Date   

Re: GM&O 21000-22419

Ed Hawkins
 

On Feb 22, 2009, at 10:53 PM, Brian J Carlson wrote:

I'm trying to plan my next boxcar project a little better than the
current
one. I'll be building a GM&O 21000-22419 series car from the
Branchline kit.
I already have the 4/5/5 door. I also have a side view of 21022.
However, it
is pretty much a straight on side shot so I can not tell what brake
wheel
and running boards the cars had. can anyone help?

Also, the trucks in the photo look like National C-1 trucks, based on
what
appear to be holes in the side frame, and a jog in the side frame
adjacent
to the bolster. (Compared to photo 32 in the Freight Car trucks
article in
RPC 4) Any thoughts on modeling a National C-1 in HO?
Brian,
Doors:
21000-21749 YSD (an earlier version than supplied by BT)
21750-21999 7P Sup.
22000-22419 YSD (an earlier version than supplied by BT)

Hand Brakes:
21000-21499 Ajax
21500-21999 Miner
22000-22419 Ajax

R/B & B/S:
21000-21499 U.S.G.
21500-21999 Apex
22000-22419 U.S.G.

Trucks:
I don't have firm data on trucks, but I fairly certain they were all
A-3 Ride-Control.

Regards,
Ed Hawkins


GM&O 21000-22419

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

I'm trying to plan my next boxcar project a little better than the current
one. I'll be building a GM&O 21000-22419 series car from the Branchline kit.
I already have the 4/5/5 door. I also have a side view of 21022. However, it
is pretty much a straight on side shot so I can not tell what brake wheel
and running boards the cars had. can anyone help?

Also, the trucks in the photo look like National C-1 trucks, based on what
appear to be holes in the side frame, and a jog in the side frame adjacent
to the bolster. (Compared to photo 32 in the Freight Car trucks article in
RPC 4) Any thoughts on modeling a National C-1 in HO?

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


Re: MP Eagle Merchandise colors

Ed Hawkins
 

On Feb 22, 2009, at 7:49 PM, asychis@... wrote:

The yellow (also referred to as cream) is on the door that
interrupts the blue bands on the sides

But the reference to "cream" is not the same as the striping on
diesels. It
was a brighter yellow, correct? Closer to reefer yellow. I was kind of
surprised by the references to silver or aluminum in the Sunshine
instructions.
Other than the roof, there was no silver on these cars.
Jerry,
As far as I can determine the yellow (sometimes also called cream) on
the doors was the identical color used for striping on passenger cars
an MP Diesel locomotives. The terms "cream" and "yellow" were used
synonymously on MoPac painting diagrams. I don't know where Sunshine
came up with silver or aluminum on their instructions. There wasn't any
silver specified for use on these cars. The yellow color was a
relatively pale shade and faded quickly to even a more pale shade. The
Sherwin-Williams yellow paint specified on the MP stenciling drawing
was G41AC15 if that means anything to anyone 50-plus years after the
cars were painted.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 22, 2009, at 5:54 PM, sparachuk wrote:>
I have to say I'm mystified by the idea that #78 couplers don't work
on 22" curves. When I worked in a hobby shop our store window layout
had 22' and 18" radius curves. I regularly brought in cars I had
equipped with #78s and they never caused any trouble. Mind you, the
trains just went round and round but they never derailed.







Round and round isn't the problem. Stephan. It's getting them to
couple and uncouple reliably. And of course, as Tony Thompson points
out, that isn't really a problem if you have easy access to poke and
prod with your uncoupling skewer, since having to open knuckles and
align couplers was entirely prototypical on tight radius curves. It
only becomes a problem when you're trying to couple and magnetically
uncouple cars on tight radius track that's difficult or impossible to
get to. But for some modelers that can be an issue.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

sparachuk <sparachuk@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Kurt Laughlin" <fleeta@...> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson

Though there is at least one model railroad publication . . .
----- Original Message -----

These days, that's what - about 25% of the industry?

KL
I have to say I'm mystified by the idea that #78 couplers don't work
on 22" curves. When I worked in a hobby shop our store window layout
had 22' and 18" radius curves. I regularly brought in cars I had
equipped with #78s and they never caused any trouble. Mind you, the
trains just went round and round but they never derailed.

Stephan Parachuk
Toronto


Re: Freight Cars Built in Railroad Shops

Roger Hinman <rhinman@...>
 

one nit, Richard. After 1936 (1940s and 1950s) NYC cars were built by
Despatch Shops Inc (DSI) which took
over the MDT Shops. DSI had no business connection to MDT except they
were both 100% controlled by stock ownership
by NYC . DSI continued to be MDT's primary car builder until the 50s.

Roger Hinman

On Feb 22, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Richard Hendrickson wrote:

On Feb 22, 2009, at 6:13 AM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

(regarding the Soo Line's postwar box cars)

Since these cars were built in-house rather than being ordered
from a
builder, it appears that production was more or less continuous
over a
span of years, so things like lettering changes just happened when
they happened.

Interspersed with the production of 40' cars were several groups of
40' insulated cars (XLI), 50' XLs, and 50' double door cars with the
door openings centered for paper loading. The 40' combo door cars
built in 1959 were about the end of the in house production, but
after
buying a few small lots of PS-1's from Pullman and some RBLs from
PC&F, they cranked up again in 1963 to build 50' exterior post cars,
which continued for another sixteen or so years. North Fond du Lac
was
building cars almost continuously between 1948 and 1979.
The large number of steam era freight cars built by the railroads in
their own shops, rather than being purchased from commercial car
builders, deserves more attention than it has generally received.
And, as the Soo Line example shows, the railroads that followed this
practice weren't always among the country's largest. Another example
is the St. Louis Southwestern, which both built and rebuilt many cars
in its Pine Bluff shops. Of course, a majority of the new cars
acquired by the New York Central System in the 1940s and '50s were
built in the Merchants Despatch shops at East Rochester, and MDT was
a wholly owned subsidiary. Other RRs that began building or
completely rebuilding cars in their own shops as early as the 1930s
included the Pennsylvania, Milwaukee, Santa Fe, Union Pacific,
Southern Pacific, Burlington, Wabash, Lehigh Valley, Texas & Pacific,
and Northern Pacific, and I'm sure I've overlooked some. During the
depression, it was a way the railroads could get new (or totally
renewed) freight cars that they otherwise couldn't afford and, at the
same time, keep their shop forces on the payroll. After World War
II, an additional motivation for building their own cars was that,
for years, the commercial car builders had more orders than they
could well handle and were months, if not years, behind in making
deliveries. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that the railroads
assembled the cars in their own shops from kits, since underframes,
ends, sides, doors, roofs, and appliances like truck parts and
wheels, draft gear, hand brakes, and air brake equipment could all be
delivered ready to use by the various railway parts manufacturers.
Still, assembling freight cars was a major undertaking. However, it
had the advantage that the railroads were able to exercise their own
quality control and also to specify combinations of design features
which the commercial builders were reluctant to provide as,
especially after WW II, they much preferred to build cars of their
own increasingly standardized designs (the Pullman-Standard PS-1s
being an extreme example).

Richard Hendrickson





Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 22, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Yes, and fortunately the manufacturers are beginning to adjust their
thinking as well (e.g., Kadee). The gulf continues to widen between
serious scale modelers and toy train buffs. As you aptly point out,
hardly anyone on the STFC list is interested in trying to couple and
uncouple freight cars on 18" - 22" curves.
Get a grip, you mainline guys. Industrial trackage is often very
sharp radius, and what may be a sound position--avoiding mainline
curves in HO below 30 inch radius--cannot serve in many switching
situations, including those accurately copied from the prototype. Just
to cite one recent published example, consider Bob Smaus's LA
industrial trackage.
But the prototype wrestles with drawbar centering in those
situations, too. I must say I rather enjoy the occasional need to
manually center couplers in Otis McGee's tight Dunsmuir yard (far
enough from toy trains for you, Richard?).




















Points well taken, and of course industrial trackage can be, and has,
been modeled with great accuracy by Bob Smaus and others. However,
whereas manual coupler fiddling goes with that territory, it's
undesirable in main line situations and absolutely unacceptable in
relatively inaccessible staging yards, where even 30" r. curves in HO
are way tighter than on the prototype.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Yes, and fortunately the manufacturers are beginning to adjust their thinking as well (e.g., Kadee). The gulf continues to widen between serious scale modelers and toy train buffs. As you aptly point out, hardly anyone on the STFC list is interested in trying to couple and uncouple freight cars on 18" - 22" curves.
Get a grip, you mainline guys. Industrial trackage is often very sharp radius, and what may be a sound position--avoiding mainline curves in HO below 30 inch radius--cannot serve in many switching situations, including those accurately copied from the prototype. Just to cite one recent published example, consider Bob Smaus's LA industrial trackage.
But the prototype wrestles with drawbar centering in those situations, too. I must say I rather enjoy the occasional need to manually center couplers in Otis McGee's tight Dunsmuir yard (far enough from toy trains for you, Richard?).

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


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 22, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Kurt Laughlin wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson

Though there is at least one model railroad publication . . .
----- Original Message -----

These days, that's what - about 25% of the industry?









Actually, more than that, Kurt, since it's the publication with the
largest (though steadily declining) circulation and also, with a
couple of notable exceptions, the least prototype-modeling-oriented
editorial staff.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Covered hopper gates

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 22, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
I'm doing some research on the likely dimensions of a particular
covered hopper, looking to assist a
small kit maker in producing a model. One question that came up is
whether the sliding hopper gates
on these cars were a standard size from the various manufacturers.

I've looked at my copies of the '43 and '61 Car Builder's Cycs. On
page 298 and 496 of the '43 Cyc,
it shows "Enterprise Bulk Commodity Outlets" as applied to a two-
bay 70-ton AAR LO. (Does anyone
know what prototype car the drawing is for?) The drawing on 298
dimensions the hoppers as 13" x
24", longitudinally by laterally.
















Schuyler, all of the Santa Fe's early 1958 cu. ft. covered hoppers,
whether built by AC&F or GATC, had standard Enterprise discharge
gates, whose outlet dimensions were 13" X 24". That dimension also
turns up on in the folio diagrams for two and three bay covered
hoppers of several other RRs, so I think it is safe to assume that
(1) the Enterprise gates were the industry standard and (2) the
standard dimensions of the discharge openings were 13" X 24". That
doesn't, of course, definitively answer the question of whether the
particular cars with which you are concerned were so equipped.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Freight Cars Built in Railroad Shops

Scott Pitzer
 

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

Now, there are a couple of statements that should cause some folks
to quit
questioning the delivery times of certain kits.
=======================
The Lofton-Sunshine Car Co. has been slow on deliveries in this post-
war period. (And by "war" I mean Grenada.)
Scott Pitzer


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson

Though there is at least one model railroad publication . . .
----- Original Message -----

These days, that's what - about 25% of the industry?

KL


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 22, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Denny Anspach wrote:
IMHO, this is just another area where the ongoing search for the
"prototype" in appearance and operations should be moving us to adjust
our thinking: e.g. advocating that the sophisticated models and
accessories that we so favor, also be aimed to something well above
the least common operational parameters.







Yes, and fortunately the manufacturers are beginning to adjust their
thinking as well (e.g., Kadee). The gulf continues to widen between
serious scale modelers and toy train buffs. As you aptly point out,
hardly anyone on the STFC list is interested in trying to couple and
uncouple freight cars on 18" - 22" curves. Though there is at least
one model railroad publication that hasn't caught on yet, the days of
perpetually re-inventing Plywood Pacific layouts on ping-pong tables
are long gone.

Richard Hendrickson


Covered hopper gates

Schuyler Larrabee
 

As is a common greeting on another list I'm on: Esteamed colleagues:

I'm doing some research on the likely dimensions of a particular covered hopper, looking to assist a
small kit maker in producing a model. One question that came up is whether the sliding hopper gates
on these cars were a standard size from the various manufacturers.

I've looked at my copies of the '43 and '61 Car Builder's Cycs. On page 298 and 496 of the '43 Cyc,
it shows "Enterprise Bulk Commodity Outlets" as applied to a two-bay 70-ton AAR LO. (Does anyone
know what prototype car the drawing is for?) The drawing on 298 dimensions the hoppers as 13" x
24", longitudinally by laterally.

In the '61 Edition (referred to here for >historical< information only, of course) on page 261, the
gates of an ACL hopper are dimensioned laterally at 2'-0", but no dimension is given longitudinally.
And the only other reference I've found is on pages 268-9, where a CN hopper has bates that are
dimensioned at 13" x 23". (On page 266, there is a drawing of a Keystone "Portloc" outlet which is
similar, but it says the opening is 3" x 2'-0" [sic]. That is obviously in error, and I'd like to
think that it should have said 13" x 2'-0".)

A secondary but completely related question has to do with the slopes of the hoppers. Are they
fairly standard, from the frame down to the outlets? I mean, they LOOK pretty much the same from
car to car, but that's a dangerous assumption.

The car in question is a four-bay car designed primarily to haul potash.

SGL
La vita e breve, mangiate prima il dolce!


Re: TLT Canadian Boxcars

pierreoliver2003 <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Brian,
I know that True Line Trains did do some reworking of the lettering
errors that occurred in the first run of CN cars and looking today at
the most recent offerings it does seem that they've adjusted the
location of the side ladders. However don't quote me, as I could be wrong.
Pierre Oliver


--- In STMFC@..., "Brian J Carlson" <brian@...> wrote:

While at a show today I took the opportunity to look over the True Line
Trains Canadian Built boxcars. I recall looking at them when they
first came
out and the ladders were molded very far from the ends. The cars I
saw today
seemed to have the ladders located at the same locations as the adjacent
intermountain, Red Caboose boxcars. Now I know comparing models to
models is
not the best approach. However it appears TLT may have retooled the
car to
be more prototypical. Does anyone know if these cars were retooled,
or were
my eyes deceiving me?

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


Re: MP Eagle Merchandise colors

asychis@...
 

The yellow (also referred to as cream) is on the door that
interrupts the blue bands on the sides

But the reference to "cream" is not the same as the striping on diesels. It
was a brighter yellow, correct? Closer to reefer yellow. I was kind of
surprised by the references to silver or aluminum in the Sunshine instructions.
Other than the roof, there was no silver on these cars.

Jerry Michels
**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003)


Re: SOO postwar AAR Boxcars

Schuyler Larrabee
 

It's also possible that the lettering was moved to the final
location during the production of that run; also cars in series
45100-45498 might exhibit all the same variations because it appears
the two groups were produced concurrently. Now you see why no one has
ever tried to determine the start and end number of each variation;
with two unrelated number series it's just too confusing...

Dennis

I suppose so. But, given that the four schemes have been identified, it's somewhat surprising that
some SOO-obsessed individual has not compiled a list indicating which car numbers have which scheme.
I know that there are some individuals who are afflicted with such a disease regarding ERIE/DL&W/EL
rolling stock. Yours truly included but not obsessively so. More in the random observation mode,
and unfortunately, in a rather disorganized effort; I randomly run across various of these
observations scribbled down on paper or in curiously titled computer files. I suppose I should get
organized about that.

SGL


Re: Covered hopper gates

Charles Hladik
 

In a message dated 2/22/2009 5:45:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
schuyler.larrabee@... writes:




As is a common greeting on another list I'm on: Esteamed colleagues:

I'm doing some research on the likely dimensions of a particular covered
hopper, looking to assist a
small kit maker in producing a model. One question that came up is whether
the sliding hopper gates
on these cars were a standard size from the various manufacturers.

I've looked at my copies of the '43 and '61 Car Builder's Cycs. On page 298
and 496 of the '43 Cyc,
it shows "Enterprise Bulk Commodity Outlets" as applied to a two-bay 70-ton
AAR LO. (Does anyone
know what prototype car the drawing is for?) The drawing on 298 dimensions
the hoppers as 13" x
24", longitudinally by laterally.

In the '61 Edition (referred to here for >historical< information only, of
course) on page 261, the
gates of an ACL hopper are dimensioned laterally at 2'-0", but no dimension
is given longitudinally.
And the only other reference I've found is on pages 268-9, where a CN hopper
has bates that are
dimensioned at 13" x 23". (On page 266, there is a drawing of a Keystone
"Portloc" outlet which is
similar, but it says the opening is 3" x 2'-0" [sic]. That is obviously in
error, and I'd like to
think that it should have said 13" x 2'-0".)

A secondary but completely related question has to do with the slopes of the
hoppers. Are they
fairly standard, from the frame down to the outlets? I mean, they LOOK
pretty much the same from
car to car, but that's a dangerous assumption.

The car in question is a four-bay car designed primarily to haul potash.

SGL
La vita e breve, mangiate prima il dolce!





**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)


Freight Cars Built in Railroad Shops

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 22, 2009, at 6:13 AM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

(regarding the Soo Line's postwar box cars)

Since these cars were built in-house rather than being ordered from a
builder, it appears that production was more or less continuous over a
span of years, so things like lettering changes just happened when
they happened.

Interspersed with the production of 40' cars were several groups of
40' insulated cars (XLI), 50' XLs, and 50' double door cars with the
door openings centered for paper loading. The 40' combo door cars
built in 1959 were about the end of the in house production, but after
buying a few small lots of PS-1's from Pullman and some RBLs from
PC&F, they cranked up again in 1963 to build 50' exterior post cars,
which continued for another sixteen or so years. North Fond du Lac was
building cars almost continuously between 1948 and 1979.
















The large number of steam era freight cars built by the railroads in
their own shops, rather than being purchased from commercial car
builders, deserves more attention than it has generally received.
And, as the Soo Line example shows, the railroads that followed this
practice weren't always among the country's largest. Another example
is the St. Louis Southwestern, which both built and rebuilt many cars
in its Pine Bluff shops. Of course, a majority of the new cars
acquired by the New York Central System in the 1940s and '50s were
built in the Merchants Despatch shops at East Rochester, and MDT was
a wholly owned subsidiary. Other RRs that began building or
completely rebuilding cars in their own shops as early as the 1930s
included the Pennsylvania, Milwaukee, Santa Fe, Union Pacific,
Southern Pacific, Burlington, Wabash, Lehigh Valley, Texas & Pacific,
and Northern Pacific, and I'm sure I've overlooked some. During the
depression, it was a way the railroads could get new (or totally
renewed) freight cars that they otherwise couldn't afford and, at the
same time, keep their shop forces on the payroll. After World War
II, an additional motivation for building their own cars was that,
for years, the commercial car builders had more orders than they
could well handle and were months, if not years, behind in making
deliveries. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that the railroads
assembled the cars in their own shops from kits, since underframes,
ends, sides, doors, roofs, and appliances like truck parts and
wheels, draft gear, hand brakes, and air brake equipment could all be
delivered ready to use by the various railway parts manufacturers.
Still, assembling freight cars was a major undertaking. However, it
had the advantage that the railroads were able to exercise their own
quality control and also to specify combinations of design features
which the commercial builders were reluctant to provide as,
especially after WW II, they much preferred to build cars of their
own increasingly standardized designs (the Pullman-Standard PS-1s
being an extreme example).

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

The Achilles Heel of prototypically narrow coupler boxes is that they inherently limit coupler swing, more if the shank pivot point is long, less if the pivot point is short. IMHO, this fundamental fact is what has held up companies otherwise favoring prototypical accuracy (such as Kadee) from moving in with all fours to adopt this naturally- attractive alternative. Less understandable in this mix is the continuing general tendency of suppliers to be overly solicitous only to those still dwelling in a dwindling HO modeling world of very short track radii.

The "Kadee Box" should be more accurately termed "Athearn Box" inasmuch as Kadee pragmatically adapted their coupler to the Athearn box of the '50s, which they judged at the time to be the de facto predominant installed-base coupler box . About a year or so ago, a review of couplers in one of the magazines judged a narrow box semi- scale coupler "unsatisfactory". When I challenged the author on his data behind this conclusion, I learned that all testing was performed only on sharp track 22" radius or less, a not-unexpected finding by itself, but totally misleading for so many of those pursuing the prototype modeling inherent with larger radii!

The attractive narrow coupler box within Jon Cagle's wonderful resin tank car kit (adapted to a Kadee #78) comes with a price: the long shank of the #78 coupler, further limited by the narrow box opening, * severely* limits the coupler swing. In this regard, this is not a model that would usually be attractive to most who will be favoring 18" curves. For those favoring such short radii in a prototype setting, e.g. industrial trackage, you may have problems, especially if two similar cars are to be coupled together.

As far as coupling/uncoupling on these curves with such cars, the operator may well have to manually center the couplers, just as in the prototype.

IMHO, this is just another area where the ongoing search for the "prototype" in appearance and operations should be moving us to adjust our thinking: e.g. advocating that the sophisticated models and accessories that we so favor, also be aimed to something well above the least common operational parameters.

Denny






Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento

113921 - 113940 of 193575