Date   

U S Army boxcars

Rupert & Maureen <gamlenz@...>
 

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"The Army historically used what by many standards would be considered outdated rolling stock (Navy & Air Force too for that matter).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


Re: CN boxcars

Eric Gagnon <mile179kingston@...>
 

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


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Policies Regarding Evaluations of Published Works

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson

. . . Academics are human too. . .

----- Original Message -----

I've dealt with a few that would disagree.

KL


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Policies Regarding Evaluations of Published Works

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

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


Re: Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar.

al_brown03
 

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




Re: Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar.

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


Re: Freight Conductor's Train Book

Roger Hinman <rhinman@...>
 

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

On May 6, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Russ Strodtz wrote:

MDT 41825 would certainly be
a relic.


Re: Freight Conductor's Train Book

Russ Strodtz <sheridan@...>
 

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

----- Original Message -----
From: finkfam98055
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Sunday, 06 May, 2007 17:05
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight Conductor's Train Book


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

--- In STMFC@..., "Russ Strodtz" <sheridan@...>
wrote:
>
> 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




Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Policies Regarding Evaluations of Published Works

Russ Strodtz <sheridan@...>
 

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


Re: Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar.

Brian Leppert <b.leppert@...>
 

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


Re: Freight Conductor's Train Book

Larry Fink
 

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

--- In STMFC@..., "Russ Strodtz" <sheridan@...> wrote:

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


Re: new Sunshine car?

Paul Lyons
 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: destorzek@...
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Sun, 6 May 2007 11:53 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: new Sunshine car?


--- In STMFC@..., 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



________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


Re: CN boxcars

Ian Cranstone
 

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


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Policies Regarding Evaluations of Published Works

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

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


CN boxcars

destron@...
 

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


Re: Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar.

Richard Hendrickson
 

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


Re: Freight Conductor's Train Book

Russ Strodtz <sheridan@...>
 

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

----- Original Message -----
From: finkfam98055
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Saturday, 05 May, 2007 20:11
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight Conductor's Train Book


Thanks to those who responded with the answer
"loads-empties-
tonnage" to my question. I uploaded an Excel spreadsheet of
the
entries in the Union Pacific Conductor's Train Book to the Files
section (DeBoieConductorBook.xls). Twelve trains are listed for
1947-
1951 between Huntington - LaGrande - Reith, but complete wheel
reports are only listed for three (1947-1949). One other train
has a
partial list.
Of the three complete reports, X3596 (2-8-8-0) is an
eastbound
with mostly fruit reefers. X3522 (2-8-8-0) is a westbound with
mostly coal, and X1451 (F3A phase III)is eastbound with about
50%
empties and 30% loaded reefers. Only 10 cars are listed for one
of
the trains X1550 (F3A phase IV), which I found on a switchlist
and a
train order rather than the Conductor's book.
Tim Gilbert suggested that this book may have been a copy
the
Conductor made for his personal use. That might explain why the
record is incomplete and there are so few trains over the time
span.
Still, I'll take what I can get.
Those STMFC members interested in consists, or interested
in
modeling the UP in the late 1940's will especially value the
data.
Don't hesitate to contact me off-line if you find questionable
entries that may be due to my typographical error or the
Conductor's
penmanship. I'd also be interested in your impressions and
insight
about the consist - either to the group or off-line. One thing
I
noticed is steam helping diesels, diesels helping diesels, and
diesels helping steam.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/DeBoieConductorBook.xls>

Larry Fink
Renton, Washington


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Policies Regarding Evaluations of Published Works

destron@...
 

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


Re: new Sunshine car?

Dennis Storzek
 

--- 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


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Policies Regarding Evaluations of Published Works

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

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

131141 - 131160 of 193481