is the 70 ton version, as our basic truck mold has the scale 5'-8" axle spacing. I just looked through our files this morning but couldn't find any reference to what I used for reference material. It's been twenty one years, I recall whatever it was it was published in one of the CBC's, as there was not much primary material available back then.

What are you comparing the Accurail truck to? It is possible the other model truck is too bulky :-)

Visual size comparison can be a fool's errand, because there was very little dimensional difference between the trucks, other than wheelbase. In the 1922 CBC I'm finding 50 ton trucks with a lower diagonal both 2-5/8" and 2-3/4" wide, and 70 ton trucks with the same 2-3/4" dimension. The difference in the width of the journal boxes is only 1"... that's .011" in HO scale. Any of the model trucks that have more robust looking journals likely have those parts larger than scale, since the NMRA standards make it impossible to accommodate the axle cone and keep the truck anywhere near scale width.

By the way, to get back on topic, nowhere have I found a drawing of a 100 ton capacity Andrews truck. Back in those days 100 ton capacity trucks were all specials, and there were some really outlandish designs.

Dennis Storzek


Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

Tony Thompson
 

Dave Parker wrote:

This is the original USRA drawing for their standard trucks from the April, 1918, edition of Railway Mechanical Engineer, but also reproduced in the 1919 CBC . . .  It also seems to me that the exact shape of the side-frame, especially the top chord, is not being specified, implying some latitude to the individual manufacturers (of which there were several).

    As Richard Hendrickson frequently observed, each truck maker had an individual tweak on sideframe shape(s) in various areas of the part. That's one reason that the old traditional "Bettendorf" truck designation was so wrong: not only was Bettendorf itself out of the truck business after 1942, but the trucks of each other maker (American Steel Foundries, Buckeye, Columbia, Symington-Gould, National, General Steel, Standard, Scullin et al.) were a little different -- see any Cyc.

Tony Thompson




Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

Dave Parker
 

Ron: 

I can read the road's initials in my hard-copy of the 1931 CBC:  "PA.A.&Mc.R.R.R."  =  Pittsburgh Allegheny and McKees Rocks Railroad.

Apparently a 25-mi switching line serving the McKee's Rocks area.  In my 1926 ORER, there were 7 locomotives and 125 freight cars (unspecified).
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

mopacfirst
 

When I looked closer at the 100-ton Buckeye, it's apparent that the cast brackets for the clasp brake hangers are actually separate castings.  They appear to be fastened to the truck frames by the bolts that also retain the journal boxes.  I'll bet that was fun to maintain.

It also appears that the customer's (owning railroad's) name is cast into the truck frame, above and just inboard of the far wheelset.  Other than R.R. at the end of this string of characters, I can't clearly make it out, but I'll wager it is probably a steel road.  I also think that the figures 3-21 might be cast dead center on the truck frame surface, and the pattern number and foundry symbol are above and just inboard of the near wheelset.  And, of course, the 6 1/2 X 12 on the journal boxes, just in case the shop guys might confuse them.

Ron Merrick


Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

Dave Parker
 

OK, a few nuggets of (perhaps) interest:

Along the way, we have touched on the 70-ton PRR 2E-F2 Crown and the corresponding USRA Andrews.  This is a comparison that put together a year or two ago:



I don't have any good photos of the USRA truck in service under the 70-ton USRA gondola, but what I have seems to agree with the Buckeye advert.  To my eye, the USRA 70-ton truck is just more "muscular" than the Accurail model, similarities in wheelbase and spring-box dimensions notwithstanding.

This is the original USRA drawing for their standard trucks from the April, 1918, edition of Railway Mechanical Engineer, but also reproduced in the 1919 CBC.  It's not 100% clear to me how one would translate the table of dimensions into a master for a model truck, but that's a task way beyond my skill set.  It also seems to me that the exact shape of the side-frame, especially the top chord, is not being specified, implying some latitude to the individual manufacturers (of which there were several).




Last, I have actually seen one example of a 100-ton "Andrews" truck in both the 1928 and 1931 CBCs.  I agree with Dennis that this is clearly a "special" designed by Buckeye, but the advert doesn't mention a customer for them, nor have I seen one on an actual car.



Hope this helps.

--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

Dennis Storzek
 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:08 PM, Dave Parker wrote:
Ya know, as soon as I sent that, I knew it wasn't quite right.  The Accurail has the longer wheelbase, and I think the larger spring box, but I don't believe the truss members are as heavy-duty as on the 70-t Andrews.
Dave is correct, the Accurail Andrews truck is the 70 ton version, as our basic truck mold has the scale 5'-8" axle spacing. I just looked through our files this morning but couldn't find any reference to what I used for reference material. It's been twenty one years, I recall whatever it was it was published in one of the CBC's, as there was not much primary material available back then.

What are you comparing the Accurail truck to? It is possible the other model truck is too bulky :-)

Visual size comparison can be a fool's errand, because there was very little dimensional difference between the trucks, other than wheelbase. In the 1922 CBC I'm finding 50 ton trucks with a lower diagonal both 2-5/8" and 2-3/4" wide, and 70 ton trucks with the same 2-3/4" dimension. The difference in the width of the journal boxes is only 1"... that's .011" in HO scale. Any of the model trucks that have more robust looking journals likely have those parts larger than scale, since the NMRA standards make it impossible to accommodate the axle cone and keep the truck anywhere near scale width.

By the way, to get back on topic, nowhere have I found a drawing of a 100 ton capacity Andrews truck. Back in those days 100 ton capacity trucks were all specials, and there were some really outlandish designs.

Dennis Storzek


Photo: SP Yard

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: SP Yard

An undated photo from the Huntington Library:

https://hdl.huntington.org/digital/collection/p16003coll2/id/21896/rec/638

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

This photo shows a great assortment of freight cars.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: [Non-DoD Source] [RealSTMFC] gondola NYC 715035 with load in 1960 at Lukens Steel

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Guys;

 

Lukens was a big manufacturer of tank heads, and RRs serving them often had dedicated cars to serve that diagonal loading requirement.  RDG also had diagonal loader gons.  Even though PRR had no direct connection, they also had diagonal tank head/plate-loader gons in their G36 class and for even larger loads, in their F25 flat (well) car class (sub-classes F25B, F25C, F25D and F25E).  The latter had the floor replaced with strips of steel plate at a lower height added to accommodate the largest loads still able to fit within the clearance diagram.

 

The bracing semi-permanently applied to the gons was not consistent between RRs, but was usually heavy timbers with a diagonal top to brace the load against, and diagonally braced lengthwise, with bolts through the car side, and rods to keep the bracing from moving.  One often sees the added bolts (usually carriage bolts) added through the car side.

 

Thanks for sharing, Claus!

 

Elden Gatwood

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 3:59 PM
To: STMFC <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [RealSTMFC] gondola NYC 715035 with load in 1960 at Lukens Steel

 

Hi List Members,

 

Cool image of gondola NYC 715035 with load in 1960 at Lukens Steel. Note the gon has some kind of internal (possibly semi-permanent?) structure to help brace the load

 

 

Enjoy!

 

Claus Schlund

 


Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

Dave Parker
 

Ya know, as soon as I sent that, I knew it wasn't quite right.  The Accurail has the longer wheelbase, and I think the larger spring box, but I don't believe the truss members are as heavy-duty as on the 70-t Andrews.  I'm guessing/hoping that Dennis can clarify.  He probably already has, but it's late and I'm too tired to scour the archives (mea culpa).
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

Dave Parker
 

The Accurail Andrews is based (quite accurately) on the USRA 70-ton truck, right down to the 5-8 wheelbase.

They usually don't look that large to my eye unless I put them right next to a 40- or 50-ton tuck.  Or (sometimes, I think) on a smallish freight car, like the 55-ton twin hopper.
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Re: What's this car look like?

Clark Propst
 

Thanks! Absolutely bagged cement…Dummy me…I think the date was 55?

Clark Propst

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Re: 100-ton Andrews trucks in HO

radiodial868
 

In sorting through all my stash of trucks, I came across a pair Accurail Andrews (#203 w/metal wheels) trucks that are probably 70 ton but are like size gargantuan compared to Tichy and TMW Andrews trucks.
--
-------------------
RJ Dial

Mendocino, CA


Re: What's this car look like?

Brian Shumaker
 

must have been bagged cement.


Re: What's this car look like?

Bill Parks
 

Do you know the date of the station record?  According to the Jan 1953 ORER, 573534 for the Pennsy was X29 class boxcar.

--
Bill Parks
Cumming, GA
Modelling the Seaboard Airline in Central Florida

3361 - 3380 of 184461