This past weekend, I had the pleasure of meeting Dwight Smith, formerly
associated with the B&M, Springfield Terminal, and Conway Scenic Railroads.
From February of 1952 until the Suncook Valley Railroad's demise in December of
that year, he also lived a very short distance from that line's Allenstown
station, keenly aware of it's operations, helping to document its history in
various ways, and even commuting to the B&M's Concord offices on a folding
chair in the SV's baggage compartment on days his wife wanted to use the
company car!
Upon questioning him about the line's customers at that time, among other
tidbits, he stated that a grain dealer in Pittsfield, NH, regularly received
loaded cars from the Park & Pollard Company of Buffalo, NY. This is the same
entity as the P&P Car line, reporting marks PRKX. Dwight stated that these
cars were refurbished ex-MDT wood reefers, which Roger Hinman's recent article
corroborates, now intended for grain service.
While the 7/31 ORER lists 4 series of what are obviously not (at least) MDT
"M4" design cars, the 1/40 ORER shows series 600-699 and 700-799, 200 cars
total, with the 10/51 adding series 800-899, (cars respectively now: 31, 23,
55, total 109,) all with MDT-like dimensions, excepting the fact that only an
IL for bulkheads collapsed is reported.
To get to the point of this now long winded message, I'm unable to find
among my resources at home any photographic record of PRKX ex-MDT cars. Has
anyone ever seen pictures of these cars? I'm sitting here wondering if they
bought old reefers so that they could load the grain through the hatches. I
can imagine them quite suitable for grain service, with those tight reefer
doors, and low initial investment due to their second hand status. With a 40
ton capacity, and 2516 cuft and 2598 cuft (800 series) of volume, they would
tare out prior to cubing out (wheat: 120768 and 124704 lbs lading if overloaded
to volumetric capy.)

Earl Tuson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Tom Madden wrote:

I take it I'm supposed to jump in at this point. Tony, if this project
progresses from a jovial exchange into something more concrete, we can talk
about specifics at Monrovia or Pleasanton next month.

Better make it Pleasanton, as I will be in London the weekend of the meet
in Monrovia.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history

Ted Culotta <ted@electroneconomy.com> wrote:

I assume Jeff English will answer this, but I've sent it to everyone since
I'm probably not the only party interested in the response.

Rutland Car Works is selling a resin kit (HO scale) for an MDT reefer
series built between 1911 and 1917 for the NYC (series 155000-155999 and
156000-156999), LS&MS (series 145000-145999) and Michigan Cental (series
16000-16249). These were truss rod cars with 5-foot door openings and
four hinges on either side of the door. My question is whether anyone
knows if these were still running in 1947 and if so, in what quantities?
The number series for the cars changed when they became MDT cars.

Actually Roger Hinman is the MDT expert and a subscriber to
FCL (I don't know if he's on STMFC, so I'm copying FCL on this
reply).
The RCS kit is either an M1 or M2 in Roger's terminology of
MDT reefers. The Rutland had cars that were identical when new,
hence the motivation on RCS' part. The Rutland cars were still in
revenue service in the immediate postwar period, but I would
hazard to guess that the MDTs were either gone or rebuilt to
something visually dissimilar (but I don't recall any MDT rebuild
programs, so that's an even more hazardous guess).

---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff English Troy, New York
Proto:64 Classic Era Railroad Modeling
englij@rpi.edu

| R U T L A N D R A I L R O A D |
Route of the Whippet
---------------------------------------------------------------

"Tim O'Connor" <timoconnor@mediaone.net>

so if NYC operated the containers, I can't imagine why
they wouldn't load them into any available gondola.

My impression has been that gons in NYC's container service
were specifically assigned to that, i.e. that random gons in general
service were not normally loaded with containers.
Now, I could be wrong about the above, but if we assume for
the moment that I'm correct, then the next question would be
whether NYC put any Greenville gons into container assignments.
I'll check that in the class books next time I get a chance.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff English Troy, New York
Proto:64 Classic Era Railroad Modeling
englij@rpi.edu

| R U T L A N D R A I L R O A D |
Route of the Whippet
---------------------------------------------------------------

Garth wrote:

As Richard has pointed out a number of times, the
the Tichy tank with the small dome can be placed
on the Type 27 underframe to give us a fair
representation of some cars built during WWII.

How did I miss out on that? I've got about a dozen
of those Tichy kits in the closet, which I've been
afraid to even look at since I found out there was
no prototype for them. I know that they can be bashed
into some kind of war-emergency cars, but I'm still
waiting for Richard to finish the second half of THAT
magazine article. Doggone it Richard, let ME come up
there and chase the deer out of Sandra's rose garden;
you sit down and write!

Seriously, one bright note (for me anyway) is that
you can take the 60" dome from the Tichy detail pack
and graft it onto the IM Type-27 tank, thus reproducing
Shell Chemicals' fleet of Type-27's, which all had this
feature. That's an easy kitbash, at least. And since
one of the "home points" for those cars was at Martinez,
California on the Espee, all the more reason to do several!

Shawn Beckert

I assume Jeff English will answer this, but I've sent it to everyone since
I'm probably not the only party interested in the response.

Rutland Car Works is selling a resin kit (HO scale) for an MDT reefer series
built between 1911 and 1917 for the NYC (series 155000-155999 and
156000-156999), LS&MS (series 145000-145999) and Michigan Cental (series
16000-16249). These were truss rod cars with 5-foot door openings and four
hinges on either side of the door. My question is whether anyone knows if
these were still running in 1947 and if so, in what quantities? The number
series for the cars changed when they became MDT cars.
Thanks.
Ted

------------------------------
Ted Culotta
Electron Economy
t: 408-597-3233
f: 408-873-3279
e: ted@electroneconomy.com
w: www.electroneconomy.com

Another Test

Shawn:

As Richard has pointed out a number of times, the Tichy tank with the
small dome can be placed on the Type 27 underframe to give us a fair
representation of some cars built during WWII. Richard has promised for
several years to do the conversion and write it up, but has apparently
been trapped by mundane non-railroad activities, like putting a roof
over his head (only important if it protects his trains). I am sure
there are many other possibilities. What is lacking is shared
information. Richard noted recently that the magazines generally don't
want articles unless there is a kit to go with them, but perhaps the
Hawkins-Wider CYC would be a good venue for prototype photos and
thoughts on kitbashing. A possibility, Richard? Others?

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

"Beckert, Shawn" wrote:

Fellow Prisoners,

Going through the ACF book this weekend - blissfully
ignorant of the turmoil I caused with my questions of
last week - I couldn't help but notice, once again, the
sheer variety of tank car shapes and sizes. We've only
scratched the surface with the handful of accurate kits
that are on the market.

Since a new tank car kit seems to hit the shelves only
once every decade, or so it seems, what can we do with
the various kits that now exist? Take, for example, the
underframes from the P2K, Red Caboose, and Tichy kits.
Can they be used as a starting point to make any other
kind of tank car? Can the tanks themselves, or even the
domes, be swapped around to create something new but
prototypical? What part, or parts, would be needed to
open up some kitbashing opportunities?

I'm afraid if we don't come up with some way to stretch
the capabilities of the kits we already have, we'll have
to sit and wait for whatever the manufacturers come up
with. Do we have any recourse on this? Your input, please.

Shawn Beckert

Tony T., threating to become a patternmaker, writes:

I fully appreciate the concept that we make something moldable, though I
have no expertise in doing so. I will make a styrene version (on the
assumption that the tank interior is a more convenient and effective, since
larger, place to put weight). Any ideas on how best to make said underframe
so as to be more readily moldable would be gratefully received.

I take it I'm supposed to jump in at this point. Tony, if this project
progresses from a jovial exchange into something more concrete, we can talk
about specifics at Monrovia or Pleasanton next month.

Gee, Tom, that wasn't my intention. Furthest thing from my mind, actually.
However, now that you've volunteered....

I won't be in Monrovia, but let's all talk at Pleasanton.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

Test

Tony T., threating to become a patternmaker, writes:

I fully appreciate the concept that we make something moldable, though I
have no expertise in doing so. I will make a styrene version (on the
assumption that the tank interior is a more convenient and effective, since
larger, place to put weight). Any ideas on how best to make said underframe
so as to be more readily moldable would be gratefully received.

I take it I'm supposed to jump in at this point. Tony, if this project
progresses from a jovial exchange into something more concrete, we can talk
about specifics at Monrovia or Pleasanton next month.

Tom M.

Richard H. asks:

Let me get this straight. Are you volunteering to build a real HO scale
underframe for this model, or are we talking about a conceptual underframe,
as in conceptual packing (inside joke)? If, in fact, a real underframe is
being contemplated, then it should take the form of molding patterns for
resin parts which could be combined with the PSC tank. I would be
delighted to collaborate on such a project, and will see that appropriate
artwork is created for decal lettering.

I fully appreciate the concept that we make something moldable, though I
have no expertise in doing so. I will make a styrene version (on the
assumption that the tank interior is a more convenient and effective, since
larger, place to put weight). Any ideas on how best to make said underframe
so as to be more readily moldable would be gratefully received.
Are drawings readily available?

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history

Surely it would not be too hard to scratch an underframe? I have built
both styrene and wood (with riveted cardstock overlays) underframes and
they are not that tough. How about, Richard, if I write up an underframe
and you do the rest?

Let me get this straight. Are you volunteering to build a real HO scale
underframe for this model, or are we talking about a conceptual underframe,
as in conceptual packing (inside joke)? If, in fact, a real underframe is
being contemplated, then it should take the form of molding patterns for
resin parts which could be combined with the PSC tank. I would be
delighted to collaborate on such a project, and will see that appropriate
artwork is created for decal lettering.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

In a message dated 2/3/01 12:41:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
RRrealated@yahoogroups.com writes:

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:31:54 EST
From: privatevarnish@aol.com
Subject: Car and Loco Builders Cyclopedias For Sale


I have some old Car and Loco Builders Cyclopedias that I don't need

anymore.

Here's my list. Please let me know if you might be interested in one or

two.

'19 Loco Dictionary & Cyclopedia $300
'28 Car Builders $250
'31 " " $250
'37 " " $200
'40 " " $200
'47 Loco Cycl $150
'49-'51 Car Builders $150
'53 " " $150
'56 Loco Cycl $150
'61 Car Builders $100
'66 Car & Loco $100
'74 " " $ 80
'80 " " $ 80

For UPS, add $6 for first book and $1 for each book thereafter in same
shipment.

If you are interested in any of these years, please advise which and I

will

email you a more detailed description.

Richard H. says:

I've often thought of doing an article on
these cars, but most editors don't want articles on prototypes that can't
be modeled, and we don't have any decent models (the MDC model is hopeless,
as it's virtually impossible to rework the underframe into anything
remotely resembling the prototype).

Surely it would not be too hard to scratch an underframe? I have built
both styrene and wood (with riveted cardstock overlays) underframes and
they are not that tough. How about, Richard, if I write up an underframe
and you do the rest?

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history

Richard H. wrote:

Ah, I get it, Tim. A ploy! I've wondered for a long time how someone who
is obviously very astute and well informed about freightcarology could
occasionally post inquiries and speculations that seemed to come from way
out in left field. Now you're telling me that this inconsistency is a
tactical device.

Perhaps "freightcardiology" might be a more apt term for this device.

Tom M.

Well, the only way to get an answer sometimes is to make speculative
statements! Some experts don't like to speak up unless they get the
bonus of being able to ridicule someone... I have noticed this in
my own profession (computer engineering), so why not here too? I've
gotten an awful lot of good information over the years by playing
the naif.

Ah, I get it, Tim. A ploy! I've wondered for a long time how someone who
is obviously very astute and well informed about freightcarology could
occasionally post inquiries and speculations that seemed to come from way
out in left field. Now you're telling me that this inconsistency is a
tactical device.

...Straightforward questions (like Shawn's which prompted
this discussion) often go unanswered.

Ah, but Shawn's inquiry didn't go unanswered. I answered it, with
essentially the same information I sent to you.

Would you recommend a source for information on the 1916 "X" ? I
can't recall ever hearing of it before.

My UTLX folder is buried in a box of material to re-file, but IIRC there
was a drawing in one of the Cycs (1912 or 1916). A large number of these
cars are listed in several number series in the UTLX 1952 roster, and I
have numerous in-service photos. I've often thought of doing an article on
these cars, but most editors don't want articles on prototypes that can't
be modeled, and we don't have any decent models (the MDC model is hopeless,
as it's virtually impossible to rework the underframe into anything
remotely resembling the prototype).

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

At 11:36 PM 2/2/01 -0600, you wrote:

Tim - The containers are 9'2" wide. What rrs used the Greenville in this
service? Remember, I know nothing after 1930.... Some roads like Erie,
MILW and B&O have cars that look like them to my uninitiated eye. - Al
Westerfield

The Erie definitely owned Greenville gondolas, but the MILW and B&O did
not. The MP/IGN owned none either. I suppose they ran their Youngstown
containers in their 46' or various other gondolas. The SLSF did have the
Greenville design cars, but I don't know if they used the containers. The
NYC of course, and P&LE, owned scads of the Greenville design gondolas. I
have seen photos of mill gondolas loaded with just about everything (hay,
coal, baling wire) so if NYC operated the containers, I can't imagine why
they wouldn't load them into any available gondola.

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

Well, the only way to get an answer sometimes is to make speculative
statements! Some experts don't like to speak up unless they get the
bonus of being able to ridicule someone... I have noticed this in
my own profession (computer engineering), so why not here too? I've
gotten an awful lot of good information over the years by playing
the naif. Straightforward questions (like Shawn's which prompted
this discussion) often go unanswered.

Would you recommend a source for information on the 1916 "X" ? I
can't recall ever hearing of it before.

At 09:08 PM 2/2/01 -0800, you wrote:

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Now that I look it over, I wonder if UTLX #57801 isn't actually one
of those AC&F "high walkway" tank cars from pre-1920 with its walkway
handrails removed?

Tim, please stop trying to make this more complicated than it is. UTLX
57801 in the photo in the Classic Freight Cars tank car book is a UTL Class
X built in 1916 (essentially, an "improved" Van Dyke car with separate
center sill) that had been upgraded with AB air brakes, ARA cast steel
trucks, and a larger diameter dome (the original dome was smaller and had
the single safety valve on an elbox attached to the side of the dome, as
shown in numerous photos of these cars as built).

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

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