Date   

Re: Pittsburg & West Virginia

Charles Hladik
 

Eldon,
I've often thought that a "strip" from a window screen or smaller mesh
might work for the tie downs. Haven't tried it yet, but........ Your idea
sounds like it works pretty well.
Thanks,


Chuck Hladik
Rutland Railroad
Virginia Division
NMRA L5756



**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)


Re: Modeling Iron Ore Pellets

David North <davenorth@...>
 

Robert said,

They just don't look like our usual scenic materials. A load of pellets

viewed from above at "HO distance" looks like a piece of #400 wet-dry
sandpaper smoothly stretched over the car.



Robert,

Maybe you could use the abrasive grit that Badger make for their grit
blaster, over a false floor and secured like ballast?

Cheers

Dave


Re: Pittsburg & West Virginia

Ed Hawkins
 

On Apr 16, 2008, at 11:05 PM, George wrote:

Can anyone inform me of an appropriate number for a P&WV 52' or
52'6" gondola for 1958? Or direct me to a source?
Thanks,
George Courtney
George,
I just about had my reply ready to send when John La Rue's reply came
through. I'm providing some information about the cars in case it's
useful to you.

7200-7299, 1,745 cu. ft., built Bethlehem Steel Co. 11-56. By 1/59
there were 10 cars configured for drop bottom containers. In addition
to the 5 numbers John provided, the other 5 were 7200, 7201, 7212,
7236, and 7245.

7300-7399, 1,647 cu. ft., built Pullman-Standard 11-57. No special
notes on these cars in the 1/59 ORER.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Pittsburg & West Virginia

MOFWCABOOSE@...
 

P&WV 52'6" gondolas as listed in the 1-58 ORER were in series 7200-7299, and 7300-7399. All were steel with fixed ends and wooden floors. Cars 7260-7299 were noted as being equipped with steel hoods, for coiled steel loading, and cars 7204, 7227, 7233, 7234, and 7258 were noted as being equipped with drop bottom containers (12 per car) and designated as A.A.R. class LG (all the others were class GB).

John C. La Rue, Jr.
Bonita Springs, FL?

-----Original Message-----
From: Hunter, James R. <jhunter@iupui.edu>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 1:10 am
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Pittsburg & West Virginia






You need a 1958 ORER which somebody on this list probably has. There
was a book about 5 or 6 years ago on the history of the High 'n' Dry
too, if you can locate a copy.

Quoting George <gsc3@yahoo.com>:

Can anyone inform me of an appropriate number for a P&WV 52' or
52'6" gondola for 1958? Or direct me to a source?
Thanks,
George Courtney


Re: Pittsburg & West Virginia

naptownprr
 

You need a 1958 ORER which somebody on this list probably has. There was a book about 5 or 6 years ago on the history of the High 'n' Dry too, if you can locate a copy.

Quoting George <gsc3@yahoo.com>:

Can anyone inform me of an appropriate number for a P&WV 52' or
52'6" gondola for 1958? Or direct me to a source?
Thanks,
George Courtney


Re: M4 flat car loads - was CCB photo

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:
The M4A2 was diesel powered and was therefore more popular with
the British and Russians. So, with production of the M4A2 beginning in
April of 1942 and ending in May 1944, it seems as if perhaps M4A2
shipments might need to be modeled... which means I need to buy some
from
Hieser!

Regards
Bruce
That brings up an interesting question, would the lend-lease tanks
have been stenciled with the national insignia of their intended
destination at the factory? Would the Russian tanks have red stars
while in transit?

The reason I ask is my Dad was stationed at the air field in Nome
Alaska during the war. Nome was the last fuel stop in the US for P-39
fighters being flown to the USSR. The aircraft were ferried as far as
Fairbanks by the women pilots who flew ferry moves for ACT and turned
over to the Russians there. The Russians made one more fueling stop,
at Nome, before crossing the Bearing Strait and disappearing into Siberia.

Dad had a copy of an official panoramic view of Nome Field (officially
Marks Field, but Dad said he never heard anyone call it that). The
photo was taken sometime in early 1944. Out of the three dozen or so
aircraft visible, at least thirty have red star insignia, discernable
even in the black & white photo.

I wonder if the same was done with armor?

Dennis


Pittsburg & West Virginia

George Courtney
 

Can anyone inform me of an appropriate number for a P&WV 52' or
52'6" gondola for 1958? Or direct me to a source?
Thanks,
George Courtney


Re: M4A2 Tank Production was CCB photos

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

The 47 degree ("large hatch") hull represents those 289 dry stowage tanks I mentioned. Make sure you put applique armor on the hull.

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Smith

Actually, Heiser has two M4A2 models, mid-production and late-production,
the later with a 47 degree front hull <G>.


Re: M4A2 Tank Production was CCB photos

Bruce Smith
 

On Wed, April 16, 2008 9:35 pm, Kurt Laughlin wrote:
1. Actually 289 of those M4A2s were a different hull and turret style than
the others, if that matters to you. In 1/87 there's not much discernable
difference between the M4A2 and the M4A3s you have already modeled - just
a slight change in the engine grill configuration. If Heiser doesn't make
them it wouldn't be too hard to convert an M4A3.
Actually, Heiser has two M4A2 models, mid-production and late-production,
the later with a 47 degree front hull <G>.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: M4 flat car loads - was CCB photo

Don Worthy
 

Hey Boys, have you seen the Sherman information on this site? It's very good and has photo examples of many of the variations.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html

Don Worthy
Ivey, Ga.

--- On Wed, 4/16/08, water.kresse@comcast.net <water.kresse@comcast.net> wrote:

From: water.kresse@comcast.net <water.kresse@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] M4 flat car loads - was CCB photo
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, 9:58 PM






Bruce,

Who made the diesel engines and where were the tanks assemblied?

Al Kresse

------------ -- Original message ------------ --
From: "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@auburn. edu>
Folks,

Here's a little quiz... With all this discussion of M4, M4A1 and M4A3
tanks, what single subtype of the Sherman had the highest total
production?

Would you believe the M4A2? Even though it was only used by a very few US
units (including the Marine Corps) the M4A2 was the winner with 8053
built. The M4A2 was diesel powered and was therefore more popular with
the British and Russians. So, with production of the M4A2 beginning in
April of 1942 and ending in May 1944, it seems as if perhaps M4A2
shipments might need to be modeled... which means I need to buy some from
Hieser!

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
















____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ


M4A2 Tank Production was CCB photos

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

1. Actually 289 of those M4A2s were a different hull and turret style than the others, if that matters to you. In 1/87 there's not much discernable difference between the M4A2 and the M4A3s you have already modeled - just a slight change in the engine grill configuration. If Heiser doesn't make them it wouldn't be too hard to convert an M4A3.

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Bruce Smith" smithbf@auburn.edu

Would you believe the M4A2? Even though it was only used by a very few US
units (including the Marine Corps) the M4A2 was the winner with 8053
built. The M4A2 was diesel powered and was therefore more popular with
the British and Russians. So, with production of the M4A2 beginning in
April of 1942 and ending in May 1944, it seems as if perhaps M4A2
shipments might need to be modeled... which means I need to buy some from
Hieser!
-------------- Original message --------------

2. The M4A2 used twin GMC bus engines. The tanks were made by ALCO, BLW, Federal Machine & Welder, Grand Blanc Tank Arsenal (operated by Fisher Body), and Pullman Standard. Pressed Steel Car also made a handful of the 76mm versions in 1945.

----- Original Message -----
From: water.kresse@comcast.net


Who made the diesel engines and where were the tanks assemblied?


Re: M4 flat car loads - was CCB photo

water.kresse@...
 

Bruce,

Who made the diesel engines and where were the tanks assemblied?

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@auburn.edu>
Folks,

Here's a little quiz... With all this discussion of M4, M4A1 and M4A3
tanks, what single subtype of the Sherman had the highest total
production?

Would you believe the M4A2? Even though it was only used by a very few US
units (including the Marine Corps) the M4A2 was the winner with 8053
built. The M4A2 was diesel powered and was therefore more popular with
the British and Russians. So, with production of the M4A2 beginning in
April of 1942 and ending in May 1944, it seems as if perhaps M4A2
shipments might need to be modeled... which means I need to buy some from
Hieser!

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


M4 flat car loads - was CCB photo

Bruce Smith
 

Folks,

Here's a little quiz... With all this discussion of M4, M4A1 and M4A3
tanks, what single subtype of the Sherman had the highest total
production?

Would you believe the M4A2? Even though it was only used by a very few US
units (including the Marine Corps) the M4A2 was the winner with 8053
built. The M4A2 was diesel powered and was therefore more popular with
the British and Russians. So, with production of the M4A2 beginning in
April of 1942 and ending in May 1944, it seems as if perhaps M4A2
shipments might need to be modeled... which means I need to buy some from
Hieser!

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Tank production and shipping; BLOT, NAIL, CACTUS, IRON, and the like [was CCB photos]

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

Hi Virgil:

The spreadsheet is attached.

You wouldn't happen to have any photos of your tanks, or have the registration numbers written down, would you? If you did, I could probably tell you when it was made and where.

Thanks,
KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Raymond Young
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Tank production and shipping; BLOT, NAIL, CACTUS, IRON, and the like [was CCB photos]


Kurt,

I'd like to obtain your spreadsheet on M4 production. I trained on the M4A3E8 in 1949,'50 &'51 at ROTC summer camp and in the 2nd Armored as 2nd Lt.

Virgil Young
Amarillo, TX

----- Original Message ----
From: Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@verizon.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:16:41 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Tank production and shipping; BLOT, NAIL, CACTUS, IRON, and the like [was CCB photos]

I would say that segregation would be more likely than not. Tanks coming
from a factory would generally be of one type, except for the early war
period when several types were produced at the same plant. Tanks coming
from a depot to a POE would also likely be segregated because they would be
shipped to equip either a unit going overseas (which would have one type of
tank) or to supply foreign aid (which also generally went in blocks of a
single type). The whole issue of Sherman production is rather complex and
boring to most, but I've got a spreadsheet showing monthly medium tank (M3
and M4 series) if anyone is interested. If'n it were me, I'd stick with one
type of tank per train, but remembering that the Army considered the M4 and
M4A1 to be interchangeable/ identical, despite them being probably the most
visually distinct types of the lot!

BLOT was part of the shipping code used to direct shipments during the War.
The first group was the destination, represented by a security code word
like BLOT, IRON, CACTUS, NAIL, etc. Other groups in the code indicated the
type of equipment, shipping date, and a sequence number. One or two of the
captions on the site I linked to earlier include the full code, albeit with
spaces and dashes in the wrong places. Of note historically are the "Task
Force A" photos, which I believe are the tanks that landed in North Africa
after transit directly from the USA. (As a sidebar, the captions in the
HRPOE collection are interesting because they gave both the security code
and the physical destination - something that was specifically forbidden in
the shipping instructions! )

Anyhoo, tanks are my thing, so you'd best not get me started . . .

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Smith

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.


Re: Tank production and shipping; BLOT, NAIL, CACTUS, IRON, and the like [was CCB photos]

Raymond Young
 

Kurt,

I'd like to obtain your spreadsheet on M4 production. I trained on the M4A3E8 in 1949,'50 &'51 at ROTC summer camp and in the 2nd Armored as 2nd Lt.

Virgil Young
Amarillo, TX

----- Original Message ----
From: Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@verizon.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:16:41 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Tank production and shipping; BLOT, NAIL, CACTUS, IRON, and the like [was CCB photos]

I would say that segregation would be more likely than not. Tanks coming
from a factory would generally be of one type, except for the early war
period when several types were produced at the same plant. Tanks coming
from a depot to a POE would also likely be segregated because they would be
shipped to equip either a unit going overseas (which would have one type of
tank) or to supply foreign aid (which also generally went in blocks of a
single type). The whole issue of Sherman production is rather complex and
boring to most, but I've got a spreadsheet showing monthly medium tank (M3
and M4 series) if anyone is interested. If'n it were me, I'd stick with one
type of tank per train, but remembering that the Army considered the M4 and
M4A1 to be interchangeable/ identical, despite them being probably the most
visually distinct types of the lot!

BLOT was part of the shipping code used to direct shipments during the War.
The first group was the destination, represented by a security code word
like BLOT, IRON, CACTUS, NAIL, etc. Other groups in the code indicated the
type of equipment, shipping date, and a sequence number. One or two of the
captions on the site I linked to earlier include the full code, albeit with
spaces and dashes in the wrong places. Of note historically are the "Task
Force A" photos, which I believe are the tanks that landed in North Africa
after transit directly from the USA. (As a sidebar, the captions in the
HRPOE collection are interesting because they gave both the security code
and the physical destination - something that was specifically forbidden in
the shipping instructions! )

Anyhoo, tanks are my thing, so you'd best not get me started . . .

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Smith

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.


Re: CCB photo

Pieter Roos
 

I'm not sure how much effect this had on transport of the tanks within
the U.S. but by mid 1944 the army had standardized on the M4A3 75mm
tank for the primary gun tank and used the continuing production of
M4A1 hulls for the new 76mm gun tanks. These were assigned one or two
to a tank platoon in Europe, resulting in the very mixing of parts the
original standardization sought to avoid.

By late 1944 most tanks being sent to Europe would probably have been
replacement vehicles - in "Death Traps: The Survival of an American
Armored Division in World War II" by Belton Y. Cooper the author
indicates the U.S. 3rd armored division suffered almost 600% losses of
vehicles from landing until VE day, so large numbers of tanks were
required to replace those destroyed in combat. Unfortunately, I'm
unaware of any HO version of the 76mm gun M4 EVER being produced.

Pieter Roos

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, 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

water.kresse@...
 

Thanks. The link was resent today. I went through my WW2 plant and debarcation images and capacities are hard to find. I had two M3s on a 40-ft flat. I've two 18-20 ton anti-tank Hellcats on a string of PM flats coming out of Grand Blanc. I've M4 tractors at Newport News. But you can't find capacities. The C&O bought mostly 50 and 125-ton flat during WW2. Then jumped into 70-ton flats near the end. it appears that flats from every RR showed up at NN.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "rockroll50401" <cepropst@netconx.net>
Also, what is CCB?

Al Kresse
Al, CCB is my slang for the Prototype Modelers Meet at "CoCoa Beach"

The photos are posted in a Yahoo group Mike Brock gave the link to a
week or two ago.
Clark Propst


Re: CCB photo

Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

"Al, CCB is my slang for the Prototype Modelers Meet at 'CoCoa Beach.'"

Wow, Clark was I off base. I saw M4 tanks and CCB and reverted to thinking like a turrethead!

So long,

Andy


Re: CCB photo

rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

Also, what is CCB?

Al Kresse
Al, CCB is my slang for the Prototype Modelers Meet at "CoCoa Beach"

The photos are posted in a Yahoo group Mike Brock gave the link to a
week or two ago.
Clark Propst


Re: Re. RPCyc volume 17

Tom Madden <tgmadden@...>
 

Dave Nelson wrote:
But what's curious about this is I have all
e-mails from STMFC since last November on hand,
and all my personal Inbox e-mails since early
January and so either my ISP suppressed the-email
from both Ed and the from STMFC OR both got caught
in my own SPAM rules, which delete anything with the
words "misconfigured" or "does not conform" in the
header area.
As Frank Greene pointed out, it was STMFC message 71426,
subject "Railway Prototype Cyclopedia Vol. 17", posted by Ed on March
26.

Tom Madden

121081 - 121100 of 192688