The 1920/1921 "All About Tank Cars" was a book that I searched for with great anticipation over a few years. It was a major disappointment. I still have a couple of copies of it. The 1920 "Tank Car Journeys" book has brief chapters about the various commodities carried in tank cars... from various acids to whale oil, linseed oil, petroleum products, etc. It is deficient in tank car photos and it mostly decorated with small artist's illustrations. The 1931 edition is similar in format-- detailing many more products carried by tank cars-- and has photographs of many of the appropriate tank cars. The 1931 edition typically sells for around a $100 (depending on condition), the earlier 1920 edition runs about half that price. The "All About Tank Cars" can be found for around $35.

Best regards,

Charlie

Charles Dean
Shelbyville, Kentucky

I had some time to check the truck situation on the new HO scale
Atlas 1932 ARA box cars. I had changed the couplers to Kadee #58 on
some cars as one step in an upgrade process. I replaced the trucks on
one car with a pair of the 50-ton Buckeye trucks from Tahoe Model
Works. They seemed to fit fine and the couplers looked to check
against a height gauge properly. But something seemed odd. The
replacement trucks could shift a bit on the mounting screw, where the
Atlas trucks only pivoted and did not shift. The Tahoe trucks seemed
to wobble on the attachment point. I removed a Tahoe truck for a
closer inspection.

Atlas uses a shouldered screw to mount their trucks with the shoulder
depth the same as the thickness of the plastic in the Atlas truck
bolster. The hole in the Atlas truck bolster is also smaller than
that in the Tahoe truck. There is a slight depression or chamfer in
the top of the Atlas truck bolster for the car kingpin to sit in.
Atlas has also designed a stabilizing system on one end of the car
that has two fingers on the car bolster on either side of the
kingpin. These point downward and seem to strike the truck bolster to
prevent too much rocking.

I installed both Atlas trucks and checked the coupler height again.
At first glance it seems fine, but upon closer inspection the car
sits just a little low. The top of the car coupler was just below the
top of the coupler in the Kadee coupler height gauge. I did not have
anything to measure this difference, but it seemed to be about the
width of fine brass wire, maybe 0.015" or 0.020". I removed the Atlas
trucks and reinstalled the Tahoe trucks for another comparison.
Paying more attention this time I noted the top of the car coupler
was just a touch higher than the top of the coupler in the Kadee
coupler height gauge. Again, it was slight and a similar amount of
difference higher as it was lower with the Atlas trucks. I then set
the car with the Tahoe trucks beside another similar car with the
Atlas trucks. The box car with the Tahoe trucks was noticeably higher
as it sat next to the same Atlas box car with Atlas trucks.

I had a set of Accurail AAR trucks nearby, so I ran the same tests
the Atlas 1932 ARA box car. The coupler and car height
characteristics were similar as to when the Tahoe trucks were
installed.

There were a couple of other points I found. Many modelers here use
the center ring of a Kadee coupler box to use when attaching trucks
to a freight car. This piece fits like a sleeve over a 2-56 screw and
it fits inside the truck bolster hole of many typical HO scale model
trucks. This sleeve tends to reduce the amount of play the truck has
on the mounting screw and limit how far the screw can be tightened.
The Atlas truck screw does not fit into this sleeve, nor does the
sleeve fit inside the Atlas truck bolster hole. Additionally, the
shoulder on the screw Atlas uses to mount the trucks is deeper than
the thickness of the plastic in the truck bolster of the Tahoe and
Accurail trucks. The screw supplied with these Atlas cars will not
hold a replacement Tahoe or Accurail truck snugly to the car.

How to fix this? I did not have enough time this evening to do
intensive work on an Atlas 1932 ARA box car. It seems a portion of
the kingpin on the car bolster needs to be removed so a replacement
truck can sit at the right height. That height difference noted at
the coupler check using the Tahoe or Accurail trucks would be the
amount to remove. Secondly, a new hole would need to be drilled and
tapped to accept a 2-56 screw to fasten the replacement trucks. The
underframe of these cars are metal, at least it is metal at the car
bolster.

Of course, this is only needed if you need to change out the trucks.

Has anyone else made any notes, or have any suggestions, to ease
truck replacement on these cars?

Eric Hansmann
Morgantown, W. Va.

Recent discussion noted an odd situation on

Atlas HO scale freight cars in regard to the bolster height.<
As I fitted my second car with .088 wheels I saw that the above is correct. The Atlas truck actually fits on top of the booster pin. I suspect that the TMW hole could be enlarged and fitted over the pin. If then too low washers could be used. Or the pin could be removed and washers used to shim up the body without any reaming of the truck.
I did no measuring at all and the above is just SWAGing.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

Dear Mr. Smith:
 
Would it be possible to post a copy of the photo you mentioned?
 
According to the sources I have available, the "Victory" class vessels used two water-tubed boilers, not three.
 
If your model is based on the Chooch load, the boiler type is of a Scotch fire-tube boiler.
Normaly, two would be used in a freighter [like our Great Lakes bulk carriers] but a passenger vessel may have three or more.
 
Karl Peters

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

Denny

The problem with the "roll tester" is that it can't measure
how the trucks perform with a car on them.

On my workbench I have an incline and just let the car roll
as far as it can freely -- typically 5 to 7 feet for a good
free roller, 10 feet for an exceptional roller, and lesser
distances mean that it needs work.

What did you lube them with?

Tim O'Connor

The mail came in, and what should appear but Thank You cards for Bob
and me. Bob was rather mystified about the beach scene photos, until I
explained they were probably photos of Doc Denny mingling with the
crowd in his Speedo… Where's Speedo?

Kinda like Where's Waldo?

Thanx guys, you made our day.

Dennis Storzek
Accurail, Inc.

Aley, Jeff A wrote:

As usual, it was a lot of work and a lot of fun. Attendance was pretty good; we had 241 folks show up, down slightly from last year's ~275. Considering the state of the economy, I think this is pretty good.

Another excellent meeting. Those who've never put on one of these, or at least worked on a committee to do so, just don't realize how much time and sweat goes into that smoothly-running operation that you take for granted as an attendee.
The talks seem to get better every year, and as always, some just have to be skipped that we would all love to hear. Not sure if there IS an answer, but possibly starting at noon Thursday and maybe not always using every clinic room could help.
For those who haven't ever attended, give it some thought. It's as good a meeting on freight cars as you will find. Yes, Naperville is bigger but I really don't think it's truly better --
every bit as good, and I wouldn't miss it either, but not better.

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 would like to participate in this one. However, I model May 1943
so the models produced in this clinic so far are too late for me.
Could we do one matching my era?

Jared Harper
Athens, GA

It was a great meet. I am sorry now that I didn't attend Mont
Switzer's toola and tips clinic. Wish I could have attended the frt.
car distribution clinic and the "I wish" session that met at the same
time.

There were fewer vendors this year. I think we need to work on
getting more folks who make the products we want to this meet.

Jared Harper
Athens, GA

I unearthed my cache of these handsome trucks and tested their rollability on the Reboxx Rolltester as follows:

(0-5 Not Acceptable. 6-10 Poor. Good/Acceptable 11-15. Very Good 16-20. Superior 21 and up).

OEM wheels: 6/7/6: Borderline unacceptable/poor.
Reboxx 1.025" wheels: 10/11/10: just barely above the poor, but in the /goodacceptable range.
Reboxx 1.030" wheels: 9/9/10: Almost acceptable, but still poor. Minimal sideplay, however.

Lubrication caused no improvement in rollability.

The appearance of these trucks with their new narrow wheels was improved to an exponential degree.

With their projecting exposed narrow wheels , these are the trucks I will use on Al Westerfield' s fine new Summers Ore cars until something better comes along. Now, if I can only adapt the Kadee brake gear to fit these 5' trucks....

BTW, if one was to stock up on only one length of Reboxx wheels, 1.025" would seem to a worthy bet, with some 1.020" and 1.015" axle sets on the side. These (1.025") are the consistent best for the popular Accurail AAR trucks (maximum rollability combined with minimum axle sideplay. Ditto with Branchline trucks).

Brian Leppart's fine Tahoe trucks are sized to best use the the Reboxx or Intermountain nominal 1.015" axle lengths (but the current new IM production of 1.007" axle sets introduce excessive axle sideplay).

Denny




Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento

As usual I really enjoyed the meeting. Thanks to Mike Brock, Jeff Aley and the rest of the Prototype Rails crew. Thanks also to all of the presenters and everyone who brought models to display. I'm looking forward to next year.

Larry Kline
Pittsburgh, PA

Mark Morgan wrote:
"I searched the site for the Rail Road Progress company. How are there
[sic] kits?"

c. 1970s-1980s "scratchbuilding projects in a box" consisting of
precut styrene sheet and strip along with Plastruct structural
shapes. Despite the lack of rivet detail, these built into
surprisingly decent models of their prototypes. These came out at a
time when the general consensus in the hobby was that "all hopper
cars looked the same", and the individual responsibile for these kits
also self published "Common Hopper Cars of the Northeast" which was
one of the first enthusiast works that showed that this was not the
case. Many of the Rail Road Progress kits have been superceded by
later models, but a few of them still are the only models available
for some prototypes.

See Jim Six's "Modeling Norfolk & Western's H10 coal hopper" in the
August and September 1989 issues of Model RailroaDing and
Teichmoeller's PRR hopper book for more information.


Ben Hom

The Preface of the "Standard Tank Car Journeys" (ca 1920) states that it is
the sequel to "All About Tank Cars"

QUOTE

"Standard Tank Car Journeys" is a sequel to "All About Tank Cars."

The earlier book is a guide that should be at the elbow of every tank car
lessee and owner; it includes detailed specifications for all types of tank
cars, full information on mileage earnings and tank car accounting, the text
of the Master Car Builders and government requirements, and much other
detailed and general information one should have to secure the most
economical and satisfactory operation of cars.

"Standard Tank Car Journeys" takes in a broader field. It is a non-technical
account of the parts played in industry by the many commodities handled in
Standard Tank Cars and tank cars in general. It is presented as an
interesting and instructive treatise on the vital service of tank cars, with
the hope that each and all of us connected with
the wide and important employment of liquids in industry may gain a clearer
view of our functions as they are related to the work of the nation and the
world, and secure some larger measure of inspiration from our daily tasks.

UNQUOTE

I do not know whether "Standard Tank Car Journeys" (ca 1920) is the same as
"General American Tank Car Journeys" (ca 1931).

By the way, this volume is digitized and is available at

http://www.archive.org/details/standardtankcarj00stanrich


Storey Lindsay
Celje, Slovenia

--- In STMFC@..., John Riba <jriba@...> wrote:

Hello Everybody,
 
  Can you give more information on the tank car books, i.e.

publisher etc. for a library search?

 
    John Riba

--- On Mon, 1/12/09, Gene Green <bierglaeser@...> wrote:

From: Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: General American Tank Car Journeys
To: STMFC@...
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 2:49 PM

The book is copyright 1931 by the General American Tank Car

Corporation, Chicago, Illinois.
I was not aware of a 1920 edition, but this book would be much
different in that there are many photos in this edition from the
late twenties and 1930.

Phil Marcus

I have the 1920 version of "Standard Tank Car Journeys." I am curious
what improvements are in the 1931 edition.

Standard Tank Car Company also put out a book "All About Tank Cars."
My edition is 1921. Could this title be the 'subsequent volume?'

Gene Green

Miles C. (not signing his full name) wrote:

Tony,
I just read your article on your steam era railroad, the Lompoc & Cuyama in the June 1990 issue of RMC, and was quite impressed.
You mentioned that you had a rather large document published as the "history" of the L&C, is there any way to procure a copy?

Thanks for the kind words. I'll communicate with you off-list about this.

I'm also curious who made those incredibly detailed STMFC's, most notably the MP gondola #20273 on paage 67.

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

Hello Everybody,
 
  Can you give more information on the tank car books, i.e. publisher etc. for a library search?
 
    John Riba

I have the 1920 version of "Standard Tank Car Journeys." I am curious
what improvements are in the 1931 edition.

Standard Tank Car Company also put out a book "All About Tank Cars."
My edition is 1921. Could this title be the 'subsequent volume?'

Gene Green

At 09:56 AM 1/12/2009, Clark Propst wrote:
<snip>

I do have a problem with the "Shake and Take" clinic. Greg Martin
along with Jim Singer, John Greedy and Doc Denny (and maybe others)
spend a great deal of time and their own money to put out a fine
unique kit. They allow for 25-30 participants, yet each year only to
have just a hand full of completed models brought back each year for
display. I would be discouraged with the meager results, but to those
guys's credit they are very upbeat and are busy planning next year's
model.

This should be -easy- to fix:
Require 2009 attendees registering for the 2010 "Shake and Take" to submit a photo of / and bring their 2009 clinic model.
My guess is that some additional seats would open-up...

For those trying to game the system... the best they could do would be every-other year's clinic.
Just a thought...


--------------------
Richard Brennan - San Leandro CA (far... far... -away from Cocoa Beach)
--------------------

Richard,

In my years of collecting such books, I have never come across a subsequent volume. There is a 1920 edition of the Tank Car Journeys book. The 1931 edition is, by far, the superior of the two.

Best regards,

Charlie

Charles Dean
Shelbyville, Kentucky

What modifications are needed to the Atlas bolster and kingpin to

change out the trucks?<

I know the Atlas kingpin is larger and would require the TMW to be reamed some. I don't know about the height.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS