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@vcn.bc.ca 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@nakina.net
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@yahoogroups.com, "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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, cobrapsl@... wrote:

Dennis,

I am struggling with placing the doors on a SOO Sunshine 78.3 Kit.

This is the kit that models SOO series cars #40200-41798, built in
1928-29, with top supported Youngstown doors, Dreadnaught ends.

I only have the photo in the kit's Prototype Data Sheet to work

with and it is not real sharp, but I am not sure the Sunshine side
casting is correct for this series car. In the photo, I do not see the
very distinct flat plate side projection, or the "leg" of a Z bar at
the top of the truss. If this series does have this distinct SOO
feature, then the roof seems to have a greater side overhang where the
door track can stuck under the roof.

The Sunshine side casting for kit 78.3 is the exactly same one as

in the kit 78.1, but the prototype photos seem to tell another story.

Yours, or any other listers help will be appreciated.

Thanks,
Paul Lyons
Laguna Niguel, CA

Paul,

I can't help with any comments on the actual construction of the kits,
as I've not had time to build them. I've also had someone tell me that
the end ladder grab ioron locates are wrong, and don't line up with
the side grabs.

As Brian Leppart pointed out, a while back I uploaded some photos that
should be helpful. The link to the whole subdirectory is:

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

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

The detail of the door track and it's position relative to the roof
overhand is shown here:


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFPH/files/Soo_%22Sawtooth%22_Primer/1929%20roof.jpg>

This detail shot is of SOO 41146 at IRM. Since the angle does not show
the roof overhang well, also see:


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFPH/files/Soo_%22Sawtooth%22_Primer/1926%20ownership.jpg>

This is a close-up of the corner of one of the 1926 WC caes, but the
roof / side connection is the same.

Dennis

Arnold

The U.S. Army did have some "1923 ARA" design box cars at least
in the late 1950's. I am not sure but I think the reporting marks
should be USAX, not USA. Also I am not sure which Red Caboose body
style this model is -- 1923, 1924 (X29), or 1928 (X29). I'm sure
someone here knows if you can't figure it out... :-)

Tim O'Connor

Tom Madden wrote:

On the whole I found the exchange fairly civil. Heated, yes, even
testy, but civil. Anyone who has had their work exposed to academic or
scientific review certainly recognized the process and shouldn't be
uncomfortable with it – whether participant or witness. Intense critiques such as Richard's are not intended to chastise the author,
but to reveal the truth. In such a review even people who agree with
your conclusions will jump all over assertions that aren't supported
by the evidence . . . 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.

Good summary, Tom. Glad to see this kind of viewpoint rather than
the shouting about "elitists" who "know too much," etc. The point about
the way academic reviews are made and received is important too,
because they can be understandably a bruising experience for those not used to them, but important to recognize as NOT personal or pugnacious
in character.

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

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Arnold van Heyst" <mrdata1968@...> wrote:

Sirs,

Is this Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar correct?
http://cgi.ebay.com/Red-Caboose-RR-37054-07-HO-X-29-Boxcar-U-S-
ARMY_W0QQitemZ270116485567QQihZ017QQcategoryZ484QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Regards,
Arnold van Heyst
Netherlands.

Dear Arnold
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.
Bill Williams

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "cripete" <pjboylanboylan@...> wrote:

As a freebie you can obtain details of, and graphics
related to all of Evans long line of manufactured
equipment.
The source is either GOOGLE PATENTS or the US PATENT
OFFICE websites.

Search under: "Evans Auto Loading Company";
"Evans Products Company";
"Worth Company";
" E.S. Evans Company".

Peter, excellent idea. After looking through the patents, it appears
that the design of the Evans Auto Loader changed over time. The
original apparatus appears to have just 'grabbed the tires' and
lifted one end of the auto up into the air. Later versions had a 2-
track platform that could be raised, I assume due to heavier weights
of automobiles.

This N&W B2 class boxcar 49200 has the later style, but a BLT year of
1936.
Car:
http://spec.lib.vt.edu/imagebase/norfolksouthern/full/NS2906.jpeg
Interior:
http://spec.lib.vt.edu/imagebase/norfolksouthern/full/NS2904.jpeg

Andy Laurent

On the whole I found the exchange fairly civil. Heated, yes, even
testy, but civil. Anyone who has had their work exposed to academic or
scientific review certainly recognized the process and shouldn't be
uncomfortable with it – whether participant or witness. Intense
critiques such as Richard's are not intended to chastise the author,
but to reveal the truth. In such a review even people who agree with
your conclusions will jump all over assertions that aren't supported
by the evidence. It's their job, and if they do it well everyone
benefits. Sure, feelings can get hurt, but it's usually from the
realization that you could have done better. 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.

Tom Madden

Sirs,

Is this Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar correct?
http://cgi.ebay.com/Red-Caboose-RR-37054-07-HO-X-29-Boxcar-U-S-
ARMY_W0QQitemZ270116485567QQihZ017QQcategoryZ484QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Regards,
Arnold van Heyst
Netherlands.

Going back to mail of a couple of days ago, Russ mentioned:

An aside: Cars with cement floors I.H. 8'11", Cu.Ft. 3077
Otherwise I.H. 9'0", Cu.Ft. 3098

I don't know why this one inch thick layer of cement. My first thought was that it was for the hide loading cars, 31000 series cars rebuilt with roof hatches for loading hides. The wood floor could use some extra protection against what was seeping from that load! But the hide loading cars still had an unchanged inside height of 9' according to the ORER and diagrams. (This might, however, be the kind of dimension that wasn't corrected when a change was made. After all what is the importance of an extra inch, when you are loading hides?)

The hide loading cars did have Plastinail flooring to differ from unconverted cars. I Googled "Plastinail". It said "a flooring compound that Weyerhauser Timber Co. processes out of Douglas fir bark, flows like cement, then hardens, can be nailed like wood. Would that be the "cement"? Would it be spread on in an inch thick layer?

This drawing has obviously been modified to move the

circular

monogram higher and slightly to the right. It does not show

a

date for that or any other modification.

In my collection of several pictures of 31000 series cars nearly all kept the herald in the lower position. Even Big Sky blue 31399 hide car had the herald in the lower position. I have seen no picture of a car with the herald as high up as in the corrected drawing partially onto the metal plate at the top of the side. Two mineral red hide cars (31129, 31483) do show heralds high enough to just touch the lower edge of the steel plate.

Staffan Ehnbom