Date   

Re: tank car question

sunbeam13n14
 

Try this Richard -
 
Shell-and-tube heat exchangers, and some large, industrial liquid heaters have their tube bundles in a single pass (steam in the top connection through internal copper U-tubes with condensate out the bottom connection) configuration built so that the whole assembly can be removed for repair. They are usually installed at the bottom of the tank and removed horizontally. While the bundle is being repaired, if the tank is required to be in continuous service, it is not unusual to see a blind flange covering the mating flange surface.
 
Is it possible that a tank car not originally built with serpentine steam coils could be modified with connections for an internal, removable tube bundle for heating liquids requiring viscosity encouragement (paraffin perhaps) and then later removed?
 
Frank

--- On Fri, 2/27/09, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:


From: Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: tank car question
To: STMFC@...
Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 4:47 AM






On Feb 26, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups. com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@ ...>
wrote:

On Feb 26, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Ned Carey wrote:
what is the odd device on the end of this tank car?
http://tbn0. google.com/ hosted/images/ c?q=eb8dfb80ba8b 6c72_large

Tim O'Connor
As Frank Fertitta observed, it's some sort of unusually large
cleanout cover with some sort of small crane arrangement to support
it when unbolted from the tank end. What Carnegie-Illinois Steel
might have been carrying in the cars that required a cleanout hole
that large I can't imagine, but it's big enough to admit a workman.
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that this plate is a cleanout; I
have a different take on the situation. I may be the only person on
this list who has ever had to enter a tankcar to clean it out; luckily
it had been steamed out years before, but left wet, I I was chipping
rust and washing it out before we put the car in service storing waste
oil fuel for the museum's oil burning steamer. The car was an 8,000
gal. UTLX car from the thirties.

I can see no reason to have a cleanout at the bottom of the tank head;
no workman is going to crawl in through the oil residue to enter the
car. The manway on the dome is much cleaner, and the cars have a
ladder leading down from the manway to the bottom. Yes, the manway was
small, but I was a lot skinnier then :-) Typical cleaning procedure,
from what I've been told, was to lower a rotating high pressure steam
/ water nozzle through the manway, and let the residue drain out the
bottom outlet. A man only entered for the final inspection, and to
buck rivets or caulk seams during tank repairs.

I have, however, seen tankcars with the steam connections for the
heater coils led out through the head rather than through the bottom
of the tank. What this looks like to me is that the heater was a
bundle of tubes with return bends, something like a locomotive
superheater, arranged so the whole unit could be extracted through
that hatch in the head and repaired outside the tank, rather than
having to do all the work in place. It's just a guess on my part, but
the other end may well have a similar hatch with the steam
connections.
Dennis, you're assuming this car was in some sort of oil service, but
(as I pointed out in my post) it was stenciled for loading with non-
regulatory commodities only and had frangible disk vents instead of
spring-loaded safety valves, so whatever oil it might have carried
certainly wasn't petroleum based, if it was oil at all, and probably
would not have required a tank heater. I agree that big plate in the
end of CISX 2774 is overkill for a cleanout, and I'm open to an
alternative explanation of its purpose, but no one has, as yet, come
up with anything more plausible. I'm still hoping that someone on
the list who knows more about steel making than I do can come up with
an explanation (n.b. not just speculation) of what cargo those ten
cars were used to carry; we might then be better able to account for
the big round plate on the end.

Richard Hendrickson

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



















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


Re: tank car question

Allen Rueter
 

From my summers in the steel mill, I don't remember any steel
production liquid byproducts, just slag, but coke production had a lot
of byproducts.

Maybe and educated guess can be made, loads weight/12,650 gals, we
could make a guess at the density. Then compare that to
tar/naptha/benzene/xylene/... Some coke plants had a flushing
liquor, but most of that was recycled.

Allen Rueter

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On Feb 26, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Ned Carey wrote:
what is the odd device on the end of this tank car?
http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=eb8dfb80ba8b6c72_large

Tim O'Connor






As Frank Fertitta observed, it's some sort of unusually large
cleanout cover with some sort of small crane arrangement to support
it when unbolted from the tank end. What Carnegie-Illinois Steel
might have been carrying in the cars that required a cleanout hole
that large I can't imagine, but it's big enough to admit a workman.
Frank's wrong in his speculation that the car was a high pressure
tank car of some sort, however, as it was listed in the ORERs as AAR
class TM, not TP. CISX 2774 was one of ten cars numbered 2772-2781
which were of 12,650 gal. capacity, unusually large for that day
(Note that the tank is visibly bigger than that on the 10,000 gal.
GATX car to the left). These ten cars were used to carry a non-
regulatory commodity, as is evident both from the stenciling on the
tank and the absence of safety valves - they had only frangible disk
vents. I'd be interested to learn from someone familiar with the
process of producing steel (Tony?) what that commodity might have
been. At any rate, They were AC&F Type 21s built in early the 1920s,
and the tank cleanouts were probably added later. The dome platforms
were homemade and were certainly added later.

Ned then observes:

It confirms what most on this list already know
a.. There was quite a variety of tank cars in size shape a detail.
b.. Most tank cars were plain black
c.. Three compartment cars are smaller, common models like athearn
are way to large. Note the three compartment car in the upper right
of the photo. It is noticeably smaller that nearby cars. I don't
recall seeing a multi compartment car next to other tank cars and
the size difference is obvious by comparison. (perhaps also a
converted car as the end domes are smaller than the middle dome.)









All true. The three compartment car appears to have been a 6,000 gal
single compartment car converted to three compartments. Such
conversions were fairly common (more often, though, on 8,000 gal.
cars), especially on GATX cars. 6 K gal. three compartment cars are
among the more obvious car types that need to be modeled in HO scale
(Micro-Trains has recent produced one in N scale). And Ned is, of
course, right that the old Athearn/AHM models are so grotesquely
oversize that they can't even be used as reasonable stand-ins for any
prototype cars.

What is the age of the photo?




Ca. 1942. Thee are a couple of GATX cars in the photo with features
(rod tank tie-downs instead of straps, full-circle dome handrails,
that weren't adopted earlier than late 1941), and all of the CISX
tank cars were gone from the ORERs by mid-1943.

a.. I see no radial course cars
b.. I see many cars that appear welded with no obvious rivet lines





There's one radial-course car way off in the distance, but certainly
they're largely absent from this photo. On the other hand, none of
the cars that are close enough for details to be made out appear to
be welded (and I've done some fiddling in Photoshop to bring up the
details as much as possible).
Interesting details
a.. The platforms on the full platform cars seem heavy. Maybe the
platforms onsome of the plastic models aren't so crude after all.
b.. My perception (Which perhaps comes from the model world) is
that full platform cars were much more common on insulated cars.
Yet I see a high percentage on non insulated cars in this photo.











Well, as noted earlier, the platforms on the cars close to the camera
were homemade, and very crude, additions. Dome platforms supplied by
the tank car builders were much more delicate.

c.. Seeing a person in close proximity to the manway, I am
surprised how small the manways were. It must have been a squeeze
to get into a car.




Yup. Fat guys would have had difficulty getting in and - worse-
getting out.

d.. On the first track to the left, take note of the second car
that has a dome showing. It has a circular grab all the way around
the dome. I haven't noticed this before and yet it is on at least a
few cars in the photo.






Standard GATC practice starting ca. 1941 but not generally adopted by
AC&F, the only other significant tank car mfr. by that date. Most of
the non-CISX cars I can identify in the photo are GATC built and
probably GATC owned. It appears that CISX had some sort of leasing/
maintenance arrangement with GATC, because in the 1930s they leased
cars from Pennsylvania-Conley, a wholly owned GATC subsidiary, and
that would account for the preponderance of GATC cars in the photo.

e.. The car to the upper right of the diesel cab has lateral
running boards around the dome. I have seen this before and
probably needs to be modeled more frequently. I can't think of a
single model available that has this. Would this have been an
option tank car builders offered for standard designs or would this
have been a trademark of a particular builder or tank car owner?










Tank car builder's may have provided those as an option, though I
can't recall seeing a builder's photo that shows them. However,
owners often added them on cars in assigned service where elevated
loading and/or unloading facilities weren't available. At any rate,
adding them on a model is very simple, if you're modeling a prototype
that had them.
f.. Perhaps most interesting of all is again the second car (with a
dome showing, 3rd car if you include the partial car in front) in
the left most row ahs an odd arrangement of rivet lines. Could this
be a 5 course car?





Yes, an arrangement unique, AFAIK, to GATC cars built in the early
war years, perhaps because larger pieces of steel weren't available.
There was a single bottom sheet, two side sheets, and two top sheets
with a rivet seam down the center as on three horizontal course cars.

Some other observations, for what they're worth.

The car whose tank end shows at the bottom of the photo was either a
Standard Tank Car Co. or Pennsylvania Tank Car Co. product, as
evidenced by the tank band location (PTC tanks were made by STC; PTC,
whose plant was next door to STC's, made only their own underframes
and smaller components like ladders and dome walkways). The next car
in the string at the left of the photo was GATX 18285, a 10K gal. car
built in 1926-'27.

All in all, as Ned says, a very interesting photo, though it would be
a mistake to over-generalize from it about tank cars as a whole.

Richard Hendrickson



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


Re: Brake Diagram for WW2 Pullman Troop Sleeper

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Thanks, Tony.

SGL

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
So where does it come to pass that giving someone >>A<< copy for
their own use is a problem? That certainly does not constitute
"publication."
Right on target, Schuyler. It's called "fair use" and it's
spelled out in the law.

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@...
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: coke

cj riley <cjriley42@...>
 

--- On Thu, 2/26/09, ed_mines <ed_mines@...> wrote:
Any idea where the coke was made?

In the days before cross country pipelines, many areas were served by "coal gas" companies, with those huge floating storage tanks. Was their gas the result of coke production? Something I have always wondered about.CJ Riley







In the days before cross country gas pipelines, many areas were served by "coal gas companies
".


Re: tank car question

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 26, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On Feb 26, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Ned Carey wrote:
what is the odd device on the end of this tank car?
http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=eb8dfb80ba8b6c72_large

Tim O'Connor
As Frank Fertitta observed, it's some sort of unusually large
cleanout cover with some sort of small crane arrangement to support
it when unbolted from the tank end. What Carnegie-Illinois Steel
might have been carrying in the cars that required a cleanout hole
that large I can't imagine, but it's big enough to admit a workman.
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that this plate is a cleanout; I
have a different take on the situation. I may be the only person on
this list who has ever had to enter a tankcar to clean it out; luckily
it had been steamed out years before, but left wet, I I was chipping
rust and washing it out before we put the car in service storing waste
oil fuel for the museum's oil burning steamer. The car was an 8,000
gal. UTLX car from the thirties.

I can see no reason to have a cleanout at the bottom of the tank head;
no workman is going to crawl in through the oil residue to enter the
car. The manway on the dome is much cleaner, and the cars have a
ladder leading down from the manway to the bottom. Yes, the manway was
small, but I was a lot skinnier then :-) Typical cleaning procedure,
from what I've been told, was to lower a rotating high pressure steam
/ water nozzle through the manway, and let the residue drain out the
bottom outlet. A man only entered for the final inspection, and to
buck rivets or caulk seams during tank repairs.

I have, however, seen tankcars with the steam connections for the
heater coils led out through the head rather than through the bottom
of the tank. What this looks like to me is that the heater was a
bundle of tubes with return bends, something like a locomotive
superheater, arranged so the whole unit could be extracted through
that hatch in the head and repaired outside the tank, rather than
having to do all the work in place. It's just a guess on my part, but
the other end may well have a similar hatch with the steam
connections.















































Dennis, you're assuming this car was in some sort of oil service, but
(as I pointed out in my post) it was stenciled for loading with non-
regulatory commodities only and had frangible disk vents instead of
spring-loaded safety valves, so whatever oil it might have carried
certainly wasn't petroleum based, if it was oil at all, and probably
would not have required a tank heater. I agree that big plate in the
end of CISX 2774 is overkill for a cleanout, and I'm open to an
alternative explanation of its purpose, but no one has, as yet, come
up with anything more plausible. I'm still hoping that someone on
the list who knows more about steel making than I do can come up with
an explanation (n.b. not just speculation) of what cargo those ten
cars were used to carry; we might then be better able to account for
the big round plate on the end.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: tank car question

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On Feb 26, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Ned Carey wrote:
what is the odd device on the end of this tank car?
http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=eb8dfb80ba8b6c72_large

Tim O'Connor
As Frank Fertitta observed, it's some sort of unusually large
cleanout cover with some sort of small crane arrangement to support
it when unbolted from the tank end. What Carnegie-Illinois Steel
might have been carrying in the cars that required a cleanout hole
that large I can't imagine, but it's big enough to admit a workman.
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that this plate is a cleanout; I
have a different take on the situation. I may be the only person on
this list who has ever had to enter a tankcar to clean it out; luckily
it had been steamed out years before, but left wet, I I was chipping
rust and washing it out before we put the car in service storing waste
oil fuel for the museum's oil burning steamer. The car was an 8,000
gal. UTLX car from the thirties.

I can see no reason to have a cleanout at the bottom of the tank head;
no workman is going to crawl in through the oil residue to enter the
car. The manway on the dome is much cleaner, and the cars have a
ladder leading down from the manway to the bottom. Yes, the manway was
small, but I was a lot skinnier then :-) Typical cleaning procedure,
from what I've been told, was to lower a rotating high pressure steam
/ water nozzle through the manway, and let the residue drain out the
bottom outlet. A man only entered for the final inspection, and to
buck rivets or caulk seams during tank repairs.

I have, however, seen tankcars with the steam connections for the
heater coils led out through the head rather than through the bottom
of the tank. What this looks like to me is that the heater was a
bundle of tubes with return bends, something like a locomotive
superheater, arranged so the whole unit could be extracted through
that hatch in the head and repaired outside the tank, rather than
having to do all the work in place. It's just a guess on my part, but
the other end may well have a similar hatch with the steam connections.

Dennis


Re: tank car question

feddersenmark
 

---Ignore my last post. I see now that it is a strap at the end of
the car obscuring the second row of rivets of the conventional end.
Sorry. MF







In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Kurt Laughlin wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
The three compartment car appears to have been a 6,000 gal
single compartment car converted to three compartments. Such
conversions were fairly common (more often, though, on 8,000 gal.
cars), especially on GATX cars.
----- Original Message -----

How would they do that? I suppose they could take off the heads
and
slide
the new ones inside the shell, but my guess is that the inside
was
far from
a perfect cylinder which would make "sliding" heads in and
getting
a good
circumferetial seal very difficult.















Nevertheless, that's exactly how it was done, Kurt. I've
sometimes
thought that they probably un-riveted the top seam, as well, since
they would have had to cut new openings for the end domes and bore
new holes for the dome flange rivets. But I've never found either
a
photo or a witness's account of exactly how it was done.

Richard Hendrickson





Re: tank car question

feddersenmark
 

---Note the end of the bottom most car in the photo...it overlaps the
sides of the cylinder of the car...and two sizes of rivets. I don't
recall ever seeing that before? Mark Feddersen







In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Kurt Laughlin wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
The three compartment car appears to have been a 6,000 gal
single compartment car converted to three compartments. Such
conversions were fairly common (more often, though, on 8,000 gal.
cars), especially on GATX cars.
----- Original Message -----

How would they do that? I suppose they could take off the heads
and
slide
the new ones inside the shell, but my guess is that the inside
was
far from
a perfect cylinder which would make "sliding" heads in and
getting
a good
circumferetial seal very difficult.















Nevertheless, that's exactly how it was done, Kurt. I've
sometimes
thought that they probably un-riveted the top seam, as well, since
they would have had to cut new openings for the end domes and bore
new holes for the dome flange rivets. But I've never found either
a
photo or a witness's account of exactly how it was done.

Richard Hendrickson



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


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths and #4 couplers

Craig Zeni
 

To this day I believe that a properly assembled #4 is operationally the best coupler Kadee's ever offered. Centers better than any other, and the spring/metal dowel set up gives a bit of nice slack action. I don't use them much any longer as I much prefer the appearance of the 58/158 et al....


Craig Zeni
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

6.1. Re: Kadee minimum body box widths and #4 couplers
Posted by: "Donald B. Valentine" riverman_vt@... riverman_vt
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:24 am ((PST))

I'm not sure everyone is on the same page as to which coupler
it is or not but with regard to the #4 you may be overlooking a
part of its operating characteristics. As Deeny mentioned the #4
had a slot in the coupler shank that was behind the square post
that held the coupler in its pocket and there was a spring that
fit into that slot. BUT, and what has not been stated here, is
that there was also a very small cylindrical piece of metal that
fit INSIDE that spring to provide limits to couper travel. Many
of us used these couplers on assembled Ambroid/Northeastern cars
back in the early years of Kadees. IIRC this shank and spring
were utilized on the early non-magnetic couplers to which Jon
refers and were carried over to the #4's.

Regards, Don Valentine


--- In STMFC@..., "Jon Miller" <atsf@...> wrote:

The #4 has a long slot in the shank just wide enough to fit over a
square post within its own cast metal dedicated coupler box.<

Denny,
I don't think this is the coupler that Tim is talking about.
It's one
of the pre-magnetic ones I think. It had a slot in the back and a
spring
was attached that applied the springing action. The spring was
behind the
center pivot post. I'm pretty sure this was one of the first
Kadees made.

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


B&O Time-Saver slogan patch panel M-26b boxcar availalble

James Mischke <jmischke@...>
 

Some Red Caboose B&O M-26b boxcars in the red "Time-Saver
Service" slogan lettering scheme have been imported, both as
ready-to-run boxcars and unassembled kits. This scheme was
lettered by B&O car shops between 1957 and 1962. Like the
companion lettering Sentinel Service slogan boxcars offered last
year, these feature repair patch panels common in their later life.


There are three outlets for these boxcars:


- As previously announced to the membership, the B&OHS Company
Store will have several exclusive road numbers for kits and
ready-to-run. I understand their kits may be sold out in
advance, they will have plenty of ready-to-run boxcars on hand.
Web site is www.borhs.org, click on Company Store.

- A new internet vendor, Keyser Car Shops, will have eight road
numbers of ready to run boxcars. Web site is
www.keysercarshops.com, which will be ready shortly.

- As Panther Hollow Press, I will have a limited number of
unassembled kits available in eight road numbers for those (like
me) who prefer to build boxcar kits themselves and roll their
own cigarettes. Contact me off list.


Privately arranged for, these boxcars are not part of the
regular Red Caboose product line and will not be readily
available in retail hobby shops.


I hope these boxcars will be joyfully operated on many layouts.


Re: tank car question

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

I guess you can do just about anything if you have a big enough hammer.

KL

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

From: Richard Hendrickson
The three compartment car appears to have been a 6,000 gal
single compartment car converted to three compartments. Such
conversions were fairly common (more often, though, on 8,000 gal.
cars), especially on GATX cars.
----- Original Message -----

How would they do that? I suppose they could take off the heads and slide
the new ones inside the shell, but my guess is that the inside was far from
a perfect cylinder which would make "sliding" heads in and getting a good
circumferetial seal very difficult.
Nevertheless, that's exactly how it was done, Kurt. I've sometimes thought that they probably un-riveted the top seam, as well, since they would have had to cut new openings for the end domes and bore new holes for the dome flange rivets. But I've never found either a photo or a witness's account of exactly how it was done.
----- Original Message -----


Re: tank car question

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Kurt Laughlin wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
The three compartment car appears to have been a 6,000 gal
single compartment car converted to three compartments. Such
conversions were fairly common (more often, though, on 8,000 gal.
cars), especially on GATX cars.
----- Original Message -----

How would they do that? I suppose they could take off the heads and
slide
the new ones inside the shell, but my guess is that the inside was
far from
a perfect cylinder which would make "sliding" heads in and getting
a good
circumferetial seal very difficult.















Nevertheless, that's exactly how it was done, Kurt. I've sometimes
thought that they probably un-riveted the top seam, as well, since
they would have had to cut new openings for the end domes and bore
new holes for the dome flange rivets. But I've never found either a
photo or a witness's account of exactly how it was done.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Freight Cars Built in Railroad Shops

water.kresse@...
 

The C&O in the 50s did stretch a lot of 40-ft into 50-ft boxes at their own Raceland shops and then brought back building most of their 70-ton hopper cars in their own shops.  They tried their hands at a few insulated boxes and covered hopper cars . . . . mostly to keep the vendors "competitive" and to keep their major rebuild shops filled up with work.  By the 60s they were buying kits from Thrall and finishing them in their Dubois shops.



Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: RUTLANDRS@...
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 2:00:22 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight Cars Built in Railroad Shops

Now, there are a couple of statements that should  cause some folks to quit
questioning the delivery times of certain kits.
Chuck Hladik
 
 
In a message dated 2/22/2009 12:44:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rhendrickson@... writes:

 
 
 
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

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





**************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)






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


Re: Drill Bits and MiniMate

Steve SANDIFER
 

It is my experience that most drill failures are from mishandling, not poor drills, especially when you are drilling into plastic, wood, or resin. I pick mine up at a local hobby shop and have at least 3 of each in stock when I start a project. I've broken more by stupidly laying down the Dremel than anything else. #76-80 are my most used sizes.

----------------------------------------------------------------
J. Stephen (Steve) Sandifer
mailto:steve.sandifer@...
Home: 12027 Mulholland Dr., Meadows Place, TX 77477, 281-568-9918
Office: Southwest Central Church of Christ, 4011 W. Bellfort, Houston, TX
77025, 713-667-9417
Personal: http://www.geocities.com/stevesandifer2000/index
Church: http://www.swcentral.org

----- Original Message -----
From: James F. Brewer
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Drill Bits and MiniMate


Denny,

Based on your and Pierre's comments on the MiniMate, I plan to buy one soon. I usually buy my drill bits from Micro-Mark, who advertise them as "high speed steel." Are these good to use in the MiniMate? Any other suggestions for drill bits? Many thanks.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: Denny Anspach
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:25 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Single-sheathed box cars

> .....all of the holes I
> drill in resin , I use a Dremel Mini-Mite. A battery powered moto-
> tool.
> If you're careful and use the right feed rate and speed you can also
> successfully use this tool for styrene as well.
> Drilling 36 holes becomes a job of mere minutes.

I will second that. Just don't try to use carbide bits this way,
however. You (meaning me, of course) cannot hold the tool steady
enough to avoid bit breakage.

The battery-powered Dremel tools are a godsend.

Denny


Re: Kadee minimum body box widths

Glen Mills <mills.glen@...>
 

Hello,

All Pacific Fast Mail brass locomotives I purchased many years ago were
supplied with a plastic coupler box which was KD No.4 compatible.

As KD couplers (in those days) were metal, using the plastic coupler box
eliminated electrical shorts at the tender end of the locomotive. Therefore
it was the coupler/coupler box combination of choice on the tender of all
brass locomotives. Later the coupler box was available from Precision Scale
Co. as their part No. 31216. This is shown in the Walthers Catalogue for
1996 but is not in that for 2006. I still have a Vegemite jar full of PSC
boxes for possible future use.

I too like the slack action of a No.4 and use it on one end of most boxcars
and some reefers together with a No.8 on the other end. Generally I do not
use this combination on other freight cars due to the exposed holding
screws. However, I continue to install 4's and 8's together as I still have
a big stock of both. Many years ago a local hobby shop closed with much
stock obtained at reduced prices.

It is agreed that the No.4's are a bigger pain to install and more of a
maintenance problem than the others but when well under one per cent of all
my metal couplers have failured, I am not going to condemn them for that.

I prefer metal couplers to plastic and now use No.78 where the coupler box
is exposed.

Regards,

Glen Mills

Re: Kadee minimum body box widths
Posted by: "Denny Anspach" danspach@... docdenny34
Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:19 pm (PST)
Didn't one of the really old Kadee couplers use
this technique -- a #4 perhaps? I'm pretty sure
one of them used a coil centering spring.<
Yes, and they are still available, and reportedly are still chosen by
a small set of modelers that very much like the "slack action" that
the #4's internal longitudinal springs allow. They are considerably
different in design and concept from the #78, and in this regard they
really have very little real relationship
The #4 has a long slot in the shank just wide enough to fit over a
square post within its own cast metal dedicated coupler box. With the
coupler shank over the post, the remaining portion of the slot is
filled with a tiny (that is- *tiny*) spring that holds the shank
against the post while at the same time pulling the shank back to
center when the coupler swivels. What is different is that the coupler
does not swivel against the post but swivels against cast-in columns
in the sides of the coupler box- as explained well by Dennis.
I still have a great number of cars equipped with #4s, and they
operate as well as could be expected, but test one's patience in
either repair or replacement. The couplers fit no other coupler
boxes, except a number of cast metal boxes common to a number of early
manufacturers in the '50s and '60s (MDC?). In contradistinction, none
of the usual standard couplers will fit the #4's box.
Denny


Re: nice freight yard details

rfederle@...
 

I like the tie plates under the chair legs. Looks like the end of that board has some wear too. Might not be the best of jobs though on a rainy wintery day (or night) though.

Nice shot.

Robert Federle
---- Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


I'll bet not too many layouts have a guy sitting on
a chair next to the yard throat, ready to throw that
switch...

http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=63aa8efb7477cb32_large

It's a 1942 view of an SP yard -- note the three PRR
box cars on the far track, and the 50' single sheathed
box car.
It is a "slip-switch" he's manually operating. Not the usual
arrangement for a yard throat.
A nice find Tim.
Bob Witt

Yes, a double-slip. There were two of them at the throat of
the Taylor Yard classification bowl. There are several shots
of the yard in the Life collection.

Tim O'Connor


Re: coke -- a consumer product in 1950?

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Storzek To: STMFC@... Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:26 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: coke -- a consumer product in 1950?

Before the entire nation was piped for natural gas . . .
----- Original Message -----

Which would be anytime before 26 February 2009 . . . :-)

KL


Re: tank car question

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
The three compartment car appears to have been a 6,000 gal
single compartment car converted to three compartments. Such
conversions were fairly common (more often, though, on 8,000 gal.
cars), especially on GATX cars.
----- Original Message -----

How would they do that? I suppose they could take off the heads and slide the new ones inside the shell, but my guess is that the inside was far from a perfect cylinder which would make "sliding" heads in and getting a good circumferetial seal very difficult.

KL


Re: gondola question

George Courtney
 

The train is stopped. He's a model railroader looking for free
material for a scratchbuilt PRR double door round roof boxcar.
Ah the good old days of modeling.

George Courtney

Subject: [STMFC] Re:gondola question


Hello: the man riding in the gondola looks neat and clean. I
wonder if he
is
hooking a ride or is a railroad worker? He certainly doesn't
look too
industrious. Al Campbell
**************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)


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



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links





Re: Drill Bits and MiniMate

James F. Brewer <jfbrewer@...>
 

Denny,

Based on your and Pierre's comments on the MiniMate, I plan to buy one soon. I usually buy my drill bits from Micro-Mark, who advertise them as "high speed steel." Are these good to use in the MiniMate? Any other suggestions for drill bits? Many thanks.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: Denny Anspach
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:25 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Single-sheathed box cars


> .....all of the holes I
> drill in resin , I use a Dremel Mini-Mite. A battery powered moto-
> tool.
> If you're careful and use the right feed rate and speed you can also
> successfully use this tool for styrene as well.
> Drilling 36 holes becomes a job of mere minutes.

I will second that. Just don't try to use carbide bits this way,
however. You (meaning me, of course) cannot hold the tool steady
enough to avoid bit breakage.

The battery-powered Dremel tools are a godsend.

Denny

115681 - 115700 of 195529