Date   

Re: Truck Journals

Paul Hillman
 

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


Re: RTR Resin-is Here now

cvsne <mjmcguirk@...>
 

Link to photos of the GHQ N scale preproduction models:

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

Marty McGuirk


Re: High walkways, Low walkways, Platforms... on Tank cars

Richard Hendrickson
 

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


Re: RTR Resin-is Here now

Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...>
 

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


Re: Solid, Roller & Friction Bearing Journals

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

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


Re: High walkways, Low walkways, Platforms... on Tank cars

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

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


Re: Digest Number 2633

Glen Mills <mills.glen@...>
 

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

Message: 16
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:51:50 -0000
From: "ed_mines" <ed_mines@yahoo.com>
Subject: freight car photos

The inability to get traditional silver halide based photogrpahic
paper will probably shut down some of the other men who offer B&W
prints and it is unlikely that older men will spend $1000 on a new
type of photo processor.

Ed Mines


Re: Truck Journals

Richard Hendrickson
 

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


CN & NP RTR Resin-is Here now

Andy Carlson
 

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


High walkways, Low walkways, Platforms... on Tank cars

Richard Brennan <brennan8@...>
 

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


Re: Pittsburgh freight car book/USA mfg Fowler

Ed Hawkins
 

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


Re: RTR Resin-is Here now

Dean Payne <deanpayne@...>
 

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

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Andy Carlson <midcentury@s...> wrote:
Though N Scale, It appears to that the first
commercial Resin Boxcar is being released. GHQ, a
maker of very well done N scale items, has announced
production of NP 40' DS Fish Belly underframed 14000
series boxcars in RTR resin. this is to be followed by
an NP 90000 wood side reefer sometime later (Early 06
release). Close behind is a Canadian National 8 hatch
Reefer in series 209500-209999. these cars are cast
from patterns made by Gregory Scott, and are cast in
resin for the car body, and cast pewter for the fish
belly underframe. Assembly, painting and lettering are
done in China.
<SNIP> for brevity
Though not cheap, at $39.95 per car ($149.95 4/pac),
they are a bargain for people desiring good finished
cars w/o the work. These cars will be available only
directly from GHQ 28100 Woodside Rd Shorewood MN
55331

-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


Re: ADMIN: RREVNT

PBowers <waiting@...>
 

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!!

At 04:30 PM 8/27/05, you wrote:

Given that there is some interest in listing and discussing railroad
associated meets, train shows, and gatherings, I have created a new group:
RREVNT@yahoogroups.com
--
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


ADMIN: RREVNT

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Given that there is some interest in listing and discussing railroad
associated meets, train shows, and gatherings, I have created a new group:
RREVNT@yahoogroups.com

expressly for such purposes. To subscribe:

RREVNT-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Members are free to discuss any aspect of a RR gathering...within, of course, the group's rules. This includes Springfield, Mass., Springfield, Missouri, Springfield, IL, Springfield, OR, Springfield, OH, or even Springfield, FL...wherever that is....or any other Springfield...God, how many are there?<G>. You can even list and discuss the show at Tareja, Russia...if you can find it.

Here are the group's rules:

This group is a forum and repository to list and discuss railroad associated
meets, shows, conventions and similar gatherings.

Personal attacks on other members is expressly prohibited and may result in
expulsion from the group.

Attacks on meets, shows, conventions and similar gatherings are
prohibited and may result in expulsion from the group.

ALL SUBJECTS OTHER THAN THOSE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH RAILROAD
ASSOCIATED GATHERINGS ARE PROHIBITED.

Threads or subjects may be terminated only by myself or my
representatives. When threads/subjects are terminated, members are expected
to avoid sending messages associated with such threads/subjects.

All references to politics or political views are prohibited.

Members must sign messages with their full names.

Members may at any time bring any matter relating to
the RREVNT to me privately for consideration.

Members may announce the particulars about any RR gathering as a
message and also include it in the files section.

Mike Brock
RREVNT Owner


Dr. Nicholas Muff

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
 

Does anyone have an email address for Dr. Muff of KCS fame? It's freight car related, Mike....

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@speedwitch.com
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912


Re: Harrisburg (was Pittsburgh) freight car book

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
 

On Aug 27, 2005, at 1:54 PM, ed_mines wrote:

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

It's Harrisburg, not Pittsburgh. It was delayed for a few reasons, but it's nearing completion.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@speedwitch.com
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912


Pittsburgh freight car book/USA mfg Fowler

ed_mines
 

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


freight car photos

ed_mines
 

We are entering kind of a lull for obtaining freight car photos.

Some of the best sources from the past no longer offer prints - Will
Whittaker, Charles Winters, Frank Ellington ...... I think all are
still alive but old age has taken it's toll.

The inability to get traditional silver halide based photogrpahic
paper will probably shut down some of the other men who offer B&W
prints and it is unlikely that older men will spend $1000 on a new
type of photo processor.

I see a light in the tunnel though - as those new digital printers
get less expensive maybe the Smithsonian, Cal State RR museum, NMRA
library, Hagley museum and Ed Hawkins will get those printers and
start producing photos in house. I've gotten good freight car prints
from the first 3 organizations but their current prices are
unbeleiveably high.

I'm very glad builders photos of some cars are available - they are
the only ones I have of some cars I'd like to model. I'm glad too
that Erie had an official photographer who took a lot of "railroad
scenes" photos.

Ed Mines


Re: Solid, Roller & Friction Bearing Journals

Paul Hillman
 

Yo Al,

Is there any chance that you could scan a photo of these 1925 roller-bearing trucks and send it or post it to pictures? (Without the problem of another copyright infringement thread?)

Also, to paraphrase Bill Shakespeare, "A journal by any other name would smoke the same." I'm just a sleazy electrical-engineer. What do I know about the more mechanical-stuff too? Still learning!!

Paul Hillman

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03<mailto:abrown@fit.edu>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 11:34 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Solid, Roller & Friction Bearing Journals


I'm just a chem major Tony, in other fields I'm lucky if my subjects &
verbs agree never mind correct usage of tecknickle terms. :-)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

P.S. Oh, and right after hitting "send" on my previous post, I noticed
another picture of those inside-bearing roller-bearing trucks, this
time on a hopper. Same book, page facing the other pix. Also
installed '25.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>, Anthony Thompson <thompson@s<mailto:thompson@s>...> wrote:
> Al Brown wrote:
>
> > A test was run, comparing its rolling
> > qualities to those of a sister car with friction bearings . . .
>
> Tsk, tsk. Still using the term <g>.
>
> Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
> 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com<http://www.signaturepress.com/>
> (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@s<mailto:thompson@s>...
> Publishers of books on railroad history






Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Solid, Roller & Friction Bearing Journals

al_brown03
 

I'm just a chem major Tony, in other fields I'm lucky if my subjects &
verbs agree never mind correct usage of tecknickle terms. :-)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

P.S. Oh, and right after hitting "send" on my previous post, I noticed
another picture of those inside-bearing roller-bearing trucks, this
time on a hopper. Same book, page facing the other pix. Also
installed '25.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@s...> wrote:
Al Brown wrote:

A test was run, comparing its rolling
qualities to those of a sister car with friction bearings . . .
Tsk, tsk. Still using the term <g>.

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@s...
Publishers of books on railroad history

142621 - 142640 of 187333