Dave Nelson wrote:

Are the old hands obligated to anwswer *every* n00b's
question, even those that have been dealt with many times before?

In my

opinion, the answer is no.

=======================

Dave Husman replies with:

Is any one person obligated, no.

Is the list obligated, yes.

The basic purpose of the list is to share information. If someone
asks a question and those who know don't answer, then information
isn't being shared.

The STMFC charter clearly states:

"The purpose of this list is to discuss all aspects of North American freight cars of the steam era [ 1900-1960 ]. The objectives include the sharing of information about railroad freight cars including their operation and various techniques of building models of them."

Thus, while sharing information IS an objective, the purpose for the group is to provide a forum for discussion. I should know because I formed the group...along with 30 others including both Richard Hendrickson and Dave Nelson. Let me make it very clear. Neither the group nor any member is obligated to do anything...except follow the rules. One of the pleasant aspects of the group is that members DO respond with answers to questions and, being somewhat knowledgeable about certain aspects of railroad history, I can say that, commonly, responses require some research...requiring time and effort. When a member has done this a number of times with regard to the same subject, it is to be expected, I think, for the member to show impatience, particularly when carefully researched information is ignored by members who were privy to previous discussions. The group was formed, however, for discussion, so diverse views on a subject should be expected. At the same time, many members might not be aware of the growth of the group...which now includes 1050 members. Hence, many "newbies" [ and the term is not meant as an insult but merely to indicate new to the group ] have not been through some of the discussions. It is apparent that some type of history needs to be maintained of some of the more technical and pertinent messages. I'll look into this.




I would be suprised if the same basic questions

didn't keep popping up. They do on every other list I have
subscribed to.

It IS true that no subject within scope should be considered out of bounds. At the same time, the solution seems to be a searchable library.

And that's exactly what all the "noob's" are thinking when they ask a
question. Evidently they will be disappointed.

I don't think so.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner

Thanks Dave for your wise input.

As far as MY being a "noob", "newbie", "new-ninny" or whatever
the "intellectual-click" chooses to use, I've been in railroading
for 56 years, actually starting when I was 3. There just happened to
be a few questions that I'd never delved into after all these
wonderful years, and thought these "wonders of knowledge" would be
of some commeraderie-help.

Most groups always have somebody in them that trys to take over,
the "old-hats" who bloat their heads up about how "smart" they are.
It's all part of the arrogant-side of the human-mind. "a little
knowledge is dangerous.", is the old saying.

If you "wise-guys" are so bored with some of these "dumb" questions,
just don't answer,......at least not with some raw insult.

Either that, or I should find a better group which caters more
kindly to dolts!!

Paul Hillman



--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "dehusman" <dehusman@c...> wrote:

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Nelson" <muskoka@c...> wrote:

Are the old hands obligated to anwswer *every* n00b's
question, even those that have been dealt with many times

before?

In my

opinion, the answer is no.

=======================
Is any one person obligated, no.

Is the list obligated, yes.

The basic purpose of the list is to share information. If someone
asks a question and those who know don't answer, then information
isn't being shared. I would be suprised if the same basic

questions

didn't keep popping up. They do on every other list I have
subscribed to.

I guess it depends on how you visualize the list as a
single "research project" where you cover each item in sequence

and

never back over it or a "school" where a new class enrolls every

year

and the same basics get covered year after year.
===========================

In the meanwhile the best I can hope for is the continued

PUBLISHING

and SHARING by those who are better informed than I... and by

and

large I

will be grateful to receive whatever they happen to share.

===========================
And that's exactly what all the "noob's" are thinking when they

ask a

question. Evidently they will be disappointed.

Dave H.

Looking for a match for the GATX ICC, 103B-W 8,000 gal. car.
Anyone on the list have a good idea of what car is currenlt the
closest to the one in question? Thanks

Fred Freitas

Listers,
This class of PFE car is described as being wood ends & sides
with steel roof; and refreshed with paint in 1953. Are there any
other wood sided cars that would be appropriate for this era in the
PFE fleet? Thanks

Fred Freitas

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Nelson" <muskoka@c...> wrote:

Are the old hands obligated to anwswer *every* n00b's
question, even those that have been dealt with many times before?

In my

opinion, the answer is no.

=======================
Is any one person obligated, no.

Is the list obligated, yes.

The basic purpose of the list is to share information. If someone
asks a question and those who know don't answer, then information
isn't being shared. I would be suprised if the same basic questions
didn't keep popping up. They do on every other list I have
subscribed to.

I guess it depends on how you visualize the list as a
single "research project" where you cover each item in sequence and
never back over it or a "school" where a new class enrolls every year
and the same basics get covered year after year.
===========================

In the meanwhile the best I can hope for is the continued PUBLISHING
and SHARING by those who are better informed than I... and by and

large I

will be grateful to receive whatever they happen to share.

===========================
And that's exactly what all the "noob's" are thinking when they ask a
question. Evidently they will be disappointed.

Dave H.

Isn't the STMFC list supposed to be a source for all of this type of
knowledge, for those of us out here who aren't so privy to such "secret"
information?

Yeah but Paul, for those of us who have been thru this issue many, many
times it *is* off-putting. You need to be aware that many here have been
doing freight cars on the internet since the early 1996. And of course
others are brand new. Are the old hands obligated to anwswer *every* n00b's
question, even those that have been dealt with many times before? In my
opinion, the answer is no.

BTW, it strikes me as rather offensive to suggest people here keep secrets.
Far more likely they're bored, busy, or just indifferent to answering. For
instance, I could have added a few thoughts in on the solid bearing
terminology question... by virtue of the fact that I have been fortuante
enough to purchase a number of cyclopedias and have taken the time to read
instead of just looking at the pictures. But I didn't. That's not keeping
secrets; it's not bothering ONE MORE TIME. Indeed, there are other more
interesting things to do.

Perhaps if the STMFC would produce a FAQ page, like an encyclopedia, then
many of these discussions would be unnecessary and we could refer to the
FAQ's instead of each other.

Perhaps you could start one. Surely many will appreciate a comprehensive
work. In the meanwhile the best I can hope for is the continued PUBLISHING
and SHARING by those who are better informed than I... and by and large I
will be grateful to receive whatever they happen to share.

Mike Brock,....Is this bordering on "Flaming" us ignorant-slobs out here?

I'm sure Mike will remind us all of the official policy.

Dave Nelson

http://cgi.ebay.com/1905-PITTSBURG-LAKE-ERIE-RAILROAD-FREIGHT-BOOK_W0QQitemZ6556436595QQcategoryZ413
2QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

In spite of what my wife thinks there are limits to what I collect. This 1905 directory is within
list limits timewise, and would be a good way to understand what shippers there were (and
consignees, too, I expect) on the P&LE. Therefore, you would know more about what steam-era freight
cars would be required, both in- and out-bound.

SGL

To Richard Hendrickson,

Thanks for all the fine and inside info on this subject of roller-bearing trucks, just what I've been seeking for, as well as apparently others. However, I find it unusual for you to say;

"By the way, this has all been covered in published
sources as well as in previous discussions on the STMFC list, so the
recent deluge on the list of opinion and speculation masquerading as
fact on this subject is really quite UNWARRANTED, not to say TIRESOME
for those of us who have been paying attention to these matters for a
long time."

and;

"Those of us on this list who carry out serious prototype research,...."

Oh, excuse me, only your "clan" does??

and;

"Others on the list may, of course,
use any terminology they like, but should be aware that their choices
may lead others to doubt their seriousness and their credibility."

Isn't the STMFC list supposed to be a source for all of this type of knowledge, for those of us out here who aren't so privy to such "secret" information?

Perhaps if the STMFC would produce a FAQ page, like an encyclopedia, then many of these discussions would be unnecessary and we could refer to the FAQ's instead of each other.

Mike Brock,....Is this bordering on "Flaming" us ignorant-slobs out here?

Paul Hillman

Link to photos of the GHQ N scale preproduction models:

http://www.railimages.com/gallery/martinmcguirk/aab

Marty McGuirk

On Aug 27, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Richard Brennan wrote:

Browsing through Kaminski's AC&F Centennial History book; the last
ACF tank car builder's photo I see with high walkways is circa-1915,
and the first with a modern (or should that be moderne?) tank-top
operating platform is dated 1934 .

Both AC&F and the Standard Tank Car Co. (then the largest producer of tank cars in North America) built tank cars of standard design with high running boards until ca. 1915, and Union Tank Line Class V and X cars of that era (by several different builders) had running boards about 1/3 of the way up the sides of the tank. It's not clear why the practice of building tank cars with high running boards was discontinued, but trainmen doubtless complained vigorously about having to climb down the ladders on adjacent cars to gain access to tank car end sills and then having to climb up the ladders to the high running board. reversing the process at the other end of the car. At any rate, the United States Safety Appliance regulations that initially took effect in 1911 had provisions for both high mounted and low mounted tank car running boards but those for Class III tank cars built after 1917 assume that the running boards will be approximately level with the top of the center sills, so apparently no cars of Class III specification were built with high running boards.

What occasioned these changes.. and why was there such a long
transition period to the now universal top platform design? It
appears that cars without platforms were built well into the late
1950s... Was it simply buyer preference... or was there a change in
AAR or DOT regulations?

As for railed dome platforms, those began to appear in the 1920s on cars which were loaded and unloaded through the dome rather than through bottom outlets, or which required workmen to access the top of the car to connect steam lines to the car's heating coils. Some buyers specified platforms while others made do with narrow walkways alongside the domes (often on only one side of the car) depending on the loading and unloading arrangements the cars were likely to encounter in service. Such dome platforms were required on Class V (high pressure) tank cars, as their "domes" were in fact not expansion domes but valve casings, and these cars were loaded and unloaded entirely through the valves and connections inside the casings. Other types of tank cars continued to be built well into the 1960s without such platforms.

Richard Hendrickson

Dean Payne wrote:
"Any photos of these cars [NP 14000 series boxcars], prototype or other
scale?"

Ted's Steam Era Freight Cars website is still there, you know:
http://www.steamfreightcars.com/gallery/boxauto/np14160main.html


"Funaro also makes some NP 40' DS boxcars, but with truss rods, in a
different # series, so that can't be
correct. Perhaps similar in appearance, though."

...in that they're both 40 ft DS boxcars with radial roof with a definite NP
"family" appearance, but they are NOT the same car.
http://www.steamfreightcars.com/gallery/boxauto/np39731main.html
http://www.fandckits/HO/1007.html
http://www.fandckits/HO/1008.html

The corresponding HO scale kits are the Sunshine 52.x series kits.


Ben Hom

At 05:51 PM 8/27/05, Gary Laakso wrote:

Subject: RE:
I understood that the Milwaukee was one of the first railroads to place
roller bearings on its heavy weight passenger cars. Does anyone know if
the use of roller bearings included express reefers on the Milwaukee?

The only traditional express reefers that the Milwaukee owned with two series of distinctive low slung cars built by the Milwaukee shops fortheChicago Milwaukee & Puget Sound,and they were lettered "For Fish Service Only". Photos of these cars are few are far between, and several lasted to about 1953, To my knowledge, they never had roller bearings applied, and they were generally retired from front line work in about 1934.

I am having a brain bubble (I am also on vacation and away from sources) so am absolutely unsure whether or not the Milwaukee built several ribside reefers in c. 1941. If so, my impression is that they were primarily for freight service and did not have roller bearings. I am prepared to be corrected.

Of interest is that although the Milwaukee leaped into the roller bearing business four square for their prime passenger equipment after 1928, they never did so with their freight cars.

Denny

Richard Brennan wrote:

Browsing through Kaminski's AC&F Centennial History book . . .
and the first with a modern (or should that be moderne?) tank-top
operating platform is dated 1934 .
. . . why was there such a long
transition period to the now universal top platform design? It
appears that cars without platforms were built well into the late
1950s... Was it simply buyer preference... or was there a change in
AAR or DOT regulations?

I am not sure why you think platforms are more "modern." As I understand it, they are just a reflection of what a buyer orders. Before World War II there were not very many tank cars in chemical service, and so the need for access to specialized valves and fittings did not exist. This is described and illustrated in Kaminski's book on AC&F tank cars.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

Hello,

Kodak are not the only suppliers on Planet Earth who manufacture and
supply photographic paper.

For b&w, I only use Ilford products. A search for Ilford on Google,
for a start, came up with

http://www.ausmedia.com.au/ilford.htm

Regards,

Glen Mills

On Aug 27, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Montford Switzer wrote:

This has been quite a lengthy thread and this may have been covered
earlier. Anyway one reason for the railroads NOT to invest in roller
bearing trucks was that the cars spent a lot of time off line benefiting
another railroad that may not have made a similar investment.

Mont is, as usual, correct. Immediately following WW II, several railroads equipped freight cars with roller bearings for on-line service (e.g., the Union Pacific's Day Livestock Service stock cars, the C&O's unit train hoppers). But none of the North American railroads were willing to spend the extra money to equip cars in interchange service with roller bearings, since other RRs would then get much of the benefit without having to spend their own capital. As 100 ton nominal capacity freight cars began to appear in growing numbers in the late 1950s, however, it was found that solid bearing trucks would not perform reliably carrying that much weight, and once the application of roller bearing trucks to 100 ton cars became common practice, the resistance to putting them on cars of lower capacity rapidly diminished, especially as their elimination of hot journals came to be increasingly appreciated by both mechanical and operating departments. By the way, this has all been covered in published sources as well as in previous discussions on the STMFC list, so the recent deluge on the list of opinion and speculation masquerading as fact on this subject is really quite unwarranted, not to say tiresome for those of us who have been paying attention to these matters for a long time.

With regard to terminology, I will say yet again what Tony Thompson has already asserted on this subject, that "friction bearing" was a term used as a promotional ploy by the roller bearing manufacturers to imply that roller bearing were "non-friction bearings," which is, of course, nonsense. That it may have gained some currency in later years with railroad employees is beside the point. During the steam/transition era, which is our concern on this list, the terms used almost universally in the railroad engineering literature for conventional bearings were "solid" or "plain" bearings, as anyone can determine by spending a little time reading that literature (e.g., Car Builders' Cyclopedias and periodicals such as Railway Mechanical Engineer). That an exception to this practice was found in a single, rather dated, publication proves nothing to the contrary.

Those of us on this list who carry out serious prototype research generally prefer to use the terms that were common to the engineering literature where different from those used by the working stiffs who ran trains and maintained rolling stock, a preference which in no way reflects any lack of respect for the working stiffs but does reflect a desire for clarity and consistency. Others on the list may, of course, use any terminology they like, but should be aware that their choices may lead others to doubt their seriousness and their credibility.

Richard Hendrickson

Re N Scale NP 7 CN resin cars:

--- Dean Payne <deanpayne@netscape.com> wrote:

Any photos of these cars, prototype or other scale?
Is the reefer
the same one Funaro and Camerlengo makes in HO?

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/279-5131

You are right, the F&C car is the same car that GHQ
will be offering.

I have some slides of the 14000 series NP boxcar, but
I have not yet scanned them.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

All

Browsing through Kaminski's AC&F Centennial History book; the last ACF tank car builder's photo I see with high walkways is circa-1915, and the first with a modern (or should that be moderne?) tank-top operating platform is dated 1934 .

What occasioned these changes.. and why was there such a long transition period to the now universal top platform design? It appears that cars without platforms were built well into the late 1950s... Was it simply buyer preference... or was there a change in AAR or DOT regulations?


===============================
Richard Brennan - San Leandro, CA
mailto:brennan8@earthlink.net
===============================

On Saturday, August 27, 2005, at 10:54 AM, ed_mines wrote:

Anyone know anything about the Pittsburgh freight car book that was
supposed to be released at the NMRA convention?

The Fowler box car Ed Hawkins' was going to produce?

Ed Mines

Ed,
I don' know where your second question came from, but you must have me
mixed up with somebody else. I've never been in the business to make
Fowler box cars.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

Any photos of these cars, prototype or other scale? Is the reefer
the same one Funaro and Camerlengo makes in HO?

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/279-5131

At $30 ea. less trucks and couplers, it looks like the N Scale
offering is priced right. Funaoro also makes some NP 40' DS boxcars,
but with truss rods, in a different # series, so that can't be
correct. Perhaps similar in appearance, though.
Dean Payne

Maybe there will be more discussions on freight cars there than here<GG>

So as not to be off topic, has anyone converted a tank car with the low walkways into one of the older cars with the high walkways? Canadian National had some of these in their fleet and I'd like to make one sometime.

Don't forget to change the subject line when you reply!!

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.16/83 - Release Date: 8/26/05