Date   

Re: ACL Freight Car Color

O Fenton Wells
 

Thanks Scott


On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 3:11 PM Scott <repairman87@...> wrote:
Wow Fenton those are great looking cars.

Scott McDonald 



--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


Re: automobile box cars (was ACL Freight Car Color)

Tim O'Connor
 


Check the XMR column of the "special type cars" circular that is published in the ORER.

In 1963, it still shows

 ATSF - 69 cars in 6 series
 B&O - 360 cars in 6 series
   CN - 977 cars in 2 series
 
and so on and so forth ...

So even though most cars lost their "automobile" stencils (when they ever had them to begin with)
there were still a lot of box cars capable of transporting automobiles in interior racks throughout the
1950's and even later. The SP still had well over 1,000 XMR box cars in 1963!

Tim O'Connor



On 5/13/2021 2:37 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
Brian Shumaker wrote:

 I assume by 1959 the “Automobile” is a misnomer and it was used as a lumber, appliance and such hauler. 

Not really. The AAR did drop, about 1955, its "standard" nomenclature that any double-door box car was classified as "automobile" regardless of cargoes carried, but a number of roads continued to so letter double-door cars. And I certainly doubt anyone rushed to paint out the word "automobile" after 1955.

Tony Thompson

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: ACL Freight Car Color

Scott
 

Wow Fenton those are great looking cars.

Scott McDonald 


Re: Another X29 Question -- Coupler Operating Release Levers

Dennis Storzek
 

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 11:39 AM, Jim and Barbara van Gaasbeek wrote:
Being ignorant of this matter, I’m not sure how a bottom-operated coupler actually worked.  In a top-operated coupler, gravity kept the pin in place, and one had to overcome friction to pull it.  With a bottom-operated coupler, how was the pin retained?  Obviously, gravity would help overcome any friction in pulling that pin.
The locking pin is the same, it's just pushed up from the bottom.


Re: Photo: Soldiers Unloading NYC Boxcar (1917)

Tony Thompson
 

Bob Chaparrowrote:

Photo: Soldiers Unloading NYC Boxcar (1917)
A photo from the Wisconsin Historical Society:
Partial car number is 20053.

Of course most of them are having fun sitting on the car roofs, not helping with the unloading.

Tony Thompson




B&O boxcar decals was Re: ACL Freight Car Color

Jim Ogden
 

Great work! I love the way you take the CB&T bodies and bring them into the 21st century. The weathering is just the right amount to make the details pop.

I’m curious as to the best decals for this style of B&O lettering.

Jim Ogden
Argyle, Texas


Re: Another X29 Question -- Coupler Operating Release Levers

Jim and Barbara van Gaasbeek
 

Being ignorant of this matter, I’m not sure how a bottom-operated coupler actually worked.  In a top-operated coupler, gravity kept the pin in place, and one had to overcome friction to pull it.  With a bottom-operated coupler, how was the pin retained?  Obviously, gravity would help overcome any friction in pulling that pin.

 

Jim van Gaasbeek

Irvine, CA

 

 


Re: ACL Freight Car Color

Tony Thompson
 

Brian Shumaker wrote:

 I assume by 1959 the “Automobile” is a misnomer and it was used as a lumber, appliance and such hauler. 

Not really. The AAR did drop, about 1955, its "standard" nomenclature that any double-door box car was classified as "automobile" regardless of cargoes carried, but a number of roads continued to so letter double-door cars. And I certainly doubt anyone rushed to paint out the word "automobile" after 1955.

Tony Thompson




Re: Another X29 Question -- Coupler Operating Release Levers

Schleigh Mike
 

Perfect, Jack!!!!

This is exactly what I suspected.  NO GOOD after a particular date.Thanks for this confirmation.

Regards----Mike Schleigh

On Thursday, May 13, 2021, 01:59:27 PM EDT, Jack Mullen <jack.f.mullen@...> wrote:


Mike, 
AAR interchange rules required rotary coupler operating levers on cars built new or rebuilt effective 8/1/33. That ended new applications of Carmer levers. I don't know of any interchange ban, but long after the time of this list, the 40/50 year rules would weed out cars still having them. Some lasted a very long time - last one I saw was on a C&NW flat in MofW service sometime in the first decade of the current century. The car would have been about 75-80 years old, and probably didn't last much longer.

The advantage of a Carmer lever is that the operator uses a pushing motion and can apply body weight rather than just muscle force. However, if the lever breaks, hand slips, or he loses footing, he's likely to fall between cars. Not a good outcome. I think the risks of foot operation are obvious.  Evidently, if these risks were considered at the time, they weren't great enough to cause a ban, but may have been a factor in ending new applications and gradual replacement.
Besides the cost of the Carmer parts vs. what is basically a bent steel rod, the proliferation of different patterns of Carmer levers (Pennsy alone had a bunch) must have been a maintenance PITA.
Type E or F couplers can be either top or bottom operated.
Bottom operation is said to require less force on the operating lever than top operation. That implies less risk of injury.

Jack Mullen


Re: Another X29 Question -- Coupler Operating Release Levers

steve_wintner
 

This is speculation, but i wonder if icing up was less of a problem with bottom operated couplers. 

Steve


Re: Another X29 Question -- Coupler Operating Release Levers

Jack Mullen
 

Mike, 
AAR interchange rules required rotary coupler operating levers on cars built new or rebuilt effective 8/1/33. That ended new applications of Carmer levers. I don't know of any interchange ban, but long after the time of this list, the 40/50 year rules would weed out cars still having them. Some lasted a very long time - last one I saw was on a C&NW flat in MofW service sometime in the first decade of the current century. The car would have been about 75-80 years old, and probably didn't last much longer.

The advantage of a Carmer lever is that the operator uses a pushing motion and can apply body weight rather than just muscle force. However, if the lever breaks, hand slips, or he loses footing, he's likely to fall between cars. Not a good outcome. I think the risks of foot operation are obvious.  Evidently, if these risks were considered at the time, they weren't great enough to cause a ban, but may have been a factor in ending new applications and gradual replacement.
Besides the cost of the Carmer parts vs. what is basically a bent steel rod, the proliferation of different patterns of Carmer levers (Pennsy alone had a bunch) must have been a maintenance PITA.
Type E or F couplers can be either top or bottom operated.
Bottom operation is said to require less force on the operating lever than top operation. That implies less risk of injury.

Jack Mullen


Photo: Soldiers Unloading NYC Boxcar (1917)

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: Soldiers Unloading NYC Boxcar (1917)

A photo from the Wisconsin Historical Society:

https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM35439

Partial car number is 20053.

Also partial view of Hocking Valley boxcar.

Description:

“National Guard troops unloading their supplies from New York Central railroad cars into a transport wagon to be taken to camp.”

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Photo: Blocking For Gear Dive Load

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: Blocking For Gear Dive Load

A photo from the Wisconsin Historical Society:

https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM50499

Description:

“Mill drive purchased by Allis Chalmers and used by Duval. Original Falk caption reads, "260 inch x 34 inch single helical split ring gear... part of a photo a slide series to show ring gear manufacturing.”

Flatcar is unidentified and date is a bit beyond our group but the blocking is of interest.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Another X29 Question -- Coupler Operating Release Levers

Schleigh Mike
 

Thank you Bruce!

This is pretty much what I suspected.  It would be interesting to see if any PRR documentation adds to this understanding.  Clearly the Carmer lasted right up near (if not to) the close of the plain X29 experience but with bottom operated couplers and their associated rotary levers getting on-board as repairs dictated.

Regards ---- Mike Schleigh at Grove City, Penna.

On Thursday, May 13, 2021, 11:31:12 AM EDT, Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:


Mike,

 

My general impression of the transition in the coupler mechanism of the X29 was that the Carmer uncoupling device was considered to be less safe that the bottom-operated rod style. While not be “banned” in interchange, around 1930, with the technological innovation of the “rotary” style uncoupling device, there was a movement away from the Carmer. It has to do with the mechanics of operation. With the Carmer, you have to push down, whereas the rotary rod style, you pull up. You chance of slipping and falling are greater with the former as it puts you more off balance.

 

As I note, the Carmer levers were not banned, and so they continued in place on the cars so equipped, although as you note, they were gradually replaced, probably, again as you note, when repairs were required. There was never a general effort on the PRR to replace Carmer levers on cars that had them.

 

Regards,

Bruce Smith

Auburn, AL

 

From: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of "Schleigh Mike via groups.io" <mike_schleigh@...>
Reply-To: "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:25 AM
To: "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>, "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Another X29 Question -- Coupler Operating Release Levers

 

CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.

I am getting confused here, Tim----

 

I do not follow the relevancy of your reference to a 1925 SP tank car.

 

All my questions were intended to address the Pennsy's use of the Carmer on their X29 boxcars.  Before their end of production the RR switched to bottom operated couplers which ruled out employing Carmer operating levers.  Why did they switch to bottom operated couplers?  Why were some older cars, built with top operated couplers, converted to bottom operated?  Was there an issue with the Carmers?  Or was there an issue with top operated couplers?  Or both?  That there seems to be no evidence that the PRR simply replaced the Carmer with a rotary mechanism suggests that it was the bottom operated coupler that had risen to a more preferred status.  Couplers still need to be replaced; perhaps the Pennsy standardized, as much as possible, on the bottom operated.  This alone mandated the rotary mechanism.

 

At the same time, anyone familiar with manufacturing would recognize that the Carmer must have been more expensive to produce because of material and labor considerations.  So----no more new Carmers on new cars.

 

Operating the Carmer was distinctly different to operate than a rotary.  I do not perceive any mechanical advantage to either.  In each the force the hand applies to the lever seems to be about the same as if a hand pulls the pin directly.  However, the hand pushing down operating the Carmer performs very differently than that applied to the rotary pulling upwardly.

 

But, the Carmer offers some creativity to this process in that the operator can stand higher on the car and push the Carmer using the foot.  This begs the question of safety.  Was safety an issue?

 

The rotary operating lever offers consistency whether pulling a pin on a top or bottom operated coupler.  Did consistent operation of the uncoupling process suggest the Carmer should be discontinued or perhaps even be replaced?

 

And what about the bottom operated coupler?  Did this offer some advantage over the top operated?

 

I did not mean to get too far into the weeds on these questions.  It seems to me that if The Standard Railroad of the World made this production change within their huge fleet of X29 boxcars, they had a good reason.  Is this reason known?

 

Where I can, I will use dated photo evidence to at least suggest whether my X29 models have Carmer top operated couplers or bottom operated rotaries.  Unless some other evidence arises, top operated rotaries will not be found on those models.

 

What the Pennsy thought and liked may well have influenced the greater industry and, if that produced at least a general preference for rotary uncoupling levers suggesting discontinuance of the Carmer (if not replacement), that would be an interesting point to understand.

 

Thanks for your interest in these questions.

 

Regards from Mike Schleigh of Grove City in western Penna.

 

 

 

On Thursday, May 13, 2021, 08:53:26 AM EDT, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

 

 

Mike

Was it just a matter of a rapid change from top-operated to the bottom-operated couplers
for NEW freight cars, and then the gradual retirement (or rebuilding) of older cars? I have a scan
of a 1977 photo of an SP O-50-10 tank car (built 1925) with its original Carmer lever, and top
operated coupler.

Was there any mechanical advantage (i.e. leverage) that favored bottom operated uncoupling?
Or maybe it was just a cost advantage? (This seems more likely to me, given this is the railroad
business, after all.)

Tim O'Connor


On 5/12/2021 11:42 AM, Schleigh Mike via groups.io wrote:

Hello Group!

 

Contemplating the details of the historic Pennsy X29 boxcars it is not easy to overlook the initial application thereon of the Carmer operating lever.  This was surely a popular option for the PRR on many of their cars but by the early 1930s, with the last of the X29 production, the RR switched to bottom operated coupler release and the very different rotary operating lever so associated.  Thereafter, many but not all X29 cars were converted to the same style of bottom operating couplers and levers.

 

Is there an established reason for this conversion?

 

It is easy to speculate that the more modern 'rotary' style of lever is of less cost and material and that there could be safety and ergonomic reasons to move away from continuing use of Carmers for both new and retrofit applications.  So, was there a policy or 'program' promoting this?  Photo evidence of X29s in the late 1950s show some Carmers still in place and I believe I saw them well into the 1960s.  (I don't recall the details.)  No photos have been found of PRR X29 Carmer conversions to top operated couplers seemingly keeping the old coupler so perhaps the coupler change-out was the real driver in those cases of Carmer removal.

 

It could also be speculated that the operation of the Carmer was so different from the rotary that Labor and/or Regulators at least recommended replacement on rebuilt or refurbished cars.  This also begs the question of top versus bottom operated couplers on freight cars.  Was there an industry move away from the top somewhere back there in the post-Carmer time frame?  Obviously top operated couplers continued to be applied for many applications but did they fall from freight car favor at some past time?

 

Writing from Grove City in western Penna.....Mike Schleigh

 


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: Another X29 Question -- Coupler Operating Release Levers

Bruce Smith
 

Mike,

 

My general impression of the transition in the coupler mechanism of the X29 was that the Carmer uncoupling device was considered to be less safe that the bottom-operated rod style. While not be “banned” in interchange, around 1930, with the technological innovation of the “rotary” style uncoupling device, there was a movement away from the Carmer. It has to do with the mechanics of operation. With the Carmer, you have to push down, whereas the rotary rod style, you pull up. You chance of slipping and falling are greater with the former as it puts you more off balance.

 

As I note, the Carmer levers were not banned, and so they continued in place on the cars so equipped, although as you note, they were gradually replaced, probably, again as you note, when repairs were required. There was never a general effort on the PRR to replace Carmer levers on cars that had them.

 

Regards,

Bruce Smith

Auburn, AL

 

From: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of "Schleigh Mike via groups.io" <mike_schleigh@...>
Reply-To: "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:25 AM
To: "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>, "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Another X29 Question -- Coupler Operating Release Levers

 

CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.

I am getting confused here, Tim----

 

I do not follow the relevancy of your reference to a 1925 SP tank car.

 

All my questions were intended to address the Pennsy's use of the Carmer on their X29 boxcars.  Before their end of production the RR switched to bottom operated couplers which ruled out employing Carmer operating levers.  Why did they switch to bottom operated couplers?  Why were some older cars, built with top operated couplers, converted to bottom operated?  Was there an issue with the Carmers?  Or was there an issue with top operated couplers?  Or both?  That there seems to be no evidence that the PRR simply replaced the Carmer with a rotary mechanism suggests that it was the bottom operated coupler that had risen to a more preferred status.  Couplers still need to be replaced; perhaps the Pennsy standardized, as much as possible, on the bottom operated.  This alone mandated the rotary mechanism.

 

At the same time, anyone familiar with manufacturing would recognize that the Carmer must have been more expensive to produce because of material and labor considerations.  So----no more new Carmers on new cars.

 

Operating the Carmer was distinctly different to operate than a rotary.  I do not perceive any mechanical advantage to either.  In each the force the hand applies to the lever seems to be about the same as if a hand pulls the pin directly.  However, the hand pushing down operating the Carmer performs very differently than that applied to the rotary pulling upwardly.

 

But, the Carmer offers some creativity to this process in that the operator can stand higher on the car and push the Carmer using the foot.  This begs the question of safety.  Was safety an issue?

 

The rotary operating lever offers consistency whether pulling a pin on a top or bottom operated coupler.  Did consistent operation of the uncoupling process suggest the Carmer should be discontinued or perhaps even be replaced?

 

And what about the bottom operated coupler?  Did this offer some advantage over the top operated?

 

I did not mean to get too far into the weeds on these questions.  It seems to me that if The Standard Railroad of the World made this production change within their huge fleet of X29 boxcars, they had a good reason.  Is this reason known?

 

Where I can, I will use dated photo evidence to at least suggest whether my X29 models have Carmer top operated couplers or bottom operated rotaries.  Unless some other evidence arises, top operated rotaries will not be found on those models.

 

What the Pennsy thought and liked may well have influenced the greater industry and, if that produced at least a general preference for rotary uncoupling levers suggesting discontinuance of the Carmer (if not replacement), that would be an interesting point to understand.

 

Thanks for your interest in these questions.

 

Regards from Mike Schleigh of Grove City in western Penna.

 

 

 

On Thursday, May 13, 2021, 08:53:26 AM EDT, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

 

 

Mike

Was it just a matter of a rapid change from top-operated to the bottom-operated couplers
for NEW freight cars, and then the gradual retirement (or rebuilding) of older cars? I have a scan
of a 1977 photo of an SP O-50-10 tank car (built 1925) with its original Carmer lever, and top
operated coupler.

Was there any mechanical advantage (i.e. leverage) that favored bottom operated uncoupling?
Or maybe it was just a cost advantage? (This seems more likely to me, given this is the railroad
business, after all.)

Tim O'Connor


On 5/12/2021 11:42 AM, Schleigh Mike via groups.io wrote:

Hello Group!

 

Contemplating the details of the historic Pennsy X29 boxcars it is not easy to overlook the initial application thereon of the Carmer operating lever.  This was surely a popular option for the PRR on many of their cars but by the early 1930s, with the last of the X29 production, the RR switched to bottom operated coupler release and the very different rotary operating lever so associated.  Thereafter, many but not all X29 cars were converted to the same style of bottom operating couplers and levers.

 

Is there an established reason for this conversion?

 

It is easy to speculate that the more modern 'rotary' style of lever is of less cost and material and that there could be safety and ergonomic reasons to move away from continuing use of Carmers for both new and retrofit applications.  So, was there a policy or 'program' promoting this?  Photo evidence of X29s in the late 1950s show some Carmers still in place and I believe I saw them well into the 1960s.  (I don't recall the details.)  No photos have been found of PRR X29 Carmer conversions to top operated couplers seemingly keeping the old coupler so perhaps the coupler change-out was the real driver in those cases of Carmer removal.

 

It could also be speculated that the operation of the Carmer was so different from the rotary that Labor and/or Regulators at least recommended replacement on rebuilt or refurbished cars.  This also begs the question of top versus bottom operated couplers on freight cars.  Was there an industry move away from the top somewhere back there in the post-Carmer time frame?  Obviously top operated couplers continued to be applied for many applications but did they fall from freight car favor at some past time?

 

Writing from Grove City in western Penna.....Mike Schleigh

 


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: Another X29 Question -- Coupler Operating Release Levers

Schleigh Mike
 

I am getting confused here, Tim----

I do not follow the relevancy of your reference to a 1925 SP tank car.

All my questions were intended to address the Pennsy's use of the Carmer on their X29 boxcars.  Before their end of production the RR switched to bottom operated couplers which ruled out employing Carmer operating levers.  Why did they switch to bottom operated couplers?  Why were some older cars, built with top operated couplers, converted to bottom operated?  Was there an issue with the Carmers?  Or was there an issue with top operated couplers?  Or both?  That there seems to be no evidence that the PRR simply replaced the Carmer with a rotary mechanism suggests that it was the bottom operated coupler that had risen to a more preferred status.  Couplers still need to be replaced; perhaps the Pennsy standardized, as much as possible, on the bottom operated.  This alone mandated the rotary mechanism.

At the same time, anyone familiar with manufacturing would recognize that the Carmer must have been more expensive to produce because of material and labor considerations.  So----no more new Carmers on new cars.

Operating the Carmer was distinctly different to operate than a rotary.  I do not perceive any mechanical advantage to either.  In each the force the hand applies to the lever seems to be about the same as if a hand pulls the pin directly.  However, the hand pushing down operating the Carmer performs very differently than that applied to the rotary pulling upwardly.

But, the Carmer offers some creativity to this process in that the operator can stand higher on the car and push the Carmer using the foot.  This begs the question of safety.  Was safety an issue?

The rotary operating lever offers consistency whether pulling a pin on a top or bottom operated coupler.  Did consistent operation of the uncoupling process suggest the Carmer should be discontinued or perhaps even be replaced?

And what about the bottom operated coupler?  Did this offer some advantage over the top operated?

I did not mean to get too far into the weeds on these questions.  It seems to me that if The Standard Railroad of the World made this production change within their huge fleet of X29 boxcars, they had a good reason.  Is this reason known?

Where I can, I will use dated photo evidence to at least suggest whether my X29 models have Carmer top operated couplers or bottom operated rotaries.  Unless some other evidence arises, top operated rotaries will not be found on those models.

What the Pennsy thought and liked may well have influenced the greater industry and, if that produced at least a general preference for rotary uncoupling levers suggesting discontinuance of the Carmer (if not replacement), that would be an interesting point to understand.

Thanks for your interest in these questions.

Regards from Mike Schleigh of Grove City in western Penna.



On Thursday, May 13, 2021, 08:53:26 AM EDT, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


Mike

Was it just a matter of a rapid change from top-operated to the bottom-operated couplers
for NEW freight cars, and then the gradual retirement (or rebuilding) of older cars? I have a scan
of a 1977 photo of an SP O-50-10 tank car (built 1925) with its original Carmer lever, and top
operated coupler.

Was there any mechanical advantage (i.e. leverage) that favored bottom operated uncoupling?
Or maybe it was just a cost advantage? (This seems more likely to me, given this is the railroad
business, after all.)

Tim O'Connor


On 5/12/2021 11:42 AM, Schleigh Mike via groups.io wrote:
Hello Group!

Contemplating the details of the historic Pennsy X29 boxcars it is not easy to overlook the initial application thereon of the Carmer operating lever.  This was surely a popular option for the PRR on many of their cars but by the early 1930s, with the last of the X29 production, the RR switched to bottom operated coupler release and the very different rotary operating lever so associated.  Thereafter, many but not all X29 cars were converted to the same style of bottom operating couplers and levers.

Is there an established reason for this conversion?

It is easy to speculate that the more modern 'rotary' style of lever is of less cost and material and that there could be safety and ergonomic reasons to move away from continuing use of Carmers for both new and retrofit applications.  So, was there a policy or 'program' promoting this?  Photo evidence of X29s in the late 1950s show some Carmers still in place and I believe I saw them well into the 1960s.  (I don't recall the details.)  No photos have been found of PRR X29 Carmer conversions to top operated couplers seemingly keeping the old coupler so perhaps the coupler change-out was the real driver in those cases of Carmer removal.

It could also be speculated that the operation of the Carmer was so different from the rotary that Labor and/or Regulators at least recommended replacement on rebuilt or refurbished cars.  This also begs the question of top versus bottom operated couplers on freight cars.  Was there an industry move away from the top somewhere back there in the post-Carmer time frame?  Obviously top operated couplers continued to be applied for many applications but did they fall from freight car favor at some past time?

Writing from Grove City in western Penna.....Mike Schleigh


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: ACL Freight Car Color

Brian Shumaker
 
Edited

Fenton, thanks for that. 
Allan, I dug that out of my files, yay!
Anyone know why these aren’t among the list of 1937 AAR Modified Design? Is it because of the double doors?
To complicate matters, these cars have an addition line of wider spaced rivets inboard of the standard line. Archer to the rescue! Challenge accepted. Anyone have an undecorated Intermountain 1937 AAR Modified they don’t need?

Brian


Re: ACL Freight Car Color

O Fenton Wells
 

Brian by the Way K4 makes a plethora of ACL decals.


On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:00 AM O Fenton Wells <srrfan1401@...> wrote:
Brian I've had good luck with the C&BT, Front Range or McKean 40 DD cars.   I get them at flea markets or eBay.  I use new doors, ladders and grabs and they turn out pretty nice.  Here is a B&O boxcar that I did with a C&BT car.  This is a 10'-4"IH car without auto loaders and a 9'-6" IH car with loaders installed.  Chad Boas supplied the doors and the side sill supports.
The cars have 14'-0" door openings so if you want something different you may have to modify a SD boxcar to meet your needs.  I believe the Athearn(MDC) 40' DD cars are 12 ft door openings.  And that the Red Caboose 40 footers are 10'-0" IH cars and I believe they have 12 ft door openings.
Hope this helps
fenton

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 9:06 AM Brian Shumaker <brian.shumaker@...> wrote:
Thanks gang. Tim, I think you are right, probably start with a 1937 modified 10’6” IH and convert to double door. What do we call these ends, 4.75 / 5 ends? I assume by 1959 the “Automobile” is a misnomer and it was used as a lumber, appliance and such hauler. The photo shows it on the house track at Guthrie Center, Iowa. A lumber yard is out of frame to left. Looks like a fun little project. Here we go! BTW, if anyone has a candidate to model the doodlebug cum depot, I’m all ears.
Brian Shumaker



--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


Re: ACL Freight Car Color

O Fenton Wells
 

Brian I've had good luck with the C&BT, Front Range or McKean 40 DD cars.   I get them at flea markets or eBay.  I use new doors, ladders and grabs and they turn out pretty nice.  Here is a B&O boxcar that I did with a C&BT car.  This is a 10'-4"IH car without auto loaders and a 9'-6" IH car with loaders installed.  Chad Boas supplied the doors and the side sill supports.
The cars have 14'-0" door openings so if you want something different you may have to modify a SD boxcar to meet your needs.  I believe the Athearn(MDC) 40' DD cars are 12 ft door openings.  And that the Red Caboose 40 footers are 10'-0" IH cars and I believe they have 12 ft door openings.
Hope this helps
fenton

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 9:06 AM Brian Shumaker <brian.shumaker@...> wrote:
Thanks gang. Tim, I think you are right, probably start with a 1937 modified 10’6” IH and convert to double door. What do we call these ends, 4.75 / 5 ends? I assume by 1959 the “Automobile” is a misnomer and it was used as a lumber, appliance and such hauler. The photo shows it on the house track at Guthrie Center, Iowa. A lumber yard is out of frame to left. Looks like a fun little project. Here we go! BTW, if anyone has a candidate to model the doodlebug cum depot, I’m all ears.
Brian Shumaker



--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


Re: Pere Marquette DD 40' steel box

James Brewer
 

Here is a diagram from the NWHS archives of the Chicago-Cleveland Climax radial roof:

https://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=3744

And here is a photo of the radial roof as applied to a N&W stock car, Class SK

https://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=19321

Jim Brewer

4441 - 4460 of 188732