Date   

Re: Railway Prototype Cyclopedia #9

CBarkan@...
 

Joel,

The postal address for RP Cycs is:

RP CYC Publishing Co.
P.O. Box 451
Chesterfield, MO 63006-0451

Ed Hawkins who is on this list is one of the publishers. Contact him at
<HAWK0621@aol.com> regarding price.

The latest is the 9th Volume and the previoius 8 are all worth having if you
are a serious prototype modeler, or if you are simply interested in prototype
equipment from the late steam/early diesel era.

Chris Barkan

In a message dated 10/10/03 9:42:06 PM, mec-bml@charter.net writes:

<< WERE DO WE GET THIS PUBLICATION???????

JOEL NORMAN>>


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

From: "Brian Rochon" <berochon@msn.com>

To: "SteamFreightcarsList" <stmfc@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 6:16 PM

Subject: [STMFC] Railway Prototype Cyclopedia #9



RP Cyc #9 came today. Lots of info for Steam Era Freight Car fans. First
up is a 25 page article on B&O Wagon-Top Box Cars by Pat Wider (39 B&W

photos, 4 diagrams and a table). Next is an 18 page article on

Pullman-Standard Compartmentizers also by Pat Wider (38 B&W photos plus a

diagram and a table). Part 5 of the A.A.R. Twin Offset-Side Hoppers series

by Ed Hawkins contains coverage of Midwestern coal hauling roads with 33 B&W

hopper photos. There is also an addendum to the previous Express Reefer

article and an article on EMD F3 Phase IV diesels. Another great issue!

Brian Rochon
Silver Spring, MD >>


Re: Railway Prototype Cyclopedia #9

Joel Norman <mec-bml@...>
 

WERE DO WE GET THIS PUBLICATION???????
JOEL NORMAN

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Rochon" <berochon@msn.com>
To: "SteamFreightcarsList" <stmfc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 6:16 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Railway Prototype Cyclopedia #9


RP Cyc #9 came today. Lots of info for Steam Era Freight Car fans. First
up is a 25 page article on B&O Wagon-Top Box Cars by Pat Wider (39 B&W
photos, 4 diagrams and a table). Next is an 18 page article on
Pullman-Standard Compartmentizers also by Pat Wider (38 B&W photos plus a
diagram and a table). Part 5 of the A.A.R. Twin Offset-Side Hoppers series
by Ed Hawkins contains coverage of Midwestern coal hauling roads with 33 B&W
hopper photos. There is also an addendum to the previous Express Reefer
article and an article on EMD F3 Phase IV diesels. Another great issue!

Brian Rochon
Silver Spring, MD






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: AC&F tank "types" was ACF's market share

Tim O'Connor
 

Actually Bruce, only P2K nailed the underframe. Intermountain's
is very screwed up.

Another thing...I looked through the WHOLE book waiting for a tank car
to be identified as "Type 21" or "Type 27" and then, at the very end,
Ed explains that the "Type" only applied to the FRAMES and not the
car...another myth shattered. Of course, it makes sense when you read
the captions...80xx gallon, 80yy gallons, yada yada yada...So
basically, the whole LL/IM thing is correct, but only insofar as the
designation is applied to the frame and not the tank.

Befuddled as always
Bruce


Re: AAR 1944 boxcars

Tim O'Connor
 

There's a photo on the Wheeler CD of an unusual SOO 50' box car. It appears
to have 10'6" IH, 4/5 Dreadnaught end with square corners, 5 panels on each
side of center hung double doors. Any idea how popular this design was? Really
neat car, I would like to kitbash one sometime.
Clark Propst
SOO series 175000-175498 built 1937 (even numbers only)

An unusual design unfortunately. Many of the 50 foot steel cars were
one-of-a-kind designs. The door opening was 12'6" and the car had a
10'1"IH (perhaps because of an interior rack?).

Red Caboose makes a 40 foot double door car that is good for SOO,
and no one else.


Re: 1922-1946 GATX vs. ACF Tank Car Production

Steve and Barb Hile
 

Another thing to at least note is the introduction, in May 1917, of the ARA class III specification for tank cars. Certainly not a cause of the bubble, but it had a definite impact on the design of the new cars as built. Its development had been going on in the years prior.

It is true that UTLX had a predominant position in the tank car business, so much so that UTLX had a seat on the standards committee along with the railroad representatives. Interestingly, according to Carr's UTLX book, even after the break up of the Standard Oil trust and the spin off of UTLX, the company chose to only service the baby Standards for a number of years. This, as much as anything left an opening to General American and others to enter the marketplace, serving the other tank car lessees and the emerging commodities that Richard mentions.

Steve Hile

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] 1922-1946 GATX vs. ACF Tank Car Production


The numbers compiled by Tim Gilbert are interesting and useful. Some
comments follow.

>Tank Car production was highly cyclical. In terms of tank cars ordered
>(not quite the same thing as cars built), the cyclicality can be shown
>in the numbers in five year segments which include total, average per
>year and the high-low range of annual orders in each five year segment:
>
> Total Avg/Yr Low-High Range per Year
>1911-15 13,517 2,703/ 1,840-4,007
>1916-20 58,631 11,628/ 5,958-15,631
>1921-25 20,294 4,059/ 327-6,003
>1926-30 19,977 3,995/ 2,585-5,930
>1931-35 1,236 247/ 52-341
>1936-40 10,711 2,141/ 230-5,745
>1941-45 7,959 1,592/ 556-2,800
>1946-50 25,930 5,078/ 834-8,651

The huge bulge in production in the 1916-1020 era can be accounted for in
three ways. First, the explosive increase in use of the internal
combustion engine (yeah, I know, it's a bad pun), not only in motor
vehicles but in various industrial uses, aircraft, etc. Second, the
increased demand for petroleum products generated by World War I, the first
mechanized war. Third, the anti-trust actions that broke Union Tank Line's
stranglehold on the North American tank car fleet and opened the way for
competition from leasing companies like General American and for the
petroleum producers to own their own cars. Those cars, plus the relatively
large number of cars produced in the 1920s, provided the petroleum industry
with all the transport capacity it needed, especially since pipelines
rapidly provided a cheaper and more efficient way to move petroleum
products on high-volume routes. It may be added that most of those cars
lasted in service until after WW II and many survived through the 1960s,
often recycled through several owners.
Snip


Re: AAR 1944 boxcars

jaley <jaley@...>
 

Richard,

Thanks for the corrections / clarifications. I'm gratified to see
that I didn't screw things up *too* badly!

Regards,

-Jeff


On Oct 10, 4:24pm, Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Subject: Re: [STMFC] AAR 1944 boxcars
Jeff Aley expected corrections to his "off the top of his head" response
to
Richard Stallwaort. Here are some,
[SNIP]

--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Re: AAR 1944 boxcars

Richard Hendrickson
 

Jeff Aley expected corrections to his "off the top of his head" response to
Richard Stallwaort. Here are some,

The '37 AAR car was originally built with square corner posts, and later
transitioned to "W"-section corner posts (which externally means that the
junction of the end and side went from crisp right angle to a slight
curve).
The shift to W-section corner posts, which began to take place in 1939 with
the UP B-50-24 class and was complete before the end of 1940, wasn't
covered by the AAR standard design; though universally adopted, W-section
corner posts were among the options which were left up to the car
buyers/builders.

All '44 AAR cars had W-section corner posts.
True, but so did all 1937 and 1941 AAR standard cars after about mid-1940.

The '37 cars had 4/5 Dreadnaught ends and 10'0" IH.
The '44 cars had 4/4 or R/3/4 Improved Dreadnaught ends and 10'6 IH. The
earlier IDE had a "rolling pin taper", whereas the later IDE have a
"banana taper".
All true, but you've omitted the 1941 alternate standard cars which also
had inside heights from 10'4" to 10'6" and 5-5 Dreadnaught ends (though you
mention these later).

The '37 cars had flat-panel roofs.
The '44 cars had diagonal-panel roofs.
"Flat panel" is a bit misleading here, as there were AAR-design box cars
built (especially in Canada) with Murphy roofs that had literally flat
panels between the seam caps; most '37 AAR cars had rectangular panel roofs
(i.e., raised rectangular stiffening panels between the seam caps). And
many of what we unoffically identify as '44 AAR cars were built between
1945 and 1948 with the earlier style rectangular panel roofs before the
diagonal panel roof was introduced.

I'm not sure if the presence of a different type of roof (e.g.
Viking) necessarily disqualifies a car from being an AAR; wasn't there a
recent thread on that topic?
It doesn't; the AAR specifications specifically provided for alternative
roofs, ends, doors, etc.


Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Railway Prototype Cyclopedia #9

Brian Rochon
 

RP Cyc #9 came today. Lots of info for Steam Era Freight Car fans. First up is a 25 page article on B&O Wagon-Top Box Cars by Pat Wider (39 B&W photos, 4 diagrams and a table). Next is an 18 page article on Pullman-Standard Compartmentizers also by Pat Wider (38 B&W photos plus a diagram and a table). Part 5 of the A.A.R. Twin Offset-Side Hoppers series by Ed Hawkins contains coverage of Midwestern coal hauling roads with 33 B&W hopper photos. There is also an addendum to the previous Express Reefer article and an article on EMD F3 Phase IV diesels. Another great issue!

Brian Rochon
Silver Spring, MD


Re: AAR 1944 boxcars

Clark Propst <cepropst@...>
 

There's a photo on the Wheeler CD of an unusual SOO 50' box car. It appears
to have 10'6" IH, 4/5 Dreadnaught end with square corners, 5 panels on each
side of center hung double doors. Any idea how popular this design was? Really
neat car, I would like to kitbash one sometime.
Clark Propst

jaley wrote:

On Oct 10, 11:18am, ThisIsR@aol.com wrote:
Subject: [STMFC] AAR 1944 boxcars
Hello List:
What is the difference between the AAR 1937 and AAR 1944 boxcars?
I've
also seem references to "modified AAR 1937" and "12 panel cars." Is
the
"modified
AAR 1937" just the increased height car? Thank you!

Richard Stallworth
Richard,

I'll take a stab at this (from memory) and see how my answer
compares with those of the experts.

The '37 AAR car was originally built with square corner posts, and later
transitioned to "W"-section corner posts (which externally means that the
junction of the end and side went from crisp right angle to a slight
curve).

All '44 AAR cars had W-section corner posts.

--

The '37 cars had 4/5 Dreadnaught ends and 10'0" IH.
The '44 cars had 4/4 or R/3/4 Improved Dreadnaught ends and 10'6 IH. The
earlier IDE had a "rolling pin taper", whereas the later IDE have a
"banana taper".

--

The '37 cars had flat-panel roofs.
The '44 cars had diagonal-panel roofs.

I'm not sure if the presence of a different type of roof (e.g.
Viking) necessarily disqualifies a car from being an AAR; wasn't there a
recent thread on that topic?

--

The "modified '37" aka "1942 AAR" was the '37 car with a 10'6" IH and
corresponding increase in the number of end ribs to 5/5 Dreadnaught.

--

I don't know anything about the 12 panel cars.

--

I hope this helps, and I hope I got the facts right. I'm sure corrections
will be forthcoming if I'm wrong!!

Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Iron ore traffic

Clark Propst <cepropst@...>
 

Thanks Tim for the hopper rules dissertation.
The CGW served the iron ore mine at Ostrander MN. This was on their
line from McIntire IA (on Twin Cities-Oelwein main) to Rochester MN.
There was also a truck loading ramp a Stewartville (10mi S of Rochester)
were Sidney Wheeler photographed the hoppers on the CD. The CGW always
had trouble getting hoppers. Theirs seemed to get lost in the off
season. The CGW delivered coal to a power plant at Rochester. The cars
were reloaded with iron ore and sent to Granite City IL by various
routes. It's possible the CGW grabbed hoppers in the Chicago area and
sent them to MN. There are blocks of iron ore loads on the CGW train
list (listing each car by RR and # + tons) CD available for sale. Ted
has the ad on his web site. I can bring some to Naperville also.
Clark


Re: AAR 1944 boxcars

jaley <jaley@...>
 

On Oct 10, 11:18am, ThisIsR@aol.com wrote:
Subject: [STMFC] AAR 1944 boxcars
Hello List:
What is the difference between the AAR 1937 and AAR 1944 boxcars?
I've
also seem references to "modified AAR 1937" and "12 panel cars." Is
the
"modified
AAR 1937" just the increased height car? Thank you!

Richard Stallworth

Richard,

I'll take a stab at this (from memory) and see how my answer
compares with those of the experts.

The '37 AAR car was originally built with square corner posts, and later
transitioned to "W"-section corner posts (which externally means that the
junction of the end and side went from crisp right angle to a slight
curve).

All '44 AAR cars had W-section corner posts.

--

The '37 cars had 4/5 Dreadnaught ends and 10'0" IH.
The '44 cars had 4/4 or R/3/4 Improved Dreadnaught ends and 10'6 IH. The
earlier IDE had a "rolling pin taper", whereas the later IDE have a
"banana taper".

--

The '37 cars had flat-panel roofs.
The '44 cars had diagonal-panel roofs.

I'm not sure if the presence of a different type of roof (e.g.
Viking) necessarily disqualifies a car from being an AAR; wasn't there a
recent thread on that topic?

--

The "modified '37" aka "1942 AAR" was the '37 car with a 10'6" IH and
corresponding increase in the number of end ribs to 5/5 Dreadnaught.

--

I don't know anything about the 12 panel cars.

--

I hope this helps, and I hope I got the facts right. I'm sure corrections
will be forthcoming if I'm wrong!!


Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Freight car CD update

Clark Propst <cepropst@...>
 

I have made arrangements with Ted Schnepf to sell the CDs. This should
levitate any confusion in locating me.
Still the question: How many to being?
Thanks to all who have responded,
Clark


Re: 1922-1946 GATX vs. ACF Tank Car Production

Richard Hendrickson
 

In response to my post about older tank cars, Garth Groff wrote:

These are parts we need badly. Any ideas?
Parts like smaller domes, safeties on yokes, etc. aren't very useful until
we have radial course tanks to put them on. We need complete kits for the
WW I vintage tank cars, not just bits and pieces. I'm cautiously hopeful
that something along these lines may be in the works, but it's too early to
say more than that.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: 1922-1946 GATX vs. ACF Tank Car Production

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
 

On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 10:40 AM, Garth G. Groff wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

. . . tanks small(er) domes, and, in many cases, safeties on elbows
rather than on the dome tops.
Richard and friends,

These are parts we need badly. Any ideas?
Can anyone say Terry Wegmann?

Regards,
Ted Culotta


Re: 1922-1946 GATX vs. ACF Tank Car Production

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Richard and friends,

These are parts we need badly. Any ideas?

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff


Richard Hendrickson wrote:

. . . tanks small(er) domes, and, in many cases, safeties on elbows
rather than on the dome tops.


Freight Car Colors

Richard Hendrickson
 

I have resolutely avoided contributing to this lengthy and tedious thread
because I have previously said all I wanted to say on the subject, which
seems to recur on this list with monotonous regularity. However, I can't
resist pointing out that most of the views expressed here recently are
lamentably ignorant of the physics of light and color transmission as well
as the biology of human light perception.

Sure, paint chips, drift cards, and color photos are all useful sources of
information, but arguments about which ones are more trustworthy are simply
pointless. Guys, color perception is literally in the eye of the beholder,
and no two of us will ever agree about it - even if we are mindful of and
could control all of the external variables such as lighting, distance from
the object, etc. One thing is certain: painting a model in the exact same
color as its prototype is guaranteed to make it look wrong. Getting a
model to look the way its prototype looked at a particular location and
point in time is an art form and cannot be reduced to any sort of formula
or system. You will almost certainly fail if you get obsessed with finding
the ultimate evidence for the "true" color of the prototype. There ain't
no freight car color Holy Grail. Doesn't exist. Isn't out there anywhere.
So can we please give the search for it a rest?

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: AC&F tank "types" was ACF's market share

Richard Hendrickson
 

Bruce Smith writes:

Another thing...I looked through the WHOLE book waiting for a tank car
to be identified as "Type 21" or "Type 27" and then, at the very end,
Ed explains that the "Type" only applied to the FRAMES and not the
car...another myth shattered. Of course, it makes sense when you read
the captions...80xx gallon, 80yy gallons, yada yada yada...So
basically, the whole LL/IM thing is correct, but only insofar as the
designation is applied to the frame and not the tank.
Both AC&F and GATC used type designations, at least until after WW II, but
GATC's seem to have been used mostly in-house while AC&F's were made public
in the railway engineering periodicals and the Car Builders' Cylcopedias.
Technically, you're right that the AC&F type designations referred
primarily to standard underframe designs, but there were standard tank
sizes and designs to go with them, as is evident in the AC&F drawings that
were published in the Cycs. For those who haven't already figured them
out, the type designations identified the year a particular design was
introduced - i.e., the first AC&F Type 27 tank cars appeared in 1927, the
first GATC Type 30s in 1930, etc. - though there was some overlap, with
earlier types continuing to be built after those dates. Also, some
special-purpose cars had different type designations (e.g., there was an
AC&F Type 28 design, though I have yet to figure out exactly what was
different about it).

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: AAR 1944 boxcars

Richard Hendrickson
 

Richard Stallworth writes:

What is the difference between the AAR 1937 and AAR 1944 boxcars? I've
also seem references to "modified AAR 1937" and "12 panel cars." Is the
"modified AAR 1937" just the increased height car? Thank you!
The 1937 AAR 10' IH standard steel box car design was so called to
differentiate it from the 9'4" IH 1932 standard design. "Modified AAR 1937
design" refers to an increased height version of the 1937 car of up to
10'6" IH, which was approved by the AAR Committee on Car Construction in
October of 1941 (and is also sometimes refered to as the 1941 AAR standard
box car). Officially, there was no AAR 1944 standard design, but that
terminology is often used by modelers to identify postwar versions of the
AAR standard design which had Improved Dreadnaught ends (and, often, after
ca. 1946, postwar style corrugated doors and, beginning ca. 1948,
diagonal-panel Murphy roofs). Of course, the AAR standard designs
accomodated variations in roofs, ends, doors, and appliances as specified
by the buyers/builders. One variation adopted by some railroads
(especially after WW II) was to place the side posts closer together so
that there were six side sheathing rivet seams on each side of the door
instead of five - hence "twelve panel." Part of Richard's confusion stems
from the fact that modelers have had to adopt their own ad hoc terminology
to identify variations which the official AAR terminology didn't bother to
differentiate.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: 1922-1946 GATX vs. ACF Tank Car Production

Richard Hendrickson
 

The numbers compiled by Tim Gilbert are interesting and useful. Some
comments follow.

Tank Car production was highly cyclical. In terms of tank cars ordered
(not quite the same thing as cars built), the cyclicality can be shown
in the numbers in five year segments which include total, average per
year and the high-low range of annual orders in each five year segment:

Total Avg/Yr Low-High Range per Year
1911-15 13,517 2,703/ 1,840-4,007
1916-20 58,631 11,628/ 5,958-15,631
1921-25 20,294 4,059/ 327-6,003
1926-30 19,977 3,995/ 2,585-5,930
1931-35 1,236 247/ 52-341
1936-40 10,711 2,141/ 230-5,745
1941-45 7,959 1,592/ 556-2,800
1946-50 25,930 5,078/ 834-8,651
The huge bulge in production in the 1916-1020 era can be accounted for in
three ways. First, the explosive increase in use of the internal
combustion engine (yeah, I know, it's a bad pun), not only in motor
vehicles but in various industrial uses, aircraft, etc. Second, the
increased demand for petroleum products generated by World War I, the first
mechanized war. Third, the anti-trust actions that broke Union Tank Line's
stranglehold on the North American tank car fleet and opened the way for
competition from leasing companies like General American and for the
petroleum producers to own their own cars. Those cars, plus the relatively
large number of cars produced in the 1920s, provided the petroleum industry
with all the transport capacity it needed, especially since pipelines
rapidly provided a cheaper and more efficient way to move petroleum
products on high-volume routes. It may be added that most of those cars
lasted in service until after WW II and many survived through the 1960s,
often recycled through several owners.

The sharp decline in 1931-35 was, of course, a consequence of the post-1929
economic depression, while the increase in 1936-40 reflected the
post-depression recovery and the growth of traffic owning to the onset of
WW II. It's worth noting that not many of the cars built in the late 1930s
were ordinary ICC-103s; by that time, most production was devoted to tank
cars for specialized service (acids, chlorine and other chemicals, etc.).
That was even more true in 1946-50, when many of the new cars were high
pressure ICC-105s for LPG service, LPG having emerged as a widely used fuel
for industrial and (especially in rural areas) domestic purposes.

From a modeler's point of view, this means that the vast majority of
ordinary (i.e., ICC-103/ARA III) tank cars in service during the late 1940s
through the 1950s were relative antiques, having been built twenty or
thirty years earlier and often with such "period" construction features as
radial-course tanks small(er) domes, and, in many cases, safeties on elbows
rather than on the dome tops. Unfortunately, there have been few models of
cars from WW I vintage, and those few only in brass. There's a need here
for good styrene (or resin) models, but since they would be a challenge to
tool and since most modelers don't know enough history to realize they need
them, it's a need that no mfr. has so far been inclined to meet.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: Help for Bowser

Scott Pitzer
 

"credentials" are needed to see the artwork pages.
Scott Pitzer


-----We are looking for some information. Can you Help??
We need the body color for the following 2 Bay GLa look alike hopper.
See the HO car main page on the web site for drawings of the artwork.

165121 - 165140 of 189741