Date   

65 ft. gons

ed_mines
 

Besides structural steel what would be some common loads for 65 ft.
steam era gons?

Would structural steel be I beams and the like?

Were electrical transmission towers preassembled (drilled and assembled
into subsections)? They would make interesting gon loads.

Years ago I met with a man who worked on a railroad during the summer
in the early '50s. He told me some kind of metal was shipped in bales
in these long gons (not scrap).

Ed


Re: CV flat car lengths

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Martin McGuirk <mjmcguirk@...> wrote:

I've managed to run into a confusing situation with regards to the
length of two classes of Central Vermont flat cars. This project
started simple enough - I was going to use a Tichy flat -- then
noticed the cars are stenciled "Lngth 36'-10" -- obviously shorter
than the Tichy flats.

So I decided this may make a worthwhile scratchbuilding project. So I
dug out more photos and my official railroad freight car data sheets.
All the cars in the photos have a length of 36'-10". Adding to the
confusion official paperwork lists the overall length of 37'-5" --

Is one correct and one in error? Or is it possible one is measuring
the length over the strikers and the other is showing the length over
the end beams?

Obviously, I'm trying to figure out where to measure the overall
length from to build the model to the correct length.


Anyone run into a similar situation?

Marty

What seems to be the problem, Marty? I looked up the cars in the 1/58
ORER (I assume it's CV 7517 –7677 and/or 7700 – 7781 you are
interested in). The ORER shows the inside length to be 36'-10" and the
outside length to be 37'-5". Looking at the key at the back of the
book (yes, the ORER does have a key) the INSIDE length of a flatcar is
to be the length of the load carrying platform, while the OUTSIDE
length is the length over the strikers, exclusive of the couplers.
37'-5" – 36'-10" = 7"/2 = 3 1/2" per end, which sounds reasonable for
a striker casting to me.

Dennis


Re: Trainman 70 ton Triple Hoppers

steel77086@...
 

Gentlemen,

Thanks to all who responded to my question re. the Atlas/Trainman 70
ton hoppers. I was
especially glad to learn that the B&O had a bunch(even if second-hand) in
the 1960's. I have a few which will
look good behind my GP-30's.

Vince Altiere



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


Re: Calling Charley Slater

Westerfield <westerfield@...>
 

Bill - Try cslater@bak.rr.com - Al Westerfield

----- Original Message -----
From: lnbill
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:54 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Calling Charley Slater


I need to send something to ATSF modeler Charley Slater. I looked
through the membership list and did not see his name but could have
missed him. Can someone send me his email address. My address is
bwelch@uucf.org

Bill Welch


Re: NSC Ends (was) True Line 40 foot CN boxcar models

jim peters
 

Marty,

I'll take any NSC ends you wish to dispose of . . . contact me off list.

Jim Peters
Coquitlam, BC


From: "cvsne" <mjmcguirk@cox.net>
Reply-To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: True Line 40 foot CN boxcar models
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:17:58 -0000

Bill,

I've managed to round up a few of these -- the maple leaf cars are
about gone (at least I can't find any more!) but it's fairly
straightforward to add leafs to the cars with the plain CN lettering.

They do add a nice variety of ends to my strings of Red Caboose/IMWX
1937 AAR cars --

One problem -- the initials "C.N." were not, to the best of my
knowledge, stenciled on the doors of the steel cars.

My second problem is the stash of NSC ends I have been rounding up over
the years from Dan Kirlin and Sylvan . . . doesn't look like I have
much use for them!

Marty

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail is the next generation of MSN Hotmail.� It�s fast, simple, and safer than ever and best of all � it�s still free. Try it today! www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA146


Calling Charley Slater

lnbill <bwelch@...>
 

I need to send something to ATSF modeler Charley Slater. I looked
through the membership list and did not see his name but could have
missed him. Can someone send me his email address. My address is
bwelch@uucf.org

Bill Welch


Re: CV flat car lengths

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
 

Marty,

This discrepancy could be the length over the deck vs. length to face
of coupler or some other pertinent dim that was "outside" of the deck
length.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@speedwitch.com
www.speedwitch.com
(203) 747-0190


Re: Overland Models Tank Cars

Tim O'Connor
 

What do you mean "labeled as uninsulated"? Where is this ad?
For sure the Western Asphalt and Cities Service cars could be
accurate. Don't know about the Army car -- 10287-10859 were
1-dome, 10,000 gallon cars built in 1941 by ACF -- probably
best represented by the ACF Type 27. I think Overland imported
a Type 27 (#3130) but it was an 8,000 gallon car. 10992-11056
were 1-dome, 10,000 gallon cars built in 1942 by Gen American.
I have no information for USAX 10936, but there is a photo of
USAX 10993 in the August 1996 Railmodel Journal. The only
3-dome that has a large middle dome and 2 smaller domes is
GATX 904, leased to Petri Wine.

Kinda hard to figure anything out without pictures of what
you are looking at...

Tim O'Connor

I came across an ad for Overland Models from '93 or so showing a number of tank cars:

COLX 1068 "Western Asphalt", insulated 10,000 gal
GATX 1929, insulated 10,000 gal
SHPX 4035 "Cities Service", insulated 10,000 gal
USAX 10936 "United States Army", labeled as insulated but clearly uninsulated
GATX 62983 "Schenectady Chemicals", labeled as uninsulated but clearly insulated 8,000 gal w/platform
DUPX 2690 "DuPont", labeled as uninsulated but clearly insulated 8,000 gal w/platform
PAX 359 "Pennzoil", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome
DRX 2148 "Deep-Rock", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome

Do these match real cars? In particular, what about the Pennzoil car? When was it in service?

TIA,
KL


Re: CV flat car lengths

Eric
 

Martin McGuirk wrote:

"So I decided this may make a worthwhile scratchbuilding project. So I
dug out more photos and my official railroad freight car data sheets.
All the cars in the photos have a length of 36'-10". Adding to the
confusion official paperwork lists the overall length of 37'-5" --"

Sounds like the difference between body end sill amd coupler face
length. If you think about it, all shippers need to know how long the
body is and don't care about the OCL. So marking the car with the OES
makes sense.

You said you have pictures. Are they side views? If so I'd print them
out and use the wheel diameter to try and figure out the body length.

There is software called Photomodeler that allows one to measure from
photos.

www.photomodeler.com

There a freeware version of it available called Photomodeler Lite.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/library/daily/bldd021500.htm
http://www.softlookup.com/display.asp?id=4954

download:

ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/simtelnet/win95/graphics/pmlt31_a.zip


Eric Petersson


Re: CV flat car lengths

cvsne <mjmcguirk@...>
 

Armand,

Thanks, but the confusion stems from the fact that the cars themselves have 36'-10"
stenciled on the sidesills. Trying to determine

1. Where the dimension is measured from
2. Which dimension is correct for those points

in an effort to do drawings and ultimately scratchbuild the things.

Marty

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Armand Premo" <armprem@...> wrote:

Marty,CV 5100 to5103 ,5136 37' 5'' ,7500 -7677 also37'5", 7700 to
7781 ,37'5".Source: CV Freight Car Classification sheets..Hope this
helps.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin McGuirk" <mjmcguirk@...>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: CV flat car lengths


Dick,

Specifically looking at the cars in the 5100-5105; 7518-7677; and
7700-7781 series.

Marty




Yahoo! Groups Links



Overland Models Tank Cars

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

I came across an ad for Overland Models from '93 or so showing a number of tank cars:

COLX 1068 "Western Asphalt", insulated 10,000 gal
GATX 1929, insulated 10,000 gal
SHPX 4035 "Cities Service", insulated 10,000 gal
USAX 10936 "United States Army", labeled as insulated but clearly uninsulated
GATX 62983 "Schenectady Chemicals", labeled as uninsulated but clearly insulated 8,000 gal w/platform
DUPX 2690 "DuPont", labeled as uninsulated but clearly insulated 8,000 gal w/platform
PAX 359 "Pennzoil", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome
DRX 2148 "Deep-Rock", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome

Do these match real cars? In particular, what about the Pennzoil car? When was it in service?

TIA,
KL


Pratt vs. Howe boxcar trusses

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

I wrote:
Denny's belief that the Howe is lighter is wrong . . .
My apologies for having misread Denny's post. He said the Pratt is lighter, which is correct.

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


Re: CV flat car lengths

armprem
 

Marty,CV 5100 to5103 ,5136 37' 5'' ,7500 -7677 also37'5", 7700 to 7781 ,37'5".Source: CV Freight Car Classification sheets..Hope this helps.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin McGuirk" <mjmcguirk@cox.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: CV flat car lengths


Dick,

Specifically looking at the cars in the 5100-5105; 7518-7677; and
7700-7781 series.

Marty




Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: Bettendorf Underframe drawings needed

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Eric Williams wrote:
I'm working on some drawings of Milwaukee DS boxcars that I want to model. The Milw
Freight Car Diagrams I have indicate that these cars had Bettendorf underframes. Does
anyone have a source for a drawing that I can reference to understand the basic construction.
See the relevant Cycs, Eric. I included the perspective view in my Volume 3 on SP freight cars, along with a sketch, page 44, to show the details of the construction--and accompanying photos showing the cracking problems which resulted.

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


Bettendorf Underframe drawings needed

erickarlwill
 

I'm working on some drawings of Milwaukee DS boxcars that I want to model. The Milw
Freight Car Diagrams I have indicate that these cars had Bettendorf underframes. Does
anyone have a source for a drawing that I can reference to understand the basic construction.

Thanks,

Eric Williams
Millburn, NJ


Re: Trainman 70 ton Triple Hoppers

Rich C
 

The Southern car is riveted. On the model there are no
rivets that attach the bays to the sides however. Also
missing on the model are the poling pockets.


Tim you are right the model is slightly longer than
the drawing. Oh well, gonna build it anyway, its close
enough.


Rich Christie


--- Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net> wrote:


Jim Eager wrote to MFCL 7-June-2005 about this
model:
=============================================================
... basically a remake of the MDC 9-panel, which
was never
great and definitely long in the tooth, but it
looks to be
welded. If so, then C&EI/MP (longer), D&RGW
(longer), MKT,
TNM, and TP/MP are it. If riveted then B&O, C&O,
C&EI, C&I,
CG, CRR, FEC, GTW, M&StL, RDG, StLBE, and WM,
although some
of those had arched or peaked ends.
=============================================================

Tom Haag then wrote:
=============================================================
I then compared it to drawings of a Southern AAR
hopper car
that were in the 12/90 issue of MM. The Atlas car
was about
a foot and a half longer that the car in the
drawing.

Next I reread J. Eager's article on AAR 3-bay,
nine-panel
hoppers in the 6/95 issue of RMJ. The article
stated that
the Southern cars were a foot longer than the
typical AAR
recommended design. Uh oh.

Finally the article said that the M&StL cars were
two feet
longer than the typical car. Hmmmm.

So it appears that Atlas used a non-typical
prototype to
model the AAR standard 9-panel hopper car.

So fans of the M&StL (and perhaps D&RGW and C&EI)
may be
happy but modelers of RDG, CR, WM, CRR, C&O, C&I,
CB&Q,
NH and others won't be.
============================================================

No one has said -- is the model riveted or welded?
Were the
Southern cars riveted, or welded?

Tim O'Connor



James D Thompson wrote:

The Atlas car is basically a hybrid
welded/riveted car that AC&F built for
C&O in the early and mid-1950s. The Stewart cars
were: a late-1950s NYC
ribside triple adopted as an alternate AAR
standard; the PRR-C&O-N&W
consortium car; and the AAR offset-side triple
also recently done by Accurail.

David,

I respect your knowledge of hopper cars, but are
you sure about what you
stated? I just checked Al Kresse's book on C&O
hopper and gondolas and
cannot find any 70-ton C&O hoppers with the longer
inside length as
modeled by the Atlas Trainman series hopper. As I
stated in my earlier
post the Atlas triple hopper appears closest in
dimensions to the one
ACF advertised in the 1953 Car Builders'
Cyclopedia. The Atlas model
represents a triple hopper that is sightly longer
(IL 42'-8") than the
ones built by ACF (IL 40'-6") or Bethlehem and
others (IL 40'-8"). All
have of height of 10'-8" from the top of the rail
to the top of the
side.

Bob Witt
Indianapolis, Indiana



____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting


Re: Pratt vs. Howe boxcar trusses

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Andy Carlson wrote:
I think that the Howe truss designed car was familiar with the RR's back when cars were mostly of all wood construction. The engineering of wood trusses takes advantage of the greater strength of compression for wood- hence the Howe truss. Later, when steel underframes and SS cars became popular, basic familiarity with Howe trusses caused a lot of steel framed boxcars to be built with the Howe truss with it's structural members in compression. As early engineering students quickly learn, steel is much stronger in tension, and bridge trusses take advantage of this property to keep the amount of steel used to the minimum. The enlightened RR engineering departments recognized this when the Pratt truss was selected with it's structural members taking advantage of steel's tensile strength. Not all RR engineering departments were so enlightened- hence the large numbers of Howe steel trussed cars being made.
This is a good summary of the bridge perspective, Andy, but it misses two points. First, steel trusses were essentially universal in bridge building after about 1880, and all their superior features were well recognized, even by car designers. To see this, read the MCB proceedings in the first two decades of the 20th century. Yet Howe truss car framing was still being built. Your idea that somehow the bridge guys were "enlightened" and the poor mechanical engineers designing cars were decades behind, just isn't true.
Second, the car side truss has to do a job not required of the bridge truss (or at least not in the same way): it has to resist sideways and twisting forces. The car-design advocates of the Howe for car sides believed it was superior in that aspect--though their colleagues of the opposite persuasion argued vehemently against them. You can see this in the ARA Mechanical Division proceedings all through the 1920s.
Denny's belief that the Howe is lighter is wrong: in either steel or wood it is heavier, though of course, as Andy observed, it has to be that way in wood to provide the compression strength in the long members. But for bridges, the modest difference in weight is of no real consequence.

Anthony Thompson
Dept. of Materials Science & Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
thompsonmarytony@sbcglobal.net


Re: Question about 1950s SRLX Reefers

rrhistorian
 

Hello all,

To broaden my original question a bit - I would also greatly
appreciate any references to works that discuss the transition from
ice to mechanical reefers in terms of both design and operation. I am
not interested in this for modeling purposes, but to better understand
the significance of preserved cars.

I have found personal recommendations to be invaluable in doing
similar research In doing similar research on other railroad topics.
In indexed articles (whether it be the model train magazine index or
something else) it is difficult find articles that present an in-depth
analysis.

Tom Cornillie


Hello all,

I am looking for some further information on Swift Refrigerator Lines
cars, numbered in the 15XXX and 25XXX series. The 15XXX cars were 39’
ice cars built in 1956, while the 25XXX cars were 51’ cars built in
1954. The Illinois Railway Museum roster lists General American
Transportation as the builder of both cars. (They have 3 cars from
each group in their collection).

See: (http://www.irm.org/roster/freight.html)


Re: Pratt vs. Howe boxcar trusses

Andy Carlson
 

I think that the Howe truss designed car was familiar with the RR's back when cars were mostly of all wood construction. The engineering of wood trusses takes advantage of the greater strength of compression for wood- hence the Howe truss. Later, when steel underframes and SS cars became popular, basic familiarity with Howe trusses caused a lot of steel framed boxcars to be built with the Howe truss with it's structural members in compression. As early engineering students quickly learn, steel is much stronger in tension, and bridge trusses take advantage of this property to keep the amount of steel used to the minimum. The enlightened RR engineering departments recognized this when the Pratt truss was selected with it's structural members taking advantage of steel's tensile strength. Not all RR engineering departments were so enlightened- hence the large numbers of Howe steel trussed cars being made.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

Denny Anspach <danspach@macnexus.org> wrote: Although I seem to know that in bridge engineering a Pratt truss is
inherently lighter than a Howe, and thus in practice, the Howe is
relatively rare, how does this play out in boxcar design? Does the
engineering of the door openings, or the weight and strength of the
underframe have something to do with it?

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Okoboji, Iowa


Pratt vs. Howe boxcar trusses

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Although I seem to know that in bridge engineering a Pratt truss is inherently lighter than a Howe, and thus in practice, the Howe is relatively rare, how does this play out in boxcar design? Does the engineering of the door openings, or the weight and strength of the underframe have something to do with it?

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Okoboji, Iowa

120661 - 120680 of 186253