Date   

Re: A Different Way To Move A Freight Car

Jack Burgess <jack@...>
 

Bob,

Hoover Dam was built by the Six Companies, a consortium of construction
firms, and had an extensive railroad operation. IIRC, there was some
track down in the canyon at the powerhouse level. What they would have
been lowering down there in a boxcar is a puzzle to me. You'd think it
would have been easier to unload the cargo at the rim level, and lower
it piece by piece. The story of the Six Companies Railroad can be found
in David Myrick's RAILROADS OF NEVADA AND EASTERN CALIFORNIA.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff
My first guess is bagged Portland Cement...

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Re: A Different Way To Move A Freight Car

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Bob,

Hoover Dam was built by the Six Companies, a consortium of construction firms, and had an extensive railroad operation. IIRC, there was some track down in the canyon at the powerhouse level. What they would have been lowering down there in a boxcar is a puzzle to me. You'd think it would have been easier to unload the cargo at the rim level, and lower it piece by piece. The story of the Six Companies Railroad can be found in David Myrick's RAILROADS OF NEVADA AND EASTERN CALIFORNIA.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

Bob Chaparro wrote:

I've seen images of freight cars moved on highway trucks, barges and ships, but this is a first in my own book.
The link below is from the University of Nevada-Las Vegas' Digital Collection. It shows the construction at Hoover Dam with a box car being lowered from a cableway above the construction site.
Anyone want to model this?

Link: http://digital.library.unlv.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/lv_water&CISOPTR=960&CISOBOX=1&REC=6

or
http://tinyurl.com/d7n33k

Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA




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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re. A Different Way To Move A Freight Car

Des Norman
 

<< I've seen images of freight cars moved on highway trucks, barges and ships, but this is a first in my own book.

The link below is from the University of Nevada-Las Vegas' Digital Collection. It shows the construction at Hoover Dam with a box car being lowered from a cableway above the construction site.

Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA >>

Maybe it wasn't being lowered but was a loaded car being transfered from one side of the dam site to the other.

Regards,
Des Norman


A Different Way To Move A Freight Car

Bob Chaparro <thecitrusbelt@...>
 

I've seen images of freight cars moved on highway trucks, barges and ships, but this is a first in my own book.

The link below is from the University of Nevada-Las Vegas' Digital Collection. It shows the construction at Hoover Dam with a box car being lowered from a cableway above the construction site.

Anyone want to model this?

Link: http://digital.library.unlv.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/lv_water&CISOPTR=960&CISOBOX=1&REC=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/d7n33k

Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Re: spring Plankless truck help

Brian Leppert <b.leppert@...>
 

I have to respectfully disagree.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hendrickson" <rhendrickson@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] spring Plankless truck help


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 1937 CBC had a two page ad and the 1940 edition had a four page ad, placed by the "Board of Trustees under the Four Wheel Railway Truck Agreement", for "Self-Aligning Spring Plankless Double Truss Trucks". These two ads well describe and illustrate this truck. This design was developed by the Engineers' Mechanical Committee of the Associated Truck Manufacturers.

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.
The most important feature of this truck was the ablility of the side frames to go OUT of alignment (or square) to reduce flange wear in curved track. Because of this movement, the spring plank had to be eliminated. It was the springs that brought the side frames back into alignment.

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,
Since "Double Truss" is a part of this truck's name, I have to assume that they were all double truss. The area of the side frame below the spring seat was a box section, but the lower chords were mostly open on the bottom, at least on the trucks I've looked at.

Looking at all the drawings and illustrations in CBCs of Self-Aligning Spring Plankless Double Truss trucks, I feel that there is a great similarity between them, with only minor variations in details between manufacturers' offerings.

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),
Drawings in CBCs show 40, 50 and 70-ton trucks. I'm sure that larger capacity trucks could have been built. Although these drawings include a variety of spring packages, options also included different spring spacings and more springs.


and also in spring-plankless
versions of trucks with built-in bolster snubbers such as the Barber
S-2 and ASF A-3.
I have never found evidence of S-2 or A-3 trucks that were Self-Aligning. (Please note that I am using this term as a proper noun. I still believe that "Self-Aligning" only pertains to this truck design with its concave/convex side frame/bolster surfaces). Because of the spring activated wedges (snubbers), I doubt it would work anyway.

The Self-Aligning design seems to be an evolutionary dead end. Southern Pacific tried these trucks on a few prewar car orders, but never again. UP went even further and soon retofitted spring planks to some cars. 1940 saw UP's last order of box cars, the B-50-27 class, equipped with Self-Aligning Spring Plankless Double Truss trucks, but delivered with spring planks!

On the other hand, DT&I bought new box cars in 1949 with these trucks, and, of course, equipped with their favored Coil-Elliptic springs.


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.
I agree.

Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
Carson City, NV


Re: spring Plankless truck help

Mark
 

I will have to agree with all of these great ideas and an excellent question. I still have older sprung trucks on some rolling stock(if it runs do not fool with it). One set has the top of the truck not arched a extremely as others!
And I have a two lone Andrews which looks different than others.

Mark Morgan

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

From: Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] spring Plankless truck help
To: STMFC@...
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 4:00 PM

















Richard Hendrickson wrote (in part):

. . . 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.


This is exactly right, and the part about side frame shape in

particular deserves emphasis. Examination of a few Cyc volumes will

quickly show that trucks which were manufactured under the Four Wheel

Railway Truck Agreement by different foundries, while mechanically

similar and dimensionally identical in some critical areas, DID vary,

sometimes substantially, in the shape of the sideframe itself. Since

we modelers tend to look at the whole sideframe as the main part of

the truck, this means that the elements of commonality in design are

NOT very helpful in matching model trucks to the prototype.

I'll echo Richard's endorsement of Stephan Parachuk's approach:

stock lotsa model trucks and carefully compare them to photos of the

prototype you're matching.



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@signaturep ress.com

Publishers of books on railroad history































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


Re: spring Plankless truck help

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote (in part):
. . . 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.
This is exactly right, and the part about side frame shape in particular deserves emphasis. Examination of a few Cyc volumes will quickly show that trucks which were manufactured under the Four Wheel Railway Truck Agreement by different foundries, while mechanically similar and dimensionally identical in some critical areas, DID vary, sometimes substantially, in the shape of the sideframe itself. Since we modelers tend to look at the whole sideframe as the main part of the truck, this means that the elements of commonality in design are NOT very helpful in matching model trucks to the prototype.
I'll echo Richard's endorsement of Stephan Parachuk's approach: stock lotsa model trucks and carefully compare them to photos of the prototype you're matching.

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: Hopper info wanted

lrkdbn
 

--- 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@...>


Re: FMYX 101, 102 and 103.

Richard Hendrickson
 

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


Re: spring Plankless truck help

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


Re: spring Plankless truck help

Brian Leppert <b.leppert@...>
 

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


Re: FMYX 101, 102 and 103.

Doug Rhodes
 

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] FMYX 101, 102 and 103.





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


Re: spring Plankless truck help

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

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:

... 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


Re: FMYX 101, 102 and 103.

Richard Hendrickson
 

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


Re: spring Plankless truck help

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

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


Re: spring Plankless truck help

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

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@..., "Gene Green" <bierglaeser@...> wrote:

--- 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


Re: spring Plankless truck help

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

--- 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


Re: Inside measure of wheelset lengths, was RE: Re: Semi-Scale W

David North <davenorth@...>
 

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


FMYX 101, 102 and 103.

cdnrailmarine <cdnrailmarine@...>
 

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


Re: Hopper info wanted

rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

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@..., "jim_mischke" <jmischke@...> wrote:


Two thoughts, Clark

1) I have identified secondhand hopper candidates with their cubic capacities, other dimensions to confirm. With B&O, I have a lot of this to do.

It takes about 3 hours to skim an entire ORER, looking at cubic capacity column only. Less if the match occurs near the front.


2) The rr-pictures site has a 1942 M&StL twin ribbed hopper in a publicity still in its photo archive. Contributed by Merrill Price. Is this the one? One can make out the word 'Chicago" under the paint in the upper left of the car. Chicago Freight Car?

114501 - 114520 of 195354