Date   

Frameless tank car questions

Dave Nelson
 

I'm trying to find the answer to a couple of questions on the frameless tank
cars used by UTLX near the start of the 20th century and google isn't
helping.

What is the proper name for this design?
Did UTLX have some sort of class name they used for these?
Any info on on long these cars might have been in interchange service (my
personal time period of interest is 1950).
And perhaps most important to me, what was a typical light weight for these
cars?

Dave Nelson


Re: Confused by RMC review of Accurail plug+sliding door box car

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Dennis,

As far as I can tell all of the BC-50-10's received the new
Automated Rail Way scheme with the large full color shield.
UP stopped using yellow lettering in 1961 or early 1962. The
BC-50-11's and -12's received yellow paint because they also
received cushioning and that was the standard for cushioned
cars from that time.

Tim O'Connor
Yes, That's what the pix in our files show. That's why we lettered our model as a BC-50-*8*, and we have a scan of a photo showing it with the large UNION PACIFIC on two lines, with the 'Be Specific' slogan. From your dates on the paint scheme change, it would appear these were rebuilt sometime prior to 1961 or '62. Re-weigh date on the photo is no help, as the car has a new 1965 date over a paint patch.

I have to admit, a NEW 4-47 weight date made it onto the model, it's a victim of our policy of putting the oldest applicable weigh date on models so they will be most useful to the most modelers. I don't think the graphics guy realized these cars were rebuilt, until this morning I didn't either.

Now that we've tied these cars to the B-50-39 cass, I see that these cars did not have "ZU" eave construction, same as our model. So these, and the SOO car, are actually the most correct.

Dennis


Re: Confused by RMC review of Accurail plug+sliding door box car

Tim O'Connor
 

Grain had something to do with it, but also this was the
time when railroads stopped buying 40 foot cars and opted
for 50 foot cars instead. Many railroads bought combination
door 50 foot cars from the 1950's through the 1980's. Many
were later converted into double sliding door cars, but that
is an issue for BBFCL... :-)

Tim O'Connor

The MILW, GN, and NP all built similar cars in 1958, Soo in 1959, NP again in 1960. The general adoption of covered hoppers for grain loading in the sixties eliminated these cars reason for being, which was to provide a wide door opening on a car that could still be coopered with standard grain doors for grain loading, and no more were built.
Dennis


Re: Confused by RMC review of Accurail plug+sliding door box car

Tim O'Connor
 

Dennis,

As far as I can tell all of the BC-50-10's received the new
Automated Rail Way scheme with the large full color shield.
UP stopped using yellow lettering in 1961 or early 1962. The
BC-50-11's and -12's received yellow paint because they also
received cushioning and that was the standard for cushioned
cars from that time.

Tim O'Connor

That's because our webmaster picked up the "Built 1947" from the builder's badge stencil on the car. However, these are rebuildings of older cars. Our lettering scheme is based on a photo of a BC-50-8, I see a magazine tear sheet here in the file of a BC-50-10 and the caption states that it is one of 500 cars rebuilt from the 100,000 series in 1963. These were PS-1's built in 1948 as B-50-40. The cars built in 1947 were B-50-39, and had Dreadnaught ends. Unfortunately, since Metcalf's book doesn't document changes after 1951, I don't have a firm rebuild date, but it's likely early sixties, just eary enough to be painted in the "Be Specific" scheme.
Dennis


Re: Carmer Uncoupling Levers

Guy Wilber
 

In a message dated 5/20/2009 9:48:48 AM Central Daylight Time,
chapbob@aol.com writes:

Is there a cutoff date where carbuilders stopped using Carmer uncoupling
levers and switched to the rotary design?



Bob,

From the Interchange Rules:

Rule 3, section (c), paragraph (9) Coupler operating rigging of the rotary
type handle (which pulls out and up through an arc similar to type shown on
plate B of the United States Safety Appliance specifications), required on
all cars built new or rebuilt on or after August 1, 1933.

Note: It is recommended that when cars built prior to August 1, 1933,
receive Class I general repairs and new couplers are applied, that the
rotating type handle of uncoupling rigging be applied.

Regards,

Guy Wilber
West Bend, WI
**************Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell’s
full line of laptops.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222399266x1201456865/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215073777%3B3703434
3%3Bf)


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


Re: Confused by RMC review of Accurail plug+sliding door box car

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


Scott, very few railroads bought such cars -- CB&Q, CP, GN, MILW,
NP, PGE, RI, SOO, UP. This particular model represents a Soo Line
car built in 1959. They definitely were first built in the 1950's,
mostly in the later 1950's. As far as I know the only one built
after 1960 was for PGE (Pacific Great Eastern), and you'd never
confuse it with this model.

Tim O'Connor
I have a scan of a picture in the files, looks like from the CBC from the style of the caption, of a Union Pacific BC-50-11 that shows a built date of 11-64. It has dreadnaught ends, but we won't be doing it unless I can get the them painted and assembled in China. The 'Automated Railway' sheme with the silver roof, ends, and frame is expensive to mask.

The MILW, GN, and NP all built similar cars in 1958, Soo in 1959, NP again in 1960. The general adoption of covered hoppers for grain loading in the sixties eliminated these cars reason for being, which was to provide a wide door opening on a car that could still be coopered with standard grain doors for grain loading, and no more were built.

Dennis


Re: The growing problem of erroneous captions

jerryglow2
 

The MP Caboose book I mentioned was done thru the MPHS but the thread started about "picture books" I assume by the likes of Morning Sun etc. Hardly unpaid (although probably underpaid) authorship.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, water.kresse@... wrote:



Folks,



Sometimes unpaid authors of books or articles for not-for-profit societies just get saturated from multi-tasking too many projects, and you just push a draft out to meet deadlines.  You work years on a book and then get a day and half to proof it (the week you have a big review at your real job).   Or, a chapter sits for a year and half, and then they need it updated (and you must also find those original images) in five days . . . right when your wife wants the garden prepped or you're having an allergy attack.



Yes, there are those (not the authors usually) who are very interested in style or form, that change layouts around and things which were once correct, don't always get back to where they should be.  There are NOT that many technically qualified volunteers offering and willing to proof read someone else's preliminary work these days either . . . it seems.



Al Kresse


Re: Confused by RMC review of Accurail plug+sliding door box car

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Pitzer" <scottp459@...> wrote:

The review in the May 2009 issue starts by saying 40' box cars of this configuration were built between 1947 and 1964; then it states the first such cars were built by the GN shops in October 1953.
Among the initial roadname offerings is "Union Pacific (mineral red, lettered in yellow as built in 1947)."
So when WERE cars of this type first built?
BTW the Accurail ad on page 16 of that issue shows a UP car with the "Be Specific..." slogan, which was not in use in 1947.

Scott Pitzer

That's because our webmaster picked up the "Built 1947" from the builder's badge stencil on the car. However, these are rebuildings of older cars. Our lettering scheme is based on a photo of a BC-50-8, I see a magazine tear sheet here in the file of a BC-50-10 and the caption states that it is one of 500 cars rebuilt from the 100,000 series in 1963. These were PS-1's built in 1948 as B-50-40. The cars built in 1947 were B-50-39, and had Dreadnaught ends. Unfortunately, since Metcalf's book doesn't document changes after 1951, I don't have a firm rebuild date, but it's likely early sixties, just eary enough to be painted in the "Be Specific" scheme.

Dennis


Re: Carmer Uncoupling Levers

Tim O'Connor
 

I think the date may be related to the introduction of
bottom-link couplers like the Type E. My 1928 Car Builder's
is falling apart but I don't see any cars with bottom-link
couplers. So my guess is the changeover came in the 1930's.
(Many of the cars from the late 1920's show Carmer levers)

Tim O'Connor

Is there a cutoff date where carbuilders stopped using Carmer uncoupling
levers and switched to the rotary design?

The reason I ask -- I'm modeling L&N's USRA composite gondolas. L&N had
two series -- the #74000-74999 series built as USRA originals in 1919, and
the #73000-73999 series of USRA copies built in 1922-23. The #74000s clearly
had the Carmer design. The only photo I have of a #73000 series car is a
direct side view which doesn't show the uncoupling lever.

I'll welcome any insight!

Thanks,
Bob Chapman


Re: The growing problem of erroneous captions

Tim O'Connor
 

And they had combination plug & sliding doors. And were built in 1947!

At 5/20/2009 10:17 AM Wednesday, you wrote:
So I guess that means that MP had a bunch of blue transfer cabeese running
around. That is great to know.

Denis Blake
OHIO


Re: Confused by RMC review of Accurail plug+sliding door box car

Tim O'Connor
 

Scott, very few railroads bought such cars -- CB&Q, CP, GN, MILW,
NP, PGE, RI, SOO, UP. This particular model represents a Soo Line
car built in 1959. They definitely were first built in the 1950's,
mostly in the later 1950's. As far as I know the only one built
after 1960 was for PGE (Pacific Great Eastern), and you'd never
confuse it with this model.

Tim O'Connor

The review in the May 2009 issue starts by saying 40' box cars of this configuration were built between 1947 and 1964; then it states the first such cars were built by the GN shops in October 1953.
Among the initial roadname offerings is "Union Pacific (mineral red, lettered in yellow as built in 1947)."
So when WERE cars of this type first built?
BTW the Accurail ad on page 16 of that issue shows a UP car with the "Be Specific..." slogan, which was not in use in 1947.

Scott Pitzer


Re: The growing problem of erroneous captions

seaboard_1966
 

So I guess that means that MP had a bunch of blue transfer cabeese running around. That is great to know.

Denis Blake
OHIO

----- Original Message -----
From: "jerryglow2" <jerryglow@comcast.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:49 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: The growing problem of erroneous captions


Jerry can add himself to that list. He authored a 376 page book on the cabooses of the Missouri Pacific and IIRC only had 2 minor errors.

As to his closing remark about the blue MP cabooses, one of my gripes is almost everyone calling MP's platfom cabooses (short bay window) transfer cabooses which they certainly WERE NOT.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, asychis@... wrote:


Erroneous information in the 128-page wonder books is certainly a problem.
It is a shame that these authors, editors and publishers do not realize
that these are not "pretty" books, but should be regarded as histories. As
more and more faulty information gets into print, the quality of railroad
history is degraded. It is degraded because each and every caption needs to
be analyzed, post-publication, by an expert on a particular railroad to
whom accuracy is important. Only someone devoted to a specific railroad or
railroad era knows when the information is wrong. Since I follow the
Missouri Pacific I can usually spot errors in books related to that railroad (and
they are legion), but I'm at a loss when it comes to determining if
information in a caption tagged to an NYC or C&O photo is accurate. If it were
not for lists such as this, these inaccuracies would go unnoticed. However
the corrections noted here are somewhat ephemeral; even if you search the
archives. I would like to trust the information in these books. As it stands,
however, the accuracy of these books is at times equivalent to the
accuracy of Lionel paint schemes. Thank goodness we have the Hawkins, Thompsons,
Cullotas and others who produce quality railroad history books that
counterbalance the pathetic efforts of the picture books.

Now if we could lay to rest the RMJ-inspired urban myth that the Missouri
Pacific had blue cabooses!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.35/2124 - Release Date: 05/20/09 06:22:00


Re: The growing problem of erroneous captions

water.kresse@...
 

Folks,



Sometimes unpaid authors of books or articles for not-for-profit societies just get saturated from multi-tasking too many projects, and you just push a draft out to meet deadlines.  You work years on a book and then get a day and half to proof it (the week you have a big review at your real job).   Or, a chapter sits for a year and half, and then they need it updated (and you must also find those original images) in five days . . . right when your wife wants the garden prepped or you're having an allergy attack.



Yes, there are those (not the authors usually) who are very interested in style or form, that change layouts around and things which were once correct, don't always get back to where they should be.  There are NOT that many technically qualified volunteers offering and willing to proof read someone else's preliminary work these days either . . . it seems.



Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: asychis @ aol .com
To: STMFC @ yahoogroups .com
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:38:25 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [ STMFC ] The growing problem of erroneous captions


Ed Hawkins wrote "The caption in the NYC color guide book is erroneous."
 
 
Erroneous information in the 128-page wonder books is certainly a  problem.
 It is a shame that these authors, editors and  publishers do not realize
that these are not "pretty" books, but should be  regarded as histories.  As
more and more faulty information gets  into print, the quality of railroad
history is degraded.  It  is degraded because each and every caption needs to
be analyzed,  post-publication, by an expert on a particular railroad to  
whom accuracy is important. Only someone devoted to a specific railroad  or
railroad era knows when the information is wrong.  Since I  follow the
Missouri Pacific I can usually spot errors in books related to  that railroad (and
they are legion), but I'm at a loss when it comes  to determining if
information in a caption tagged to an NYC or C&O  photo is accurate.  If it were
not for lists such as this, these  inaccuracies would go unnoticed. However
the corrections noted here  are somewhat ephemeral; even if you search the
archives. I would like to  trust the information in these books. As it stands,
however, the  accuracy of these books is at times equivalent to the
accuracy of  Lionel paint schemes.  Thank goodness we have the  Hawkins, Thompsons ,
Cullotas and others who produce  quality railroad history books that
counterbalance the pathetic  efforts of the picture books.
 
Now if we could lay to rest the RMJ-inspired urban myth that the  Missouri
Pacific had blue cabooses!
 
Jerry Michels    
**************Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell’s
full line of laptops.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222399266x1201456865/ aol ?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215073777%3B3703434
3%3Bf)






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


Re: The growing problem of erroneous captions

jerryglow2
 

Jerry can add himself to that list. He authored a 376 page book on the cabooses of the Missouri Pacific and IIRC only had 2 minor errors.

As to his closing remark about the blue MP cabooses, one of my gripes is almost everyone calling MP's platfom cabooses (short bay window) transfer cabooses which they certainly WERE NOT.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, asychis@... wrote:


Erroneous information in the 128-page wonder books is certainly a problem.
It is a shame that these authors, editors and publishers do not realize
that these are not "pretty" books, but should be regarded as histories. As
more and more faulty information gets into print, the quality of railroad
history is degraded. It is degraded because each and every caption needs to
be analyzed, post-publication, by an expert on a particular railroad to
whom accuracy is important. Only someone devoted to a specific railroad or
railroad era knows when the information is wrong. Since I follow the
Missouri Pacific I can usually spot errors in books related to that railroad (and
they are legion), but I'm at a loss when it comes to determining if
information in a caption tagged to an NYC or C&O photo is accurate. If it were
not for lists such as this, these inaccuracies would go unnoticed. However
the corrections noted here are somewhat ephemeral; even if you search the
archives. I would like to trust the information in these books. As it stands,
however, the accuracy of these books is at times equivalent to the
accuracy of Lionel paint schemes. Thank goodness we have the Hawkins, Thompsons,
Cullotas and others who produce quality railroad history books that
counterbalance the pathetic efforts of the picture books.

Now if we could lay to rest the RMJ-inspired urban myth that the Missouri
Pacific had blue cabooses!


Carmer Uncoupling Levers

chapbob@...
 

Is there a cutoff date where carbuilders stopped using Carmer uncoupling
levers and switched to the rotary design?

The reason I ask -- I'm modeling L&N's USRA composite gondolas. L&N had
two series -- the #74000-74999 series built as USRA originals in 1919, and
the #73000-73999 series of USRA copies built in 1922-23. The #74000s clearly
had the Carmer design. The only photo I have of a #73000 series car is a
direct side view which doesn't show the uncoupling lever.

I'll welcome any insight!

Thanks,
Bob Chapman
**************Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell’s
full line of laptops.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222399266x1201456865/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215073777%3B3703434
3%3Bf)


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


Confused by RMC review of Accurail plug+sliding door box car

Scott Pitzer
 

The review in the May 2009 issue starts by saying 40' box cars of this configuration were built between 1947 and 1964; then it states the first such cars were built by the GN shops in October 1953.
Among the initial roadname offerings is "Union Pacific (mineral red, lettered in yellow as built in 1947)."
So when WERE cars of this type first built?
BTW the Accurail ad on page 16 of that issue shows a UP car with the "Be Specific..." slogan, which was not in use in 1947.

Scott Pitzer


The growing problem of erroneous captions

asychis@...
 

Ed Hawkins wrote "The caption in the NYC color guide book is erroneous."


Erroneous information in the 128-page wonder books is certainly a problem.
It is a shame that these authors, editors and publishers do not realize
that these are not "pretty" books, but should be regarded as histories. As
more and more faulty information gets into print, the quality of railroad
history is degraded. It is degraded because each and every caption needs to
be analyzed, post-publication, by an expert on a particular railroad to
whom accuracy is important. Only someone devoted to a specific railroad or
railroad era knows when the information is wrong. Since I follow the
Missouri Pacific I can usually spot errors in books related to that railroad (and
they are legion), but I'm at a loss when it comes to determining if
information in a caption tagged to an NYC or C&O photo is accurate. If it were
not for lists such as this, these inaccuracies would go unnoticed. However
the corrections noted here are somewhat ephemeral; even if you search the
archives. I would like to trust the information in these books. As it stands,
however, the accuracy of these books is at times equivalent to the
accuracy of Lionel paint schemes. Thank goodness we have the Hawkins, Thompsons,
Cullotas and others who produce quality railroad history books that
counterbalance the pathetic efforts of the picture books.

Now if we could lay to rest the RMJ-inspired urban myth that the Missouri
Pacific had blue cabooses!

Jerry Michels
**************Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell’s
full line of laptops.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222399266x1201456865/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215073777%3B3703434
3%3Bf)


Re: Experimental Blue Scheme on New York Central Box Cars

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

There is a photo of two cars on page 85 of New York Central Color
Guide to Freight and Passenger Equipment [Volume 1], by David R.
Sweetland and Robert J. Yanosey – Morning Sun Books 1994
Ed Hawkins replied:
The caption in the NYC color guide book is erroneous.
Sweetland and Yanosey? Erroneous? Who ever woulda thunk it?

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Experimental Blue Scheme on New York Central Box Cars

Ed Hawkins
 

On May 19, 2009, at 2:54 PM, nyc1956 wrote:

There is a photo of two cars on page 85 of New York Central Color
Guide to Freight and Passenger Equipment [Volume 1], by David R.
Sweetland and Robert J. Yanosey Morning Sun Books 1994
It clearly shows two blue box cars with road numbers 92102 and
220539. Unfortunately the caption seems confused. It indicates that
these cars are identical from a lot of two built by ACF in 1957,
then purchased by NYC from the C&O. Those cars were both 50' cars. The
cars in the photo are different from one another. One fits the
description, but the other is clearly a 40' car and not as tall as the
50' car. The caption goes on to mention road numbers NYC 92102 and
92101, which don't match the numbers in the photo. Also strange, Lot
number 881B seems to be the correct one for two 50' steel box cars
purchased from the C&O, but indicates they were numbered NYC 92100 and
92101. Some more snooping on the CASO web site shows 500 40' cars
numbered in the 220500-220599 series in Lot 585B. Details probably
vary as these cars may have been renumbered from more than one
original lot and may have had modifications made since being built.
So what is the history of these two cars? Car 92102 may have been one
of the C&O cars, but was it renumbered yet again when repainted in the
experimental blue scheme? Did it revert to its original number a few
months later when repainted once more in the newly-adopted Century
green color? And what of 40' car 220539? How was it confused with the
two 50' cars from the C&O? Here is more from the CASO web site:
Lot 841B is not the correct citation for car 92102.
Lot 881B is correct for the two cars bought from the C&O
They were built by ACF in 1957, have 4/4 ends and flat panel roof
These were numbered 92100-92101, 50' 6" IL, 9' single door.
<SNIP>
Mike,
The caption in the NYC color guide book is erroneous. Neither one was a
C&O car built by AC&F in 1957. C&O bought 500 50' box cars numbered
19500-19999 with 9' door openings, R+3/4 (late) Improved Dreadnaught
Ends, and diagonal panel roofs (built 5-57, ACF lot no. 4740). The
photo of NYC 92102 does NOT have the same features as the C&O cars from
this series. The NYC photo having 4/4 Improved Dreadnaught Ends depicts
a car built between 1945-1948.

If built by AC&F, the 92102 car was possibly from lot 2774, NYC
65500-66499 (NYC Lot 741-B) that had the same ends and side sills, but
had the original auxiliary doors removed. Interestingly, the 1/59 ORER
lists 91202 as having a 15' door opening (the size of the doorways on
Lot 741-B), but the photo clearly shows a single-door car. So there's
obviously a mistake in the data.

The 1/59 ORER lists NYC 92100-92101, two cars having 9' door openings.
It's possible that these two cars were ex-C&O cars built by AC&F in
1957 originally from series 19500-19999. If that was the case, C&O
didn't keep them very long. The 1/59 ORER lists 497 cars in series
19500-19999. Note the features of these cars were not as you described.
A photo of one of the cars is shown in Railmodel Journal June 1990 page
25. However, the RMJ caption for these cars is wrong as they were
originally painted black with yellow stencils. A good photo of C&O
19658 in new paint is shown in the C&O color guide book on page 28.

Regarding the 40' box car NYC 220539, the 1/59 ORER lists 5 cars in
series NYC 220000-220999 with 10' inside height. This car was probably
a steel rebuild. Note the side ladder that was made of 7 separate grab
irons.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

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


Experimental Blue Scheme on New York Central Box Cars

Mike Kmetz
 

There is a photo of two cars on page 85 of New York Central Color Guide to Freight and Passenger Equipment [Volume 1], by David R. Sweetland and Robert J. Yanosey – Morning Sun Books 1994
It clearly shows two blue box cars with road numbers 92102 and 220539. Unfortunately the caption seems confused. It indicates that these cars are identical – from a lot of two built by ACF in 1957, then purchased by NYC from the C&O. Those cars were both 50' cars. The cars in the photo are different from one another. One fits the description, but the other is clearly a 40' car and not as tall as the 50' car. The caption goes on to mention road numbers NYC 92102 and 92101, which don't match the numbers in the photo. Also strange, Lot number 881B seems to be the correct one for two 50' steel box cars purchased from the C&O, but indicates they were numbered NYC 92100 and 92101. Some more snooping on the CASO web site shows 500 40' cars numbered in the 220500-220599 series in Lot 585B. Details probably vary as these cars may have been renumbered from more than one original lot and may have had modifications made since being built.
So what is the history of these two cars? Car 92102 may have been one of the C&O cars, but was it renumbered yet again when repainted in the experimental blue scheme? Did it revert to its original number a few months later when repainted once more in the newly-adopted Century green color? And what of 40' car 220539? How was it confused with the two 50' cars from the C&O? Here is more from the CASO web site:
Lot 841B is not the correct citation for car 92102.
Lot 881B is correct for the two cars bought from the C&O
They were built by ACF in 1957, have 4/4 ends and flat panel roof
These were numbered 92100-92101, 50' 6" IL, 9' single door.
Height 15' 1" over running boards, CAPY 4967, 50 ton, 2 cars
Could one of these have been renumbered 92102 when repainted blue?
For car 220539….
Lot 585B is 40' 6" all steel auto box car with end doors
Height 14' 5 ½ " over running boards, CAPY 3544, 55 ton, 500 cars
Trouble is it shows a 12' door opening (maybe variations according to remarks – which are not included)
Car pictured on CASO web site and in book clearly has single door.
In photo, end of car looks flat, not ribbed, no end door.
There are five panels to left of door – can't see right side.
For car 92102….
--Mike K.

105801 - 105820 of 187390