Hello Richard,
Thanks again this is beginning to get interesting.
One thing that I did notice regarding this car ,was that it has a much newer set of wheels within it's trucks,for a car this old one would expect that the flanges would be very worn,these are not.The wheelsets also are from ,the Dominion Car and Foundry and I believe another northern foundry which i will check again.This kind of suggests to me that maybe the car could have been sold off, as the more expensive maintenance became due ,such as wheel replacement.
Logging companies in the Northwest and up along the coast were always looking for good used equipment and stored much of the fuel for their fleet of steam engines in tankcars.They often salvaged equipment from wrecks and received items such as good used wheelsets from larger Railways that they interchanged with.Changing a few wheelsets from under a tankcar would have been a mere days work for the mechanic.
I will certainly see what else i can find on this car but ,I think it's mostly end stenciling on weights and wheel types etc.and only faintly visible.
Would dearly appreciate seeing what the 1930 CDLX cars looked like ,could you post your photo in the photos section perhaps.
Many Thanks.
Dan Gledhill
Maintenance Engineer
A.P.R.
Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:
On Sep 4, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Dan Gledhill wrote:

Hello Richard,
Thanks again for the info.that you have provided,I am getting much
closer to finding out how CDLX 1051 looked before WW2.Would the 15
S.T.C.Co. cars leased to Star Refining & Producing Co.have been
painted silver and carry the Star name?

They might have, but in the absence of photographic evidence it's
impossible to tell.

I guess it is possible that the remnants of the name still on the car
was on there before CDLX received these cars.

Certainly possible. However, I am inclined to think that the fragments
of lettering that are still readable were on the car during the period
when it was owned and operated by CDLX.

This car as it exists now has absolutely no paint left on the tank and
just patches on the frameThe car though is generally complete with no
damage,just a lot of surface rust.The trucks ,which are in good shape
have the following cast in lettering.
''PAT.Jan 13,1914'' ''F-502 over one axle and ''6-20 S.T.C.Co.'' C-5
over the next axle.

This identifies the trucks as having been original, made for the
Standard Tank Car Co., and also establishes the date the car was built
as being in late 1920 or early 1921, shortly after the trucks were
delivered. That's a bit earlier than I would have guessed, but we now
know that the cars in the 1001-1052 series were a mixed bag of second
hand cars, their only commonality being their 10,000 gal. nominal
capacity and their ARA III classification, which indicates that they
were all built before 1927, when the ICC-103 designation took effect.

Earlier I had stated that it was stenciled in 1933 for the U.P.,but
after checking again the stencil reads as follows.'' REPKD A.T.6-6-37
U.P.R.R.''

AT was Albina Terminal, the UP's Portland, OR freight yard.

As well I was able to find on the lower sides of the tank the name
Los Angeles and further along about 12 ft. the name California.The
lettering for these names was about six inches high.
I guess this is really not much more to go on but hopefully it will
provide something of a clue ,as to this cars early appearance.

Collectively, the fragmentary evidence you report suggests to me that
this car was leased by CDLX to a Los Angeles area petroleum company
which shipped petroleum products to locations on the west coast, and
that the car was sold in the late 1930s, after the stenciled repack
date, to a logging company (perhaps because of some off-line damage to
the underframe or running gear such that CDLX wrote it off rather than
paying to have it repaired) and thereafter was not operated in
interchange. In any case, it certainly could not have been used in
interchange after 8/53, when AB air brakes were mandated. I have
photos which document California Dispatch Line's 1930s-vintage standard
paint and lettering, but none which suggest who the lessor oil company
might have been. Let me know if you discover any other evidence on the
car that might shed more light on this puzzle.

Richard Hendrickson








---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

Hi Folks

Here are the breakdowns of double sheathed, single sheathed, and
steel box and auto cars, April 1949 and July 1950, for the ERIE,
WABASH, and SOO railroads, from ORERs and other sources.


ERIE:

April 1949
ERIE_____%____Number
DS_____0.0%____0
SS_____10.7%____1,284
Steel_____89.3%____10,711
Other_____0.0%____0
Known_____100.0%____11,995
Unknown_____0.0%____2
Total_____100.0%____11,997

July 1950
ERIE_____%____Number
DS_____0.0%____0
SS_____8.9%____1,063
Steel_____91.1%____10,851
Other_____0.0%____0
Known_____100.0%____11,914
Unknown_____0.0%____0
Total_____100.0%____11,914

The Erie retired 221 of its single sheathed box and auto cars from
April 1949 to July 1950, about 17% of its fleet. It added 140 steel,
for a minor overall decline. At both times, most of its cars were
steel and none were double sheathed.


WABASH:

April 1949
WABASH_____%____Number
DS_____11.8%____1,429
SS_____41.2%____4,976
Steel_____47.0%____5,683
Other_____0.0%____0
Known_____100.0%____12,088
Unknown_____0.0%____0
Total_____100.0%____12,088

July 1950
Wabash_____%____Number
DS_____5.6%____659
SS_____41.9%____4,936
Steel_____52.5%____6,175
Other_____0.0%____0
Known_____100.0%____11,770
Unknown_____0.0%____0
Total_____100.0%____11,770

The Wabash cut its double sheathed fleet in half from April 1949 to
July 1950. Like most of the other granger roads, its non-steel cars
were dominantly SS in 1949 (78% SS, 22% DS) and became even more so
in 1950 (88% SS, 12% DS). Steel sides, which were just below 50% of
the fleet in 1949, rose to just over half in 1950.


SOO:

April 1949
SOO_____%____Number
DS_____1.1%____99
SS_____67.7%____5,834
Steel_____31.1%____2,678
Other_____0.0%____0
Known_____100.0%____8,611
Unknown_____0.0%____1
Total_____100.0%____8,612

July 1950
Soo_____%____Number
DS_____0.8%____71
SS_____63.4%____5,701
Steel_____35.8%____3,222
Other_____0.0%____0
Known_____100.0%____8,994
Unknown_____0.0%____0
Total_____100.0%____8,994

The SOO, another granger road, cut its meager DS fleet by about a
quarter, trimmed its SS cars by 133, and added 544 steel sides for an
overall gain of 382 cars. Although steel was gaining, the SOO
remained nearly two-thirds single sheathed in 1950.


Best wishes,
Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming

--- In STMFC@..., "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@...> wrote:

[snip]

- Striker-to-kingpin distance: I don't have my copy of Ted's book
with me to confirm this - the postings here that are confusing is
the inference that the SAL cars had the earlier 5 ft truck spacing,
of which I'm very skeptical - specifically, what is the defect of
the Sunshine kit? One of the hallmarks of the 1932 ARA underframe
design was the 5 ft 6 truck spacing. We need someone to confirm
what the SAL cars had before we come up with a underframe modeling
plan.

FWIW, Bob Hundman did drawings of these SAL boxcars in MM. I'm
obviously away from my library and can't narrow down the results
from the online magazine index - they appeared in one of these
three issues of Mainline Modeler:
October 1992
November 1992
January 1993

Additonally, Pat O'Boyle's "Seaboard Box Car Lettering - Their 1932
ARA Variation" provides additional photos. See the October 1997
issue of Mainline Modeler.

Rob wrote:
"I suspect that at 3" variance at each end, it is too subtle to
notice in most cases (not that I am inviting a debate on what degree
of error is too subtle to notice)."

The spacing variance would actually be 6 in, and that is definitely
noticeable.

Ted's book and the MM articles are clear that the standard striker-to-
kingpin distance was 5'6", and I don't find mention of anyone
deviating. (There was great variation in ends and roofs, which are
discussed extensively.) Photos of the SAL cars look like anyone
else's in this respect. FWIW, SCL equipment diagrams published in
Lines South, 6/84, also quote this distance as 5'6". I don't have a
prototype handy to measure :-). The expert on these cars is of course
Ted, not I.

Confusion may arise because some of the SAL's older single-sheathed
cars had the "ore-car" 5' spacing (e.g. the GF&A cars), although
others had 5'6" (e.g. class B-5). I agree with Ben that the
difference is visible: a 5' spacing brings the wheel tread even with
the car end, while at 5'6" it's 6" in from the end. Doesn't sound
like much, but sight down from the car end and the wheel's either
right there, or offset inwards.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

What method are we going to use to ID each other (for those going to
Naperville this year)as STMFC members???I wear NewEngland railroad( MEC
BM Rutland ) T shirts...
See ya all in Naperville
Joel Norman Eastern Maine Railroad ''were its always spring/summer '52"

Apologies for the delay in getting to this - I've been on my two
weeks of active duty for the Navy and have been standing 12-hour
daily watches and have not had time to address questions.

Rob, I think you need to pause and take a deep breath, as you're
getting confused between this SAL 1932 ARA boxcar and the 1923
ARA/Class X29 boxcars, which superficially appear similar but are
definitely NOT the same. Let's clarify some issues:

- The Red Caboose PRR Class X29/1923 ARA boxcar or F&C Class X28A as
a starting point: STOP NOW. This is the same mistake that Jim Six
made in his article in the January 2003 issue of Model RailroaDING.
The Funaro kit will give you a close match to IH, but the biggest
discrepancies are the side rivet patterns. These source kits have
two rows of rivets at the side seams, which is completely incorrect
for any 1932 ARA boxcar prototype. YOU CANNOT SIMPLY ADD SIDE SILL
TABS TO THESE MODELS.

- Striker-to-kingpin distance: I don't have my copy of Ted's book
with me to confirm this - the postings here that are confusing is the
inference that the SAL cars had the earlier 5 ft truck spacing, of
which I'm very skeptical - specifically, what is the defect of the
Sunshine kit? One of the hallmarks of the 1932 ARA underframe design
was the 5 ft 6 truck spacing. We need someone to confirm what the
SAL cars had before we come up with a underframe modeling plan.

FWIW, Bob Hundman did drawings of these SAL boxcars in MM. I'm
obviously away from my library and can't narrow down the results from
the online magazine index - they appeared in one of these three
issues of Mainline Modeler:
October 1992
November 1992
January 1993

Additonally, Pat O'Boyle's "Seaboard Box Car Lettering - Their 1932
ARA Variation" provides additional photos. See the October 1997
issue of Mainline Modeler.

Rob wrote:
"I suspect that at 3" variance at each end, it is too subtle to
notice in most cases (not that I am inviting a debate on what degree
of error is too subtle to notice)."

The spacing variance would actually be 6 in, and that is definitely
noticeable.


"If I was to go the kitbash route and not order the Sunshine kit, the
flat kit nature of the F&C X35 kit appeals to me for modelling
purposes. Borrowing the sides from the X35 and mating them to the X28
seems to have some potential. I think the F&C X28 roof is correct
for the model? I wonder if the X28 ends beneath the roof lip are
appreciably different in height than the X35 sides? Does anyone have
an X35 they could measure? I have an X28 waiting for correct side
panels on the bench that I can measure for comparison's sake."

Using the F&C PRR Class X35 (or one of their other 9 ft 4 in IH ex-
Yankee Clipper Models 1932 ARA boxcar models) as a starting point is
an outstanding idea, but not in the way you propose. Cutting up the
$30 F&C X28A is a non-starter, especially when you can get the roof
and ends from other sources. Stan Rydarowicz offers a Pullman resin
roof that can be used for this car; for the ends, you can bash them
by cutting them from two Red Caboose or Train-Miniature X29 bodies
and splicing them to make taller ends.

I've got to go back on watch. More to follow later.


Ben Hom

--- In STMFC@..., " Westerfield" <westerfield@...> wrote:

Actually, I find White's work sterile. He mines the literature but

little else. It's like reading a condensation of Railway Age. - Al
Westerfield

Yup...so "REAL HISTORY" is more than just trolling up a few facts and
lining them up in chronological order. It involves some kind of
synthesis or inference that puts facts in a bigger perspective, and
offers up heuristic value that helps us find and assemble further
facts into a coherent picture. Hence, Jack and Dennis are right to
distinguish their speculation from fact, but ought to feel no need to
apologize for it, as it is what they are bringing to the process that
turns mere facts into knowledge.

I may be taking this near out of bounds, but this is the first RR list
I've been on where epistemology has actually come up for discussion.
Like we'd ever see this on the Diesels List ;-)

Chris Frissell
Polson, MT

Pieter Roos wrote:

Rather than buying the HO Lifelike car, Bud could find a drawing:

The Mather boxcar: draft horse of American boxcars
Railroad Model Craftsman, February 1991 page 85

As cited in the Kalmbach index. I have not dug out the issue to see
which version of the car is shown, but I suspect the drawing plus some
photos could be interpolated into the required version.

The plan in RMC is the tall version of the 40-ft Mather boxcar.

Bob Witt

Thanks Paul and Rich for your useful comments on the Sunshine Seaboard '32 model and the F&C X35 model.

I looked at the X35 drawing and see it has the more conventional 30' 8 1/2" truck centres as well. The question this brings to mind is whether the side sill tabs at the bolsters on either model will look out of place if one models correct truck spacing? I assume on the prototype the tabs would be a little different on cars with the longer spacing than on the more conventional design, although confess I have trouble seeing it in photos? Is it true? I suspect that at 3" variance at each end, it is too subtle to notice in most cases (not that I am inviting a debate on what degree of error is too subtle to notice).

If I was to go the kitbash route and not order the Sunshine kit, the flat kit nature of the F&C X35 kit appeals to me for modelling purposes. Borrowing the sides from the X35 and mating them to the X28 seems to have some potential. I think the F&C X28 roof is correct for the model? I wonder if the X28 ends beneath the roof lip are appreciably different in height than the X35 sides? Does anyone have an X35 they could measure? I have an X28 waiting for correct side panels on the bench that I can measure for comparison's sake.

Rob Kirkham

Godwin's Law. ;o)

Mike Fortney

Actually, I find White's work sterile. He mines the literature but little else. It's like reading a condensation of Railway Age. - Al Westerfield

Oops, sorry about that. While my last message may read as response to Robert D. Heninger's e-mail, it actually was supposed to be an off line response to another e-mail I received from someone else. Not sure how I messed that up - but sorry for any misunderstanding and wasting band width.

Rob Kirkham

Some members of this group may be too young to know that at one time--when I began my college years back in 1959, for example--very few in the academic world wrote very much about railroads. Oh, yes, one could find dissertations on the economic aspects of railroads, on some of the better-known financial dealings of a Jay Gould perhaps, but very little on reliable and readable corporate history, such as one finds from Indiana University Press, Northern Illinois University Press, the University of Minnesota Press, and many more that I know little of.

Serious academics did not write about railroads and certainly not about freight car history or construction. If they did, their achievements must have been accomplished in the most obscure of circumstances or remained in dissertation form never to see a wider public. The matter appears to be quite different today. Whether the authors of the PFE book are academics I can't say, but their work--in my view--qualifies. Perhaps one can only say so much about Hitler or Jane Austen and in the search for topics, something interesting and relevant such as railroads in all their varied manifestations acquired respectability.

Tom Baker
Eau Calire, Michigan

On Sep 3, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Russ Strodtz wrote:

Richard,Thank you. That also answered another question. At the
same general time there are a few GN 55M series cars
moving to Chicago Ridge. So, in theory, the MSCX could
just be a filler for the other lease to replace cars
being shopped or destroyed. In 1960 there were only
nine cars with the four digit numbers.

Not just theory. Mather did, in fact, provide MSCX cars as needed to
supplement leased cars which operated under the leasing RR's reporting
marks. I have a photo of an MSCX car stenciled to be returned to the
Northern Pacific, obviously on short-term lease to supplement the
Mather cars with NP reporting marks.

I'm very familiar with the 50' double decks as they
were used to replace the hordes of CB&Q 36' cars in hog
service. Thought they had innovative top door track:
Just a steel rod with metal rings attached to the door.
With four doors on each side they were constantly
slapping in or out. I presume these were all cuts and
splices from shorter cars, or were any built as 50'
cars?

All of the 50' Mather stock cars were rebuilt by cutting and splicing
40' Mather stock cars, as you inferred.

Richard Hendrickson

Eric,

My understanding of the term as it is used in reference to railroads, is that it refers to the Mid West farming belt states, including Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska and Wisconsin and the railroads that operated there. I may have left one or two states out. Morning Sun has a book called "Trackside Around Granger Country" that chronicles the railroads in that area.

You are correct, granger comes from grange, which is a very old word meaning grain and ultimately, farm. See Wikipedia for interesting information. There is also a national organization of farmers and others who belong to the Grange, and organization from the 19th Century that fought against the railroad and banking monopolies and also were involved in abolition and women's suffrage. They were very strong in the midwest bread basket, and still are to some extent. They were also in the Northeast, in fact there is a neat photo of a Granger Hall in Maine on the Wiki site, would make a great model.

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA


To: STMFC@...: newyorkcentralfan@...: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 18:25:02 +0000Subject: [STMFC] Re: What is a "granger railroad"?




In regards to the granger donnybrook, could a railroad's being considered a granger be determined by having a large percentage of it's income earned by grain haulage be the way of determining as to wether they were a granger road or not?Eric Petersson

eric petersson wrote:

It's been my experience that when a professor refers to a colleague as a "popular" historian, it's a euphemism for 'a historian whose work is more well regarded than mine and I'm more than a little put out by that.'

Maybe; I'd say it usually means "someone who's less rigorous and serious than me, but whose books sell at an annoyingly high rate." Sometimes it means "someone who publishes a lot more than me and who MUST be cutting some corners somewhere."

There's a reason that a PhD is refered to piling it high and deep.

Get a grip, Eric. This remark is usually made by those who kinda wish THEY had one.

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

I'm associated with a military affairs symposium and come in contact
with a great many academics. It's been my experience that when a
professor refers to a colleague as a "popular" historian, it's a
euphemism for 'a historian whose work is more well regarded than mine
and I'm more than a little put out by that.'

There's a reason that a PhD is refered to piling it high and deep.


Eric Petersson



Marty McGuirk wrote:

I am taking a class called Study and Writing of History as part of
the required coursework for a History MA/PhD program. While
discussing research and appropriate sources the professor made an
interesting statement about what can be considered "real" history -
by that she meant a valid source -- as opposed to a "popular"
historian."




Which led to wonder if all the research we as a group do on freight
cars is real history or not. I don't know that any of us is working
on
a PhD in Freightcarology . . . but I think the methodical approach
some
apply to this research certainly qualifies as "history." The question
is does this type of research stand up to a citation in a scholarly
paper, or is it merely some offshoot of "popular" history.

For my money, a work like Tony's PFE book certainly qualifies -- a
short article with a drawing in a magazine does not. I think the use
of
original sources and citations of same is likely the difference. John
White's books also pass muster.

Would like to use some sources in my research, but not sure where the
line should be drawn.

Would appreciate any thoughts.

On Sep 4, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Dan Gledhill wrote:

Hello Richard,
Thanks again for the info.that you have provided,I am getting much
closer to finding out how CDLX 1051 looked before WW2.Would the 15
S.T.C.Co. cars leased to Star Refining & Producing Co.have been
painted silver and carry the Star name?

They might have, but in the absence of photographic evidence it's
impossible to tell.

I guess it is possible that the remnants of the name still on the car
was on there before CDLX received these cars.

Certainly possible. However, I am inclined to think that the fragments
of lettering that are still readable were on the car during the period
when it was owned and operated by CDLX.

This car as it exists now has absolutely no paint left on the tank and
just patches on the frameThe car though is generally complete with no
damage,just a lot of surface rust.The trucks ,which are in good shape
have the following cast in lettering.
''PAT.Jan 13,1914'' ''F-502 over one axle and ''6-20 S.T.C.Co.'' C-5
over the next axle.

This identifies the trucks as having been original, made for the
Standard Tank Car Co., and also establishes the date the car was built
as being in late 1920 or early 1921, shortly after the trucks were
delivered. That's a bit earlier than I would have guessed, but we now
know that the cars in the 1001-1052 series were a mixed bag of second
hand cars, their only commonality being their 10,000 gal. nominal
capacity and their ARA III classification, which indicates that they
were all built before 1927, when the ICC-103 designation took effect.

Earlier I had stated that it was stenciled in 1933 for the U.P.,but
after checking again the stencil reads as follows.'' REPKD A.T.6-6-37
U.P.R.R.''

AT was Albina Terminal, the UP's Portland, OR freight yard.

As well I was able to find on the lower sides of the tank the name
Los Angeles and further along about 12 ft. the name California.The
lettering for these names was about six inches high.
I guess this is really not much more to go on but hopefully it will
provide something of a clue ,as to this cars early appearance.

Collectively, the fragmentary evidence you report suggests to me that
this car was leased by CDLX to a Los Angeles area petroleum company
which shipped petroleum products to locations on the west coast, and
that the car was sold in the late 1930s, after the stenciled repack
date, to a logging company (perhaps because of some off-line damage to
the underframe or running gear such that CDLX wrote it off rather than
paying to have it repaired) and thereafter was not operated in
interchange. In any case, it certainly could not have been used in
interchange after 8/53, when AB air brakes were mandated. I have
photos which document California Dispatch Line's 1930s-vintage standard
paint and lettering, but none which suggest who the lessor oil company
might have been. Let me know if you discover any other evidence on the
car that might shed more light on this puzzle.

Richard Hendrickson

In regards to the granger donnybrook, could a railroad's being
considered a granger be determined by having a large percentage of
it's income earned by grain haulage be the way of determining as to
wether they were a granger road or not?

Eric Petersson

On Sep 5, 2007, at 7:11 AM, Don Worthy wrote:

I am, also, interested in these cars. Where do I order them from?? Is
there an email address or mail address that I didn't see?

STMFC,
If anyone is interested in purchasing any Sunshine 1932 ARA box cars, I
have few extras (21.1 MP, 21.6 CRR, and 21.21 WM), plus some other
urethane kits (many of which are out of production). Contact me OFF
LIST at hawk0621@... and I will furnish you a listing. No
waiting for 6 months!
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

F&C still makes the PRR X35 which is the lone 1932 ARA boxcar in the Pennsy's fleet.? It has an IH of 9'4" so it may be a better starting point for your project.



Rich Orr