At 04:07 PM 2/2/01 -0600, you wrote:

Howdy,
According to Greg Martin's Scuttlebutt collumn in the January Mainline
Modeler, Microscale has announced set 87-986, assorted 1910-1950 tank cars.
Any comments from y'all on the suitability of this sheet for decaling tanks
such as the P2K and intermountain 8K and 10K gallon tanks?

Bruce, that set has been out for a year or two already! (I guess the
Scuttle is falling a little behind...)

Those decals are exclusively for AC&F high walkway tank cars, and unless
you model pre-1930's or specific railroad MofW tank cars, you won't want
them. They're only good for W&R brass imported models.

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@mediaone.net>
Marlborough, Massachusetts

Having had the topic of home vs. foreign cars come up again I decided to
crunch a few numbers & see whether the data from my conductors books was in
any way similar to an ORER from about the same time. The focus is on
boxcars. The first number in the table below is percentage each roads own
roster of boxcars is of the April, 1950 North American boxcar fleet. My
database lacks the military roster, but as I used a fleet total of 834664
cars I doubt the missing cars would skew the results I show. The second
number is the percentage of total spottings that road has in my 1948
conductors books. 1231 boxcars were recorded by the conductor, making them a
sample size of 0.15% of the total boxcar fleet.

I cut off the listing at the accumulated 80th percentile of the North
American Fleet (i.e., the remaining 20% would have taken up another 80
lines).

If the numbers are close the boxcars are geographically evenly
distributed;if they are not close, some undetermined factor is causing more
or less cars to have been recorded by the conductor.

Results are listed below, sorted by expected % in descending order.


road expected actual
CN 7.97% 0.24%
PRR 7.95% 8.20%
NYC 7.70% 7.96%
CP 6.55% 0.08%
ATSF 4.20% 4.47%
MILW 3.84% 2.84%
BO 3.43% 3.82%
SP 3.33% 2.27%
SOU 3.13% 11.94%
UP 2.82% 3.01%
CNW 2.78% 3.98%
GN 2.68% 2.11%
CBQ 2.59% 3.01%
IC 2.52% 2.27%
NP 2.34% 2.44%
RI 2.18% 2.84%
MP 2.17% 2.11%
CO 1.69% 2.52%
SLSF 1.58% 1.79%
ERIE 1.44% 2.19%
LN 1.39% 3.01%
WAB 1.39% 0.57%
ACL 1.36% 1.79%
SAL 1.13% 1.38%
NW 1.06% 1.46%
SOO 1.06% 1.06%

As one can see, the actual matches the expected very closely, with 3 large
exceptions: Canadian roads are under-represented and the home road (SOU) is
over represented. None of these should be a surprise. One of the smaller
exceptions can also be easily explained: The route from which the conductors
books are taken is a short distance from Knoxville TN, a major gateway
between the Southern and the L&N and the city where most of these cars have
or will pass through. This may also be a factor in the C&O numbers.

The reader is left to draw their own conclusions on what this might mean, if
anything, for building up their roster of boxcars.
-----------------------------------
Dave Nelson

Howdy,

According to Greg Martin's Scuttlebutt collumn in the January Mainline
Modeler, Microscale has announced set 87-986, assorted 1910-1950 tank cars.
Any comments from y'all on the suitability of this sheet for decaling tanks
such as the P2K and intermountain 8K and 10K gallon tanks?

Happy Rails
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith V.M.D., Ph.D.
Scott-Ritchey Research Center
334-844-5587, 334-844-5850 (fax)
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ____________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|____________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

Larry - thanks - John

I see what you mean -- but isn't it just a Van Dyke tank mounted
onto a later frame (really, just a center sill)?

At 12:52 AM 2/2/01 -0500, you wrote:

Tim,
Look again, 57801 is not a Van Dyke car.
I don't think that they lasted past 1953.
There are only five standard gauge cars listed in the 7-53 ORER.
Bill Kelly

Tim wrote:

snippage<
There's a 1969 photo of UTLX #57801, a Van Dyke tank car, in the
Classic Freight Cars Volume 2.

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@mediaone.net>
Marlborough, Massachusetts

The bottom sheet on a Van Dyke tank extends beyond the ends and is
probably thicker to act as the underframe. The dome on 57801 is larger
than that on the Precision Scale tank.

Bill Kelly

Tim wrote:

I see what you mean -- but isn't it just a Van Dyke tank mounted
onto a later frame (really, just a center sill)?

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Bill, if you get this, you are alive and well on the STMFC. Let me know.

To start sending messages to members of this group,
simply send email to

STMFC@egroups.com

If you do not wish to belong to STMFC, you may
unsubscribe by sending an email to

STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com

You may also visit the eGroups web site to modify your
subscriptions:

http://www.egroups.com/mygroups

Mike Brock

There is also the Precision Scale model of a Van Dyke, which has
slightly different dimensions, and I would think could be mounted on
a new underframe. - John

Shawn, the Precision Scale model is accurate for prototypes that
lasted into the 1960's. Richard Hendrickson wrote an article on
modeling them, including modifications to Bowser (?) caboose trucks
that have the correct wheel base. Precision Scale makes, I think,
two different models -- regular and "deluxe". The more expensive
one is better/sturdier because it has metal parts where needed.
There's a 1969 photo of UTLX #57801, a Van Dyke tank car, in the
Classic Freight Cars Volume 2. It appears to be riding on normal
ASF A-3 Ride Control trucks.

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@mediaone.net>
Marlborough, Massachusetts

At 10:07 PM 2/1/01 -0600, you wrote:

Just doing some tests to see if my Youngstown containers would fit in the
Intermountain and Lifelike kits - I plan to issue a 10 container load for
Mop. Turns out the Lifelike car is about 6" narrower than prototype and
won't fit the containers. Intermountain is about 2" oversize and will (and
would have if the correct width). - Al Westerfield

Al... I wonder if your load will fit Sunshine's Greenville car
(same prototype as the Proto2000). It came with thin-wall sides.
I can test fit it for you, if you're interested. ;o)

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@mediaone.net>
Marlborough, Massachusetts

Just doing some tests to see if my Youngstown containers would fit in the
Intermountain and Lifelike kits - I plan to issue a 10 container load for
Mop. Turns out the Lifelike car is about 6" narrower than prototype and
won't fit the containers. Intermountain is about 2" oversize and will (and
would have if the correct width). - Al Westerfield
Westerfield

From: "Dave & Libby Nelson" <muskoka@ix.netcom.com>

Larry, where did you find the H.H. Copeland reports? What year do the
cover?

Dave and others,

I have a copy of Ron Glas's 1990 compilation of available Copeland resources
located at NWU. I'd be happy to quote from it, but it would better to find Ron
and get permission for me to distibute it in its entirety.

Earl Tuson

__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Tim,
Look again, 57801 is not a Van Dyke car.
I don't think that they lasted past 1953.
There are only five standard gauge cars listed in the 7-53 ORER.
Bill Kelly

Tim wrote:

snippage<
There's a 1969 photo of UTLX #57801, a Van Dyke tank car, in the
Classic Freight Cars Volume 2.

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

M.D. McCarter has a couple of photos of B&O milk cars from the series
824-850, which were standard ice bunker reefers. He took the photos in '48,
but the latest equipment register I have for passenger cars is '43. Does
anyone know how late they survived? - John

Richard and Gang,

Ok, so I looked up Precision Scale's Van Dyke tank at
the Walthers website. It's in stock for $18 or so.
Odd looking little monster. How long did these last
in interchange, the 1940's?

Shawn Beckert

I agree with Richard Hendrickson that photographic or other documentation is
the best approach to determining the ratio of home road and foreign road
cars. The photos and videos available to me show that boxcars are, by far,
the most common car type in WM merchandise trains, and that foreign road
cars are much more common than home road cars.

It is interesting to compare the data from photos and videos with Copeland
Report data. On the Western Maryland all merchandise traffic to and from the
west was interchanged at Connellsville, PA. The WM 1952 Copeland Report
gives the following numbers of cars interchanged at Connellsville.

Eastbound
P&LE 29,228
P&WV 28,783
B&O 3,310
PRR 2,577
Westbound
P&LE 34,583
P&WV 44,287
B&O 1,039
PRR 293
Total Eastbound+Westbound 144,100

The WM had 2,284 boxcars as of January 1953. Assuming a typical value of
one car turn per month, the total number of WM boxcar shipments in 1952 was
about 27,000. Only a fraction of these shipments would have been
interchanged at Connellsville. Thus, home road cars can account for only a
small fraction of the cars interchanged at Connellsville and one would
expect that most boxcars in WM merchandise trains would be foreign road
cars, as suggested by photos and videos.

Larry Kline

<Dave Nelson wrote:
Larry, where did you find the H.H. Copeland reports? What year do they
cover?>

The Guide to RR Historical Resources by Taber lists the Copeland Reports (on
interchange and traffic density) holdings at the Baker Library at the
Harvard Business School, The Transportation Library at Northwestern Univ.,
and the St. Louis Mercantile Library. I have used the holdings at Harvard
and Northwestern. The Northwestern is much more laid back. They permit
copying and don't require permission to publish research results. Harvard
will supply copied, at a higher cost and does require permission to publish
research results.

The holdings at Northwestern cover WM for most years from 1926 to 1956.
However, this unusual. For many railroads, there is data for only one or a
few years. I didn't make a list of the holdings at Northwestern. The
holdings at Harvard are: (RR no of yrs.) Alton 3, AA 2, ATSF 6, ACL 8, B&O
6, BAR 3, B&A 6, B&M 21, CP 2, CGa 2, CRRNJ 5, CV 1, C&O 6, C&EI 14, C&NW 7,
CB&Q 14, CGW 5, CI&L 13, MILW 16, RI 26, CCStL 9, C&S 11, D&H 14, DL&W 11,
DRGW 30, ERIE 17, FEC 13, GN 5, GTW 1, Gulf Coast 11, GM&O 6, IC 12, IGN 11,
KCS 10, LV 1, L&A 1, L&N 4, MEC 21, MC 8, M&StL 2, SOO 39, MKT 16, MP 15,
M&O 2, Monon 1, NC&StL 1, NYC 9, NYC&StL 5, NH 2, NYO&W 2, NS 1, NP 6, PRR
4, P&LE 4, RDG 4, Frisco 9, StLSW 3, Seaboard 13, SP 5, SR 13, T&P 9, UP 10,
VGN 4, WAB 21, WM 32, Panama Canal 1.

Larry Kline

<John Nehrich wrote:
One of our members is assembling a bunch of the Stewart channel side
hoppers, and wanted to know what trucks to use. I found one picture where I
think the car had Andrews, but it isn't clear, and one photo does not a
roster make. Any information? - John>

All of the 1947 and later photos I have of WM channel side hoppers show cast
steel (Bettendorf) trucks of various types. Some photos show two different
truck types on one car. Some of the 1916-17 Pullman hoppers that were
converted to channel side cars in 1927-32 were built with Bettendorf
T-section trucks and kept them after rebuilding. The latest photo I have of
a car with Bettendorf T-section trucks is dated 1942. I also have one 1940
photo of a car with one cast steel truck and one Bettendorf T-section truck.

Larry Kline

List,

I have questions to ask about a certain MDC
tank car kit, though I've a good idea what the
answer will be.

I just received several M.D. McCarter prints of
UTLX tank cars that appear to have been built in
the 'teens. The shots were taken in Pensacola, FL
about 1945. Short, with tanks riding high on very
sturdy underframes, with the brake wheel mounted
facing to the side at one corner. There are ladders
going up the sideframe, about four rungs each.

1) Is this what you'd call a "Van Dyke" design?

No, it's the UTLX class X design which followed the VanDyke cars (class V)
after the Master Car Builders' Assn. ruled that tank cars had to have
center sills, rather than transmitting pulling and buffing forces through
the tank itself. The tanks on the class X cars were essentially the same
as on the Van Dykes (and BTW both class X and class V cars wre built in 6K,
8K, and 10K versions) but they had substantial center sills instead of the
bolsters and draft gear boxes being riveted directly to the tank via an
unusually heavy bottom sheet.

2) Does the MDC "Old Timer" tank car have potential
for modeling these cars, or is it the usual MDC
fantasy, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever?

The MDC tank isn't bad as a representation of the UTL 6K gal. tanks. The
problem is the underframe, which is a grossly oversize atrocity.

3) Failing that, has this type of car ever been
produced in brass, and by who?

No, only the VanDyke tanks have been done in brass (and mostly because the
narrow gauge guys wanted them, as some were converted to NG in the 1930s).
The same is true of PSC's very nice plastic kit for the VanDyke cars,
originally offered only in NG but now available as a standard gauge model
as well. There's been talk of making patterns for resin underframes to go
under the PSC or MDC tanks, but so far nothing has come of it. There's
also been talk of doing the class X cars in brass, but talk, as we know, is
cheap. There would certainly be a good market for such models, as the cars
went everywhere in the US and Canada and lasted, in some cases, through the
1960s (I have a photo of one coupled to a high-cube auto parts car!).

Shawn Beckert



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

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

Shawn - The Van Dyke cars had no underframe.
The biggest problem with the MDC kit is that in order to get in enough
weight in the underframe, they made it about twice as tall, so the tank sits
way too high. The metal is hard to work with, so replacing the underframe
is about the only way to go.
There is also the Precision Scale model of a Van Dyke, which has
slightly different dimensions, and I would think could be mounted on a new
underframe. - John