--- In STMFC@..., "Clark Propst" <cepropst@...> wrote:

I'm looking for a photo or at least someone to tell me what model in close (stand in) for an NYC 2 bay hopper sold to Hyman-Michaels in 1942 or before with the dimensions of:
Inside Length 30' width 9' 5 1/2" Outside length 31' 2 1/2" Height from rail 10' Extreme height 10' 7" Capacity 1650 cu ft, 100000lbs
The M&StL picked up these NYC hoppers from Hyman-Michaels in 1942. The data comes from their page in the 1945 ORER.
I looked in the 1940 ORER and couldn't find a match for thee dimensions.
Any help is much appreciated, thanks,
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa

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

Dear Clark
I bet these are old NYC Lines hoppers from the 1909-1917 era.They had thousands of them.They were a lot like the USRA twin but a bit shorter and lower. Rich Burg and Kieth Retterer have good pictures.
If you need NYC numbers or lot numbers let me know off list.
Larry King
<lrkdbn@...>

On Apr 13, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Doug Rhodes wrote:

The presence of heater coils is a strong hint that these cars were
used for heavy fuel oil, also known as bunker C.

In the steam era, Vancouver refineries were operated to produce an
unusually large proportion of heavy fuel oil compared to other
petroleum products, to supply railway locomotives, the CPR boats
and other shipping at a very favourable price. At least some older
tugboats also used bunker C as a fuel.

So it seems possible that it was not diesel fuel but heavy fuel oil
in at least the two cars with heater coils.

Doug is quite right about this, and I should have thought of it when
I posted my own suggestion. Keep in mind, of course, that so far no
one has come up with anything resembling documentation, so we're all
engaging in sheer speculation.

Richard Hendrickson

On Apr 12, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Brian J Carlson wrote:

I have P2k/Walthers spring plankless trucks,
Tahoe Model Works double truss trucks
IM ASF spring planless trucks with 5 x9 bearing size cast on the
sideframe.
Branchline Barber S2A

Do all these trucks represent the same spring plankless truck? I
can tell
the difference between spring plank and spring plankless trucks,
but other
than the Barber S2a I can't really see a difference between the
trucks. The
better detailing and molding on the TMW is obvious but I am more
interested
if these three represent different trucks or are they similar
enough to be
interchangeable(at least in HO scale)

I'll start with a little history. In the early 1930s, at a time when
the railway appliance industry was suffering from the worst effects
of the economic depression, a consortium was established to improve
the design of freight car trucks. Ten major manufacturers of trucks
formed an Engineers Mechanical Committee which developed the self-
aligning spring-plankless truck, a concept described in detail in the
1937 and later Car Builders' Cyclopedias. The use of this innovation
was then administered by The Board of Trustees under the Four wheel
Railway Truck Agreement. Essentially, the concept consisted of an
interlocking arrangement of side frame, bolster, and spring package
which kept the truck in alignment without the need for a spring plank
below the bolster. This concept was adopted by all the members of
the consortium, but with each company developing its own version,
there was no single self-aligning spring-plankless design. Though
the trucks that resulted more or less resembled each other, there was
considerable variation in side frame and bolster configurations and
spring arrangements, including the fact that some side frames were
double truss (i.e., with boxed-in lower chords) and others not, and
some trucks had a combination of coil and elliptical leaf springs.
Things were further complicated by the fact that the concept was
employed in both fifty and seventy ton capacity trucks (and some
higher capacity trucks as well), and also in spring-plankless
versions of trucks with built-in bolster snubbers such as the Barber
S-2 and ASF A-3.

The short answer to your question, then, is that all of the HO scale
trucks you mention, and a number of others as well, represent
somewhat different versions of the self-aligning spring-plankless
truck, and there were, of course, many other slightly different
versions for which there are no HO scale equivalents. So what's a
modeler to do? Stephan Parachuk posted the answer: stock every
decent set of truck frames you can find, compare them to photos of
the car you're modeling, and choose the one that is closest in
appearance.

Richard Hendrickson

The P2K and TMW, as well as "bettendorf" trucks from Kadee and Tichy, are all attempts at replicating the "Self-Aligning, Spring Plankless Double Truss Truck" as developed by the Associated Truck Manufacturers.

The prototype truck that I worked from had a prominent double truss rib. However, looking at photos, it seems that on some trucks that raised rib was pretty subtle. So P2K's lack of the double truss feature might be forgiven, but the truck still suffers from oversized journal boxes and undersize springs.

The prototype for InterMountain's truck was a normal U-section side frame. The distintive feature on IM's are the triangular "ears" to either side of the bolster on the side frame face, representing a truck with column liners. I only know of Santa Fe and B&O having freight car trucks with liners.

Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
Carson City, NV

The presence of heater coils is a strong hint that these cars were used for heavy fuel oil, also known as bunker C.

In the steam era, Vancouver refineries were operated to produce an unusually large proportion of heavy fuel oil compared to other petroleum products, to supply railway locomotives, the CPR boats and other shipping at a very favourable price. At least some older tugboats also used bunker C as a fuel.

So it seems possible that it was not diesel fuel but heavy fuel oil in at least the two cars with heater coils. Richard's logic would apply about why they owned their own cars. I don't have documentation handy, but it would not be surprising if FM Yorke supplied their boats directly from the tank cars used as intermediate term storage, rather than having separate fuel tanks at their wharf.

Doug Rhodes
Victoria BC

Gene,

Great idea. Grandt Line does this with some of their O-scale narrow gauge trucks. So why not in HO?

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

Gene Green wrote:

On Apr 13, 2009, at 7:50 AM, cdnrailmarine wrote:

Wondering if anyone can offer information and/or photos of the
following three tanks cars listed in the 1954 OER?

FMYX 101, 102 and 103.

Per the Offical Equipment Register:
Report movement and mileage to:
Owner (non shipper) North end of Great Northern Dock foot of
Campbell Avenue Vancouver, BC Canada.

FM Yorke was a tugboat company operating in the Vancouver area that
specilized in rail-barge towing, building in the 1960's two self
propelled car ferries. This company later became part of Seaspan.

Cars are all "TM"s, with 102 and 103 having heater coils.

I am wondering if these cars may have been used to transport oil
from the Vancouver area refineries to the FM Yorke dock?

Ross, The likely (though not by any means the only) explanation is
that F. M. Yorke's tugboats were diesel powered and the tank cars
were used to supply them with diesel fuel. The advantage of Yorke
owning their own cars rather than having fuel delivered in cars owned
by or leased by the fuel supplier is that the cars could stand idle
while storing fuel for future use without incurring charges.

Richard Hendrickson

I can envision truck side frames without journal box lids and a sprue of a variety of lids which the modeler could attach in a mix or match fashion.<

Remember that Tichy makes a truck with separate journal box lids. Only one type came with the truck but it has been done.
While I think that Tahoe's Brian Leppert makes the best trucks available, styrene with inserts is another way to go. This would allow separate lids.

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

I need to learn to read all the messages before responding to any message. Much of what I said below was said [written] sooner and better by Dennis Storzek in message 81036.

I apologize for re-plowing the same field.

Gene Green

--- In STMFC@..., "leakinmywaders" <leakinmywaders@...> wrote:

<snip> ... they might be tooled represent different journal box lid designs, ... <snip>

Chris Frissell
Polson, MT

The freight bills of materials I have seen show that the railroads specified journal box lids as a separate item. That means, I believe, that the same truck side frame might have one style journal box lid on railroad ABC while the same truck side frame might have an entirely different journal box lid on railroad XYZ.

Journal box lids were interchangeable. A given size journal box required a journal box lid of the corresponding size but each journal box lid manufacturer made their journal box lids in a range of sizes.

I have seen freight car trucks with several different journal box lids. It would be an interesting, but perhaps really hard to see, modeling detail to be able to swap journal box lids on our model freight car trucks. I can envision truck side frames without journal box lids and a sprue of a variety of lids which the modeler could attach in a mix or match fashion.

Gene Green

If you do want to drill the stainless steel calipers, the carbide drills
from Drill City will do the job.

I recently adapted 6" digital calipers to my lathe and mill to give be
digital readouts, and I drilled the caliper bodies with these drill bits.

Go easy though. The drills are very sharp and hold their edge well, but they
are brittle.

Cheers

Dave

Hello:

Wondering if anyone can offer information and/or photos of the following three tanks cars listed in the 1954 OER?

FMYX 101, 102 and 103.

Per the Offical Equipment Register:
Report movement and mileage to:
Owner (non shipper) North end of Great Northern Dock foot of Campbell Avenue Vancouver, BC Canada.

FM Yorke was a tugboat company operating in the Vancouver area that specilized in rail-barge towing, building in the 1960's two self propelled car ferries. This company later became part of Seaspan.

Cars are all "TM"s, with 102 and 103 having heater coils.

I am wondering if these cars may have been used to transport oil from the Vancouver area refineries to the FM Yorke dock?

Appreciate any information, thanks Ross McLeod Calgary

Jim, I forgot to put the M&StL number series in my post they were in the 64501 series. There are photos of almost all the second hand cars bought around 1940 (Like the one on RR-pictures), but nothing I know of for this series.
Thamks,
Clark Propst

--- In STMFC@..., "sparachuk" <sparachuk@...> wrote:

Brian: I wish I were more expert on this matter myself but among the differences to notice in these trucks consider the shape of the journal boxes and the shape of the journal lids. All these trucks you are mentioning are different in these areas. To add to the excitement and/or confusion, there is also the TMW Buckeye 50 ton ARA truck. I have more questions than answers myself. I just try to compare photos of the car I am building with the trucks on hand and hope I am coming close. That's one reason I have a drawer full of trucks. The grand kids are going to have fun with that drawer some day!

Stephan Parachuk
Toronto

Steve,

Journal lids were often not manufactured by the foundry that cast the trucks, but were a specialty onto themselves. Different railroads could, and did, order different style lids. In later years it was not uncommon to see a mix of styles on the same car, even on the same truck, especially on cars in work service.

The journal BOXES, however, are part of the side frame casting, and should be the same. Differences likely arise from different placement of the parting line for the model part, and different theories of how much draft angle is needed in the mold.

Dennis

All,

FYI

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

My note regarding the disparity between the axle lengths on the IMRC 70-Ton trucks has generated a large number of opinions. It has been quite interesting to read the many posts regarding this problem and the many ideas as to how to correct the problem and also what has caused this situation to occur.

The best trucks for roll-ability right out of the box with standard wheelsets that I have found were the Kato A3 trucks which the market a number of years ago. I found it amusing that some people complained that they could not get good trucks that would roll freely, then when they tried these, they complained that they rolled to freely (ie. put a car in a siding with a little bit of slope to it and the car would roll out after being uncoupled. I guess they never heard of wheel chocks!).

My thanks to all that have responded with a wealth of information regarding this situation and your personal experiences. I think Denny has summed it all up in his comment regarding the replacement of sub-standard wheelsets and in doing so gave him a lot of satisfaction in trouble free operation.

Thanks guys for your comments and opinions.

Best regards,

Tom Olsen
7 Boundary Road, West Branch
Newark, Delaware, 19711-7479
(302) 738-4292
tmolsen@...

Brian and Stephan: Richard Hendrickson or Tahoe's Brian Leppert will likely weigh in, but when I asked Brian some time ago whether the Tahoe spring plankless double truss truck represented the same prototype as the Proto2000 spring plankless truck, he told me yes. I don't know for certain how specific he meant to be in that answer, however (or how specific he understood my question to be), so I'm also curious to hear more on this. The only apparent intentional differences between these 2 trucks to my eye are that 1) they might be tooled represent different journal box lid designs, and 2) the appearance of the doubled trusses; the latter is lacking altogether on the Proto2000 trucks. Of course the fidelity to detail on the Tahoe trucks is especially outstanding, so I had wondered whether the doubled truss was a matter of tooling sophistication or rather of the P2K truck possibly representing a single-truss design.

Chris Frissell
Polson, MT

Brian: I wish I were more expert on this matter myself but among the differences to notice in these trucks consider the shape of the journal boxes and the shape of the journal lids. All these trucks you are mentioning are different in these areas. To add to the excitement and/or confusion, there is also the TMW Buckeye 50 ton ARA truck. I have more questions than answers myself. I just try to compare photos of the car I am building with the trucks on hand and hope I am coming close. That's one reason I have a drawer full of trucks. The grand kids are going to have fun with that drawer some day!

Stephan Parachuk
Toronto

Richard Hendrickson has a brief article on panel side hoppers, with a number
of helpful photos, in the just-released issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist:
http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/ It's free with registration. I can
only get to the low-tech Mac version so I don't know if there are more bells
and whistles on the high-bandwidth PC version.

Dave Smith

--
David L. Smith
Da Vinci Science Center
Allentown, PA
http://www.davinci-center.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was
listening, everything must be said again. -- Andre Gide

Not to mention that each conical hole has its own axial center, and the presumption in the whole scenario is that the the opposing axial centers are perfectly coincident, perfectly parallel to the adjacent axle's centerline, and located properly relative to the kingpin axis. Or, if not perfect, at least significantly closer than the error caused/tolerated by a .005 increment in axle length. Otherwise there'd be no point in the exercise in the first place.

KL