Date   

Re: Photo: Unloading Coal From A Boxcar

William Reed
 

It was a common practice on the D&RGW NG and SG to deliver coal to vendors in a box car. This way they could keep their inventory dry and out of the elements. I think this would be the case with this photo. Really love it. 

William
aka drgwk37


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) <claus@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 2:42 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Unloading Coal From A Boxcar
 
Hi Bob and List Members,
 
Given how big the coal chunks are, they might have trouble passing thru a hopper door, thus the boxcar
 
Claus Schlund
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 1:18 PM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Unloading Coal From A Boxcar

Photo: Unloading Coal From A Boxcar

Photo from the Wisconsin Historical Society:

https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM89059

Assuming the description is correct, I guess if you don’t have a coal dock and you only need a small amount of coal you ask for a boxcar instead of a hopper.

Those sure look like large chunks of coal, though.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Photo: Unloading Coal From A Boxcar

Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 


Hi Bob and List Members,
 
Given how big the coal chunks are, they might have trouble passing thru a hopper door, thus the boxcar
 
Claus Schlund
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 1:18 PM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Unloading Coal From A Boxcar

Photo: Unloading Coal From A Boxcar

Photo from the Wisconsin Historical Society:

https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM89059

Assuming the description is correct, I guess if you don’t have a coal dock and you only need a small amount of coal you ask for a boxcar instead of a hopper.

Those sure look like large chunks of coal, though.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Photo: Unloading Coal From A Boxcar

Dennis Storzek
 

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:18 AM, Bob Chaparro wrote:
I guess if you don’t have a coal dock and you only need a small amount of coal you ask for a boxcar instead of a hopper.
Well, Saskatoon is a major city, so I suppose this large lump is going to a commercial user, but most coal consumed in the little towns on the Canadian prairies and northern Great Plains was shipped in boxcars. The elevators and farm supply places that sold it stored it under cover so it didn't freeze solid, and nobody had a dump pit anyway. Most steam era photos of elevators in the area show the distinctive coal storage buildings; I can think of examples that were still standing in eastern Iowa and Waukesha Wisc. in the late sixties.

Labor was cheap, at least before WWII. I remember an article in The SOO, the magazine of the Soo Line Historical & Technical Society, titled North Dakota Memories, where the author and his brother had the "concession" to unload coal at the local elevator after school, for a dime a ton... but if they held the car too long, the dollar a day demurrage was deducted out of what they earned. He made the comment that they liked when a car came on Thursday, as the weekend gave them two extra free days to get the job done.

Dennis Storzek


Photo: Unloading Coal From A Boxcar

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: Unloading Coal From A Boxcar

Photo from the Wisconsin Historical Society:

https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM89059

Assuming the description is correct, I guess if you don’t have a coal dock and you only need a small amount of coal you ask for a boxcar instead of a hopper.

Those sure look like large chunks of coal, though.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


PRR 12259, a class X23 boxcar, at Kewanna IN in 1910

Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 

Hi List Members,
 
If you zoom in, you get an image of PRR 12259, a class X23 boxcar, at Kewanna IN in 1910
 
 
Enjoy!
 
Claus Schlund
 


Re: Work crew emptying gon with shovels (was L&N 51098)

Don Burn
 

Claus,

 

      Only a guess but I suspect that the gondola is hauling limestone.   It looks granular in the photo, and there were a lot of limestone quarries in that region.

 

Don Burn

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 10:16 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Work crew emptying gon with shovels (was L&N 51098)

 

Hi List Members,

 

A few days back we were looking over an image that had (among other interesting things) a scene where workers were shoveling coal out of a gon into waiting coal trucks.

 

The image below also has this same theme going on - perhaps this is not coal (it seems light-colored), and the coal truck is replaced by a horse drawn cart, but the work is the same! Too bad we cannot identify the gon... altho if I let my imagination help me a little, I think I can discern PRR on the gon end. The locomotive might be a PRR class H1/H2/H3 coming toward us. This is all happening at the Pennsylvania Depot, Wolcott, Indiana, 1908

 

 

Enjoy!

 

Claus Schlund

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2021 12:00 PM

Subject: L&N 51098 (was NRC Banana Reefer)

 

Hi Gary and List Members,

 

I especially like the mini-scene with the two gondolas carrying coal. A bit difficult to discern, but looks to my eyes it looks like there is a work crew of at least two men in the gon L&N 51098, bent over like they are shoveling the coal. Note the A C Jones coal trucks parked directly next to to the gon. An entirely modelable scene for any size railroad, don't you think? It appears the B&O 257952 gon is also involved in the same operation

 

My Dec 1930 ORER sez the following about L&N 51098: series 50000-56499, 40ft 6in IL, 100000 lb, 6448 cars,  MCB type GA

 

My memory sez MCB type GA is a drop bottom gon, is that right? In that case, are the drop doors being used by the crew to help in unloading, or are they just using the shovels to toss the coal over the gon sides and into the truck beds? Thoughts? I checked B&O 257952, it is type GM (mill gon) which I think would NOT have drop doors of any sort...

 

Claus Schlund

 

 

----- Original Message -----

To: 'stmfc'

Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2021 11:18 PM

Subject: [RealSTMFC] NRC Banana Reefer

 

It sure is dirty:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/51123193132/in/album-72157718970883282/ 

 

The B&O boxcar appears to have had many wood pieces replaced in its roof.

 

Gary Laakso

Northwest of Mike Brock


Work crew emptying gon with shovels (was L&N 51098)

Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 

Hi List Members,
 
A few days back we were looking over an image that had (among other interesting things) a scene where workers were shoveling coal out of a gon into waiting coal trucks.
 
The image below also has this same theme going on - perhaps this is not coal (it seems light-colored), and the coal truck is replaced by a horse drawn cart, but the work is the same! Too bad we cannot identify the gon... altho if I let my imagination help me a little, I think I can discern PRR on the gon end. The locomotive might be a PRR class H1/H2/H3 coming toward us. This is all happening at the Pennsylvania Depot, Wolcott, Indiana, 1908
 
 
Enjoy!
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2021 12:00 PM
Subject: L&N 51098 (was NRC Banana Reefer)

Hi Gary and List Members,
 
I especially like the mini-scene with the two gondolas carrying coal. A bit difficult to discern, but looks to my eyes it looks like there is a work crew of at least two men in the gon L&N 51098, bent over like they are shoveling the coal. Note the A C Jones coal trucks parked directly next to to the gon. An entirely modelable scene for any size railroad, don't you think? It appears the B&O 257952 gon is also involved in the same operation
 
My Dec 1930 ORER sez the following about L&N 51098: series 50000-56499, 40ft 6in IL, 100000 lb, 6448 cars,  MCB type GA
 
My memory sez MCB type GA is a drop bottom gon, is that right? In that case, are the drop doors being used by the crew to help in unloading, or are they just using the shovels to toss the coal over the gon sides and into the truck beds? Thoughts? I checked B&O 257952, it is type GM (mill gon) which I think would NOT have drop doors of any sort...
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
To: 'stmfc'
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2021 11:18 PM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] NRC Banana Reefer

It sure is dirty:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/51123193132/in/album-72157718970883282/ 

 

The B&O boxcar appears to have had many wood pieces replaced in its roof.

 

Gary Laakso

Northwest of Mike Brock


Re: Accuracy Of The Official Railway Equipment Registers

 

The practice goes on today in building construction. Tear the whole building down, leaving only one bare wall, and erect a new building under the grandfathered codes.

 

 

Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni

 

 

From: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Charles Peck <lnnrr152@...>
Reply-To: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:15 PM
To: <main@realstmfc.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Accuracy Of The Official Railway Equipment Registers

 

On the subject of MAJOR rebuilds, I recall a story from my grandfather who was a boilermaker foreman

at the L&N RR South Louisville Shops.  He told of "rebuilding" a locomotive where they could not even

 salvage the old numberplate. He told that there was basically an open budget for repair and no authority 

or budget for new construction. Therefore, as long as you could use any significant piece of a wreck, it 

 was a repair. Even if nothing but the old sand dome and throttle, it became a repair with the old number 

and all the latest modifications. 

I can imagine a car shop working under that same limitation.  Rebuild anything, but no new construction. 

Chuck Peck

 

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:37 PM Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...> wrote:

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:34 AM, Ian Cranstone wrote:

and they also had the interesting practice of extensive rebuilds of cars (1890s era), in which a boxcar would be rebuilt – which pretty much seems to consist of jacking up the number and inserting a completely new car (28’ or 29’ foot cars would emerge as a 34’ or later a 36’ car)

The Soo engaged in this practice also, again very evident in the caboose fleet. Dimensions inexplicably change for just one car in a series, and the records just claim "rebuilt." I've made my peace with not arguing with the primary source; if they say it was rebuilt, it was rebuilt. But I'm thoroughly convinced that the rebuilding process consisted of stripping the trucks, ironwork, and stove from the wrecked car and applying them to a brand new body, built to the then current standard.

Dennis Storzek


Accuracy Of The Official Railway Equipment Registers

Andy Carlson
 

As Tony stated, "......rebuilding on most railroads faded away after 1948."

A notable exception was the Great Northern--whose large rebuilding programs came to be with a warp speed after the early 1950s and was following a rather lackluster rebuilding program prior to 1948. Lucky for us, these post 1948 rebuilds produced quite a few cool cars.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021, 11:19:37 PM PDT, Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:


Ken Montero wrote:

This "rebuilding" probably was a result of federal tax laws.
 
It is my understanding that, during our time period, railroads were allowed to write off (deduct) the cost of "repairs" much quicker than they could depreciate new construction (whether built in-house or by someone else) for tax purposes.  

True, but this changed greatly in 1948, when the IRS considerably tightened the rules on rebuilding. You will notice that those giant rebuild and refurbish programs on most railroads faded away after 1948.

Tony Thompson




Re: Accuracy Of The Official Railway Equipment Registers

Larry Goolsby
 

ACL bought several thousand new 53', 50-ton pulpwood rack cars in the 1950-53 period from Bethlehem and P-S (the "Old Rivets" of freight cars - studded with what looked like thousands of rivets on all surfaces). ACL also "rebuilt some old flat cars" using what was probably the "use one old piece" approach cited above, using "kits" of components to construct 100 more pulpwood cars in the company shops identical to those coming from the car builders - but these were stenciled as built in 1916. According to the retired employee who told me this story, it was done for favorable tax treatment. 

Larry Goolsby 


Re: Accuracy Of The Official Railway Equipment Registers

Tony Thompson
 

Ken Montero wrote:

This "rebuilding" probably was a result of federal tax laws.
 
It is my understanding that, during our time period, railroads were allowed to write off (deduct) the cost of "repairs" much quicker than they could depreciate new construction (whether built in-house or by someone else) for tax purposes.  

True, but this changed greatly in 1948, when the IRS considerably tightened the rules on rebuilding. You will notice that those giant rebuild and refurbish programs on most railroads faded away after 1948.

Tony Thompson




Re: Accuracy Of The Official Railway Equipment Registers

np328
 

    I have heard the same as Chuck and Ken. 
Additions and Betterments are one line on my railroads AFE's. Depreciation is another. Salvage is another. 

A fellow researcher, Hudson Leighton used to joke that, the shop would have an overhead crane pull the carbody off a set of trucks and then set a new body on the trucks and stencil the former cars number on the shell and out it would roll. Same old car.....  as far as the railroad was concerned.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                            Jim Dick - Roseville, MN 


Re: Accuracy Of The Official Railway Equipment Registers

Kenneth Montero
 

Chuck,
 
This "rebuilding" probably was a result of federal tax laws.
 
It is my understanding that, during our time period, railroads were allowed to write off (deduct) the cost of "repairs" much quicker than they could depreciate new construction (whether built in-house or by someone else) for tax purposes.  I don't know if it also got favorable treatment in the rate-setting process (determining a railroad's capital value in calculating a rate of return on assets). This may be why many cars were stripped down to the frame and a new body and appliances were applied in the name of "repairs" rather than purchasing or building entirely new equipment, and the same would apply to locomotives.
 
Ken Montero
 

On 05/05/2021 11:15 PM Charles Peck <lnnrr152@...> wrote:
 
 
On the subject of MAJOR rebuilds, I recall a story from my grandfather who was a boilermaker foreman
at the L&N RR South Louisville Shops.  He told of "rebuilding" a locomotive where they could not even
 salvage the old numberplate. He told that there was basically an open budget for repair and no authority 
or budget for new construction. Therefore, as long as you could use any significant piece of a wreck, it 
 was a repair. Even if nothing but the old sand dome and throttle, it became a repair with the old number 
and all the latest modifications. 
I can imagine a car shop working under that same limitation.  Rebuild anything, but no new construction. 
Chuck Peck

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:37 PM Dennis Storzek < destorzek@...> wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:34 AM, Ian Cranstone wrote:
and they also had the interesting practice of extensive rebuilds of cars (1890s era), in which a boxcar would be rebuilt – which pretty much seems to consist of jacking up the number and inserting a completely new car (28’ or 29’ foot cars would emerge as a 34’ or later a 36’ car)
The Soo engaged in this practice also, again very evident in the caboose fleet. Dimensions inexplicably change for just one car in a series, and the records just claim "rebuilt." I've made my peace with not arguing with the primary source; if they say it was rebuilt, it was rebuilt. But I'm thoroughly convinced that the rebuilding process consisted of stripping the trucks, ironwork, and stove from the wrecked car and applying them to a brand new body, built to the then current standard.

Dennis Storzek

 

 


Re: Accuracy Of The Official Railway Equipment Registers

Charles Peck
 

On the subject of MAJOR rebuilds, I recall a story from my grandfather who was a boilermaker foreman
at the L&N RR South Louisville Shops.  He told of "rebuilding" a locomotive where they could not even
 salvage the old numberplate. He told that there was basically an open budget for repair and no authority 
or budget for new construction. Therefore, as long as you could use any significant piece of a wreck, it 
 was a repair. Even if nothing but the old sand dome and throttle, it became a repair with the old number 
and all the latest modifications. 
I can imagine a car shop working under that same limitation.  Rebuild anything, but no new construction. 
Chuck Peck

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:37 PM Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...> wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:34 AM, Ian Cranstone wrote:
and they also had the interesting practice of extensive rebuilds of cars (1890s era), in which a boxcar would be rebuilt – which pretty much seems to consist of jacking up the number and inserting a completely new car (28’ or 29’ foot cars would emerge as a 34’ or later a 36’ car)
The Soo engaged in this practice also, again very evident in the caboose fleet. Dimensions inexplicably change for just one car in a series, and the records just claim "rebuilt." I've made my peace with not arguing with the primary source; if they say it was rebuilt, it was rebuilt. But I'm thoroughly convinced that the rebuilding process consisted of stripping the trucks, ironwork, and stove from the wrecked car and applying them to a brand new body, built to the then current standard.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Photo: Union Carbide Covered Hopper 552

kevinhlafferty
 

Ken Akerboom stated:

There is a roofwalk support just next to where the lateral(?) roofwalk attaches.
If you zoom in, it seems to me that the hinges are set up so the hatches open lengthwise (toward the end of the car) rather than crosswise (toward the side)
Which then begs the question – what are all those supports outboard of the hatches????
 
Stabbing in dark… You take the whole running board from the center of the car, place it on the supports outboard the hatches, then you can open the hatches?
 I was thinking along the same lines. It appears that the hatches double as roof walk supports and the additional brackets on the car top are directly in line with the edges of the hatches. It looks as if there is a structural support (angle bracket) in line with each set of open brackets (no cross bar) and that the brackets with cross bars align with the latch side of the hatch cover. I'm guessing you undo the bolts or pins retaining the roof walk angle brackets and the end bolts you can then relocate and secure the roof walk to the alternate brackets. I think the metal straps at the B end of the car are extensions of the lateral supports and allow you to just slide the roof walk over to the other set of supports. Not sure what the deal would be with the A end lateral. All told, quite labor intensive just to have centerline hatches and walkway. Perhaps there was some unique loading requirement.

Kevin Lafferty 


Re: Photo: Union Carbide Covered Hopper 552

Dennis Storzek
 

Think back to state-of-the-art for safety appliances ca. 1940... all house cars had running boards down the center of their roof. I suspect these were built for in-plant use and Union Carbide had some good reason for the centered hatches, but there may have been some question as to the legality of the arrangement for the move over the delivering railroad, and this was the solution the builder crafted; a temporary centered running board.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Photo: Union Carbide Covered Hopper 552

Schuyler Larrabee
 

That’s not unknown in little used sidings.  Unusual, yes, but not unknown.

 

Schuyler

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of gary laakso
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2021 2:10 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Union Carbide Covered Hopper 552

 

Plus, the no tie plates to hold the rail. 

 

Gary Laakso

Northwest of Mike Brock

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Schuyler Larrabee via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 11:05 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Union Carbide Covered Hopper 552

 

There IS something strange about that roof . . . the roof walk has many humps in it and appears to rest on the hatch covers.  ??                                                         

 

Schuyler

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Charlie Vlk
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2021 1:47 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Union Carbide Covered Hopper 552

 

All-

It almost looks like the running boards were improperly installed….it looks like there are supports for off-center boards and the hatches are hinged to open along the length of the car.  It doesn’t look like the boards have any attachment from the laterals inboard.

Also note the use of arch bar trucks in a car built in 1935!!!

Charlie Vlk

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bob Chaparro via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 10:51 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Union Carbide Covered Hopper 552

 

Photo: Union Carbide Covered Hopper 552

Photos from the Pullman Library:

https://pullman-lib.smugmug.com/Railroad-U-Z/i-gsBLCHC/A

https://pullman-lib.smugmug.com/Railroad-U-Z/i-xrnPPtP/buy

Click on the photos twice for maximum enlargement.

Built 12-40.

Interesting inboard hatch cover arrangement.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Photo: Union Carbide Covered Hopper 552

Ed Hawkins
 



On May 5, 2021, at 10:50 AM, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb@...> wrote:

Photo: Union Carbide Covered Hopper 552
Photos from the Pullman Library:
Click on the photos twice for maximum enlargement.
Built 12-40.
Interesting inboard hatch cover arrangement.

STMFC,
For those interested per the above two photo references, Greenville Steel Car Co. built 4 orders of Union Carbide Co. covered hopper cars of like-design with UCCO reporting marks. Greenville used a numerically-sequenced Office Order (O.O.) designation when the company received orders for either new cars or when making repairs or modifications to existing cars. 

O.O. 218: 2 cars, ordered 6-35, built 9-35, 552 sample car photographed
O.O. 231: 1 car, ordered 3-36, built ca. 6-36, car number unrecorded
O.O. 249: 4 cars, ordered 1-37, built ca. 7-37, car numbers unrecorded
O.O. 309: 4 cars, ordered 10-40, built 12-40, 562 sample car photographed

All 4 orders of UCCO covered hoppers were 50-tons, 1321 cu. ft. capacity, and came with Enterprise outlets. The first 3 orders used 2nd-hand trucks furnished by B&LE. The 11 cars in the 4 orders lacked being equipped with AB brakes when built by Greenville and thus were not in interchange service unless configured with AB brakes at a later date (I’m unaware if that ever happened). If these 11 cars were numbered sequentially, they received car numbers 552-553; 554; 555-558; 559-562, respectively. 

General dimensions:
19’ truck centers
22’-8 3/8” inside length
28’-11 3/4” over striker castings
11’-5 1/4” from rail to top of running board

Prior to the construction of these UCCO cars, Greenville built two covered hopper orders for Erie & DT&I in which the same Greenville general arrangement drawing number 13394 was used for all six orders, despite the hatch arrangement being different. 

Erie 20000-20049, O.O. 202, 50 cars built ca. 7-8/1934
DT&I 11800-11814, O.O. 207, 15 cars built ca. 8-34

The Erie & DT&I cars were equipped with AB brakes for interchange service. Hatches were 48” x 36” with hatch covers that opened towards the running board. Photos of Erie 20000, 20033 & DT&I 11806 are also included in Jim Kinkaid’s photo collection at the Pullman Library SmugMug web site.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins



Re: Model identification

Tim O'Connor
 


Lambert, absolutely. The Tangent model is more accurate and better detailed, but overall they represent
the same car. See the Car Builder Cyc 1961, page 303 - photo of GATX 64641

Tim O'Connor


On 5/4/2021 11:24 PM, nyc3001 . wrote:
I think it was made by Lambert. The 8k prototype is the same as the Tangent model. They also made an ICC-103 welded tank that was 10k gallons.

-Phil

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: Accuracy Of The Official Railway Equipment Registers

Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:34 AM, Ian Cranstone wrote:
and they also had the interesting practice of extensive rebuilds of cars (1890s era), in which a boxcar would be rebuilt – which pretty much seems to consist of jacking up the number and inserting a completely new car (28’ or 29’ foot cars would emerge as a 34’ or later a 36’ car)
The Soo engaged in this practice also, again very evident in the caboose fleet. Dimensions inexplicably change for just one car in a series, and the records just claim "rebuilt." I've made my peace with not arguing with the primary source; if they say it was rebuilt, it was rebuilt. But I'm thoroughly convinced that the rebuilding process consisted of stripping the trucks, ironwork, and stove from the wrecked car and applying them to a brand new body, built to the then current standard.

Dennis Storzek

2101 - 2120 of 186156