Date   

Re: Freight car flooring

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

A.T. Kott, ChE, wrote:
Gene - Pentachlorophenol IS creosote.
It may be the active part in preserving wood, but creosote contains a heck of a lot of other stuff too, as I'm sure Mr. Kott knows very well. For another example, you MIGHT say, "wine IS alcohol," and yes, it's the active part . . .

Anthony Thompson
Dept. of Materials Science & Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
thompsonmarytony@sbcglobal.net


Re: Freight car floors

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Garth Groff wrote:
You are probably right about not treating the decks on flat cars in the
past, but a preserved car today is a somewhat different matter. Back in
1999 a volunteer group restored Oakland & Antioch flat car 2002 for the
CSRM during Railfair '99. Apparently untreated lumber was used for the
deck. Within a few years the deck had warped so badly that the car had
to be withdrawn from display.
Garth, what I was told was that somebody in that volunteer group decided to save a few bucks and not use kiln-dried wood. Maybe Denny Anspach can tell us more on that topic.

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: Freight car floors

Barrybennetttoo@...
 

There is also a factor in the way the timber was treated after felling and
after sawing to lumber. The tree trunk may have been stored for several months,
or even years, before it was sawn, to allow the timber to dry out properly.
The same after being sawn to allow any warpage to develop and be flattened
out in the lumber pile.

Modern timber is sawn almost immediately after felling, and then dried in a
kiln. This dries it out all right but only to the extent that as soon as it
comes into contact with damp of any sort it just acts like a sponge and soaks
it up. Next step, warpage. That is tha reason for so many water proofing
treatments nowadays, but they need to be applied as soon as possible after
removing from the kiln or the plastic wrapping.

You are paying a lot of money for lumber that is little better than firewood
of a century ago.

Cheers

Barry Bennett


Decals for SAL 40ft PS-1 boxcars

Mark Heiden
 

Hello everyone,

I'm looking for decals to letter a Seaboard Air Line 40ft PS-1 boxcar
from series SAL 24000-24499, built October, 1948. The cars carried
slogans, 24000-24299 lettered The Route of Courteous Service, and
24300-24499 The Route of the Silver Comet. Would Champ HB-8 be
correct for the as-delivered Courteous Service scheme of cars 24000-
24299? Are there any decals that could be used for the Silver Comet
scheme of cars 24300-24499?

Thanks,
Mark Heiden


Re: freight car floors

Randy Hees <hees@...>
 

By coincidence I was the project manager for the SN MW 32 project for the SPCRR (www.spcrr.org <http://www.spcrr.org/>). The project goal was to rebuild the car, using hand tools, over the 9 days of Railfair 99.

In this case the deck boards were treated with 2 coats of a clear �log oil� treatment on all 4 sides (more on the ends). Additionally, the lumber was supposed to be from an old growth, standing dead (fire killed) tree. We approach painting and rot treatment on restored cars more carefully than the typical practices of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, as these cars will not see consumptive service, and therefore will rot before they are destroyed in service. In this case the frame members got 3 coats of paint on all surfaces. The warped deck was unexpected. By the way, I can find no reference to vertical grain lumber having been specified for freight car construction (but have in some cases for depot siding) Kirkman includes references to the grade system being used. It is possible that 19th century railroad lumber buyers expects vertical grain (aka quarter sawn) lumber, but there is not much in the way of hard evidence of railroads specifying such lumber.

Several of us involved in the 1999 project are hatching a plot to fix the problems, and return the car to display. I would like to return the shed body and other �work car� additions.

As you noted, examination of the castings during restoration suggested the car was built for the earlier Oakland & Antioch (1909 -1911). The trucks appear not to have been the original Holman trucks, but instead are later replacement used SP 30 ton trucks.

For us freight car wonks, the car had fabricated strap iron bolsters, wooden draft timbers (with different styles of draft stops and springs at each end, it had a hard life) and used cast sill pockets for the center and intermediate sills but had mortise and tenon joints on the side sills. It had been fitted with AB brakes in about 1952.

Randy Hees


Garth G. Groff wrote:

You are probably right about not treating the decks on flat cars in the past, but a preserved car today is a somewhat different matter. Back in 1999 a volunteer group restored Oakland & Antioch flat car 2002 for the CSRM during Railfair '99. Apparently untreated lumber was used for the deck. Within a few years the deck had warped so badly that the car had to be withdrawn from display. When I was there last year the car had still not been repaired, and given the tight money at the museum it may be a long time before this historically significant car is again available for display or study.

The car was, by the way, built by Holman Car Co. of San Francisco in 1911. It passed to successor Oakland, Antioch & Eastern around 1913, then to the Sacramento Northern Railway in 1929 as MW 32. The car was eventually fitted with a small crane and a tool shed, which is why it survived long enough to be donated to the CSRM in the 1970s.


Re: sunshine kits

Schuyler Larrabee
 

On Wed, January 18, 2006 8:06 pm, Schuyler Larrabee wrote:

And, on the subject of changes, a recent New Products listing in a
magazine said shipping charges were $5, not the $4 we're used to.
Does anyone know if that's right?

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon

So what if it isn't? One more buck for the quality
products you get
in return won't kill the deal, will it?

SGL
Hey Schuyler,

For folks who read <fill in the blank>, we've got a very
special deal <VBG>!

The latest flyer from Martin arrived last week and it says $4.00

Regards
Bruce
My point is, Bruce, that tossing an extra buck into the check to more properly compensate Martin for
the work he does is NOT inappropriate. If you're that tight for the buck, keep it.

SGL


Calling Pat Wider

golden1014
 

Pat, please drop me a line at Golden1014@yahoo.com at
your convenience. I managed to delete your home
e-mail, and I can't seem to extract your entire e-mail
address from the group site.

Thanks,
JG

John Golden
O'Fallon, IL
http://www.pbase.com/golden1014

Hosting the St. Louis RPM Meet
25-26 Aug 2006 9AM to 9PM
at the Gateway Convention Center
One Gateway Center Dr.
Collinsville, IL, 62234


Re: Conversion percentages.

David Smith <dsmith@...>
 

Most copiers have this sort of bias and anyone photocopying plans should
be aware that, even without reduction, there will commonly be a change
in length in the horizontal (scanning) direction. Repeatedly
photocopying photocopies magnifies the distortion. Photocopying once,
then rotating the copy 90 degrees and copying it again cancels the
distortion but does subtly change the overall scale. Scanners may show
similar effects.

Dave Smith, who knows this from having to reproduce perfect circles for
structural geology classes

David L. Smith, Ph.D.
Director of Professional Development
Da Vinci Discovery Center, Allentown, PA
http://www.davinci-center.org <http://www.davinci-center.org/>

"Who will pick up where Leonardo left off?"



One more thing, a machine I had in my office would be different
reductions in
the two principal directions. 85% LtoR would be about 83% Top to
bottom. That machine got
replaced. But putting lines in both directions will reveal this.


Re: sunshine kits

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

Jim Hayes asked:
"...on the subject of changes, a recent New Products listing in a
magazine said shipping charges were $5, not the $4 we're used to. Does
anyone know if that's right?"

It's still listed as $4 in the flyer packet I received postmarked 4
January; however, bear in mind that the Priority Mail rate also
increased in conjunction with the recent First Class Mail rate
increase, so it's not surprising.

Besides, I'm with Schuyler on this one. After seeing someone try to
charge $11.00 shipping for a single Westerfield kit on eBay (seller
located in CONUS), $5 for five kits seems entirely reasonable.


Ben Hom


Re: USRA panel side hoppers in the late 50's

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

Brett Whelan asked:
"I'm modeling 1958 and would like to model a USRA panel side hopper.
I haven't been able find any photographic evidence that any USRA
(30' 6" inside length) panel side cars existed this late."

Tim O'Connor wrote:
"Try looking at SLSF, Rock Island, Wabash, Ann Arbor, NYC... I know
there were non-panel side USRA rebuilds in the 60's but I'm not sure
of the panel side cars."

Wabash/Ann Arbor: Chet French covered the Wabash cars. The Ann
Arbor panel side cars, AA 30700-30724 were actually the 33 ft IL
panel side cars built new for the Wabash, accurately modeled in HO
using Stan Rydarowicz's conversion kit using a laser cut Athearn
carbody with resin blister panels. You can also use the Pikestuff
panels in a pinch, but they're not 100% accurate.

SL-SF: SL-SF 88000-89499 (originally 86000-89499), 803 cars
remaining in January 1959. Photo and diagram are from the pay side
of the RPI website:
http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/rolling-stock/Hoppers/Twins/HM-panel-
Frisco.jpg
http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/rolling-stock/Hoppers/Twins/HM-panel-
SLSF-diagram.jpg

RI: RI 89895-89999, ex-SL-SF panel side rebuilds leased from US
Railway Equipment Co. in 1956, 104 cars remaining in January 1959.
Photo in November 1988 issue of Model RailroadING.

NYCS: NYC 850100-850167, Lot 640-H, rebuilt 1936. Terry Link's
website indicates cars lasted until 1958; no cars in January 1959
ORER.
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/nyc-850126.jpg

NYC 850300-850399, Lot 645-H, rebuilt 1936, 34 cars remaining in
January 1959.

P&LE 37000-38418, Lot 651-H, rebuilt 1937, 1024 cars remaining in
January 1959.
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/p&le-37314.jpg
Some cars rebuilt a second time without panel sides during the 1950s:
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/p&le-37578.jpg

Thanks to Terry Link for sharing the NYCS information on his website!
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/NYC-MODELS-FREIGHT.htm

MP: MP 58000-58749 (common series with non-rebuilt cars),
USRA "clones", 117 panel side cars remaining in January 1959.

Retired by 1958: C&O, NYC 850210-850299 (Lot 641-H), NYC 850400-
850599 (Lot 646-H), NYC 850600-851180 (Lot 653-H), NYC 851200-851299
(Lot 655-H), P&LE 38500-39499 (Lot 665-H), NYC 850180-850189 (Lot
674-H), NH, WAB.

[The above information covers only USRA twins and "clones". It DOES
NOT cover pre-WWI 30 ft IL cars rebuilt with panel sides by CN, CV,
NYC, or PRR.]


Ben Hom


Re: sunshine kits

Bruce Smith
 

On Wed, January 18, 2006 8:06 pm, Schuyler Larrabee wrote:

And, on the subject of changes, a recent New Products listing
in a magazine said shipping charges were $5, not the $4 we're
used to. Does anyone know if that's right?

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon

So what if it isn't? One more buck for the quality products you get in
return won't kill the deal,
will it?

SGL
Hey Schuyler,

For folks who read <fill in the blank>, we've got a very special deal <VBG>!

The latest flyer from Martin arrived last week and it says $4.00

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Conversion percentages.

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Rod's point here is a good one. I just emailed Denny off-line that the factor is 0.7348, which is
64/87.1. Some copiers will do this level of precision, but even those are not COMPLETELY reliable.
Using the known length of line to get a reduced length so one can check the machine's capabilities
is a very good idea. One more thing, a machine I had in my office would be different reductions in
the two principal directions. 85% LtoR would be about 83% Top to bottom. That machine got
replaced. But putting lines in both directions will reveal this.

If it's critical, you should get this done photographically. It's increasingly hard to find shops
that can do this, but not impossible.

SGL

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Rod Miller
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:12 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Conversion percentages.

Hi Denny,

The method Jerry White showed me was to draw/tape a line that
was a specific length in the scale of the image to be
enlarged/reduced.
E.g., an O scale (1:48) drawing would have a line, say, 2.5
inches long which represents e.g. 10 feet.

Start with an approximate enlargement/reduction setting and
make a copy. Measure the length of the line on the copy and
determine its scale length for the scale you want. When the
line is 10 e.g. feet long in the scale you want, you have the
correct reduction/enlargement.

E.g., suppose you want to reduce an O scale (1/4 inch = 1
foot) drawing to S scale (3/16 inch = one foot, or 1/64 inch
= 1 inch).

A 10 foot long line in O scale is 10 1/4s or 2.5 inches long.

A 10 foot long line in S scale is 120 1/64s or 1 7/8 or 1.875.

When your line on the copy is 1.875 inches long the copy is
accurate for S scale.

IMHO that is more accurate than calculating a reduction/
enlargement percentage.

Regards,

Rod Miller

Message: 18
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:51:26 -0800
From: Denny Anspach <danspach@macnexus.org>
Subject: Re: Conversion percentages.

Off hand, does anyone know what percent rule of thumb
reduction (e.g.
as would be set on a copying machine) to accurately reduce S-gauge
plans to HO (1:76 ---->1/87.1)?

Thanks!

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento



Yahoo! Groups Links







Re: Conversion percentages.

Rod Miller
 

Hi Denny,

The method Jerry White showed me was to draw/tape a line that was a
specific length in the scale of the image to be enlarged/reduced.
E.g., an O scale (1:48) drawing would have a line, say, 2.5 inches
long which represents e.g. 10 feet.

Start with an approximate enlargement/reduction setting and make a
copy. Measure the length of the line on the copy and determine its
scale length for the scale you want. When the line is 10 e.g. feet long
in the scale you want, you have the correct reduction/enlargement.

E.g., suppose you want to reduce an O scale (1/4 inch = 1 foot) drawing
to S scale (3/16 inch = one foot, or 1/64 inch = 1 inch).

A 10 foot long line in O scale is 10 1/4s or 2.5 inches long.

A 10 foot long line in S scale is 120 1/64s or 1 7/8 or 1.875.

When your line on the copy is 1.875 inches long the copy is accurate
for S scale.

IMHO that is more accurate than calculating a reduction/ enlargement
percentage.

Regards,

Rod Miller

Message: 18
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:51:26 -0800
From: Denny Anspach <danspach@macnexus.org>
Subject: Re: Conversion percentages.

Off hand, does anyone know what percent rule of thumb reduction (e.g.
as would be set on a copying machine) to accurately reduce S-gauge
plans to HO (1:76 ---->1/87.1)?

Thanks!

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Re: Freight car flooring

David Smith <dsmith@...>
 

Gene - Pentachlorophenol IS creosote. A.T. Kott, ChE

>>

Um, I hate to argue with a ChE, but everything I can find says that
although some creosotes may have contained pentachlorophenol, equating
the two is a bit like saying that all boxcars are 1937 AAR boxcars.
Creosotes are a complex mixture of organic compounds and contain many
things other than pentachlorophenol.

Dave Smith, who knows more about creosote after 15 minutes on the web
than he does about 1937 AAR boxcars (mostly because he doesn't, yet,
know squat about the boxcars)


Re: sunshine kits

Schuyler Larrabee
 

And, on the subject of changes, a recent New Products listing
in a magazine said shipping charges were $5, not the $4 we're
used to. Does anyone know if that's right?

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon

So what if it isn't? One more buck for the quality products you get in return won't kill the deal,
will it?

SGL


Re: Digest Number 2918

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Garth Groff writes-

You are probably right about not treating the decks on flat cars in the
past, but a preserved car today is a somewhat different matter. Back in
1999 a volunteer group restored Oakland & Antioch flat car 2002 for the
CSRM during Railfair '99. Apparently untreated lumber was used for the
deck. Within a few years the deck had warped so badly that the car had
to be withdrawn from display.
With permission, this car was used by a group independent of the CSRM as a wood car-building demonstration, not as an official restoration effort during the Railfair . The original car had long rotted away, and only the hardware was available for any resurrection.

The hardworking East Bay group that undertook the reconstruction unknowingly purchased green lumber on the cheap- the basis for the eventual astounding warpage (the deck more obvious, but the end sills only slightly less so). Unless the wood had been treated under pressure (which in the process essentially forces the wood to cure- usually incompatible with paint), this warpage would have occurred treatment or no.

An embarrassing incident where that car was by accident actually put on museum display was chronicled by Tony Thompson some time ago. Although its load at that time was an absolutely gorgeous new restoration of a ATSF 1888 boxcar, one's attention was instead almost completely diverted to the terrible woodwork of the underlying flat car.

Denny


--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Re: Freight car floors

Bruce Smith
 

On Wed, January 18, 2006 6:44 pm, benjaminfrank_hom wrote:
Jack Van Buekenhout wrote:
"Suggest that you look at the February 2006 issue of the Railroad
Model Craftsman (page 71) to look at an article on finishing
flooring for models."

Excellent suggestion - after all, it's the article that kicked off
this thread! <G>

Ben Hom
The only down side is that Stan suggests that the floors were creosote
treated wood, which the facts doon't seem to bear out <G> So, rather thas
Stan's use of rubber as a final wash, I would go with something a little
browner, like RR tie or roof brown (yeah, I KNOW RR tie brown is supposed
to be creosote treated wood) as it looks more like somewhat weathered
(darkened) oak.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Freight car flooring

proto48er
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Green" <bierglaeser@y...> wrote:

Here is some specific information about flat car decks. This is
quoted from the bill of materials for 50 flat cars built by GATC
for
the M&StL in 1952.

37. FLOOR
To be Dense Common Southern yellow Pine. Boards to be 2-1/2" x 7-
1/2" section, square edge, bolted to frame with watertight bolts.
Floor boards on 10 cars only to be treated with 8#
Pentachlorophenol
by Joslyn Mfg. Company.

55. PAINTING
Truck ...
All metal to metal ...
The inside surfaces of center sill and bolster ...
After assembly the entire underframe ...
Outside surfaces of side sill and end sill ...
Floor not to be painted, except underside of floor boards to
receive
a coat of car cement at points in contact with steel.

Gene Green
Out in the west Texas town of El Paso
Gene - Pentachlorophenol IS creosote. A.T. Kott, ChE


Re: Freight car floors

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

Jack Van Buekenhout wrote:
"Suggest that you look at the February 2006 issue of the Railroad
Model Craftsman (page 71) to look at an article on finishing
flooring for models."

Excellent suggestion - after all, it's the article that kicked off
this thread! <G>


Ben Hom


Re: Freight car floors

John Van Buekenhout <jvanbu1347@...>
 

Suggest that you look at the February 2006 issue of the Railroad Model Craftsman (page 71) to look at an article on finishing flooring for models.
Jack

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Carlson" <midcentury@sbcglobal.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car floors


Some thoughts about warping freight car decks.

Quality of wood is important if ones' objective is to
avoid warpage. Most wood being harvested at the turn
of the previous century was "old growth". Old growth
timber, particularly western timber, is characterized
as having a higher winter wood to spring wood ratio,
these being what we know as tree rings. The slower
winter growth is what the ring is composed of, the
much faster growing spring wood is what spaces out the
tree rings. Second and third growth timbers have a
very high percentage of the weaker summer wood. This
is why much of today's lumber warps fairly easily,
much less rings making much less strength.

Another factor is grain orientation. Flat car wood
decking if of vertical, tight grained milled lumber
will last for a long time, much more than flat grained
decking (that is grain which is horizontal in the
decking lumber. Long time ago flat grained lumber was
often considered waste wood, and would be burnt in the
teepee burner, or used for cheap barn siding and attic
floor boards.

So the experience of the flat car restoration done
with today's lumber does not necessarily explain flat
car decking durability of 100 years ago.

From: "Garth Groff" <ggg9y@virginia.edu>
Randy,

You are probably right about not treating the
decks on flat cars in the
past, but a preserved car today is a somewhat
different matter. Back in
1999 a volunteer group restored Oakland & Antioch
flat car 2002 for the
CSRM during Railfair '99. Apparently untreated
lumber was used for the
deck. Within a few years the deck had warped so
badly that the car had
to be withdrawn from display.


Yahoo! Groups Links






137121 - 137140 of 187333