Date   

Re: CCB photo

Cyril Durrenberger
 

Thanks,

Also an ex amour officer in the late1960's.

Cyril

Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:

On Apr 15, 2008, at 12:54 PM, CYRIL DURRENBERGER wrote:
Are there any photos of only one tank to a flat car?

Cyril Durrenberger
Cyril,

Absolutely! Look at the photo link posted by Kurt Laughlin
http://lvaimage.lib.va.us/VTLS/SC/07/049.jpg

The 1st-4th cars all appear to have single Sherman loads. The 5th
and perhaps 6th appear to have 2 Shermans each. The first car is a
40 tonner (80,000 lbs CAPY) but the second appears to be a 50 tonner.

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: RPCyc volume 17

Frank Greene
 

spsalso wrote:
--- In STMFC@..., "Dave Nelson" <Lake_Muskoka@...> wrote:

Was there an announcement for RPC-17?
Yes. I got a mailing recently. The articles are:

U.S.R.A. Single-Sheathed 50-ton Box Cars (51 pages)
General American Trans-Flo Hopper Cars (13 pages)
Railroad-Owned GATC Airslide Covered Hopper Cars (49 pages)

Looks interesting, Ed
Or, see message 71426, about 3 weeks ago with a link to <http://www.geocities.com/rpcyc/v17flyer.pdf>.

--

Frank Greene
Memphis, TN


Re: NMRA photo collection

gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@... wrote:

Robert, how did you know what was in the collection in the
first place? Is there a catalog?

Tim O'Connor
Tim,
You have to email the staff at the Kalmbach Library. The email
and a list of charges are listed on the NMRA website. I asked them to
send me a list of all Great Northern photos, and a list of all
boxcar, reefer, flatcar, stockcar, and tankcar photos. This service
is free for NMRA members and a nominal charge assessed for non-
members. I suppose you could ask for the complete list of Robert
Charles photos, but I didn't. I didn't know about the "20%" rule
until the second order. FWIW, I thought the Charles collection was
about 500-600 photos, so I actually have about 35-40% of the
collection. Hopefully I don't have to return them!

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Stanley, ND


Re: CCB photo

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

Um I have found this thread interesting. Wasn't the photo of Bruce's model
from the CoCoa Beach RPM Meet, hence CCB?

Brian Carlson


Re: Re. RPCyc volume 17

spsalso
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Dave Nelson" <Lake_Muskoka@...> wrote:

Was there an announcement for RPC-17?

Dave Nelson
Yes. I got a mailing recently. The articles are:

U.S.R.A. Single-Sheathed 50-ton Box Cars (51 pages)
General American Trans-Flo Hopper Cars (13 pages)
Railroad-Owned GATC Airslide Covered Hopper Cars (49 pages)

Looks interesting, Ed


Re: NMRA photo collection

Tim O'Connor
 

Robert, how did you know what was in the collection in the
first place? Is there a catalog?

Tim O'Connor

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "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: CCB photo

Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

Hi Al,

Sorry, "BLOT" means nothing to me. I took the Armor Officers Basic Course at Fort Knox in April and May of 1970, and by sheer dumb luck was never ordered to Vietnam.

so long,

Andy

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


Re: CCB photo

Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 1:37 PM, water.kresse@... wrote:
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
Al,

I have no idea what "CCB" is, but since the original question from Clark was talking about my model, I can just give you a link to my photos <G>.

Two Heiser M4A3s on a Bowser F30A
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/Models/ F30ABowserSherman.jpg

In addition, the M4 18 ton artillery tractors can be seen on the NorthernSpecific resin NP flat at:
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/Models/M4-tractors1.jpg
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/Models/M4-tractors2.jpg
And of course, 2 of them are fine on a 50 ton flat <G>.

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 12:54 PM, CYRIL DURRENBERGER wrote:
Are there any photos of only one tank to a flat car?

Cyril Durrenberger
Cyril,

Absolutely! Look at the photo link posted by Kurt Laughlin
http://lvaimage.lib.va.us/VTLS/SC/07/049.jpg

The 1st-4th cars all appear to have single Sherman loads. The 5th and perhaps 6th appear to have 2 Shermans each. The first car is a 40 tonner (80,000 lbs CAPY) but the second appears to be a 50 tonner.

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

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

124061 - 124080 of 195634