Date   

Re: CCB photo

water.kresse@...
 

Andy,

I was an Armored Cavalry officer in the late-60s. Ended up with a Pathfinder Detachment in VN. I was familar with Regiments, Brigades and Divisions . . . and Corps. February 1943 Signal Corps images of M4 tanks being unloaded at Newport News refer to BLOT operations. Any idea what BLOT meant? Vague references were made to "civilian direct supplied war materials" to the Hampton Roads Ports.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
As a one-time tanker (but from a much later era), I can tell you that "CCB" in World War II army lingo means "Combat Command B." Most U.S. armored divisions of that time were divided into three maneuver units roughly equivalent to modern brigades, with a CCA, CCB, and a CCR ("R" for "Reserve.") I haven't seen the photo either.

So long,

Andy

Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@...
262-796-8776, ext. 461
FAX 262-796-1142


Ed Hawkins

Des Norman
 

Ed,
Emails still bouncing. Need to contact urgently. Can you send me a phone number please.
Many thanks and apologies to everyone else on the list.
Des Norman


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits

Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...>
 

Dave,

A quick look makes me think the spacing of the top rib placement is different on each car. A standard vs non-standard design ????

Fred Freitas

David North <davenorth@...> wrote:
Richard,

ATSF rostered 70 ton 3 bays from at least 3 makers. Some of the classes were

GA-43, GA-73 & GA-86 from ACF

GA-77 & GA-81 from PSCM

GA-100 & GA-109 & GA-121 from GAT

Is the Accurail 3 bay hopper a match for any of these?

I haven't seen one of these in the flesh. Only the pic on their website

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/art/7500/7501.jpg

I actually thought the Stewart 70ton 3 bay was good for one/some of these.

http://bowser-trains.com/hocars/Stew_offset/Stew_offset_hopper.htm

Now I'm wondering if these two models represent the same car.

Or perhaps more correctly if the ACF, PSCM and GAT cars are of identical or
similar design?

Cheers

Dave


Re: CCB photo

Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

As a one-time tanker (but from a much later era), I can tell you that "CCB" in World War II army lingo means "Combat Command B." Most U.S. armored divisions of that time were divided into three maneuver units roughly equivalent to modern brigades, with a CCA, CCB, and a CCR ("R" for "Reserve.") I haven't seen the photo either.

So long,

Andy

Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@...
262-796-8776, ext. 461
FAX 262-796-1142


Re: B&LE triple offset hoppers

Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...>
 

Elden,

You did bag these flying pellets, didn't you? Nothing like the real item for making loads for cars. Bought an old blender at a yard sale for 5 bucks and it is great at making ground coal for hoppers. Never a duplicate!!. Works well on other than granite chunks; those come from the lawn tractor when the wife drives. Other bits & chunks I use are for the landscaping supply box. One word of warning --- do not loose the cover !!!!!

Fred Freitas

"Gatwood, Elden J SAD " <Elden.J.Gatwood@...> wrote:
Eric;

Pellets were created to allow more efficient charge in the furnaces. By
binding the limestone or dolomite powder (flux stone) to the refined ore,
with the bentonite, you had product that allowed faster reaction to the heat,
and more consistent distribution within the burden. The pulverized flux
stone also reacted more quickly, instead of taking the time to break down
from crushed stone. The ore would then melt quicker, and impurities would
bind more quickly to the reacting calcium carbonate, forming slag, which
would then float on top of the hot metal. Instead of the slower process of
each layer taking time to react to the ones above and below it, you got
uniform behavior throughout much of the burden. The burden was placed in
layers, then, like CCOOCCO, from bottom to top, instead of CCOOFCCOOFC,
making management of the burden easier. I think that they often used pellets
and refined ore (and even some scrap), in different mixes, before they
figured out how to do the whole thing more effectively. The more you study
blast furnace operations, the more complex it turns out to be.

The pellets I still have are purplish to dirty orange, and would make a very
interesting load to model. Most of the ones I saw were the size of a small
marble or so.

I used to regularly get peppered with pellets watching trains on the PRR,
B&O, Union, and P&LE, since they found every opportunity to escape their
bounds, and escape back to the environment....viva libertad!

Elden Gatwood

________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of eric
petersson
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:38 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: B&LE triple offset hoppers

Regarding taconite pellets.

After going to the process of extracting the magnetite iron from the
taconite rock, that then mixing it with the bentonite and limestone
to make pellets seems to be counterproductive. After refining the
iron, making pellets is, in effect, diluting it.

So why was it done? Is the hematite the oxidation process creates
considered more valuable than the magnetite?

Wouldn't shipping the pure extracted magnetite be more cost efficient
than diluting it by 35%?

Eric Petersson


Re: CCB photo

water.kresse@...
 

Folks,

Where is this CCB photo of a flat car with two Sherman tanks on it posted? Also, what is CCB? I've heard of CBC's (Car Builders Cyclopedias).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Gatwood, Elden J SAD " <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
Thanks, Bruce! I had never heard that info on the arsenal & depot!

See ya soon.

Elden

________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce
Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:43 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: CCB photo

On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:
BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact
that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one
type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the
same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different
parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be
unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat.
Elden,

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1
and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and
the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The
important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was
NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at
arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my
understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6
different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog,
a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the
country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks
were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would
still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because
distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly
more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps
Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks
are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would
not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944
date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most,
but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on
anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of
them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.
With a shipping weight of 28-30 tons depending on the spares tied to
the rear deck, two Shermans comes very close to or exceeded the load
limit of most 50 ton flats and as I noted previosuly, there is also
an issue of weight distribution which would reduce the load limit of
the flat even more. It may be that cars were loaded with 2 Shermans
if the load limit was ~120,000 lbs or more, and only one was loaded
for cars with lower load limits.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2
<http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2>

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: CCB photo

Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

Thanks, Bruce! I had never heard that info on the arsenal & depot!



See ya soon.



Elden







________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce
Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:43 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: CCB photo




On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:
BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact
that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one
type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the
same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different
parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be
unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat.
Elden,

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1
and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and
the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The
important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was
NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at
arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my
understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6
different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog,
a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the
country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks
were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would
still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because
distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly
more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps
Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks
are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would
not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944
date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most,
but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on
anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of
them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.
With a shipping weight of 28-30 tons depending on the spares tied to
the rear deck, two Shermans comes very close to or exceeded the load
limit of most 50 ton flats and as I noted previosuly, there is also
an issue of weight distribution which would reduce the load limit of
the flat even more. It may be that cars were loaded with 2 Shermans
if the load limit was ~120,000 lbs or more, and only one was loaded
for cars with lower load limits.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2
<http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2>

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: CCB photo

Cyril Durrenberger
 

Are there any photos of only one tank to a flat car?

Cyril Durrenberger

Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:

On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:
BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact
that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one
type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the
same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different
parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be
unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat.
Elden,

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1
and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and
the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The
important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was
NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at
arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my
understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6
different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog,
a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the
country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks
were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would
still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because
distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly
more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps
Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks
are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would
not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944
date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most,
but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on
anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of
them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.
With a shipping weight of 28-30 tons depending on the spares tied to
the rear deck, two Shermans comes very close to or exceeded the load
limit of most 50 ton flats and as I noted previosuly, there is also
an issue of weight distribution which would reduce the load limit of
the flat even more. It may be that cars were loaded with 2 Shermans
if the load limit was ~120,000 lbs or more, and only one was loaded
for cars with lower load limits.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: CCB photo

Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:
BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat.
Elden,

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1 and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6 different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog, a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944 date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most, but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.
With a shipping weight of 28-30 tons depending on the spares tied to the rear deck, two Shermans comes very close to or exceeded the load limit of most 50 ton flats and as I noted previosuly, there is also an issue of weight distribution which would reduce the load limit of the flat even more. It may be that cars were loaded with 2 Shermans if the load limit was ~120,000 lbs or more, and only one was loaded for cars with lower load limits.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: B&LE triple offset hoppers

Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

Eric;



Pellets were created to allow more efficient charge in the furnaces. By
binding the limestone or dolomite powder (flux stone) to the refined ore,
with the bentonite, you had product that allowed faster reaction to the heat,
and more consistent distribution within the burden. The pulverized flux
stone also reacted more quickly, instead of taking the time to break down
from crushed stone. The ore would then melt quicker, and impurities would
bind more quickly to the reacting calcium carbonate, forming slag, which
would then float on top of the hot metal. Instead of the slower process of
each layer taking time to react to the ones above and below it, you got
uniform behavior throughout much of the burden. The burden was placed in
layers, then, like CCOOCCO, from bottom to top, instead of CCOOFCCOOFC,
making management of the burden easier. I think that they often used pellets
and refined ore (and even some scrap), in different mixes, before they
figured out how to do the whole thing more effectively. The more you study
blast furnace operations, the more complex it turns out to be.



The pellets I still have are purplish to dirty orange, and would make a very
interesting load to model. Most of the ones I saw were the size of a small
marble or so.



I used to regularly get peppered with pellets watching trains on the PRR,
B&O, Union, and P&LE, since they found every opportunity to escape their
bounds, and escape back to the environment....viva libertad!



Elden Gatwood





________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of eric
petersson
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:38 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: B&LE triple offset hoppers



Regarding taconite pellets.

After going to the process of extracting the magnetite iron from the
taconite rock, that then mixing it with the bentonite and limestone
to make pellets seems to be counterproductive. After refining the
iron, making pellets is, in effect, diluting it.

So why was it done? Is the hematite the oxidation process creates
considered more valuable than the magnetite?

Wouldn't shipping the pure extracted magnetite be more cost efficient
than diluting it by 35%?

Eric Petersson


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits

Ed Hawkins
 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 8:17 AM, David North wrote:

<SNIP>
Is the Accurail 3 bay hopper a match for any of these?
David,
The Accurail 3-bay hopper was patterned after 1,000 class W-7 cars
built for B&O in 1947 (435000-435999). This is based on the ends of the
model, which "tries" (poorly) to duplicate Z-sections that support the
end sheets from the top of the ends to the end sills. The Z-sections
were more closely spaced than other end arrangements using either
channels or angles. The sides on the Accurail model match the
configuration used on a substantial number of 70-ton triples, but none
for Santa Fe as far as I can tell.

The Accurail model has a straight side sill between the bolsters with
an angled section from the bolster to the corner post. Santa Fe's cars
in classes Ga-73, Ga-81, Ga-86, Ga-100, Ga-109, and Ga-121 all had
sides that were straight from end to end with a shallow fish-belly
between the bolsters. The Stewart/Bowser model better represents these
ATSF cars, although there still needs to be modifications to the ends.
These ATSF cars all had vertical angles from the top of the ends to the
end sills, whereas the Stewart/Bowser model has channels that extend
from the bottom of the end sheets to the end sills. This would be a
relatively easy modification to make.

I have not yet found prototype photos of classes Ga-66 and Ga-77 to
verify the side and arrangement used on these cars (series
183000-183224 and 183425-183924). Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Re. RPCyc volume 17

Dave Nelson
 

Was there an announcement for RPC-17?

Dave Nelson


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits (4800 Series Wood Reefers)

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 14, 2008, at 10:59 PM, Bob Chaparro wrote:

Does anyone know the prototype for these kits? Are they acccurate for
any class of PFE reefer?



No - and it's not as though we need yet more models of PFE wood
reefers. The prototypes for the Accurail reefers were originally
built for the Burlington in the early 1920s, then absorbed into the
Fruit
Growers Express fleet as BREX cars when the Q turned over its reefer
operations to FGE. The model represents these cars in modified form
as they appeared after World War II.


Richard Hendrickson


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 6:17 AM, David North wrote:

Richard,

ATSF rostered 70 ton 3 bays from at least 3 makers. Some of the
classes were

GA-43, GA-73 & GA-86 from ACF

GA-77 & GA-81 from PSCM

GA-100 & GA-109 & GA-121 from GAT

Is the Accurail 3 bay hopper a match for any of these?

I haven't seen one of these in the flesh. Only the pic on their
website

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/art/7500/7501.jpg

I actually thought the Stewart 70ton 3 bay was good for one/some of
these.

http://bowser-trains.com/hocars/Stew_offset/Stew_offset_hopper.htm

Now I'm wondering if these two models represent the same car.

Or perhaps more correctly if the ACF, PSCM and GAT cars are of
identical or
similar design?


























The early class Ga-21 (1929) and Ga-43 (1936) three bay hoppers were
built to a design that, AFAIK, has never been modeled. The post-WW-
II Santa Fe three bay hoppers, beginning with class Ga-73, were all
built to the AAR standard design which is accurately modeled by both
the Stewart/Bowser and Accurail cars. I apologize for overlooking
the Accurail hopper as an accurate model of a Santa Fe prototype car.


Richard Hendrickson


Re: CCB photo

water.kresse@...
 

Elden,

Thanks for your good information. It all makes sense. Do we have any good SHIPPING weight numbers for these tanks . . . vs. combat loaded weights?

Al Kresse
Romeo, MI

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Gatwood, Elden J SAD " <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
Guys;

The old military guys I know told me that the M4 did not come with a
dedicated lock as-built, but there were problems with damage to the elevating
gears in shipment, so they made crude locks out of wood for shipment
overseas. Then they found there was a need for locks when they were
traveling long distances in-country, so they mounted a dedicated lock on the
back deck (sometime after the Normandy invasion). This was quickly found to
be a problem when a few tanks got shot at and didn't have the time to move
the turret 180 degrees to return fire, so was quickly re-mounted on the front
glacis. When they were close to the front they could leave the top
unfastened, so the gun could be quickly moved up and the lock drop out of
engagement. The final series of M4 were furnished from the factory, with the
lock mounted on the glacis. The last part looks to be true in photo
evidence. They were all supplied from the factory with covers over the
turret mantlet and openings. The MGs were stowed. The bow MG had a canvas
cover. M4 generally came from the factory with stenciling and numbering.

BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat. Sorry for all the minutiae, but I
got an earful yesterday, and thought someone (well OK, maybe no one) might
find it interesting.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most, but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.

Elden Gatwood

________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce
Smith
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:03 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: CCB photo

On Sun, April 13, 2008 8:27 pm, John Golden wrote:
Bruce,

I have a question. Since the tanks are in transit, shouldn't the
gun/turret be secured in the barrel lock? Did you research show
otherwise?

John
John,

I'm not sure. There is a clear photo of M4A3 tanks loaded onto a SOUTHERN
flat and there are no barrel locks visible. OTOH, there are many shots of
Shermans with barrel locks, and few loaded on flat cars with barrel locks
on. I'll likely model the rest of the fleet with locks ;^)

regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


NMRA photo collection

gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

Group,
Just thought I would post a follow up to my discussion about a
month ago regarding the NMRA Kalmbach library and their photo
collection. I ordered 216 scans (600 dpi TIFF) of various freight car
photos in their collection, and the final tab was $1.75 per scan. I
was charged a $5.00 CD burning fee for each order (2 orders), and
then a $15.00/hr fee for the research time involved. The scans are
great! If you have Culotta and Kline's "The Postwar Freight Car
Fleet" you have a lot of the photos (with great captions), but I am
now able to zoom in and read most of the reweigh dates, repacking
locations, etc. I also can zoom in and see underbody details, etc.
Anyway, I saved over $300 by joining NMRA and then ordering the
scans, so whatever your other feelings about the NMRA, the membership
is at least worth it for that reason. A couple of gripes: not all the
photos I ordered were scanned, and the reason given was that the
archivist was unable to find them. I hope they aren't lost
permanently. Also, I was told after my second order that I couldn't
order anymore photos from the Robert Charles collection, as I have
exceeded their "20% rule", apparently you can only order twenty
percent of a collection as scans, prints, etc. before the NMRA cuts
you off.
Hope this information is of some use to other list members who
are still in the process of building their photo collection.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Stanley, ND


Re: The Strange Case of the MP Hoppers on the Santa Fe

Robert <riverob@...>
 

What type of 3-bay hoppers were typically used by the MP in this
service?

Thanks,
Rob Simpson


--- In STMFC@..., "Mike Brock" <brockm@...> wrote:

Santa Fe gurus are no doubt pulling out what hair they have left
today after viewing the photo on pg 25 of the just appearing War
Bonnet, First Quarter 2008. They probably thought...ohhh nooo...when
they looked carefully at the photo. It shows a nice view of the San
Bernardino yard in 1950 with mention that the El Captitan is
arriving. However, much more interesting to those on the STMFC that
are always on the lookout for "eastern style" hoppers in California
is a string of cars 5 tracks away. Here we see no less than 8 MP 3
bay hopper cars [ maybe more ]...filled with what looks
like...well...coal. MP's coal source was primarily the fields in
Southern Illinois which is categorized as "...a high volatile, medium
sulfur, low ash, high BTU bituminous coal" in the book Burlington
Bulletin No. 35, The Q in the Coal Fields". Coal gurus can tell us if
this source is classified as metallurgical coal but the Burlington
book does not give such an impression.

Coincidentally, there are photos of other MP hopper cars "lost" out
in the "real west". America's Colorful Railroads shows no less than 2
MT's being returned eastward on the D&RGW in Tennessee Pass and The
Iron Horse and I shows MP hoppers in...of all places...Laramie, WY.

I've always been an admirer of the MP "Eagles" logo but I must
confess I didn't think those in California would be so blessed as to
see it as well as those in Laramie.

Mike Brock


Re: RPCyc volume 17

Storey Lindsay
 

Ed (with an apology to the Group),

SBCGLOBAL.NET will tell you the problem lies with the sender of the e-mail message; that they have no idea why the messages are being refused; that they don't have a quarantine list (to block spam, pornography, etc.). But, the only people I have messages refused are those who use SBCGLOBAL.NET, including my 92-year-old mother (I have recommended she change her service provider).

Storey Lindsay
Celje, Slovenia

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Hawkins
To: des Norman ; Storey Lindsay
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 15:26
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re. RPCyc volume 17


Des and Storey,
I have received both of your payments for Vol. 17. The books arrived Monday afternoon. Pat and I are packaging the books in the cardboard mailing envelopes and will be mailing them starting Wednesday.

With regard to your email messages bouncing, I don't know why that is happening. I'm regularly receiving mail from the STMFC, one other discussion group that I'm a member, and many individuals who have sent me emails in the past few days and weeks. I have also been in contact with numerous hobby dealers by email and have received many responses in the last few days. The latter typically use the rpcyc@... address.

I will contact AT&T, who manages the sbcglobal domain, and try to find out why your messages are being returned.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


On Apr 15, 2008, at 4:01 AM, Storey Lindsay wrote:


Des,

I have the same problem with both of his addresses. I wanted to tell him
that my check was in the mail, but my return address has continually been
refused.

Storey Lindsay
Celje, Slovenia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Des Norman" <desanorman@...>
To: "STMFC group" <STMFC@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:36
Subject: [STMFC] Re. RPCyc volume 17

> Hi,
> Apologies for this email.
>
> My messages to Ed Hawkins on 2 different addresses (rpcyc@...
> and hawk0621@...) keep on bouncing.
>
> If Ed sees this can he contact me direct off-list, or does anyone else
> know if there's a problem.


Re: CCB photo

Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

Guys;



The old military guys I know told me that the M4 did not come with a
dedicated lock as-built, but there were problems with damage to the elevating
gears in shipment, so they made crude locks out of wood for shipment
overseas. Then they found there was a need for locks when they were
traveling long distances in-country, so they mounted a dedicated lock on the
back deck (sometime after the Normandy invasion). This was quickly found to
be a problem when a few tanks got shot at and didn't have the time to move
the turret 180 degrees to return fire, so was quickly re-mounted on the front
glacis. When they were close to the front they could leave the top
unfastened, so the gun could be quickly moved up and the lock drop out of
engagement. The final series of M4 were furnished from the factory, with the
lock mounted on the glacis. The last part looks to be true in photo
evidence. They were all supplied from the factory with covers over the
turret mantlet and openings. The MGs were stowed. The bow MG had a canvas
cover. M4 generally came from the factory with stenciling and numbering.



BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat. Sorry for all the minutiae, but I
got an earful yesterday, and thought someone (well OK, maybe no one) might
find it interesting.



One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most, but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.



Elden Gatwood



________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce
Smith
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:03 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: CCB photo



On Sun, April 13, 2008 8:27 pm, John Golden wrote:
Bruce,

I have a question. Since the tanks are in transit, shouldn't the
gun/turret be secured in the barrel lock? Did you research show
otherwise?

John
John,

I'm not sure. There is a clear photo of M4A3 tanks loaded onto a SOUTHERN
flat and there are no barrel locks visible. OTOH, there are many shots of
Shermans with barrel locks, and few loaded on flat cars with barrel locks
on. I'll likely model the rest of the fleet with locks ;^)

regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits

David North <davenorth@...>
 

Richard,

ATSF rostered 70 ton 3 bays from at least 3 makers. Some of the classes were

GA-43, GA-73 & GA-86 from ACF

GA-77 & GA-81 from PSCM

GA-100 & GA-109 & GA-121 from GAT



Is the Accurail 3 bay hopper a match for any of these?

I haven't seen one of these in the flesh. Only the pic on their website

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/art/7500/7501.jpg



I actually thought the Stewart 70ton 3 bay was good for one/some of these.

http://bowser-trains.com/hocars/Stew_offset/Stew_offset_hopper.htm



Now I'm wondering if these two models represent the same car.

Or perhaps more correctly if the ACF, PSCM and GAT cars are of identical or
similar design?

Cheers

Dave

123961 - 123980 of 195525