On the subject of U.S. Army boxcars, I previously raised the issue of 40 box cars with USA reporting marks (# 24167, 24169-82, 24184-88, 24190-95, 24197-24210) listed in the CB&Q ORER's in 1947 and 1948.

Comments at the time were -
"I guess that these box cars were "leased" by the CB&Q to as a convenient way to allow them into interchange service. There may have been a shortage of cars to haul ammunition, or they may have had special equipment to haul particular items. I doubt that they were released for general service".
and
"The Army historically used what by many standards would be considered outdated rolling stock (Navy & Air Force too for that matter). However some were in captive service so they were not as worn out as one might think considering their age."


The dimensions were shown as 36' 6" IL, 37' 9" OL, 8' 6" IW, 7' 10" IH, and 2432 cu. ft. capacity. Is anyone able to suggest a builder or build date for these.

Thanks

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ

Hi Frank, I have these cars listed in a copy of a 1943 "Official
Register of Passenger Train Equipment", under Canadian National
Railways.

Eric Gagnon
Kingston, Ontario

--- In STMFC@..., destron@... wrote:

I've found photos of CN boxcars numbered 11069 (1939 build date) and

11128

(1942? build date), but these aren't listed in my 1953 ORER. Does

anyone

know if these were renumbered at some point?

Frank Valoczy

I'm glad this topic is being discussed. It's very important to those of us who are trying to develop accurate history.

On many lists I've made many statements of what I believe to be true. sometimes I'm corrected and shown to be partially wrong (totally wrong rarely). I welcome corrections of my erroneous statements. Not aht I'm happy about them - I hate to make mistakes. But My zest for historical accuracy overcomes my chagrin at being corrected - provided that it's reasonably polite and does not include personal criticism.

All of us who are trying to recall events or our experiences from 50 years ago are going to make mistakes, and there are many errors in published materials. Bur I hope we all share a common objective of documenting what actuall y happened.



Malcolm Laughlin, Editor 617-489-4383
New England Rail Shipper Directories
19 Holden Road, Belmont, MA 02478

The flat ends got me to wondering if it's a Seaboard car, but on
reflection I think not. SAL's flat-end 40' boxcars either were '32
ARA cars with tabbed side sills (a foot taller, too), or were
originally single-sheathed. Many of the flat-end single-sheathed cars
(classes B-4 and B-5) were rebuilt with steel sides, but they had
fishbelly underframes which they kept: see John Golden's article in
Lines South 4th/04, pp 22-30. The Army car appears to have a straight
underframe.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On May 6, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Brian Leppert wrote:

A photo of the prototype car appears in "Classic Freight Cars

vol. 7".

It is some version of an X29/ara box car, with flat ends and

bottom

hung youngstown door, and no patch panels. All my information on

X29

and 1923 ARA boxcars is out at work, so I can't do much to

figure out

it's heritage. But the side grab irons are completely attached

to the

side sheathing, not the ends. Nor is the side ladder attached to

the

ends.

This car was rebuilt in 1949. Reweighed LKOD 10-58.
It was photographed in 1981, at the Earle Naval Weapons Station,

NJ.

Ah, Ha! I'd forgotten all about that photo; since I model 1947, it

was

of no interest to me. Now that I've been reminded of it, however,
several things about it strike me as interesting. First off, there

was

no car number (it had been painted out), only a defense department
serial number, and it still had solid bearing trucks. Therefore,

at

the time the car was photographed in 1981, it could not have been

in

interchange service and was confined to the Earle Naval Weapons
Station. However, all of the dimensional and weight data required

for

interchange were stenciled on it, from which it may be inferred

that it

was (or could have been) used in interchange service at some

earlier

date. Also, the interior dimensions don't correspond with those of

any

car as originally built to the X29/ARA design, so the army must

have

added some sort of interior lining or special loading equipment.

It's

notable that the car still had its original riveted steel roof as

late

as 1981, since those roofs were notorious for their tendency to

leak.

Isn't there an old saying about keeping your powder dry? The six-

rung

side ladders are puzzling. All of the X29/ARA cars had either six-

rung

ladders with a single grab iron below them or seven-rung ladders.

Why

would the army have replaced the original ladders with new ones?

On

the other hand, why would I assume there's a rational explanation

for

anything done by the army? That the car definitely was not a

former

Pennsy X29 is evidenced by the side sheathing arrangement and

(assuming

they were original) by the trucks. But on the evidence in the

photo, I

haven't been able to figure out what its origin was. The ladders

were

certainly not original, the door probably was not, and the trucks

may

well have been replacements, which doesn't leave much in the way of
distinctive features to work from.

Richard Hendrickson

On May 6, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Brian Leppert wrote:

A photo of the prototype car appears in "Classic Freight Cars vol. 7".
It is some version of an X29/ara box car, with flat ends and bottom
hung youngstown door, and no patch panels. All my information on X29
and 1923 ARA boxcars is out at work, so I can't do much to figure out
it's heritage. But the side grab irons are completely attached to the
side sheathing, not the ends. Nor is the side ladder attached to the
ends.

This car was rebuilt in 1949. Reweighed LKOD 10-58.
It was photographed in 1981, at the Earle Naval Weapons Station, NJ.

Ah, Ha! I'd forgotten all about that photo; since I model 1947, it was
of no interest to me. Now that I've been reminded of it, however,
several things about it strike me as interesting. First off, there was
no car number (it had been painted out), only a defense department
serial number, and it still had solid bearing trucks. Therefore, at
the time the car was photographed in 1981, it could not have been in
interchange service and was confined to the Earle Naval Weapons
Station. However, all of the dimensional and weight data required for
interchange were stenciled on it, from which it may be inferred that it
was (or could have been) used in interchange service at some earlier
date. Also, the interior dimensions don't correspond with those of any
car as originally built to the X29/ARA design, so the army must have
added some sort of interior lining or special loading equipment. It's
notable that the car still had its original riveted steel roof as late
as 1981, since those roofs were notorious for their tendency to leak.
Isn't there an old saying about keeping your powder dry? The six-rung
side ladders are puzzling. All of the X29/ARA cars had either six-rung
ladders with a single grab iron below them or seven-rung ladders. Why
would the army have replaced the original ladders with new ones? On
the other hand, why would I assume there's a rational explanation for
anything done by the army? That the car definitely was not a former
Pennsy X29 is evidenced by the side sheathing arrangement and (assuming
they were original) by the trucks. But on the evidence in the photo, I
haven't been able to figure out what its origin was. The ladders were
certainly not original, the door probably was not, and the trucks may
well have been replacements, which doesn't leave much in the way of
distinctive features to work from.

Richard Hendrickson

MDT 41825 was built as MDT 17825 in Sep 1923 and would ride the rails
until scrapped in 1953 after a 30 year career. Not exactly
a relic in Sep of 1947.


Roger Hinman

Larry,

The issue about the 31317? Look over the messages from
the last week. The GN 31000-31300 series thread. It would
have been a little plainer if it had been 31000-31499 which
is the full 500 car series.

Thought it was a strange coincidence that you should come
up with a UP list that included one of these 500 cars when
you consider the size of the U.S. 40ft box car inventory
at that time. In 1945 there were 494 cars in that series
in service.

Russ

Mike,

Agreed. But I think it needs to be said that you can not
provide information if you are not asked.

Some years ago someone authoring a book asked me for
photos and some specific information. They were not
interested in roster information or dispositions in
regards to the road I worked for and had fairly well
documented. The book came out and I call attention to
some errors. The response I got seemed to be worded so
I would feel guilty because I did not provide unsolicited
information.

Felt that it was sort of a cheap shot since the original
request targeted specifics.

Gotta go now, got some hot stuff I just found that I have
to hide until the time is right.

Russ

Speaking of errors in published works, I will bow to the need to
complain
about a pet peeve. Namely the tendency of what I might call a
"collector of
information" to withhold it from authors only later to "spring"
forth with a
correction when the author is published. Fortunately the STMFC
is not home
to such "collectors".

Mike Brock

A photo of the prototype car appears in "Classic Freight Cars vol. 7".
It is some version of an X29/ara box car, with flat ends and bottom
hung youngstown door, and no patch panels. All my information on X29
and 1923 ARA boxcars is out at work, so I can't do much to figure out
it's heritage. But the side grab irons are completely attached to the
side sheathing, not the ends. Nor is the side ladder attached to the
ends.

This car was rebuilt in 1949. Reweighed LKOD 10-58.
It was photographed in 1981, at the Earle Naval Weapons Station, NJ.

Brian Leppert
Carson City, NV

Russ-
You're right about the BREX. Closer inspection of the entry
indicates that the car number is 74782.

FGEX 108999 had too many 9's (10899).

Your suggestion for URTX instead of URTS is correct.

The conductor wrote UP as the reporting mark on X1451 car 60, and the
remaining 10 cars were completely blank in the reporting mark
column. I agree that they are very likely PFE, and since the car
numbers appear to be valid PFE numbers, I'll change them.

I'll update the file tonight (Sunday).

You make a good point that the uninformed should recognize that the
car order of the list is from rear, forward.

Remind me, what was the issue with GN 31317 class?

Larry

Dennis,

Thank you very much, as the roof detail jpg as it clearly answers my question.

The door in Sunshine kit 78.3 is a bit to long and the hangars way to big, but now that I know the correct relationship of the door track and the structural "leg at the roof, I can clean things up and all should work.

I want to also thank Jerry Stewart who sent a couple of scans off list that helped clarified my confusion.

I am not sure how I built resin kits before this list and the resources on it.

Paul Lyons
Laguna Niguel, CA

On 6-May-07, at 3:49 PM, destron@... wrote:

I've found photos of CN boxcars numbered 11069 (1939 build date) and 11128
(1942? build date), but these aren't listed in my 1953 ORER. Does anyone
know if these were renumbered at some point?

The 11xxx block on CN was reserved for box-baggage cars (passenger service), which is why they didn't appear in the ORERs -- although 10xxx express reefers did. Go figure!

Anyways, the 11069 was part of the 11050-11099 series built by Canadian Car & Foundry in 6/1939, and the 11128 part of the 11100-11149 series built by the same builder in 5-6/1943. Both of these cars were renumbered in later years -- although not in the way that you are suggesting -- the 11069 was rebuilt to a roofless wood chip car in 12/1973 and renumbered 857117, whereas the 11128 was rebuilt to a generator car for work train service in 8/1976 and renumbered 43039.

Ian Cranstone
Osgoode, Ontario, Canada
lamontc@...
http://freightcars.nakina.net
http://siberians.nakina.net

Tom Madden writes:

"Critiques are important
to the integrity of the body of knowledge we're assembling, and no one
should be shy about offering one when necessary."

Absolutely. Anyone who makes a statement about something that happened historically should be prepared to accept the fact that they might be in error. In fact, as Richard noted, he, too, has made errors. In his case, the odds have been against him because he has made many more statements than most of the more prolific authors or contributors on the STMFC. The question then becomes with regard to an error...what of it? Well, IMO, a great deal. I wonder how many times I have sought information from a book or article published in the past only later to find out it was in error. As Richard noted, too often we assume anything in print is correct. So...are we to shiver in fear as we commit something to print or leap into the Grand Canyon if we do commit an error? Certainly not. As I said, an author must be prepared to make an error. Therefore, it stands to reason that an author WILL make an error. At the same time, in the event of an error, acknowledge it and move on...being more careful in the future. OTOH, we readers need to exercise caution. Let the buyer beware.

More observations. I have frequently relied on other works for information. When I wrote an article on modeling a Southern MS-1 2-8-2 I did not travel around the South looking for such a locomotive. Instead, I relied on articles published in the Southern Railway Historical Association. One is dependent in this case on the accuracy of the author. It helps, of course, to have more than one source but in time one becomes somewhat adept at recognizing well done...and hopefully accurate...articles. Having said that, I will note that I can easily take issue with comments in many books written about steam locomotives...including those about my favored UP.

Speaking of errors in published works, I will bow to the need to complain about a pet peeve. Namely the tendency of what I might call a "collector of information" to withhold it from authors only later to "spring" forth with a correction when the author is published. Fortunately the STMFC is not home to such "collectors".

Mike Brock

I've found photos of CN boxcars numbered 11069 (1939 build date) and 11128
(1942? build date), but these aren't listed in my 1953 ORER. Does anyone
know if these were renumbered at some point?

Frank Valoczy

On May 6, 2007, at 9:58 AM, bill_d_goat wrote:

There were no U.S. Army boxcars (in any reporting marks) in my 1943
ORER. The Transportation Corps herald on the car indicates that such a
car would be post WWII. My guess, subject to correction, is that the
Army, buying boxcars post war would have bought newer cars than X-29s,
which were built in the late '20s to early '30s, most of which had
needed steel plates added at the bottom of the sides due to rust.
IMHO, these cars are not authentic.

In the absence of documentary evidence (which, of course, some list
member may be able to supply), I'd agree with Bill. I have several
photos of U. S. Army box cars, but all were either antiques hastily
acquired during the war for use on specific military bases and not used
in interchange or new cars built to some variant of an AAR standard
design. Ironically, an authentic model could be made using the Red
caboose 1937 AAR box car model, but not the RC X29 (no hypen!) model.

Richard Hendrickson

Larry,

Thanks for the info. On CB&Q wheel reports were from the
rear end but setout lists were supposed to be from the
head end. Conductors had to do a lot of writing.

My observations:

X3569: Line 18 BREX 24782 is a bad number. Might be ART
or SFRD but not BREX. Think the WFEX behind is has been
mentioned by someone else. MDT 41825 would certainly be
a relic. FGEX 108999? Either wrong initials or an extra
number, probably a PFE car.

X1451: Line 28 "URTS" should be "URTX". Line 36 GN 31317,
think those cars have been discussed enough! Lines 60 thru
70 are questionable. Must be mostly PFE's.

Russ

Kurt Laughlin wrote:

Well, not exclusively. From grad school I remember several cases of
longstanding personal animus . . .

Sure. Academics are human too. I was speaking of the more typical
NON-animus style of academic review, which itself can seem bruising to
the non-initiated.

Well. In defending a thesis, you can't expect to be treated lightly.

To bring this only very slightly towards topicality... what was this
about? (Offlist answer'd be the best, I think...)

Frank Valoczy

--- In STMFC@..., "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@...> wrote:

I see that I didn't include the roster, which I will try to correct

today.

Here is the roster:

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFPH/files/Soo_%22Sawtooth%22_Primer/Roster.txt>

Dennis

Kurt Laughlin wrote:

Well, not exclusively. From grad school I remember several cases of longstanding personal animus . . .

Sure. Academics are human too. I was speaking of the more typical NON-animus style of academic review, which itself can seem bruising to the non-initiated.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history